***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[dwalk31]

Any economist will tell you that increasing transaction cost for a program makes people fall through the cracks. So in theory you can claim they will be still be eligible but in practice less students will be able to benefit from the programs.

So you trash *** opinion is based on ignorance of basic economics. Take that needle out your arm and do better.

Here is some more ****ery I am sure you support though...

Not sure why you'd think I'd support that. I have stated that we need immigration reform.

Did you support the massive deportation under the prior administration?

Also, you know I defer to you on matters of the economy.

 

[junglejim]

While clever, the issue here was the resulting social distancing as a result of COVID-19, not the funding portion.

so why is funding for school lunches an issue if they can’t just get food from churches and rich community donors? Seems like all the churches could come together in a proper, socially distant way to create boxed lunches for these kids who are unable to go to school and get lunches there.

 

[dwalk31]

so why is funding for school lunches an issue if they can’t just get food from churches and rich community donors? Seems like all the churches could come together in a proper, socially distant way to create boxed lunches for these kids who are unable to go to school and get lunches there.

They could. Actually sounds like a great idea. Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait. . .

 

[junglejim]

They could. Actually sounds like a great idea. Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait. . .

I know you did, thats why I am asking why is this an issue:

There are a lot of good reasons to push for re-opening. Often, for lower-income families, school is the only dependable place for children to get certain meals and provides a somewhat safe place for children while parents are at work.

In a perfect scenario, everyone would stay home indefinitely. But not sure how realistic that is.

if it can all be solved by church and rich donors?

 

[Canadian Destroyer]

 

[IATT]

 

[junglejim]

NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[nawghtyhare]

Kanye is responsible for Nas’ worst album to date. It’s no way you can trust him with the nuclear codes.

and i know some how some way
jay snake self is responsible
nasir and hip hop is dead
has jay meddling self all over it

 

[dwalk31]

I know you did, thats why I am asking why is this an issue:



if it can all be solved by church and rich donors?

In the case where traditional safety nets are reduced via time limits and supplemented with increased tax incentives for churches and charitable donations, I think it would work perfectly. And that was my point when I laid out the plan.

But my theory was never to get rid of free lunches in schools. It was to provide time limits to certain other traditional benefits.

Was never a replacement theory.

But I do think that is probably what would happen if schools remain closed. But it moreso proves my initial point than anything else.

 

[dwalk31]

If these are legitimate businesses, and there is no fraud, I don't understand the issue. Like I said, there's an entire thread on Niketalk about getting sba loans/grants.

I got a $1000 grant for stockx sales.

 

[aepps20]

NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

WE ALL SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT.

 

[junglejim]

In the case where traditional safety nets are reduced via time limits and supplemented with increased tax incentives for churches and charitable donations, I think it would work perfectly. And that was my point when I laid out the plan.

But my theory was never to get rid of free lunches in schools. It was to provide time limits to certain other traditional benefits.

Was never a replacement theory.

But I do think that is probably what would happen if schools remain closed. But it moreso proves my initial point than anything else.

So again, if it would happen why is it an issue going forward or even a forefront issue on some parent's minds now? It seems like the issue is currently happening which is a cause for concern for parents and is not being solved by churches and large donors. Why would it work two months from now if it wasn't working three months ago?

 

[dwalk31]

So again, if it would happen why is it an issue going forward or even a forefront issue on some parent's minds now? It seems like the issue is currently happening which is a cause for concern for parents and is not being solved by churches and large donors. Why would it work two months from now if it wasn't working three months ago?

You are ignoring the additional things I discussed for welfare reform which includes a change in the tax incentives for churches and charitable giving.

But because of the lack of that, I don't think it works as well as it could.

 

[junglejim]

You are ignoring the additional things I discussed for welfare reform which includes a change in the tax incentives for churches and charitable giving.

But because of the lack of that, I don't think it works as well as it could.

What the **** tax incentives would you give churches? They literally don't pay taxes that's the entire point of not-for-profit status

Plus we already have tax incentives for charitable giving for the rich (or anyone else for that matter). Its literally called a charitable contribution deduction.

Regardless, im going to let this conversation rest. I just wanted to point out how ******* stupid it was one more time.

