# Billionaires are giving their wealth to philanthropy



## BobF (Sep 23, 2014)

phi·lan·thro·py
fəˈlanTHrəpē

_noun_

noun: *philanthropy*

the desire to promote the welfare of others, expressed especially by the generous donation of money to good causes.-
------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

*The Giving Pledge*

                                                              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*The Giving Pledge* is a campaign to encourage the wealthiest people in the world to make a commitment to give most of their wealth to philanthropic  causes. The campaign specifically focuses on billionaires (or those who  would be billionaires if not for their philanthropy) and was made  public in 2010 by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. _The Huffington Post_ reported in April 2012 that "81 billionaires committed to giving at least half of their fortunes to charity".[SUP][1][/SUP] As of May 2014, 127 billionaire or former billionaire individuals and couples have signed the pledge.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP]
......................................[/SUP]

http://givingpledge.org/





For this section you will need to click on the link and it will bring up a list of names and the cursor over the name will activate a picture of the person.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 23, 2014)

Does that go for wealthy corporations too?


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2014)

Warrigal, I guess that is what creates a wealthy corporation.   Some of the corporations money goes to listed owners, some goes to stockholders if they decide to sell.   Some goes to the operating expenses, some goes into funds for future operations and development.    Some will go for taxes to the cities, states, and federal.   Just not sure where all there money  might go.   Many companies do have funds for local needs like hospital funds, special local collections, what ever comes up.   

So the owners and big time stock holders might become billionairs but I don't really know when or why the accountants do end up with a companies working wealth.   I am sure it is a very confusing way to do this.

I just thought the idea of the billionaires of the world were giving much of their money to needy efforts of one kind or the other.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 23, 2014)

Yes, I understand. We have several billionaires and other well off people who have always been generous with their money although they mostly tended to be patrons of the arts and children's charities. They also donated to hospitals to build new wards or to buy equipment.

Governments, on the other hand have to funds roads, schools, welfare and other social services. For this we need taxation revenue and it doesn't help at all when global corporations spend lots of dollars working out ways to avoid their share of taxation. Even when companies like McDonalds, Coles, Woolworths etc contribute to charities they tend it use this to increase sales (eg spend x number of dollars and we will give you a coupon  what you can collect for your local school. The school with the most coupons will win a computer. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's no substitute for better funding via tax dollars.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Sep 24, 2014)

I give a lot of money to Beefeater in my effort to support the workers in my favorite nation...


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

Isn't this the movement started by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?    Pretty LIBERAL guys I might add.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Yes, I understand. We have several billionaires and other well off people who have always been generous with their money although they mostly tended to be patrons of the arts and children's charities. They also donated to hospitals to build new wards or to buy equipment.
> 
> Governments, on the other hand have to funds roads, schools, welfare and other social services. For this we need taxation revenue and it doesn't help at all when global corporations spend lots of dollars working out ways to avoid their share of taxation. Even when companies like McDonalds, Coles, Woolworths etc contribute to charities they tend it use this to increase sales (eg spend x number of dollars and we will give you a coupon  what you can collect for your local school. The school with the most coupons will win a computer. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's no substitute for better funding via tax dollars.



And Warrigal, you have just pointed out where the US has not approached the problem for years.   We have a very messed up tax system and the one side of our government will not attempt to fix the problem.   They just continue to play with the special ways certain companies don't have to pay taxes and our lenders controls.    To just raise the taxes without fixing the problems will make the US just as broke and helpless as much of Europe is right now.   The US needs complete new tax and revenue controls that are solid and fair to all US citizens.    We will also need to pay down this ever rising debt so for some time our nation will need to hold back with some niceties, not necessities, in order to pay down debts and get our nation back into a reasonable basis for doing things without going deeper into debt.

The cost of living has really risen a lot in recent years and some of the solutions offered on this forum will only make things worse, as they have lately.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Isn't this the movement started by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?    Pretty LIBERAL guys I might add.



Yes, those folks really are quite liberal in their nature.   But they are not as distorted about running a business as our liberal government is.

Being liberal in actions is not something wrong.   But too often liberal governments, and other types, are wrong.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

I think that comparing Government budgets and spending to a household budget and spending is quite sophmoric.  Simply to say.. we must cut spending and live within our budget may work at the house hold kitchen table, but cannot and ususally does not work for Government.  You are completly oversimplifying it.  For one thing.. a household is not 238 years old.  When a household ceases to exist, it's debts are assumed or released...  not so with the government.. We have debt accumulating for over 200 years.. There is no final payment date.  The Federal government has been in debt since 1776. 


