33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly the Economy Has Tanked

[werepossum]

no, really, if the tax deduction one receives from charitable giving isn't important then why do the local charities always mention, several.times, that you get a great tax deduction while you help out tgose deserving kids. clearly the charity thinks it's important.

Because it IS important. If a donation is deductible, then it does more good than a similar outlay which is not deductible. If one donates $50,000 then X good can be done. If one donates $75,000 because otherwise one would lose the extra $25,000 to taxes anyway, then 1.5X good can be done. By making charitable donations deductible, people are encouraged to donate more than they would otherwise donate because their overall cost (including taxes) relative to the benefit is reduced. They never have more money than had they not made the contribution, but they can give more money for less overall financial loss.

do you even tax, bro? that effective tax rate is because of things like charitable giving. profit of $1 million, rate of 35%, no giving, taxes are $350,000, effective rate 35%. profit of $1 million, giving of $500,000, taxes are $175,000, effective rate of 17.5%.

<sigh> I swear to G-d, people used to be smarter.
The lower the effective rate - no matter the cause - the more net money lost for the contribution. Period. Your net rate is lower because you gave away some of your otherwise taxable income, not because you've found some nefarious scheme to defraud the taxpayer.

EDIT: In your example, without the donation the entity is left with $650,000 after taxes. With the donation the entity is left with $325,000 after taxes. No one should ever be so abysmally stupid as to think the entity made the donation for financial purposes.

supposition without evidence. txdot's experience is that the contractors they hire to fix potholes cost way more than txdot fixing the potholes themselves.

As I've said before, if you wish to believe government is the most efficient way to accomplish things it's a free world, and I encourage you to give as much of your income to government as you wish.

it's a good thing there's other valuable stuff in the world than dollars in the bank.

Agreed - which is why people donate money. People smart enough to understand that they will wind up with less money for the donation, at least. I imagine there are people who have money and make donations because they are stupid enough to believe they are beating the system and will wind up with more money for the donations, but I doubt they have money long.

 

[werepossum]

LOL....how dare you....you damn liberal....bring facts to this fight.

Edit: You stupid damn liberal.

LOL Facts?

1. Government forces this money to be collected and sets how much will be collected and how it will be collected and administered.

2. Government sets who will administer this money.

3. Government sets exactly how it is spent, including who qualifies, what will be purchased, and how much may be spent in administration costs.

How anyone can look at that and not see a government program is beyond me.

 

[First]

Oh please. We pay for it through fee(s) on our phone bill. It's a govt administered/authorized program. It serves perfectly well as an example of a 'govt charity program'.



LOL

Keeey-rist.

Fern

What are those fees, cents on the dollar per year? Sounds like an awesomely low "tax" that does a ton of good for a couple million people unable to afford phones and/or service.

First rate stuff Fern, really first rate.

 

[First]

LOL Facts?

1. Government forces this money to be collected and sets how much will be collected and how it will be collected and administered.

2. Government sets who will administer this money.

3. Government sets exactly how it is spent, including who qualifies, what will be purchased, and how much may be spent in administration costs.

How anyone can look at that and not see a government program is beyond me.

So? Call it a gov't program, big whoop. Gov't isn't a boogeyman to a majority of Americans anymore werepossum. People who don't fear non-free market forces to solve problems the free market fails to achieve see this as cheap program that does a lot of good.

 

[woolfe9998]

LOL Facts?

1. Government forces this money to be collected and sets how much will be collected and how it will be collected and administered.

2. Government sets who will administer this money.

3. Government sets exactly how it is spent, including who qualifies, what will be purchased, and how much may be spent in administration costs.

How anyone can look at that and not see a government program is beyond me.

Setting aside the argument about government involvement and how it is funded, why is this a big deal? Not only did this start in the 90's but the cell phone part of it started in 2008 before Obama took office. And I see nothing wrong with the program. Arguably giving welfare recipients necessities is better than giving them money because it removes their discretion as to how the money is spent. An inexpensive cell phone in the modern world is hardly a luxury any more. This issue seems to sell to conservative outrage because somehow cell phones are still viewed as a luxury item. Welcome to 1998. The world has changed. I don't really see a person having no access to telecommunications as conducive to getting a job or being productive.

The majority of the money which is collected for this universal service fund actually goes toward building fiber optic infrastructure in rural areas. The goal of these programs is similar: the get everyone hooked up, regardless of socio-economic status or geographical location. These seem like perfectly sensible ideas to me, and the cell phone aspect of it is chicken feed dollar wise.

