Say what you want about Romney... but he gives 30% of his income to charity.

$4,020,772.00 to charity in 2011. Wow.

It mostly goes to the Church… Not really a Charity more of a Business.

I’m not a Mormon but I obviously live in the most Mormon populated State in the US. I don’t have anything against Mormons unless they knock on my door. They are good people for the most part.

From what I’ve seen and heard, the majority of the really wealthy Mormons give about 25%-30% of their income back to the church or Mormon charities. They’re basically expected to give more if they earn more.

These people who try and judge Romney because he is a Mormon don’t make any sense to me. Mormons believe that they have to earn their way into Heaven by acts of good service, giving to charity, supporting those that are in need, etc… Having a Mormon President that believes in such things is just as good if not FAR BETTER than the average President who simply claims to be a “Christian” for the political gain.

Which proves the rich do not need tax breaks.

So which charity suffers when their taxes are increased and who will pick up the slack? Hmmmmm?

The screw the rich meme is stale.:frowning:

Correct. But with the taxes they pay… they deserve one.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

change brackets?

Think about what you just said when it comes to Romney’s income level.:shock:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Yeah your right so how about just kissing my ***:shock: they are getting a break by giving to charity. do you think is is because they Care? perhaps some

Yes the ones with more throughout history never seek more money or more power as that is not in their nature. ha ha ha …suckers.

No wonder your poor.:slight_smile:

[FONT=Calibri] [/FONT]The Tax System - Explained With Beer.
[FONT=Calibri]Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this: [/FONT]

  1.  The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. 
  2.  The fifth would pay $1. 
  3.  The sixth would pay $3. 
  4.  The seventh would pay $7. 
  5.  The eighth would pay $12. 
  6.  The ninth would pay $18. 
  7.  The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. 

[FONT=Calibri] [/FONT][FONT=Calibri]So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until, one day the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just. $80. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman] The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. [/FONT]
But what about the other six men the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?” They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

  1.   [FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
  2.  The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). 
  3.  The sixth now paid $2 instead of3 (33%savings). 
  4.  The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). 
  5.  The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings). 
  6.  The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings). 
  7.  The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings). 

Each of the six was better off than before. The first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man" but he got $10!" “Yeah, that’s right” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back then I got only two?
[FONT=Calibri] [/FONT]**[FONT=Times New Roman]The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

** ***The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! *******[/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri] [/FONT][FONT=Calibri]And that boys and girls, journalists and college professors is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much attack them for being wealthy and. they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. **For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

That might be post-of-the-year.

  1. True, those with more, or enough, throughout history (recorded history, which goes back some 4,00 + years) do not seel more money or more power. Only a few do, which is why hostory does not record them. Glad you agree, Bob. (P.S., if you disagree with this, please provide citings and proof, or shut the heck up, for once.)

  2. It’s “you’re” not “your”. You’re is a contractions of “you are” which is what you meant, while “your” is the referential possessive. But then, most of us learned that in 4th grade.

Hope this helps;

Note: Please refer to both #1 and #2 as burns and a case against the Chicago Teacher’s Union being full of idiots. :mrgreen:

LOL. Did the Chicago Teacher’s Union teach you how to spell? Just had to ask considering your second item above.

Kudos to Romney for setting a good example. And I’ll bet that 4 mil is accomplishing a whole lot more good than if the fed were spending it. Any lib fools want to argue that?

I find it laughable that anyone thinks the rich get “tax breaks” when they pay a higher percentage than everyone else.

If rich democrats think they should pay higher taxes, they can go right ahead and do it. No one, including the IRS, is stopping them. None of them will do it, proving they don’t mean a word of the tax drivel which pours out of their mouths.

Yep no harm in giving a break

Of all the things the rich can do with their money (see below), giving it to the government is the wost because the government spends it on harmful things (invades smaller countries, maintains public education monopolies to make it hard for the good schools to compete, operates immoral P.O.W. camps, funds for-profit prison systems, picks winners and losers in industry, sways people away from less harmful recreational drugs and toward destructive alcohol, sets up mandatory Ponzi schemes to prevent us from retiring, operates scam lotteries to trick the mathematically challenged out of their money, prints fake paper currency to harm those on fixed incomes, borrows on behalf of our children and grandchildren without their consent, etc.)

What do the rich do with their money that isn’t positive? I can’t think of much.

They can pay taxes with it (which helps us sometimes).
They can invest it (which helps us).
They can spend it (which helps us).
They can save it (so that others can borrow it).
They can employ people .
They can create and supply us with products and services.
They can give it to charity.

I call BS. Please explain the math on that one.

With our tiered tax system you only ever recover a fraction of the claimed value of your deduction. When you go over a tax tier, only that portion of income that exceeds the tier gets taxed at a higher rate. Likewise, when you reduce earned income below a tier you only reduce the tax rate on the portion of income that exceeded the tier.

The only way you “save more than the donations” is by making fraudulent claims as to the value of the donations.

The reason smart people and companies use those legal means is because we have a fed with some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and it has a chronic record over spending on failed policies. Those who actually pay taxes receive no actual tax breaks as long as there are those who pay nothing. I support all legal means by which the upper income brackets and businesses(or any bottom line tax payer) would avoid giving money to our most irresponsible recipient, the federal government.

So no libs who wish to argue that the fed would better spend Mitt’s 4 million?