A household cannot levy taxes.. Oh sure.. dad may have to take a part time job.. but the point is.. The government relies on taxes to provide services such as defense.. infrastructure.. etc..  That is the "paycheck"    A household cannot control it's curency... it cannot print money... it cannot adjust interest rates.   A household cannot pay debts with IOUs that are accepted around the world as CASH.... as the government does in the way of bonds.  NO household  is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency.  US dollars are very desireable around the world.  I know of no household that can simply say.. Here's an IOU.. and have the recipient feel they have been PAID.


----------



## oldman (Sep 24, 2014)

Does anyone remember the challenge that Bill and Melissa Gates made to the wealthiest people to give half of their fortune away to charity either during their lifetime or after death? http://fortune.com/2010/06/16/the-600-billion-challenge/
I did not re-read this article, so I may be wrong, but I believe that Ted Turner was against such a notion.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> I think that comparing Government budgets and spending to a household budget and spending is quite sophmoric.  Simply to say.. we must cut spending and live within our budget may work at the house hold kitchen table, but cannot and ususally does not work for Government.  You are completly oversimplifying it.  For one thing.. a household is not 238 years old.  When a household ceases to exist, it's debts are assumed or released...  not so with the government.. We have debt accumulating for over 200 years.. There is no final payment date.  The Federal government has been in debt since 1776.
> 
> 
> A household cannot levy taxes.. Oh sure.. dad may have to take a part time job.. but the point is.. The government relies on taxes to provide services such as defense.. infrastructure.. etc..  That is the "paycheck"    A household cannot control it's curency... it cannot print money... it cannot adjust interest rates.   A household cannot pay debts with IOUs that are accepted around the world as CASH.... as the government does in the way of bonds.  NO household  is able to spend by crediting bank deposits and reserves, or by issuing currency.  US dollars are very desireable around the world.  I know of no household that can simply say.. Here's an IOU.. and have the recipient feel they have been PAID.



I don't see the household comparison you are talking about as governments also have needs to balance their budgets to income they can develop.    Yes, in the old days before the modern government came on in the late 1800's, the US had often gone down to $O old debts and stayed out of debt until the next emergency.   Since 1900 the US has had debts, WWI and they were paying it down.   Then came WWII and the debt went to extreme levels but after the war the debt was being addressed and was being paid down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

[h=2]History[/h]  

   US federal debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP, from 1790 to 2013, projected to 2038


 Main article: History of the United States public debt
 Except for about a year during 1835–1836, the United States has  continuously held a public debt since the US Constitution legally went  into effect on March 4, 1789. Public debt as a percentage of GDP reached  its highest level during Harry Truman's first presidential term, during and after World War II, but fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. Debt as a percentage of GDP has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
.........................
This chart does, sort of, cover your claim that there was always a debt in the US.    But always has shown some effort by the government to pay down these extreme debts and get back to a balanced budget.   This no longer seems to be happening and it should be happening.   A bankrupt country that is no longer trying to stay ahead of cost will be no good for anyone living here.

We need more controls of spending for optional items, that need defined and limited by the Congress, and the public needs to be told why certain things will no longer be covered by the US government.   Budgeting and planning is not limited to just home level and families, it is part of the governments responsibility to do so as well.

The US government needs new tax laws that stop all these gimmicks to get to not having to pay taxes for businesses and people.   The US needs a government that will not tolerate all this theft of peoples taxes.   We do not need more regulations that cost the farmers or manufacturers more money for their products.   For far too many years our government have operated out of control.   Being in control of our daily wants and needs and our future direction is one of the governments duties.

It does not matter if the government is party oriented, as it should not be driven by parties, but by local representation per the Constitution.   All of us should get back to the basics and do some real and proper governing for the US, or end up just as broke and unable to take care of the people as Europe seems to be these days.

I am not 'far left' as some are.   Nor am I 'far right' as some will call me.   I am in between and at times my vote can go either way as I vote for what I consider the candidates honesty and sincerity.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

oldman said:


> Does anyone remember the challenge that Bill and Melissa Gates made to the wealthiest people to give half of their fortune away to charity either during their lifetime or after death? http://fortune.com/2010/06/16/the-600-billion-challenge/
> I did not re-read this article, so I may be wrong, but I believe that Ted Turner was against such a notion.



That challenge was what started this thread.    Go back and look at the first post of this thread.    You are so right, this is something that many of the richest do for others.   And Turner does not show up on the list I posted.    The second link on my post.    It shows names of member.    To me, Turner and his wife are not really folks I would like in my life so no matter to me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

I don't believe that all debt is necessarily bad... is it?   It's how one handles ones debt that contributes to credit rating.. And a good credit rating is important for future borrowing and at a better interest rate.  Same with Governments.  Having one's State or Federal credit rating downgraded is NOT a good thing. You cannot get a credit rating without debt.    Right now the US can borrow money at vertually 0% interest.   

