33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly the Economy Has Tanked

[werepossum]

^ I think Texashiker means that because those companies' donations reduce their taxable income, that the tax revenue that would have gone to the gov't had the donations not be deducted, are now instead going directly into the pockets of said companies. Which is an odd argument to make given the ideological leanings of said poster.

How in the world do you figure that? If a company pays a 35% tax rate and donates $100,000 then its pockets are lighter by $100,000 rather than the $35,000 it would have owned on that profit. The company effectively pays $65,000 with the taxpayer picking up the remaining $35,000, but in no manner can the company be financially better off.

I personally disagree with that logic because it presupposes that government owns that money just as if the company did not make a deductible contribution, but if we're going to consider it let's at least do so intelligently, using what actually happens.

 

[ElFenix]

How in the world do you figure that? If a company pays a 35% tax rate and donates $100,000 then its pockets are lighter by $100,000 rather than the $35,000 it would have owned on that profit. The company effectively pays $65,000 with the taxpayer picking up the remaining $35,000, but in no manner can the company be financially better off.

I personally disagree with that logic because it presupposes that government owns that money just as if the company did not make a deductible contribution, but if we're going to consider it let's at least do so intelligently, using what actually happens.

because no one ever makes a donation to charity thinking about the tax deduction. i've not once heard an ad on the radio about the great tax deduction i get donating stuff.

 

[Texashiker]

Not always. And tax deductions for charity by corporations is limited.

Donations to charities by corporations are tax deductible to a certain point.

How in the world do you figure that? If a company pays a 35% tax rate

What fortune 50, fortune 100, or fortune 500 is paying 35%?

Facebook got a tax return due to the stock crashing.

Google has one of the lowest tax rates ever.

Rumor has it disney is going to write off a billion dollars due to 2013 summer movie flops.

I personally disagree with that logic because it presupposes that government owns that money

The government does own the money,,, well the federal reserve owns it.

because no one ever makes a donation to charity thinking about the tax deduction.

Is some company paying you to lower their tax burden? If they were you would be thinking about it.

 

[werepossum]

because no one ever makes a donation to charity thinking about the tax deduction. i've not once heard an ad on the radio about the great tax deduction i get donating stuff.

Similarly, people open bank accounts to get toasters and buy cars to get oil changes. Dude, seriously.

Donations to charities by corporations are tax deductible to a certain point.




What fortune 50, fortune 100, or fortune 500 is paying 35%?

Facebook got a tax return due to the stock crashing.

Google has one of the lowest tax rates ever.

Rumor has it disney is going to write off a billion dollars due to 2013 summer movie flops.



The government does own the money,,, well the federal reserve owns it.



Is some company paying you to lower their tax burden? If they were you would be thinking about it.

Taxes are generally paid on profit. If a company like Disney has summer movie flops, those are losses which offset and reduce profits. This has nothing to do with tax rates, although an entity can go back and file against previous profits under certain situations.

Your argument that corporations don't pay 35% is self-defeating. If a corporation pays 20% on profits, then its $100,000 donation nets only a $20,000 deduction leaving the company a whopping $80,000 in the hole. No one makes charitable contributions for the tax deductions, which reduce profit 1-for-1 rather than reducing taxes 1-for-1 and thus inevitably leave one worse off. Charitable deductions are a way of sweetening the pot by increasing the good one's money will do for a given financial loss. If a company with a 20% effective tax rate can afford to lose $80,000 of its after-tax income, making that donation tax deductible means that the company can do $100,000 of good with a net cost of $80,000 (since it would have paid $20,000 in taxes on the $100,000), making this a more attractive option. The purpose is because government realizes that government is always the least cost effective way of accomplishing anything (although there are often other compelling reasons which make government the most effective way of accomplishing something) and thus it is in society's best interests to make charitable donations deductible from one's taxable income.

An individual making a deductible charitable donation is always left less wealthy. A corporation making a deductible charitable donation is always left less wealthy. Period.

 

[Spungo]

because no one ever makes a donation to charity thinking about the tax deduction. i've not once heard an ad on the radio about the great tax deduction i get donating stuff.

