HEARTLESS wrote: The ever wasteful government provides a perfect disincentive effect. When people can choose where their donations go, there is better efficiency (normally) and more satisfaction.
I'm sure it will be 100% efficient when the Republicans succeed in completely cutting off all social safety nets AND refusing to make any charitable donations if they don't get a kickback from Uncle Sam for doing so.
Can you provide your evidence to your statement, or is this just another outrageous opinion?
HEARTLESS wrote: The ever wasteful government provides a perfect disincentive effect. When people can choose where their donations go, there is better efficiency (normally) and more satisfaction.
I'm sure it will be 100% efficient when the Republicans succeed in completely cutting off all social safety nets AND refusing to make any charitable donations if they don't get a kickback from Uncle Sam for doing so.
Can you provide your evidence to your statement, or is this just another outrageous opinion?
What are you talking about? I'm referring to another poster here who claimed that if the deduction for charitable contributions was stopped, large contributers would stop making them. It's not my opinion, it's his.
AspenValley wrote:
I'm sure it will be 100% efficient when the Republicans succeed in completely cutting off all social safety nets AND refusing to make any charitable donations if they don't get a kickback from Uncle Sam for doing so.
Are these your words? Or will you continue the deflection and avoid answering the question posed to you?
AspenValley wrote:
I'm sure it will be 100% efficient when the Republicans succeed in completely cutting off all social safety nets AND refusing to make any charitable donations if they don't get a kickback from Uncle Sam for doing so.
Are these your words? Or will you continue the deflection and avoid answering the question posed to you?
What exactly do you want evidence of? That Republicans are trying to eliminate social spending on the poor? Or that a poster here claimed that people wouldn't make large donations if they got no tax kickback?
When the Republicans succeed in completely cutting off all social safety nets AND refusing to make any charitable donations if they don't get a kickback from Uncle Sam, should be easy to post a link to the bill for this, right?
HEARTLESS wrote: When the Republicans succeed in completely cutting off all social safety nets AND refusing to make any charitable donations if they don't get a kickback from Uncle Sam, should be easy to post a link to the bill for this, right?
Let's see, the Republicans have been lobbying for years in about fifty different ways to eliminate social spending since the Roosevelt adminstration. And the second part of my statement, as I've repeatedly explained, was referrring only to something someone right here on this forum had said. But you're not going to be happy unless I produce a specific bill "proving" these facts?
HEARTLESS wrote: Correct. Or just admit you're blowing smoke and its your opinion.
It's not just a matter of opinion that the Republicans do not favor social spending. But I am under no obligation to prove it to you, any more than I am under any obligation to prove any other well-known fact. What if I said that Democrats favor progressive taxation? Does that need "proving" in your mind? Or how about if I said that Republicans favor defense spending over foreign aid spending? Or tax breaks over stimulus spending? Would that need to be proved also? Or does it only need "proving" if the fact I am pointing out seems unflattering?
Oh, never mind. I've had enough of playing in this nutty sand box. It's amusing for a while but it gets old very quickly.