I have no problem with the Government controlling spending so long as it is not based solely off the backs of the middle class and the poor with cuts in programs that these groups depend on..  Cutting Medicare, Social Security and food stamps while giving the wealthy MORE and MORE tax breaks.. and continueing with the loopholes corporations and the wealthy use to cut their tax liability is NOT the way to balance a budget.  This is why the Ryan budget might have passed the House, but was DOA in a Democratic Senate.. AND even if by some stoke of luck.. (or gerrymandering with voter suppression) the Republicans manage to take the Senate.. it will not be veto proof.. and the POTUS has a very nice Pen.


----------



## oldman (Sep 24, 2014)

BobF said:


> That challenge was what started this thread.    Go back and look at the first post of this thread.    You are so right, this is something that many of the richest do for others.   And Turner does not show up on the list I posted.    The second link on my post.    It shows names of member.    To me, Turner and his wife are not really folks I would like in my life so no matter to me.



Same thing only different. The date of the pledge that I listed was much earlier than the one in the first post. Just semantics.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> I don't believe that all debt is necessarily bad... is it?   It's how one handles ones debt that contributes to credit rating.. And a good credit rating is important for future borrowing and at a better interest rate.  Same with Governments.  Having one's State or Federal credit rating downgraded is NOT a good thing. You cannot get a credit rating without debt.    Right now the US can borrow money at vertually 0% interest.
> 
> I have no problem with the Government controlling spending so long as it is not based solely off the backs of the middle class and the poor with cuts in programs that these groups depend on..  Cutting Medicare, Social Security and food stamps while giving the wealthy MORE and MORE tax breaks.. and continueing with the loopholes corporations and the wealthy use to cut their tax liability is NOT the way to balance a budget.  This is why the Ryan budget might have passed the House, but was DOA in a Democratic Senate.. AND even if by some stoke of luck.. (or gerrymandering with voter suppression) the Republicans manage to take the Senate.. it will not be veto proof.. and the POTUS has a very nice Pen.



Over half of us in the US pay no federal taxes at all.   Most of our tax spending depends on the wealthy to cover the costs.    If they do finally get a bill into and through Congress that straitens out all these ways to wiggle out of paying taxes, expecially the businesses, then maybe we could start lowering this debt burden we know have.

And if the President should reject the bill, I think there is still a way to push it through with an increased vote in the Congress over the rejection.   I have not looked that up but think it is so.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

BobF said:


> Over half of us in the US pay no federal taxes at all. Most of our tax spending depends on the wealthy to cover the costs. If they do finally get a bill into and through Congress that straitens out all these ways to wiggle out of paying taxes, expecially the businesses, then maybe we could start lowering this debt burden we know have.
> 
> And if the President should reject the bill, I think there is still a way to push it through with an increased vote in the Congress over the rejection. I have not looked that up but think it is so.



Oh here we go... The people that don't pay Federal taxes are those with incomes so abysmal that they don't even fall on the tax schedule as owing taxes. YET.. they DO pay taxes.. They pay FICA.. they pay Sales tax.. They pay property tax if they happen to own a home. Are you saying that someone making $15,000 a year should pay taxes at the same rate a person making $500,000? As it is.. The wealthy are able to whittle their tax rates down to well below what a middle class person pays. Remember Romney?? What did he get away with? 9% or something like that.. But a person living at or below the poverty level should pay a higher rate? 

Yeah.. a veto can be overridden.. with 2/3rd majority vote in BOTH the house and Senate. If the Senate is taken by the GOP in November, it will only be by one or two seats.. So they will never get the 2/3 vote needed. They can pass all the GOP garbage they want.. It will not become law. So.. you will have to keep the House, Win the Senate AND the White House to get any of that nonsense passed. See any chance of that happening in 2016?


----------



## pchrise (Sep 24, 2014)

*Just one little point Real People never get help , maybe dirt poor will get moldy bread and the one giving gets a Tax break. The charity keeps most of the money , why? the CEO earn 500k places like the Red Cross 


http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp
*


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

pchrise said:


> *Just one little point Real People never get help , maybe dirt poor will get moldy bread and the one giving gets a Tax break. The charity keeps most of the money , why? the CEO earn 500k places like the Red Cross
> 
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp
> *



Sure they do...


----------



## AprilT (Sep 24, 2014)

pchrise said:


> *Just one little point Real People never get help , maybe dirt poor will get moldy bread and the one giving gets a Tax break. The charity keeps most of the money , why? the CEO earn 500k places like the Red Cross
> 
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp
> ...