This might be an urban legend, but I remember hearing a story about McDonalds pulling a donation scam. You may have noticed that McDonalds always has little donation boxes next to the cash register. People put money in those to donate to Ronald McDonald House. According to the legend, McDonalds would donate that money to the charity then claim the tax deduction. It's such a brilliant scam. Assume a 30% tax rate, here's how the scam works.
-a customer puts $1 in the box
-McDonalds donates that $1 to RMH
-McDonalds claims the $1 as a charitable donation
-McDonalds is effectively "paid" 30 cents in the form of tax deductions even though McDonalds isn't really the one donating money

Feel free to use this scam. Collect a bunch of money for cancer research, A, but give receipts only to the people who ask for receipts, B. In your own book keeping, subtract the receipts, B, from the total amount collect, A, to find how much of the donation you can claim as your own, C.
A - B = C
When you do your tax returns, the government will send you a check equal to (your top tax rate) * (C). If your share of the donations was $1000 and your top bracket is 40%, the government will give you $400.

 

[Texashiker]

Your argument that corporations don't pay 35% is self-defeating.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/index.html

Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 12.6% in 2010, the Government Accountability Office said Monday.

(Low effective tax rates + free trade) * greed = unbridled capitalism.

It is not enough that wall street reaps massive profits and pays very few taxes, but also the middle class has to be raped over an open fire.

 

[Spungo]

The purpose is because government realizes that government is always the least cost effective way of accomplishing anything

I can't let this one slide. This one is absolutely not true. One of my best friends works for a charity, and it's unbelievable how inefficient charities are. Literally half of the charity is marketing and advertising. When the government runs something, there is no marketing department, they don't have full time staff begging for money, they don't need to buy ad space in newspapers or time on the radio, they don't have celebrity endorsements.

Here's a brief summary of how gigantic the problem of marketing is.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=400

...... A common thread among charities on our site that report extremely high fundraising expenses is these charities' reliance on professional, for-profit fundraisers that often keep a large portion of each dollar you give them (see our list of 10 Charities Overpaying their For-Profit Fundraisers).
.....
You can see that the percentage of money returned to the charity varies from charity to charity and state to state, with some of these reports showing that charities actually lost money on the deal. In other words, none of the donors’ money actually went to the charity and on top of that, the charity had to pay the telemarketing firm a fee.

My friend has seen that first hand. When accounting for the number of man-hours it took to organize a fund raiser, the fund raiser actually lost money. It's hard for the government to have worse performance than zero percent efficiency.

Of the six states reporting aggregate data, none reported charities receiving more than 59% of the donations raised on their behalf, and five showed average returns to charity below 50%. Results of the attorney general reports are shown below:

Wow. The "best" private charity was only 59% efficient.

Well how effective are government programs? It varies. According to politifact, the overhead of medicare is only 1.3% based on the numbers from 2010.

Charities are also bogged down by competition and other bullshit. It really needs to be stated that charities exist solely to employ people. The people running them really don't give a shit about helping people. Example:
cancer charity suing other cancer charities.

In addition to raising millions of dollars a year for breast cancer research, fundraising giant Susan G. Komen for the Cure has a lesser-known mission that eats up donor funds: patrolling the waters for other charities and events around the country that use any variation of "for the cure" in their names.

Awesome! Give $10 to cure cancer and it ends up going in some lawyer's pocket. A lawyer who is actively fighting against finding a cure for cancer.

 

[werepossum]

I can't let this one slide. This one is absolutely not true. One of my best friends works for a charity, and it's unbelievable how inefficient charities are. Literally half of the charity is marketing and advertising. When the government runs something, there is no marketing department, they don't have full time staff begging for money, they don't need to buy ad space in newspapers or time on the radio, they don't have celebrity endorsements.

Here's a brief summary of how gigantic the problem of marketing is.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=400

My friend has seen that first hand. When accounting for the number of man-hours it took to organize a fund raiser, the fund raiser actually lost money. It's hard for the government to have worse performance than zero percent efficiency.


Wow. The "best" private charity was only 59% efficient.

Well how effective are government programs? It varies. According to politifact, the overhead of medicare is only 1.3% based on the numbers from 2010.

Charities are also bogged down by competition and other bullshit. It really needs to be stated that charities exist solely to employ people. The people running them really don't give a shit about helping people. Example:
cancer charity suing other cancer charities.

Awesome! Give $10 to cure cancer and it ends up going in some lawyer's pocket. A lawyer who is actively fighting against finding a cure for cancer.

If you want to believe that charities are "bogged down by competition and other bullshit" and "really don't give a shit about helping people" whereas government is a model of efficiency which really cares are helping people, it's a free country.

EDIT: Before you run off to an idyllic country where charities have been replaced by government and the economy isn't "bogged down by competition and other bullshit", I should in all fairness point out that your link is to an article about commercial fundraisers, NOT about charities.

 

[blackangst1]

Donations to charities by corporations are tax deductible to a certain point.




