Text
January 04, 2013
16 notes

Philanthropy, Math, and the Fiscal Cliff Deal

squashed:

I’ve seen a couple of posts by claiming that the fiscal cliff deal will reduce charitable giving by reducing the incentive to give. The math on those claims doesn’t add up.1 Here’s what the deal actually did.

If you2 make over $250,000, the total amount of itemized deductions you can claim is reduced by certain amount. In other words, if your previous itemized deductions were x, your itemized deductions are now x - (Your Adjusted Gross Income - 250,000)*.06.

So let’s break out how charitable deductions fair in this. We know that x = State Tax + Other Deductions + Charitable Deductions. Because State Tax and Other Deductions are likely to be fixed, the tax benefits to charitable deductions are only going to get pinched if State Tax and Other Deductions are less than 6% of your income less the $250,000. In most states, income tax alone is going to be more than 6% of the income. If you own any real estate, property taxes will cover the rest on that. In other words, you’d need to have astonishingly few low deductions for there to be any decreased incentive at all for charitable giving. And even then the disincentive is only to the first smidgeon of giving.

In other words, the chance that this change will affect any individual taxpayer’s economic incentives for philanthropy are lighting-strike low.

  1. Somebody is likely to point out that a tax incentive shouldn’t be necessary to get people to make charitable contributions. I get that. For most people it isn’t. But a lot of nonprofits rely on megadonations from a relatively small set of highly-sophisticated uberphilanthropists. The deduction allows a donation of $1,000,000 to have a post-tax effect of $600,000 or less, depending on how it is structured. A hard cap on deductions would probably lead to a pretty dramatic decrease in giving. ↩

  2. To be technical, the maximum cap is 80% of the itemized deductions—but this 80% bit isn’t going to be relevant unless the remaining 20% of the itemized deductions exceed the the standard deduction of $5,950. So you would need to fall into some narrow sliver of people who have incomes above $750,000, and itemized deductions above about $30,000 but below 6% of your AGI - $250,000. ↩

#Politics #in which i try to understand how taxes work #orz #retroactive shin kick to ari fleischman

Photo
December 31, 2012
140 notes
kohenari: When I was having a little discussion on Facebook about the fine that Hobby Lobby will soon incur because its owners don’t understand that a) businesses aren’t religious organizations and b) emergency contraception doesn’t cause abortions, I managed to incur the wrath of liberty-loving Colorado State Senator Tim Neville, who compared the Affordable Care Act with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 … since mandating that employers provide access to health insurance and mandating the return of slaves to their owners are pretty much identical. Not only is the Affordable Care Act tantamount to slavery, he notes, it’s also socialism … which leads inexorably to slavery. According to Neville, one should never have to pay a tax to operate a business nor should one ever have to violate the tenets of his religious faith … even, it seems, if those tenets are entirely made up by the individual or violate the rights of others. Neville concluded his lesson in liberty by arguing that a far better option than the health care that’s subsidized by my employer would be for me “to visit ehealthinsurance.com and choose a high deductible insurance plan with a health savings account, allowing opportunities to lower your cost of insurance by choosing a policy that covers what you need.” So … the best way to increase liberty for everyone is for me to pay more for my health care needs. Because let’s not fool ourselves, that’s what “a high deductible insurance plan” means: When I go to the doctor for a well visit, I pay that high deductible. When my child has a persistent cough and then later an ear infection and then later needs vaccinations or to see a specialist, I pay that high deductible and then I pay it again and then I pay it again. When my wife needs surgery, I pay that high deductible. And I’d better plan at the beginning of the year for any and every health care needs that we might have all year long. Because if I plan wrong, we might end up bankrupt. Or maybe we’ll only have to decide not to vaccinate our kids since it’s prohibitively expensive. In Neville’s world, this makes sense … either because he has a lot of money or because he’s not worried about having a bunch of health care needs this year. Or both! This is liberty and anything else is slavery, as far as Neville is concerned. No one should ever have to do anything he doesn’t want to do … except pay a high deductible for every single health issue that arises. This is, apparently, the only way that Hobby Lobby can maintain its corporate religious freedom — which isn’t actually a thing that exists — by not paying fines for freely choosing to deny coverage of certain reproductive health care options to female employees … because those women shouldn’t be making those reproductive health choices in the first place (since Neville and others like him believe they are “morally problematic). Incidentally, here’s a little news item about the way that Neville got appointed to his state senate seat: A Republican vacancy committee on Thursday night denied veteran state Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton, a promotion to the upper chamber by the narrowest of margins and instead chose activist Tim Neville to take over for retiring Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp. But the proceedings turned sour after the 60-58 vote was confirmed in a supervised recount as Kerr supporters charged that a handful of Republicans who should have voted hadn’t been notified of the meeting. Liberty! Freedom! Having things handed to you on a silver platter! Corporations are people!