So true, pchris, when I lived in another city, one of the places I regularly volunteered on Sat mornings, we prepared the lunches. The bread that was donated, we had to go through checking for mold because the bread was always old bread.  I've also volunteered at the Red Cross and other organizations and truth be told, many people running the organizations are just paid managers CEO and the like with little heartfelt concern for those they serve.  It's mostly bottom line numbers for them.  I'm not talking about volunteers, even though, I've heard a few say some very unkind things as well about the people they served.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Oh here we go... The people that don't pay Federal taxes are those with incomes so abysmal that they don't even fall on the tax schedule as owing taxes. YET.. they DO pay taxes.. They pay FICA.. they pay Sales tax.. They pay property tax if they happen to own a home. Are you saying that someone making $15,000 a year should pay taxes at the same rate a person making $500,000? As it is.. The wealthy are able to whittle their tax rates down to well below what a middle class person pays. Remember Romney?? What did he get away with? 9% or something like that.. But a person living at or below the poverty level should pay a higher rate?
> 
> Yeah.. a veto can be overridden.. with 2/3rd majority vote in BOTH the house and Senate. If the Senate is taken by the GOP in November, it will only be by one or two seats.. So they will never get the 2/3 vote needed. They can pass all the GOP garbage they want.. It will not become law. So.. you will have to keep the House, Win the Senate AND the White House to get any of that nonsense passed. See any chance of that happening in 2016?



They do not pay federal taxes and FICA is not considered a tax, just a payment towards your Social Security Retirement payments.   All you are pointing to is why the government should redo our tax system and make sure the lower income folks are the least taxed.   Our federal tax system is so complex that it is hard to determine who gets charged how much.   A bit of game playing is done on the filing form which makes it even harder to determine who pays what.   This could all be cleaned up a bit if the government would allow it to be done.   I have paid no taxes for several years now and I make a lot more than nothing.    I just follow the tax rules and end up getting some federal moneys back, so I end up paying nothing for the year.

And for all folks, if we are all taxed at the rate of 10% we would all pay less than those making more money would.    Seems fair to me.   If I make $20,000 I would pay $2,000 for the year,    If I made $100,000 I would pay $10,000.    My made up rate just to show how being wealthier would make a big difference to the government.    In a true tax system, any dollars that go into my hand as wages or other means would be counted for tax purposes.   Fairness to the lower paid folks and no mercy for those who somehow get large sums of money into their hands.

Look in here and tell me if there is any real rational rules to live with.    Everything in our tax system is split and no way to tell how much is actually charged.    Depending on the individual you get to go to this or that table.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_schedule_(federal_income_tax)


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

Here it the first page of the link 




*MOSTLY OUTDATED AND INACCURATE.*
So what are we to believe?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

AH..... The Old FLAT TAX  BS...   Just another way for the Rich to pay LESS.. and get the poor to pay more.   The flat tax is just a regressive Conservative ploy to continue to hurt the poor to benefit the wealthy..  Ok... I know I won't change your mind because you've bought into this nonsense hook line and sinker.  So HOW do you believe the flat tax is fair?    If a person earning $15,000 a year .. and he is taxed at 10%  rather than 0%  He now has to try to live on $13,500 a year rather than $15,000.

Now let's look at the Person who earns a $1,000,000 a year.   Normally, if they have a good accountant and some or most of their income is unearned., they will maybe pay 20% income tax.. and will have to struggle to get by $800,000   AH... but don't worry..... Enter the Republicans and the wonderful FLAT TAX!!   So now he is taxed at only 10%  and his income now RISES to $900,000...  much better.

How in the WORLD can you believe a flat tax is fair???   Seriously???


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> AH..... The Old FLAT TAX  BS...   Just another way for the Rich to pay LESS.. and get the poor to pay more.   The flat tax is just a regressive Conservative ploy to continue to hurt the poor to benefit the wealthy..  Ok... I know I won't change your mind because you've bought into this nonsense hook line and sinker.  So HOW do you believe the flat tax is fair?    If a person earning $15,000 a year .. and he is taxed at 10%  rather than 0%  He now has to try to live on $13,500 a year rather than $15,000.
> 
> Now let's look at the Person who earns a $1,000,000 a year.   Normally, if they have a good accountant and some or most of their income is unearned., they will maybe pay 20% income tax.. and will have to struggle to get by $800,000   AH... but don't worry..... Enter the Republicans and the wonderful FLAT TAX!!   So now he is taxed at only 10%  and his income now RISES to $900,000...  much better.
> 
> How in the WORLD can you believe a flat tax is fair???   Seriously???



Here you go again.    Just love to call people names and try to insult them.   You sound much like a person on a different forum that I also write on.

I have repeatedly said our current tax system is broken and needs replaced.   I did not say we should go to a flat tax as you are claiming.   I used a flat tax as a demonstration and said so in my post.   Now you are claiming I want nothing but a flat tax.   Did you take any time to find out how I make a fair income but have not paid any taxes, and it is legal too.   Due to many of the inside twists our tax forms take.   Nothing fair in that at all.   