 

[Engineer]

LOL Facts?

1. Government forces this money to be collected and sets how much will be collected and how it will be collected and administered.

2. Government sets who will administer this money.

3. Government sets exactly how it is spent, including who qualifies, what will be purchased, and how much may be spent in administration costs.

How anyone can look at that and not see a government program is beyond me.

Wasn't arguing that it wasn't a government program. Was pointing out that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with Obama other than some lady on the street interviewed and called it as such. People like Fern propagate this in hopes to show Obama as a big tax and spend liberal. One that is pushing the welfare state to new levels. The only thing pushing us to new levels of welfare is corporate America's drive to offshore and get rid of our good paying jobs, as fast as possible, to overseas, cheap slave labor. Obama is, in many ways, so much like Bush it's not funny. He might spend but up to this point, he is far from the big tax boogey man. Not to say that he doesn't want to but he hasn't succeeded in any of it.....regardless of the false propaganda out there that he has.

 

[werepossum]

Guys, you're missing the boat here. Fern's point was to show waste in government charity, NOT to say anything in particular about Obama. Spungo made some good points about inefficiencies in private charities as well, but Fern's point was specifically to counter this image of D.C. as Efficiency Land. A similar point could be made regarding the reparations program where people merely promise they were farmers or wanted to be farmers in return for big government checks for their supposed discrimination.

 

[Engineer]

Guys, you're missing the boat here. Fern's point was to show waste in government charity, NOT to say anything in particular about Obama.

While he may be showing waste, he is no doubt taking jabs at Obama. If you cannot see that from the last few years of his posting.......

 

[First]

Fern's point was to show waste in government charity

A point no one here contended, but sure.

 

[werepossum]

A point no one here contended, but sure.

Actually ElFenix and Spungo have both made assertions in this thread that government is more efficient than private charities.

The more I think about Spungo's allegations the more I think he has a point. I had a similar encounter with a major charity (one I used to really respect) who used to be in our building. I have never seen such a collection of liquor, beer and wine in any private corporation (well, excepting liquor stores) and I'd be very surprised if any of their fund-raising parties broke even. Similarly, it's not unusual for those coin collection programs at counters to return only 1% to 5% to the charity for which it is nominally collecting. It's time that the government began holding private charities more accountable to keep their tax deductible status. I doubt government could effectively enforce qualifications - as the Obamaphone (or if you prefer Bushphone) program shows government cannot even do that for its own programs - but government should be able to enforce a minimum percentage of overall donations (including fund-raising gross) which must be disbursed to either supposedly qualified end users or to research programs, facilities, etc. To the extent that charities are supporting people who accomplish nothing but support the organization (as opposed to its nominal goals and beneficiaries), society can only benefit from removing the charitable deduction status.

 

[woolfe9998]

Guys, you're missing the boat here. Fern's point was to show waste in government charity, NOT to say anything in particular about Obama. Spungo made some good points about inefficiencies in private charities as well, but Fern's point was specifically to counter this image of D.C. as Efficiency Land. A similar point could be made regarding the reparations program where people merely promise they were farmers or wanted to be farmers in return for big government checks for their supposed discrimination.

A fair point, but I'd like to see some statistical comparisons between government and private sector charity programs which compare efficiency/waste/corruption etc. A single case doesn't make a very good point. And indeed, I'm not so sure that the single case (i.e. cell phones) has been shown to include an unusual amount of waste. All I saw was that a reporter was able to sign up to get more than one phone.

DC certainly isn't "efficiency land." My view is that government run programs aren't all the different from any other programs run by human beings. There is always going to be a certain amount of waste, inefficiency and fraud.

 

[werepossum]

A fair point, but I'd like to see some statistical comparisons between government and private sector charity programs which compare efficiency/waste/corruption etc. A single case doesn't make a very good point. And indeed, I'm not so sure that the single case (i.e. cell phones) has been shown to include an unusual amount of waste. All I saw was that a reporter was able to sign up to get more than one phone.

DC certainly isn't "efficiency land." My view is that government run programs aren't all the different from any other programs run by human beings. There is always going to be a certain amount of waste, inefficiency and fraud.

