Mitt Romney- "Frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due, I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," he said.
http://mormonamerican.com/2012/07/23/the-charity-of-the-lds-church/ Every one of the LDS Church’s tens of thousands of units has a welfare program, which provides free financial assistance to church members in need, as well as, in some cases, non-members. This relief is certainly in the multiple millions of dollars. Beyond that, the Church has innumerable other charitable projects going on, which are not included in the Fact Sheet numbers. The Church supports thousands of scholarships for needy students; has set up a massive program to provide educational opportunities for poorer members (over 40,000 loans disbursed in its first eight years); and runs a huge social services program, providing counseling, adoption services, and addiction recovery assistance in many countries, all (apparently) without any chance of profit.[/B] The Church also gives quietly to all sorts of worthy projects. Just a tiny sampling of these less-publicized contributions: This report of the Utah Food Bank shows the LDS Church as a Platinum level donor, requiring a donation of at least $2.5 million (at 4). The same report shows donations of 500,000+ pounds of food, and a separate entry for all of the food collected by LDS branches and wards (at 10). This report, from the Road Home, a Salt Lake City homeless shelter, shows the Church at the top of the list of donors, with at least $100,000 donated (probably much more) (at 19). The Salt Lake Tribune recently reported that the LDS Church will be donating $4 million to the University of Utah, free and clear, toward the construction of a new building for its law school. This tiny handful of private reports, all from the last couple of years, suggests a wide and varied stream of donations flowing from the LDS Church to many quite different causes. Like the article states - this is just a tiny handful of private reports and is in no way all inclusive...just a few examples. Of course its easier to say that Churches don't provide any charity than it is to actually look up what charities they actually do. I actually couldn't tell you all the community relief, aid, and charity my church does...there are actually so many I can't keep track. But then again, I go to the church so I hear about them. I'm not on the outside just assuming they do nothing because it helps me criticize something I don't like.
This is complete conjecture with no basis. Its an opinion that unfortunately some will repeat as fact because its what they want to believe.
Yes, it is a nice example of cherry picking, which this thread is going to be full of now. I have no doubt I could find lots of examples of good works done by churches, and I never denied such existed. And it's also easier to talk in hyperbole and argue against points no one ever made. Are you done putting words in my mouth and playing the victim yet? Congratulations on being involved in a productive Church. Now, would you like to talk about my original points that 1) churches do not operate in the same manner as traditional, non-theological charities and 2) required donations are not in the same category as voluntary donations?
Wow, only on CF are people hating on a guy for "only" paying $2 million in taxes and $4 million to charities.
Your point was that the LDS was not a charitable organization. This isn't cherry picking, Its a small example of the large amount of charity the LDS does all the time. You've mentioned that Churches weren't charitable here and in other threads before. I'm not playing victim..just pointing out that the LDS is extremely Charitable. okay - to your points my friend 1. Many operate in very similar ways. Their main goal is to provide support - spiritually, physically, emotionally, and yes..even financially. Many offer things like free counseling, substance abuse programs, financial assistance, many house homeless, feed the poor, help remodel/repair houses & neighborhoods, etc. 2. Tithes are not Forced or Required in the LDS..they are Voluntary. Yes, just like in many protestant religions it is taught that you should tithe, but it is never forced. You don't have to provide tax returns or anything else..it is entirely voluntary.
That's what happens when you only drink the Kool-Aid from your party's flask......welcome to the D&D!!!!!
More like the fact that a millionaire pays a 14% tax rate which is the same as someone who makes 30k a year.
1. What does it matter that he gives to charity? He's a good man who feels the responsibility for philanthropy that comes with his wealth? Yeah, that's probably true. I award him one gold star. 2. Does paying only 14% in taxes mean he's 'out of touch' with the common man? We already knew that. If it turned out that he paid 47%, that wouldn't change. Does it matter to being president? I don't think so. 3. Does the fact that he's fabulously wealthy and made $13m in 2011 and still only paid 14% in taxes highlight how ridiculous it is that Republicans would rather sabotage an economic recovery for the nation than agree to increase taxes for the wealthy? Yes. Yes it does. (Hypothetical: If all the power-brokers and campaign donors were held constant, and Romney's campaign was held constant in every regard except that he advocated a more progressive tax so people like him could 'pay their fair share,' how much better would he be doing right now?)
So then why else did he overpay? Except that Obama released his and there's nothing embarrassing about it.
No, we're criticizing him for fudging his tax returns in order to try to hide the fact that he pays a much lower rate than the average American. Not that 14% isn't already a very low tax rate, but it is even more damning when you consider that he intentionally overpaid to make his tax rate look better. In case it isn't clear: That literally he means he spent millions of dollars of his own money to try to misrepresent himself to the American people and deceive them into thinking he isn't who he really is. Why won't he show us 2008 and 2009 -- the years where he probably paid zero?
You paid 36% in federal income taxes - that's higher than the top marginal ratese. That's actually kind of impossible for a person to do and would only happen if you were intentionally overpaying and intentionally not taking any deductions at all - guess you wanted to overpay like Mittens and maybe deferred your Rafalca dressage credits. Does it make you angry that you're paying 36% in federal income taxes alone and Mittens is crusing by with 0-14% depending on the year, and doesn't even have to bother with pesky payroll taxes? It would if I were you. Then again, if I were you, I'd have plenty to be upset about these days!
Hilarious. What is even more hilarious to me is that Obama signed into law on Dec 17, 2010 the extension of the Bush tax cuts. In full. Which he campaigned against. So the whole time we're talking about Romney's taxes paid in 2011, Obama gets a pass for extending the tax policies that allowed the tax returns to be what they were. And Obama's base is rabid about Romney taking advantage...like everyone else that makes that kind of money. Only difference with Romney & the average wealthy elite, is the guy is actually charitable. Oh the irony of politics.
Yes, it is cherry picking, just the same as it would be cherry-picking if I pointed to the wasteful plasma screen TVs at some mega church. Anecdotes don't help much, though. I still don't believe they should be classified as charities. To me personally, Churches are not charities and should not be tax exempt. Just because I do not think you are a charity does not mean I think you do not do anything charitable. Yes, however, they differ in many ways. Having a mission statement that includes spreading the word of God, etc. inevitably requires money to be put to that end. This is time and money that goes towards something which has no tangible benefit to people, so I don't classify it as charity work. The time and money spent broadcasting Joel Osteen's sermons would be better spent on actually helping people, in my opinion. This type of cost, including all the overhead that goes with it, is simply not part of a true not-for-profit. It would be like if DWB made it a point to spend lots of time and effort telling people how awesome Jimi Hendrix's music was. Plus there's the whole tax status and financial transparency thing. I've heard differing accounts on this. True it is voluntary in the sense that, well, you could just leave the church (as difficult as this is, I don't see it as a realistic option for most). But tithing, for Mormons, as I understand it, is very much expected. Especially from wealthy members. Surely you understand why I draw a distinction between that kind of contribution compared to one made entirely of one's own volition, no?