I repeat that our tax systems are wrong and need to be replaced.    How they do that is up to the Congress as they debate there way through the process.   I certainly hope for fewer ways to avoid paying taxes and the emphasis should be on high earners and businesses.   Low income folks should be protected.   Your argument included ways for businesses to avoid paying taxes.   Those are the ways that our flawed tax system needs to be relieved of.   WE NEED A NEW AND STRICTER TAX SYSTEM.   You are crying about the little persons and they are not the problem for the US.   There are some of us little guys that do need to see the taxes taken from our incomes.   No one really should be exempt from earned income being taxed.    At what rate, is of the tax program designers, not you nor me.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

BobF said:


> Here you go again.    Just love to call people names and try to insult them.   You sound much like a person on a different forum that I also write on.
> 
> I have repeatedly said our current tax system is broken and needs replaced.   I did not say we should go to a flat tax as you are claiming.   I used a flat tax as a demonstration and said so in my post.   Now you are claiming I want nothing but a flat tax.   Did you take any time to find out how I make a fair income but have not paid any taxes, and it is legal too.   Due to many of the inside twists our tax forms take.   Nothing fair in that at all.
> 
> I repeat that our tax systems are wrong and need to be replaced.    How they do that is up to the Congress as they debate there way through the process.   I certainly hope for fewer ways to avoid paying taxes and the emphasis should be on high earners and businesses.   Low income folks should be protected.   Your argument included ways for businesses to avoid paying taxes.   Those are the ways that our flawed tax system needs to be relieved of.   WE NEED A NEW AND STRICTER TAX SYSTEM.   You are crying about the little persons and they are not the problem for the US.   There are some of us little guys that do need to see the taxes taken from our incomes.   No one really should be exempt from earned income being taxed.    At what rate is of the tax program designers, not you nor me.



No one has called you any names.. and if you are insulted that I have pointed out the flaws in your example... that's not my problem..    Yes the tax system is broken,  I agree... BUT it is broken to the advantage of the rich..  The ONLY fair tax is a graduated income tax with poorer folks paying less, and the very poorest should not pay at all.     What's broken and unfair is that the wealthy can get away with LEGALLY cheating the government.. as you are.   Your legal robbery is really hurting this country.  Let's fix the tax system by making sure the wealthy pay what they should pay, and not be able to hire tax attorneys to game the system for them.  

See... the poor cannot hire lobbyists to grease the palms of Congress.. or make huge campaign contributions to get laws passed to favor them.  ALL the poor have is their vote.. and that is being systematically taken away too.   I tell EVERYONE I know to vote this November... Like their lives depended on it.. because it does.


----------



## pchrise (Sep 24, 2014)

Outdated or not remember Mrs Dole runing for president was head of red cross had to disclose how much she earned.  1. I always paid taxes, 2. Never been on government anything. 3. Know first hand if you have bad luck, you will never get any help not even from a church . 4. Not part of anything politics.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

Your last post sounds like you are finally agreeing with me.    The Congress needs to sit down and design a newer and more restricted tax program to take away all the ways to avoid paying taxes.   Why should companies like GE avoid paying taxes?    Why should half the citizens also avoid paying taxes.   The entire tax program needs redone.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

BobF said:


> Your last post sounds like you are finally agreeing with me.    The Congress needs to sit down and design a newer and more restricted tax program to take away all the ways to avoid paying taxes.   Why should companies like GE avoid paying taxes?    Why should half the citizens also avoid paying taxes.   The entire tax program needs redone.




Up to the last sentence.  Yes.. we need to revamp the tax code.. BUT it needs to remain a graduated or progressive  tax based on income.  There should be NO taxes on people earning below the poverty level. It has been this way since Federal Income tax was instituted.  It makes no sense..  These people are eligible for food stamps for a reason... so you want to tax them to pay for it?   Even in 1862 no taxes were levied on people makeing below $600




> In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate




Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz3EHP2WaS3


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> Up to the last sentence.  Yes.. we need to revamp the tax code.. BUT it needs to remain a graduated or progressive  tax based on income.  There should be NO taxes on people earning below the poverty level. It has been this way since Federal Income tax was instituted.  It makes no sense..  These people are eligible for food stamps for a reason... so you want to tax them to pay for it?   Even in 1862 no taxes were levied on people makeing below $600
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz3EHP2WaS3



Are you saying that half the people in the US that do not pay taxes are living below the top of the poverty level.    If so, then the entire economy of the US is wrong.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

No.. and I don't believe that HALF of the US population pays no taxes.   You are repeating a very well known conservative talking point..  It's a MYTH Bobby...  86% PAY taxes.  You've just got to shut off FOX news.. they have been spreading this LIE for years.  Time you stopped repeating it.   

http://archives.politicususa.com/2011/07/18/half-americans-taxes.html




> The actual number of Americans who don’t pay any taxes isn’t half, but 14%. This group of non-taxpayers of any kind is largely composed of the elderly and disabled. The people who don’t pay taxes do so because they can’t work.