What fortune 50, fortune 100, or fortune 500 is paying 35%?

Facebook got a tax return due to the stock crashing.

Google has one of the lowest tax rates ever.

Rumor has it disney is going to write off a billion dollars due to 2013 summer movie flops.



The government does own the money,,, well the federal reserve owns it.



Is some company paying you to lower their tax burden? If they were you would be thinking about it.

Have you moved to the other end of the political scale?

Just curious.

 

[Texashiker]

Have you moved to the other end of the political scale?

Just curious.

Some issues I am liberal about, some issues I am conservative about.

Why do you ask?

 

[ElFenix]

Similarly, people open bank accounts to get toasters and buy cars to get oil changes. Dude, seriously.

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.

Your argument that corporations don't pay 35% is self-defeating. If a corporation pays 20% on profits, then its $100,000 donation nets only a $20,000 deduction leaving the company a whopping $80,000 in the hole. No one makes charitable contributions for the tax deductions, which reduce profit 1-for-1 rather than reducing taxes 1-for-1 and thus inevitably leave one worse off. Charitable deductions are a way of sweetening the pot by increasing the good one's money will do for a given financial loss. If a company with a 20% effective tax rate can afford to lose $80,000 of its after-tax income, making that donation tax deductible means that the company can do $100,000 of good with a net cost of $80,000 (since it would have paid $20,000 in taxes on the $100,000), making this a more attractive option.

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%.

The purpose is because government realizes that government is always the least cost effective way of accomplishing anything

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

An individual making a deductible charitable donation is always left less wealthy. A corporation making a deductible charitable donation is always left less wealthy. Period.

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

 

[Fern]

-snip-
When the government runs something, there is no marketing department, they don't have full time staff begging for money, they don't need to buy ad space in newspapers or time on the radio, they don't have celebrity endorsements.

2 words: Obama Phones.

41% of the recipients can't or won't demonstrate they actually qualify.

Looks like massive fraud.

Fern

 

[Engineer]

2 words: Obama Phones.

41% of the recipients can't or won't demonstrate they actually qualify.

Looks like massive fraud.

Fern

Yea....Obama phones

 

[First]

2 words: Obama Phones.

41% of the recipients can't or won't demonstrate they actually qualify.

Looks like massive fraud.

Fern

Jesus H. Christ you have gone right-wing in recent years.

Btw, Obama a citizen yet?

 

[fskimospy]

2 words: Obama Phones.

41% of the recipients can't or won't demonstrate they actually qualify.

Looks like massive fraud.

Fern

This has been debunked so many times. So... so many times.

 

[Fern]

Obama Phone:

"[All] minorities got an Obama phone," she says,

http://now.msn.com/obama-phone-video-attracts-criticism-from-conservatives

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess she's not a GOPer.

Fern

 

[First]

^ l o l

Oh Fern, come on you're educated, you should know better.

 

[Fern]

Jeebus. You Liberals are excessively sensitive and stupid.

The point was clear: Govt doesn't do "charity" without waste. The Obama phone was a handy example. If I had used the proper telecommunication bill name no one would have known what i was referring to. Everybody recognizes it as an "Obama Phone".

Poor try at a diversion, really poor.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Jeebus. You Liberals are excessively sensitive and stupid.

The point was clear: Govt doesn't do "charity" without waste. The Obama phone was a handy example. If I had used the proper telecommunication bill name no one would have known what i was referring to. Everybody recognizes it as an "Obama Phone".

Poor try at a diversion, really poor.

Fern

No. No. No.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it.

SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission.

The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households.

 

[Engineer]

Jeebus. You Liberals are excessively sensitive and stupid.

The point was clear: Govt doesn't do "charity" without waste. The Obama phone was a handy example. If I had used the proper telecommunication bill name no one would have known what i was referring to. Everybody recognizes it as an "Obama Phone".

Poor try at a diversion, really poor.

Fern

LOL...First really was correct. You've went so far right that you've lost it. Shows up in the quality (or lack of lately) of your posts. You've become like my father in law....you can't stand Obama so much that it has effected your sense of judgement.

 

[Engineer]

No. No. No.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

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

Edit: You stupid damn liberal.

 

[buckshot24]

No. No. No.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

You mean the Obamaphone lady was wrong!:twisted:

 

[Fern]

No. No. No.
-snip-

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'.

But the program is funded by telecom companies

LOL

Keeey-rist.

Fern

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund

 

[fskimospy]

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

Keep twisting yourself into knots if it makes you feel better. Basically everything in that post you wrote was wrong and now you don't have the excuse of ignorance.