kohenari:

When I was having a little discussion on Facebook about the fine that Hobby Lobby will soon incur because its owners don’t understand that a) businesses aren’t religious organizations and b) emergency contraception doesn’t cause abortions, I managed to incur the wrath of liberty-loving Colorado State Senator Tim Neville, who compared the Affordable Care Act with the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 … since mandating that employers provide access to health insurance and mandating the return of slaves to their owners are pretty much identical.

Not only is the Affordable Care Act tantamount to slavery, he notes, it’s also socialism … which leads inexorably to slavery.

According to Neville, one should never have to pay a tax to operate a business nor should one ever have to violate the tenets of his religious faith … even, it seems, if those tenets are entirely made up by the individual or violate the rights of others.

Neville concluded his lesson in liberty by arguing that a far better option than the health care that’s subsidized by my employer would be for me “to visit ehealthinsurance.com and choose a high deductible insurance plan with a health savings account, allowing opportunities to lower your cost of insurance by choosing a policy that covers what you need.”

So … the best way to increase liberty for everyone is for me to pay more for my health care needs. Because let’s not fool ourselves, that’s what “a high deductible insurance plan” means: When I go to the doctor for a well visit, I pay that high deductible. When my child has a persistent cough and then later an ear infection and then later needs vaccinations or to see a specialist, I pay that high deductible and then I pay it again and then I pay it again. When my wife needs surgery, I pay that high deductible.

And I’d better plan at the beginning of the year for any and every health care needs that we might have all year long. Because if I plan wrong, we might end up bankrupt. Or maybe we’ll only have to decide not to vaccinate our kids since it’s prohibitively expensive.

In Neville’s world, this makes sense … either because he has a lot of money or because he’s not worried about having a bunch of health care needs this year. Or both!

This is liberty and anything else is slavery, as far as Neville is concerned. No one should ever have to do anything he doesn’t want to do … except pay a high deductible for every single health issue that arises. This is, apparently, the only way that Hobby Lobby can maintain its corporate religious freedom — which isn’t actually a thing that exists — by not paying fines for freely choosing to deny coverage of certain reproductive health care options to female employees … because those women shouldn’t be making those reproductive health choices in the first place (since Neville and others like him believe they are “morally problematic).

Incidentally, here’s a little news item about the way that Neville got appointed to his state senate seat:

A Republican vacancy committee on Thursday night denied veteran state Rep. Jim Kerr, R-Littleton, a promotion to the upper chamber by the narrowest of margins and instead chose activist Tim Neville to take over for retiring Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp. But the proceedings turned sour after the 60-58 vote was confirmed in a supervised recount as Kerr supporters charged that a handful of Republicans who should have voted hadn’t been notified of the meeting.

Liberty! Freedom! Having things handed to you on a silver platter! Corporations are people!