> The myth that the wealthy are carrying the tax burden for America is used to justify tax cuts for the rich. Conservatives use the inaccurate statistic hand in hand with their, “wealthy are the job creators argument.” One statistic that was intended to demonstrate the loss of income due to the recession, along with the impact of the Obama tax cuts has been distorted and misused to justify a policy of not asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.
> The truth is that 86% of Americans pay taxes. In one recession strapped year (2009), less than half of single filer taxpayers paid federal income taxes.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

It may be a lie for years, but to me I was not telling lies.    I believe what I was saying,   Until I read a real open minded article that tells me something different I will wait for truth.   That article you used was so far left in the way they treated unbelieving persons that their facts are in a fog, to say the least.   I will go on a search of my own and see what I can come up with.   I will let you know one way or the other.   Won't happen soon as I am getting ready to go on the road soon.   But if I get lucky I will find some one who writes more from a statistical level that just a far left or far right forum.   And as I said in an earlier post, I am neither far left nor far right.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 24, 2014)

You do that bobby.... but it's a well known fact and has been debunked over and over... but if you want to go on believing the propaganda FOX spews out.. go ahead.  It's the followers like you that FOX and the KOCH brothers are playing.. It's really kind of sad... they are buying our government and economy... and you are helping them.


----------



## BobF (Sep 24, 2014)

QuickSilver said:


> You do that bobby.... but it's a well known fact and has been debunked over and over... but if you want to go on believing the propaganda FOX spews out.. go ahead.  It's the followers like you that FOX and the KOCH brothers are playing.. It's really kind of sad... they are buying our government and economy... and you are helping them.



I really will look up tax data and on my first foray for year 2013 I found the number to be 44% do not pay taxes.   That was only one place, but not a extreme far left publication like you seem to trust.   Sad for those that only believe in the far left thinking.   You should start to look for more middle of the road items.

I seldom watch much of FOX News as most of my time I watch CBS or NBC.    You sure have a badly mixed up basis for you comments.   I have heard of the Koch brothers but never see them on TV.    Where do they broadcast?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 24, 2014)

I never even thought about rich people avoiding taxes much, until Romney was running for president.  Guess the Koch brothers contributions to various 'charities' does save them a lot on taxes, and also has a lot of influence?  http://investigativereportingworksh...millions_spread_influence_through_nonprofits/


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 25, 2014)

SeaBreeze said:


> I never even thought about rich people avoiding taxes much, until Romney was running for president.  Guess the Koch brothers contributions to various 'charities' does save them a lot on taxes, and also has a lot of influence?  http://investigativereportingworksh...millions_spread_influence_through_nonprofits/



SeaBreeze, that is a VERY important article that every American should read.  It is very detailed with the vastness that these men have taken over our government, the media, the education of the young, the environment and most importantly the minds of Americans. 

Here is another.....


[h=1]Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire[/h]

Together, Charles and David Koch control one of the world's largest fortunes, which they are using to buy up our political system. But what they don't want you to know is how they made all that money


The enormity of the Koch fortune is no mystery. Brothers Charles and David are each worth more than $40 billion. The electoral influence of the Koch brothers is similarly well-chronicled. The Kochs are our homegrown oligarchs; they've cornered the market on Republican politics and are nakedly attempting to buy Congress and the White House. Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today's GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year's midterms. So far in this cycle, Koch-backed entities have bought 44,000 political ads to boost Republican efforts to take back the Senate. 

What is less clear is where all that money comes from. Koch Industries is headquartered in a squat, smoked-glass building that rises above the prairie on the outskirts of Wichita, Kansas. The building, like the brothers' fiercely private firm, is literally and figuratively a black box. Koch touts only one top-line financial figure: $115 billion in annual revenue, as estimated by Forbes. By that metric, it is larger than IBM, Honda or Hewlett-Packard and is America's second-largest private company after agribusiness colossus Cargill. The company's stock response to inquiries from reporters: "We are privately held and don't disclose this information." 

But Koch Industries is not entirely opaque. The company's troubled legal history – including a trail of congressional investigations, Department of Justice consent decrees, civil lawsuits and felony convictions – augmented by internal company documents, leaked State Department cables, Freedom of Information disclosures and company whistle*-blowers, combine to cast an unwelcome spotlight on the toxic empire whose profits finance the modern GOP. 

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924#ixzz3EH9QMh35


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2014)

Not to mention the Koch's involvement and contributions to ALEC.. a Conservative group that actually writes legislation at the State level.. and through their contributions to the campaign coffers of the Republican State legislators, pushes this legislation through. One of their brilliant ideas is the infamous Stand your Ground laws many States with Republican lead governments have adopted which has become a legal way to kill.. Another is the rash of anti-union legislation and all the Voter Suppression laws geared to make it more difficult for minorities, students and the elderly to vote.. They also work tirelessly to eliminate all environmental regulations, as well as public health legislation. In other words.. they work to the benefit of the wealthy and large corporations. Politicians taking their funding are obligated to espress their gratitude by sponsering the legislation ALEC drafts. So much for democracy..


