Posts tagged Taxes
Posts tagged Taxes
Illinois taxpayers can use the state’s income tax form to donate to child abuse prevention, childhood cancer research and military family relief.
But if you want to make sure your money actually gets to the charities, you might want to give them a check directly instead of using the state as a middleman.
That’s because the money in these charity funds isn’t protected from pillage by politicians.
“Illinois is in a state where they are financially destitute and people think these funds are restricted, but they aren’t,” said Gordon Jumper, a Jacksonville, Ill., certified public accountant. “It’s an account that is controlled and under the discretion of the state of Illinois and it’s not protected.”
In 2010 the state took $434,000 from these charity accounts through sweeps, or transfers, into the general fund. There is no requirement for the sweeps, which were approved by Gov. Pat Quinn and the Legislature, to be paid back.
In 2011 Illinois borrowed $1.1 million from the charity funds, which it eventually paid back.
Tom Williams, a 48-year-old Springfield resident, compared the sweeps to theft.
“If you mailed a bill to the electric company and the lady at the electric company took it home and spent it on something else that would be theft,” said Williams. “If you are making a charitable contribution to someone, that is where the money should go.”
Susan Hofer, spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Revenue, said that money will not be swept from the charity funds this year, but she did not rule out the possibility of borrowing from the funds.
“If it’s borrowed and repaid before any charities can receive the grant money then it has no effect on the charities,” she said.
But Jumper said the fact that these funds are even subject to sweeps or borrowing should be enough to keep people from donating their money through the income tax form.
“I don’t think it’s particularly well known that the money in these accounts is subject to these sweeps,” he said. “If it was, there would probably be less people donating through the tax return.”
Rand Paul: Spending $3 Million To Study Monkeys On Meth Means We Haven’t Started Cutting Spending
Offered without comment.
Some rich people want the rich to pay more taxes, but want to use force instead of leading by example
Warren Buffet is at it again; standing on his soap box demanding that the rich pay more taxes. What a wonderful thing for him to do, say those on the left! He’s taking one for the team. He is a spokesman for the cause who would actually be directly affected by the tax increases.
How wonderful! How superb! Want a brilliantly moral man to actually advocate taxing himself more to help the poor!
Putting aside the fact that money is fungible (i.e. that tax increases will be used for things like war and the enforcement of drug prohibition instead of merely helping the poor) Mr. Buffet’s position is still far from the moral high ground that he and his supporters would like it to be.
Let’s forget, also, that Buffet is in a battle with the IRS over owed taxes.
Instead, let’s look simply at the idea of tax increases and what they entail. Quite simply, Buffet and the rest of the “tax me more" crowd want to use the guns of government to steal money from the wealthy which, so the theory goes, will redistribute it in a manner that is supposedly superior to how society has already distributed it.
Besides the fact that tax increases on the rich won’t solve our problems there is another reason to be dubious of Buffet’s proposal. If he truly believes that he should be paying more in taxes why isn’t he doing so? The Treasury Department makes it quite easy for anyone to cut them a check at anytime!
So here is my challenge to Buffet and the rest of those who think they should pay more in taxes: Donate some of your wealth! If you honestly believe that you aren’t being taxed enough then you should have no problem with it.
Of course, some will argue against this. They will say something like “Well, no, I shouldn’t have to individually. But all rich people collectively should have to pay more.” This, however, is a cop out. Or, at least, it shows that they don’t actually believe that they should pay more.
This is also strikingly dissimilar to private charity. Buffet should be commended for being the philanthropist that he is. But he isn’t out there demanding that all rich people be forced to donate to the charities that he donates to. He might try to persuade them, but he would never consider using an armed gang to force them to donate. But yet, when it comes to funding the government, he does exactly that.
The “tax me more” crowd doesn’t actually want to take the step on their own. No way! Leading by example would actually require some moral gumption and they will have none of that. Instead, they want to use the force of government to coerce all of the rich into paying more.
This is not morality. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, you can not take moral credit for using the guns of government to force others to do what you believe is right. This is not morality. It is the lowest form of cowardice.
Buffet, if you want the respect and moral credit put your money where your mouth is and voluntarily donate some of it to the government. If it’s such a great idea you should be able to convince your wealthy friends to do the same.
Otherwise, do us all a favor and just shut up.
Did you know that New Hampshire has a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban a state income tax? Did you also know that a majority of voters in New Hampshire are voting “yes” to the ban? I wonder if the Free State Project had anything to do with this.
Liberals always say that Ronald Reagan would be unelectable in today’s Republican Party. I wonder if John F. Kennedy would be electable in today’s Democratic Party with “radical” ideas like this.
Saw this on the Daily Caller today and was utterly flabbergasted:
Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.
In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.
Robert Heinlein knew his stuff