#health care #politics #AS WAS THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW OF 1850 #one thing that will not change in 2013 is how hard i purse my lips at this sort of notion of ''''''''''liberty'''''''''' #also LOL LIBERTY MINDED AMERICANS RESISTING SLAVERY LOL LOL LOL read a history book #tim neville you are on my list #okay time to work bye

Photo
November 21, 2012
8 notes
the-danilion: baileyeverywhere: This is a somewhat snide response to my somewhat snide reblog of a sentence from a longer quote by Marco Rubio. On the one hand, this is a fair response to my post, because both quips are political men refusing to answer difficult questions (the original question asked of Obama was actually when babies get human rights, which reads to me as a question on abortion but could I suppose be a larger one), since any answer gets them into trouble. The implication, I think, is that I ought not crap on Rubio for doing something the President did. On the other hand, this is a false equivalency, since “when does life begin” is actually a question that is difficult to answer without putting fingers into the philosophical and religious, “life” being a concept that’s both nebulous and very loaded. The age of the earth, on the other hand, is a question that has an actual answer made of numbers that has been around for quite a while. I learned it in a school grade that only needed a single digit. You don’t have to be a scientist to know how old the earth is. Thus, while point taken on wiggling out of tight spots being a bipartisan past-time, I do suggest a fairly basic difference in the two responses. To wit, Obama’s was flip, while Rubio’s is an explicit refusal to recognize real-life facts. The age of the earth is not something we “may never be able to answer,” or “one of the great mysteries,” or “a debate between theologians.” It’s a question with a concrete answer made available to laypeople by science. Kind of like, if I may remind us, the tides. I agree with you on how the two instances are different. But in my mind I think the abortion issue is a scientific one as well. It isn’t purely philosophical/religious (though, the majority of it is, I admit). I don’t know why anyone would bother asking Rubio how old he thinks the earth is, it has absolutely no bearing on political matters. So honestly, it doesn’t bother me too much that he answered that way. But at the same time, I know he did it for political reasons. Either answer could have been political suicide. “The abortion issue is a scientific one as well”: I’m not sure what you mean here. “Is birth control abortion” has a scientific answer. “When does life begin?” does not, at least without defining “life” (viability outside the womb? heartbeat? a certain number of cells?). And if “life begins” is code for “gets a soul,” we’ve left science behind altogether. “It has absolutely no bearing on political matters”: Patently false and disingenuous to say so: teaching creationism in schools (which he advocated in that quote), the content of textbooks used all over the country, and, if extrapolating from absurd science-is-pretend attitudes, issues of climate change and environmental regulation, classification of birth control… “Either answer could have been political suicide”: The fact that recognition of established scientific fact could be political suicide and the genuflecting of the GOP almost in toto to that mentality are problems to be solved, not unfortunate realities to be shrugged at.

the-danilion:

baileyeverywhere:

This is a somewhat snide response to my somewhat snide reblog of a sentence from a longer quote by Marco Rubio.

On the one hand, this is a fair response to my post, because both quips are political men refusing to answer difficult questions (the original question asked of Obama was actually when babies get human rights, which reads to me as a question on abortion but could I suppose be a larger one), since any answer gets them into trouble. The implication, I think, is that I ought not crap on Rubio for doing something the President did.

On the other hand, this is a false equivalency, since “when does life begin” is actually a question that is difficult to answer without putting fingers into the philosophical and religious, “life” being a concept that’s both nebulous and very loaded. The age of the earth, on the other hand, is a question that has an actual answer made of numbers that has been around for quite a while. I learned it in a school grade that only needed a single digit. You don’t have to be a scientist to know how old the earth is.

Thus, while point taken on wiggling out of tight spots being a bipartisan past-time, I do suggest a fairly basic difference in the two responses. To wit, Obama’s was flip, while Rubio’s is an explicit refusal to recognize real-life facts. The age of the earth is not something we “may never be able to answer,” or “one of the great mysteries,” or “a debate between theologians.” It’s a question with a concrete answer made available to laypeople by science. Kind of like, if I may remind us, the tides.

I agree with you on how the two instances are different. But in my mind I think the abortion issue is a scientific one as well. It isn’t purely philosophical/religious (though, the majority of it is, I admit).

I don’t know why anyone would bother asking Rubio how old he thinks the earth is, it has absolutely no bearing on political matters.

So honestly, it doesn’t bother me too much that he answered that way. But at the same time, I know he did it for political reasons. Either answer could have been political suicide.