From Wiki



> The *American Legislative Exchange Council* (*ALEC*) is a 501(c)(3) organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that shares and drafts model state-level legislation for distribution among the United States.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP] According to its website, ALEC "works to advance the fundamental principles of free-market enterprise, limited government, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America's state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public."[SUP][7][/SUP]
> ALEC provides a forum for state legislators and private sector members to collaborate on model bills—draft legislation that members can customize and introduce for debate in their own state legislatures.[SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] ALEC has produced model bills on a broad range of issues such as reducing corporate regulation and taxation, combating illegal immigration, loosening environmental regulations, tightening voter identification rules, and promoting gun rights.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] ALEC also serves as a networking tool among state legislators, allowing them to research conservative policies implemented in other states.[SUP][13][/SUP] Some of these bills dominate legislative agendas in states such as Arizona, Wisconsin, Colorado, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Maine.[SUP][14][/SUP] Approximately 200 model bills become law each year.[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] Many ALEC legislators also laud the organization for converting campaign rhetoric and nascent policy ideas into legislative language.[SUP][8][/SUP]


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2014)

As for the Koch Brothers involvment in ALEC

http://www.thenation.com/article/161973/alec-exposed-koch-connection



> Hundreds of ALEC’s model bills and resolutions bear traces of Koch DNA: raw ideas that were once at the fringes but that have been carved into “mainstream” policy through the wealth and will of Charles and David Koch. Of all the Kochs’ investments in right-wing organizations, ALEC provides some of the best returns: it gives the Kochs a way to make their brand of free-market fundamentalism legally binding.
> 
> No one knows how much the Kochs have given ALEC in total, but the amount likely exceeds $1 million—not including a half-million loaned to ALEC when the group was floundering. ALEC gave the Kochs its Adam Smith Free Enterprise Award, and Koch Industries has been one of the select members of ALEC’s corporate board for almost twenty years. The company’s top lobbyist was once ALEC’s chairman. As a result, the Kochs have shaped legislation touching every state in the country. Like ideological venture capitalists, the Kochs have used ALEC as a way to invest in radical ideas and fertilize them with tons of cash.



Read more from the link.. However, it's easy to see how DANGEROUS the Kochs are. AND the horrifice ruling of the SCOTUS.. on Citzens United have opened the floodgates for the buying of our Government.. The Kochs have started at the State Levels and have had huge success.. The Federal level is on it's way to being Koch bought and paid for. We are on our way to becoming an Oligarchy.. where only a handful of the uber rich and Large corporations call ALL the shots and draft ALL the legislation. So much for WE the people. Huh? But we are not blameless. Many of us have been voting against our own interests.. as part of the plan is to push forth the SOCIAL ISSUES that many care about.. into the lime light while drawing attention away from the real agenda. Issues such as abortion, gun rights, gay rights have been the shiny objects used to keep people from knowing the REAL goals of the radical Right. The Kochs and those of their ilk couldn't care less about these issues.. They want to run the Government to their financial advantage, but need to get politicians elected who will do their bidding. This is VERY dangerous people.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 25, 2014)

All excellent information, QuickSilver, I read in one of the links that thanks to Citizen's United their contribution moneys to their candidates will double this year....as they have bought the Supreme Court too....it is astounding.......you are correct, voting has never been more important.


----------



## BobF (Sep 25, 2014)

Well, if you want to make all these charges against the Republicans you should also remember to compliment some of your most undesirable donors like George Sorros a full blown money grabber that is also a foreign born socialist leaning toward communist controls.   He is really a bad man in actuality.

Or maybe just take a few minutes to read this article that does not even claim the Koch's are big time for either party.   So here is a link to a speech by your beloved, and non producing leader of the Senate, Harry Reid.   There are billionaires backing both parties so you arguments make no sense at all.    Interessting that in this article they say there is no real way to track the Koch's donation.    If so then some of the reports used above may not be true at all.

_*"For example, despite being Reid’s biggest rhetorical targets, brothers  David and Charles Koch do not appear as donors on any of the campaign  finance information we reviewed. The two businessmen co-founded  Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative super PAC."*_

An interesting thing to keep in mind is the constant slipping of numbers in both of the major parties as the Democrats and Republicans have both slipped to about 30% each and the independents have risen to fill the 40% remaining.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...o-many-billionaires-support-democratic-party/

[h=1]How many billionaires support the Democratic vs. Republican parties?[/h]              By  Lauren Carroll on Monday, June 23rd, 2014 at 4:28 p.m.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2014)

How predictable.. Bring up the Kochs.. and a Conservative will by reflex blurt out George Sorros.. It's almost like the BENGHAZI tick they have seemed to develop. 

