"Tax And Donate" Democrats
I just love California Republican congressman John Campbell. First I've heard of him, actually. But yesterday, in the House, he introduced his "Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act," to amend the tax code to allow individuals to make donations to the federal government beyond their normal tax liability.
From the WSJ's op-ed page:
We recently suggested that if Bill and Hillary Clinton are eager to pay more taxes, they should write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury to compensate for the lower tax rates they so frequently decry....Mr. Campbell says he has heard the "cries" of those wealthy Americans - Mrs. Clinton, Warren Buffett, Barbra Streisand - who reject the lower tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 and complain that they and their fellow rich don't pay enough. "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation," he says. His bill would give liberals a chance to salve their consciences without having to raise taxes on millions of Americans who already feel overtaxed as it is.
Or you could do what David Brin does and send a cheque to the Bureau of Public Dept.
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/03/seizing-symbolic-high-ground-in-number.html
Simon at April 11, 2008 4:18 AM
I Heart Campbell.
vlad at April 11, 2008 5:13 AM
C'mon, Amy. Liberals believe taxes are to be paid by OTHER people. The same goes for charitable donations.
Conservatives, particularily religious conservatives, give much more to charities than so called "progressives" do. (Pick up a copy of "Compassionate Conservatism: who Really Cares" by Arthur Brooks, if you don't believe me.) Or just look at how much Al Gore or other prominent liberals give.
Liberals aren't interested in helping people, they are interested in establishing and maintaining their illusory sense of moral superiority. That is easily done by yapping about the government not doing enough to help "the poor" at some social gathering, then going home, instructing the help to screw in a few of those squiggly light bulbs in rooms they never use in their 5,000 square foot house with a heated pool.
Tom at April 11, 2008 5:16 AM
Bill Gates donated at least 300M to various charities, I think it's actually a lot more. While his true political stance is not well know he's certainly liberal as far as immigration. http://tiny.cc/9DytU Also rich liberals try not to be seen as donating, while some conservative plaster it on bill boards.
"particularily religious conservatives" This is more about buying support rather than any actual donations. These are investments.
vlad at April 11, 2008 5:49 AM
True that, about Mr. Gates. The company I work for was actually a recipient of some of his donations, although we're NOT a charity, to work on a flu vaccine that we're developing.
Flynne at April 11, 2008 6:01 AM
"The company I work for was actually a recipient of some of his donations, although we're NOT a charity, to work on a flu vaccine that we're developing."
Um, don't be alarmed, but you just got spillage from Microsoft's response to constant demands that they do something about viruses!
Radwaste at April 11, 2008 7:23 AM
Tom says, "Liberals aren't interested in helping people, they are interested in establishing and maintaining their illusory sense of moral superiority."
You may be right, Tom, although I'm always a little suspicious of attempts to psychoanalyze whole groups of people, especially groups the analyst does not belong to.
But this "illusory sense of moral superiority" of which you speak--don't we all try to maintain that? It's not confined to true believers in political or religious doctrines, either. People with old money sneer at the nouveau riche; urban sophisticates just know they are better than the guy driving a pickup fitted with a gun rack. That kind of thing. I grew up in the Ozarks, and even we ignorant hillbillies maintained the illusion that we were morally superior to flatlanders.
Look into your own heart, Tom. How do you maintain your illusory superiority over liberals?
Axman at April 11, 2008 8:15 AM
Um, don't be alarmed, but you just got spillage from Microsoft's response to constant demands that they do something about viruses!
Don't worry, Rad, we don't mind - it's a dangerous job, but someone's got to do it! o_O
Flynne at April 11, 2008 8:20 AM
Here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts there was a ballot initiative that passed forcing the Pols to live up to their promise and roll back the state income tax from 5.85% to 5%. It had been raised "temporarily" years back when the state was hurting and never rolled back as promised when we started running surpluses. Sure enough the Pols stuck their snouts in the middle of the rollback process and stopped it at 5.3% after much screaming and hysterics by the likes of the teachers union. (The money was "for the children", you know.)
After hearing all the cries about the need for higher taxes the Repubs in the state put forth a bill to have a state income tax checkoff allowing individuals to pay at the old higher rate of 5.85%. Surprisingly, the Dems in charge of the legislature allowed it through and we now have the option of paying 5.3 or 5.85% in state taxes.
With all the "progressives" in this bluest of states you might expect to see significant additional revenue "for the children" as individuals put their money where their mouths are. You would be wrong. Each year Howie Carr from the Boston Herald gets the stats from the state and reports how many have elected to pay the higher rate. I forget the exact numbers but it comes out to a fraction of 1% who elect to pay the higher rate and based on the total additional money collected the average income of those who elect to pay the 5.85% is something like $20K per year.
All those big money, big mouth liberals keep their own money to themselves.
Sean at April 11, 2008 8:45 AM
Also rich liberals try not to be seen as donating, while some conservative plaster it on bill boards.
My experience has been the opposite. Then again, perhaps we only see what we want to see.
Conan the Grammarian at April 11, 2008 9:04 AM
Which is the party of fiscal recklessness again?
justin case at April 11, 2008 12:15 PM
More about Campbell. Interesting dude.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123016.html
Though it's hard to see how one can rationally support current tax rates and the War on Terror as it currently being fought. Unless you really think leaving the payments to future generations is the way to go.
justin case at April 11, 2008 12:28 PM
Justin -
What part of cutting the marginal tax rates caused a net increase in federal receipts did you miss?
We're still, rate-wise, on the high side of the Laffer Curve.
brian at April 11, 2008 3:09 PM
Hmm. Seems like these people lamenting a lesser tax rate should be supportive of The Fair Tax, as propounded by Boortz and others. That means that people getting rich will do more, proportionally, right? Whoops - gotta get that name off there. It's more important who backs a measure than what it actually does!
Actually, I wonder if these people ever went to school. They know how taxes are collected and applied - and how jobs are made - as much as a cat knows of Jesus.
Radwaste at April 12, 2008 9:36 AM
Leave a comment