 

[stuntman mike]

Another ridiculous tweet by Trump.

whoa WHOA!
strongest words from you yet
there may still be hope for you

 

[dwalk31]

What the **** tax incentives would you give churches? They literally don't pay taxes that's the entire point of not-for-profit status

Plus we already have tax incentives for charitable giving for the rich (or anyone else for that matter). Its literally called a charitable contribution deduction.

Regardless, im going to let this conversation rest. I just wanted to point out how ****ing stupid it was one more time.

That deduction is not dollar for dollar for individuals.

Churches are generally tax exempt but they pay taxes on certain business income, right? As always, I'll defer to you on the tax stuff.

 

[junglejim]

That deduction is not dollar for dollar for individuals.

Churches are generally tax exempt but they pay taxes on certain business income, right? As always, I'll defer to you on the tax stuff.

The deduction reduces your taxable income dollar for dollar unless it exceeds 60% of your income in a given year which in my experience, rarely ever does. If that happens then people just start a foundation which does the same thing.

Churches/not for profits/etc only pay taxes on unrelated business income which is marginal if any. Say for instance, a church started an investment fund for whatever reason. They would pay tax on the earnings from that investment fund, but not any of the income coming from donations, grants, contributions, etc.

 

[dwalk31]

The deduction reduces your taxable income dollar for dollar unless it exceeds 60% of your income in a given year which in my experience, rarely ever does. If that happens then people just start a foundation which does the same thing.

Churches/not for profits/etc only pay taxes on unrelated business income which is marginal if any. Say for instance, a church started an investment fund for whatever reason. They would pay tax on the earnings from that investment fund, but not any of the income coming from donations, grants, contributions, etc.

Reduces taxable income not tax liability dollar for dollar.

If I give 20k in charitable donations, my tax liability isn't reduced by 20k. That's what I meant. If that were the case, I think it would help my plan.

 

[junglejim]

Reduces taxable income not tax liability dollar for dollar.

If I give 20k in charitable donations, my tax liability isn't reduced by 20k. That's what I meant. If that were the case, I think it would help my plan.

Is it really going to make a significant difference if it reduces it by 44% (including state taxes) versus 100%? And how is this more efficient or effective than just sending the payments to the individuals in need?

 

[dwalk31]

Is it really going to make a significant difference if it reduces it by 44% (including state taxes) versus 100%? And how is this more efficient or effective than just sending the payments to the individuals in need?

I think the term limits would create more job creation. Not really a matter of efficiency.

All states don't tax personal income and/or wages.

But yes 44% to 100% is significant--obviously.

 

[aepps20]

whoa WHOA!
strongest words from you yet
there may still be hope for you

NOPE

 

[junglejim]

I think the term limits would create more job creation. Not really a matter of efficiency.

All states don't tax personal income and/or wages.

But yes 44% to 100% is significant--obviously.

I can tell you from experience people don't give money for the tax deduction and or credit (some states do have a dollar for dollar credit). If the plan doesn't work now when church tax rates are at zero and you basically get a 50% tax benefit on the contribution its not going to work when you slightly increase the deduction. Trickle down economics have proven to be ineffective.

It may motivate YOU, but you've proven to be a scum bag who would sell your vote for a small tax cut and a chance for some passive rental income.

 

[dwalk31]

I can tell you from experience people don't give money for the tax deduction and or credit (some states do have a dollar for dollar credit). If the plan doesn't work now when church tax rates are at zero and you basically get a 50% tax benefit on the contribution its not going to work when you slightly increase the deduction. Trickle down economics have proven to be ineffective.

It may motivate YOU, but you've proven to be a scum bag who would sell your vote for a small tax cut and a chance for some passive rental income.

Ouch.

I agree that isn't why people do it. It certainly is not the reason that I do. It's hardly an attractive enough sole reason to do so. The status quo just gives you a little discount for money you'd give anyway towards a good cause.

But, if it was more attractive, then it could create an incentive for more people to contribute in a way that they do not currently. Especially people who couldn't really afford to do it before. That is my point.

You saying 44% (in states that tax personal income) magically becomes 50% and 100% is slightly above 50% is a clear showing of how disingenuous you can be. Just be honest about the numbers. If you think it's a bad idea, cool. But skewing the numbers and acting like 100% is slightly above 50% is laughable.