The big difference is that government programs don't have to be concerned with costs or results, as do private corporations. Unfortunately private competitive corporations do charity only as a sideline, and harnessing a private corporation to do charity with public funding typically results in programs like the above. Charities compete for funds, but seldom for results, so their behavior may well be driven by competition for dollars. To an extent that is the same as with for-profit organizations, but results are difficult to quantify. Bums aren't exactly going to seek out the most efficient organizations, just the ones with the best soup kitchens in the area, regardless of whether that $1,000 represents $1,100 or $11,000 in fund-raising.

 

[Svnla]

What are those fees, cents on the dollar per year? Sounds like an awesomely low "tax" that does a ton of good for a couple million people unable to afford phones and/or service.

First rate stuff Fern, really first rate.

Not cents on the dollar for me.

I am looking at my Sprint bill right now. The basic charge per month is $30. Fees and government related charges are not pennies for sure.

Federal-Univ Serv Assess Non-LD $0.66
State-Univ Serv Assessment $0.36
Administrative Charge $1.50
Regulatory Charge $0.40
--------------
Total $2.92

Those are per month or 9.73% of my bill is taxes and fees. Total fees and government related charges per year = $35.04


And I haven't include sale tax and hearing impaired fee yet (another $1.63 per month). Total sale tax and fee per year = $19.44.

Total fees, taxes, charges, etc. per month = $4.55 per month ($54.6 per year) or 15.1% of my cell phone bill is taxes, fees, charges, etc. that I have to pay to the government entities. Now multiply all of that with ten of million of cell phone bills in the US = A LOT of money.

I am pretty sure people with higher phone bills (close to $100 or over per month) are paying more in taxes and fees than me.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not cents on the dollar for me.

I am looking at my Sprint bill right now. The basic charge per month is $30. Fees and government related charges are not pennies for sure.



Those are per month or 9.73% of my bill is taxes and fees. Total fees and government related charges per year = $35.04


And I haven't include sale tax and hearing impaired fee yet (another $1.63 per month). Total sale tax and fee per year = $19.44.

Total fees, taxes, charges, etc. per month = $4.55 per month ($54.6 per year) or 15.1% of my cell phone bill is taxes, fees, charges, etc. that I have to pay to the government entities. Now multiply all of that with ten of million of cell phone bills in the US = A LOT of money.

I am pretty sure people with higher phone bills (close to $100 or over per month) are paying more in taxes and fees than me.

$2.92 federal fees per month! OMFG! That's a real ball breaker!

You might miss out on a coupla candy bars.

 

[buckshot24]

So? Call it a gov't program, big whoop. Gov't isn't a boogeyman to a majority of Americans anymore werepossum. People who don't fear non-free market forces to solve problems the free market fails to achieve see this as cheap program that does a lot of good.

Nice retreat!

 

[buckshot24]

What other name other than "Obama Phone" is this program called?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

That's what she calls it.

She's seen the light about Our Dear Leader though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ghmBInC2N8

 

[Svnla]

$2.92 federal fees per month! OMFG! That's a real ball breaker!

You might miss out on a coupla candy bars.

Did you even bother to read what First said "cents" in his post? Just what I thought. I showed that was NOT the case and where did I say in my post that was a real ball breaker for me? Learning to read is good for you, ok? OMFG....Stop eating those candy bars and read, you might learn something.

 

[Jhhnn]

Did you even bother to read what First said "cents" in his post? Just what I thought. I showed that was NOT the case and where did I say in my post that was a real ball breaker for me? Learning to read is good for you, ok? OMFG....Stop eating those candy bars and read, you might learn something.

Poor pitiful conservatives oppressed by ebil soshulist taxes.

$2.93 taxes on a $30 bill *is* cents on the dollar.

 

[Jhhnn]

What other name other than "Obama Phone" is this program called?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

That's what she calls it.

She's seen the light about Our Dear Leader though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ghmBInC2N8

Yukking it up with the Stormtroopers over your fave race-baiting video, again. Not racist, of course, in the same way that one duck in a flock claims it's not a duck...

Ignorant as that woman is, even she knows about term limits for the Presidency, doesn't rise to the "third term" bait from the interviewer.

 

[shortylickens]

Obama has been ignoring many parts of the constitution and enforcing laws not yet actually in place.

Wouldnt surprise me if he tries to fanagle a 3rd term.

Or swap with Biden and secretly run things for 2 more terms.