  • “The abortion issue is a scientific one as well”: I’m not sure what you mean here. “Is birth control abortion” has a scientific answer. “When does life begin?” does not, at least without defining “life” (viability outside the womb? heartbeat? a certain number of cells?). And if “life begins” is code for “gets a soul,” we’ve left science behind altogether.
  • “It has absolutely no bearing on political matters”: Patently false and disingenuous to say so: teaching creationism in schools (which he advocated in that quote), the content of textbooks used all over the country, and, if extrapolating from absurd science-is-pretend attitudes, issues of climate change and environmental regulation, classification of birth control…
  • “Either answer could have been political suicide”: The fact that recognition of established scientific fact could be political suicide and the genuflecting of the GOP almost in toto to that mentality are problems to be solved, not unfortunate realities to be shrugged at.

(via ho-ho-beriberi)

#it's cool it bothers me enough for both of us i guess #politics #science #absurdity #marco rubio

Photo
November 20, 2012
8 notes
This is a somewhat snide response to my somewhat snide reblog of a sentence from a longer quote by Marco Rubio. On the one hand, this is a fair response to my post, because both quips are political men refusing to answer difficult questions (the original question asked of Obama was actually when babies get human rights, which reads to me as a question on abortion but could I suppose be a larger one), since any answer gets them into trouble. The implication, I think, is that I ought not crap on Rubio for doing something the President did. On the other hand, this is a false equivalency, since “when does life begin” is actually a question that is difficult to answer without putting fingers into the philosophical and religious, “life” being a concept that’s both nebulous and very loaded. The age of the earth, on the other hand, is a question that has an actual answer made of numbers that has been around for quite a while. I learned it in a school grade that only needed a single digit. You don’t have to be a scientist to know how old the earth is. Thus, while point taken on wiggling out of tight spots being a bipartisan past-time, I do suggest a fairly basic difference in the two responses. To wit, Obama’s was flip, while Rubio’s is an explicit refusal to recognize real-life facts. The age of the earth is not something we “may never be able to answer,” or “one of the great mysteries,” or “a debate between theologians.” It’s a question with a concrete answer made available to laypeople by science. Kind of like, if I may remind us, the tides.

This is a somewhat snide response to my somewhat snide reblog of a sentence from a longer quote by Marco Rubio.

On the one hand, this is a fair response to my post, because both quips are political men refusing to answer difficult questions (the original question asked of Obama was actually when babies get human rights, which reads to me as a question on abortion but could I suppose be a larger one), since any answer gets them into trouble. The implication, I think, is that I ought not crap on Rubio for doing something the President did.

On the other hand, this is a false equivalency, since “when does life begin” is actually a question that is difficult to answer without putting fingers into the philosophical and religious, “life” being a concept that’s both nebulous and very loaded. The age of the earth, on the other hand, is a question that has an actual answer made of numbers that has been around for quite a while. I learned it in a school grade that only needed a single digit. You don’t have to be a scientist to know how old the earth is.

Thus, while point taken on wiggling out of tight spots being a bipartisan past-time, I do suggest a fairly basic difference in the two responses. To wit, Obama’s was flip, while Rubio’s is an explicit refusal to recognize real-life facts. The age of the earth is not something we “may never be able to answer,” or “one of the great mysteries,” or “a debate between theologians.” It’s a question with a concrete answer made available to laypeople by science. Kind of like, if I may remind us, the tides.

#politics #marco rubio #barack obama #young earth creationism #disingenuous weasling and other fun things to do when you're being quoted in a publication with a large readership

Quote
November 14, 2012
126 notes
"Our strategy worked well with many people, but for those who were given a specific gift, if you will, our strategy did not work terribly well."

—

Mitt Romney blaming presidential loss on Barack Obama bestowing “gifts” on minority voters.  (via officialssay)

I wrote and deleted about five acerbic responses to this and am just going to leave it here instead.