Don't notice Sorros interfering and buying local governments in order to push any agenda. Yes.. we have billionaire contributors.. and thank GOD.. Imagine what this country would be like for the average person if Liberals couldn't counter some of the propaganda coming from the Right... post Citizen's United. AND yes.. the Kochs have gone through great lengths to hide their fundings.. BUT.. not with much success.. AND it has PO'd them off royally. Why wouldn't they want to be transparent?

Your saying the Kochs are NOT involved up to the eyeballs in these nefarious organizations is as funny as the 50% of Americans pay no taxes myth Bob..


Here's a list

American Legislative Exchange Council (received a loan of $500,000 in 1996)[SUP][4][/SUP]
Cato Institute
Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation
George Mason University
George Mason University Foundation, Inc.
Heritage Foundation
Institute for Justice
Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment
Reason Foundation
Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies
Institute for Humane Studies
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy
Washington Legal Foundation
Capital Research Center
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Ethics and Public Policy Center, Inc.
National Center for Policy Analysis
Citizens for Congressional Reform Foundation
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.
Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
Political Economy Research Center, Inc.
Media Institute
National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship
University of Chicago
Defenders of Property Rights
University of Kansas Endowment Assocation
Texas Public Policy Foundation
Center for Individual Rights
Heartland Institute
Texas Justice Foundation
Institute for Policy Innovation
Center of the American Experiment
Atlas Economic Research Foundation
Young America's Foundation
Henry Hazlitt Foundation
Atlantic Legal Foundation
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
Families Against Mandatory Minimums
Philanthropy Roundtable
Free Enterprise Institute
John Locke Foundation
Hudson Institute, Inc.
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
National Environmental Policy Institute
Washington University
Pacific Legal Foundation
American Council for Capital Formation
Institute for Political Economy
State Policy Network
Fraser Institute
Mackinac Center
Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Institute for Objectivist Studies
Americans for Prosperity Bill of Rights Institute
Mercatus Center
Whitman College

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations


----------



## BobF (Sep 25, 2014)

Sorry, but you are just showing how biased you are always putting down anything done on an equal basis.   It is as if you only think far left pubs tell the absolute truth while centered or right tell lies or distortions.   You have completely changed the topic of this thread from billionaires giving their wealth to good projects into one of only the far left really know what iis good for the US    Such an imagination that is.

Siince you have gone over and over to keep this topic on how great the far left is, I will now leave my own post to you and your poorly placed nonsense things.   This last post of mine was intended to show  how a mixed group, left and right, think about things but being honest and fair is not something you feel up to.   So have a good day posting your biased and dishonest nonsense.

I know, you should feel relieved, so you can continue to post biased and one sided ites and pretend they are total truth.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2014)

BobF said:


> Sorry, but you are just showing how biased you are always putting down anything done on an equal basis. It is as if you only think far left pubs tell the absolute truth while centered or right tell lies or distortions. You have completely changed the topic of this thread from billionaires giving their wealth to good projects into one of only the far left really know what iis good for the US Such an imagination that is.
> 
> Siince you have gone over and over to keep this topic on how great the far left is, I will now leave my own post to you and your poorly placed nonsense things. This last post of mine was intended to show how a mixed group, left and right, think about things but being honest and fair is not something you feel up to. So have a good day posting your biased and dishonest nonsense.
> 
> I know, you should feel relieved, so you can continue to post biased and one sided ites and pretend they are total truth.



Sorry... I may be biased, but when the Right tries to equate the actions of the Kochs to that of George Sorros.. IMO is just a matter of blatant false equivalency.  A favorite counter of the Right is   "Well you do it too"..    Doesn't fly with me.    It's juvenile.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 25, 2014)

I think that money contributions by billionaires (on both sides) have a great effect in the way this country is being run.  I think it's scary to think of the reality of how much power the banks, large corporations and the rich have with all decision making and money manipulation in America.  The politicians in the government, including the President, seem to have just become puppets to these people behind the scenes.  When they succeed in manipulating the voting system, which has been happening slowly over many years, the average middle-class citizen will be completely ignored.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2014)

The solution is  an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the disasterous Citizens United ruling issued by the Conservative majority of the Supreme court. .. the amendment would state that Corporations are NOT people and money is not Speech.  Those with the most money should NOT have more free speech than the rest. 

Then there would have to be campaign reform legislation, putting limits on individual and corporate campaign contributions and insisting on transparency.  No secret dark money.  

Third..  The Fairness doctrine.. (eliminated by Reagan) needs to be reinstated.  This stipulated that any broadcast offering political opinions had to allow for rebuttal by the opposing side.  People would not be fed a constant diet of propaganda in order to sway elections.


----------

