permafrost wrote:
what a , I pay taxes to take care of all that stuff in an efficient manor..
I doubt you pay taxes if you can c***t your way out them, so pay no tax, take in the needy on your own you ..
You right wing never helped anyone who was not sprayed orange or h**ed the same things you h**e, which is nearly everyone not just like you..
How many times have I proven that Republicans give more than Democratesā¦ā¦ā¦let me count the ways! ššš
According to Times columnist Paul Sullivan, āRed counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democrat-dominated blue counties.ā Sullivan was referencing a study published last month in the academic journal, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. The study was a creation of four research professors āwho set out to explore how political differences affect charitable giving.ā As Sullivan noted in his analysis of the report, the āmore Republican a county is, the more its residents report charitable contributions.ā
Further about the study, it should be said up front how the researchers acknowledged that in analyzing itemized tax returns in over 3,000 counties, āthey were looking at a more affluent slice of donors.ā This rates mention given the presumed desire among some to suggest an economic slant to the studyās findings. More realistically, any study of charitable giving is going to have an affluent slant to it when itās understood how charitable the rich are. As Arthur Brooks showed in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, U.S. households in the top 10 percent of income accounted for at least a quarter of all money donated, while U.S. households with net worths of over a million dollars were the source of over half of all charitable gifts. Brooksās study also confirmed what the more recent one did: Republicans give more than Democrats do to charity, and do so at all levels of income.
Taken together, the two studies mentioned exist as inconvenient t***hs for those who equate wealth with a lack of charity and/or overall stinginess. Americaās rich are plainly quite generous, and then Americaās Republican rich are statistically quite a bit more generous than are Democrats. The latter is particularly inconvenient for a left desperate to paint a picture of ārichā and āRepublicanā as something thatās indicative of haughty disdain for the poor and unwell.
More importantly, it speaks to a crucial difference in philosophy that should have economic implications. Up front, itās a known quantity that Republicans tend to v**e for politicians expressing a desire to reduce tax rates. Democrats on the other hand v**e for politicians promising to raise tax rates. At least in the past, these v****g patterns were used by some to create the narrative that the Democrats are more giving in light of their desire to pay more in taxes. Such a viewpoint fails in two ways, and realistically many more.
For one, itās now a known quantity that red counties are much more charitable than blue counties. What this reminds us is that Republicans arenāt not compassionate as much as they think giving should be a personal choice, as opposed to something coerced through taxation. Republicans are clearly big givers, but think they can more expertly give sans governmental oversight.
Second, readers need only consider the entertainment industry. Itās arguably the most monolithically Democratic sector in the U.S., but also one of the most sk**lful when it comes to avoiding taxes. If anyone doubts this, they need only Google āmovies made in Georgia.ā Needless to say, voluminous production in the Peach State isnāt an effect of better scenery than California. Itās a tax thing. Those still in doubt should then buy Michael Ovitzās excellent new book, Who Is Michael Ovitz, only to read about why good agents secure for their clients a percentage of āgrossā over ānet profits.ā Without going into detail, sk**lful entertainment-industry accountants can make seemingly any film unprofitableā¦.
Third, it's never been explained what's at all compassionate about arrogating precious resources to Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi over Jeff Bezos and Fred Smith (FedEx). Government wastes, while private actors relentlessly make our lives better when matched with capital.
Hall of Fame quarterback Roger Staubach once quipped that he liked women every bit as much as noted ladiesā man Joe Namath, but chose to stick with one woman. Applied to charity, Republicans are every bit as giving (and as the stats show, more giving) as Democrats are; the huge difference between Republicans and Democrats being about choice. Republicans would apparently prefer freedom to give away more of their disposable income than Democrats do, but would like to do so without politicians and others choosing whom they give to.
Looked at through an economic lens, though there are extremes in both parties, and though politicians in both parties arguably do an awful job of representing their v**ers, the view of the average Republican is the liberal one. As evidenced by their empirically-proven tendency to give in concert with a desire for reduced taxation, Republicans are expressing a desire for individual choice. On the other hand, and if the film industry is at all indicative of Democrats, then itās apparent that the Democrats would broadly prefer higher taxes that can be avoided through sk**led accounting maneuvers combined with government-enforced giving of the money of others.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/11/06/wh**ever_you_may_think_of_republicans_dont_call_them_stingy_103479.html