 

[Incorruptible]

Obama has been ignoring many parts of the constitution and enforcing laws not yet actually in place.

Wouldnt surprise me if he tries to fanagle a 3rd term.

Or swap with Biden and secretly run things for 2 more terms.

Does this surprise you at all? His supporters still refuse to condemn him for this and I doubt they will. They are nothing but o-bots.

 

[fskimospy]

Obama has been ignoring many parts of the constitution and enforcing laws not yet actually in place.

Wouldnt surprise me if he tries to fanagle a 3rd term.

Or swap with Biden and secretly run things for 2 more terms.

Want to place any bets on the likelihood of that happening? I will give you very favorable odds.

 

[Svnla]

Poor pitiful conservatives oppressed by ebil soshulist taxes.

$2.93 taxes on a $30 bill *is* cents on the dollar.

LOL, so now several dollars = "cents"? What school did you go to?

Last time I check, "cents" = 99 cents or less, anything over $0.99 => dollar. Got it? Get it? Good.

Gotta love it. You can't debate with fact, being owned, pull out the labels. So now I am a consevative? Just like I am a poor white male living in a broken down trailer and making my living by fried food as certain moron in this forum ASSume me to be. :biggrin:

Still waiting for you to quote me that I said $2.93 was a ball breaker for me. Anytime now, right? ROTFLMAO.

I am going to put it right here = http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cents?s=t

 

[Bowfinger]

LOL, so now several dollars = "cents"? What school did you go to?

Last time I check, "cents" = 99 cents or less, anything over $0.99 => dollar. Got it? Get it? Good.

Gotta love it. You can't debate with fact, being owned, pull out the labels. So now I am a consevative? Just like I am a poor white male living in a broken down trailer and making my living by fried food as certain moron in this forum ASSume me to be. :biggrin:

Still waiting for you to quote me that I said $2.93 was a ball breaker for me. Anytime now, right? ROTFLMAO.

I am going to put it right here = http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cents?s=t

You're playing semantics games. "Cents on the dollar" has no precise meaning, but it certainly scales with the dollar amount. For example, 10 cents on the dollar becomes more than one dollar if the total is more the ten dollars. That said, I agree you never stated it was a "ball breaker". You did act as though it was a substantial cost, however.

In any case, to be fully accurate, your monthly contribution to the federal Universal Service Fund -- the fund that pays for "Obamaphones" -- is 66 cents. The rest of your taxes and fess are other things, unrelated to the federal program under discussion. Further, only a fraction of that 66 cents per month pays for the Lifeline telephone program. The rest pays for other programs intended to enhance access for those who are otherwise under-served with telephone access. So, regardless of whether you consider this a tax or not -- debatable, and already discussed in a recent thread -- the fact remains the actual cost of the phones is relatively small. It is not a zero cost, however, and any fraud should certainly be addressed.

 

[Svnla]

You're playing semantics games. "Cents on the dollar" has no precise meaning, but it certainly scales with the dollar amount. For example, 10 cents on the dollar becomes more than one dollar if the total is more the ten dollars. That said, I agree you never stated it was a "ball breaker". You did act as though it was a substantial cost, however.

In any case, to be fully accurate, your monthly contribution to the federal Universal Service Fund -- the fund that pays for "Obamaphones" is 66 cents. The rest of your taxes and fess are other things, unrelated to the federal program under discussion. Further, only a fraction of that 66 cents per months pays for the Lifeline telephone program. The rest pays for other programs intended to enhance access for those who are otherwise under-served with telephone access. So, regardless of whether you consider this a tax or not -- debatable, and already discussed in a recent thread -- the fact remains the actual cost of the phones is relatively small. It is not a zero cost, however, and any fraud should certainly be addressed.

Alright, your post seem like a reasonable reply so I will reply in kind.

I was not trying to play semantic game. When First said "cents on the dollar", it sounded like just a few/handful of pennies and I wanted to show (based on my own experience), it was not the case. Not a ball breaker, but not a few pennies either. When you said that I acted like it was a substantial cost because I did say that if you add up all the "fees/taxes" of all US cell phone users, the amount will not be small. Let say $0.66 multiple by 300 million cell phone accounts (from Wiki) = $198 million. No small chump change there. That's a fact, not my opinion.

Whether it is worth while or not or too much/too little of fraud or was it a tax or just a fee or this and or that, we can debate until the cows come home and still not agree with each other. You guys can do that, not me.