#dear obama claus #for christmas i would like somewhat more accessible healthcare and a food stamps application process that's slightly easier to navigate #also the barest hope that the government and half of society might not shit on me at their earliest opportunity #also a pony #mitt go home and stop talking #God bless you sir you know nothing about the country you wanted to lead #DONE WITH YOU #politics #mitt romney

Photo
November 14, 2012
1 note
Glad to know we’re standing strong on our principles of never, ever, ever, ever, ever mentioning the “p” word.

Glad to know we’re standing strong on our principles of never, ever, ever, ever, ever mentioning the “p” word.

#''poor'' #the word is ''poor'' #it's important to let the bush tax cuts expire and cap deductions and all of those things in order to care for the poor #i am SO TIRED of this middle class talk as though it weren't an eroding reality #the hundred pairs of hungry hands into which i will help put chili and sandwiches tonight have nothing to do with your precious middle class #i help elect you again sir but damned if i want this to be a comfortable second term #BALLS TO THE WALL SECOND PRESIDENCY GIVE ME WHAT I VOTED FOR IN 2008 #politics #barack obama

Text
November 08, 2012
29 notes

gregtron:

Cool so now that Obama is the president again can we go back to talking about drone strikes on civilians and privacy rights and copyright laws and shit or are we just going to pretend like none of that’s a problem because Colorado marijuana?

(via gregtron-deactivated20130207)

#word #politics #barack obama

Text
November 02, 2012
156 notes

thecallus:

laphamsquarterly:

“Why has the government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

—Alexander Hamilton, 1787

In other words: zoos need keepers.

I cling stubbornly to a belief in the human potential for goodness and nobility, but I recognize that sometimes the ball just stays poised at the top of the slope, you know what I mean?

#we are fashioned in the image of God #but we are not God #nor gods #so for the time being i am okay with legislating a little bit of decency and fairness #or a lot of it #the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without restraint #politics #beth i got your email and i'm trying to think how to respond but i'm not upset i promise!!!!! #sorry neighbor friends #justice #reason #restraint #physics metaphors that display my ignorance of physics #that last tag is for kotarō

Link
October 31, 2012
31 notes
think on this.: antinwo replied to your link: Sandy Should Remind Us Why We Need A...

abbyjean:

antinwo replied to your link: Sandy Should Remind Us Why We Need A Big, Strong Federal Government

Storms like this show us why we don’t need the government. If everyone was more prepared themselves instead of relying on the gov’t to save them, we’d all be better off. Instead,…

#POLITICAL REBLOGS FROM THE YOGA STUDIO #i can't dust until the pilates therapy class is done #also who am i kidding this is obviously something i agree with pretty strongly #FEDERALISM!!! #of a certain type i guess #politics #responsibility #sandy

Video
October 02, 2012
232 notes

thedisgruntledgradstudent:

thecallus:

theatlantic:

Creed Frontman ‘Disappointed’ in Obama

Scott Stapp would love to see a president who was “either an FDR or a Reagan,” an inspirational figure who would be like, “Yeah man, when you tear down that wall — do it.” (That is an actual quote.)

Would you say Obama has created his own prison? Did you wish he would face the presidency with arms wide open? Do you find yourself asking yourself, over and over, “What if?” What’s this life for, Obama, if you disappoint us so much? If you get a second term, can you take us higher?

More like Scott SSSTTAAAAAPPPPPPPPPPPPPP IT.

When I was, I dunno, eleven or twelve, and Higher was a radio single (late, because I am from a small nowhere place), during the brief intersection of the time I was still going to a Christian summer camp but had started liking anime, I remember talking to a girl I thought was cooler than I was, who knew more about anime than I did, in the pavilion at this Christian summer camp, and it was free time and they were playing Higher over the speakers in the pavilion where we would stay because summer in Florida is hot, and I thought, “Oh, this is a Christian song. It’s weird that they play this on the radio.”

Sum total of all feelings I have ever had about Creed.

#loling @ the callus for real though #seriously though that comment just indicates to me that you care more for charisma and Big Moves than actual politics #which is fine but hush grownups are talking? #i mean the bar is low but #politics