Tim Bonham wrote: > I would be willing to bet that this individual will deduct > this entire amount from his taxes as a charitable contribution. > Which means that the rest of us taxpayers must pay MORE to make > up for this deduction, and to try to cover the massive Bush deficit. > > I'd sure call that an involvement of taxpayer money! > > People need to remember that whenever they see something like > this, "funded by charitable contributions", what they are seeing > is rich people shuffling money that they would otherwise have paid > in taxes into their favorite pet charity. And a back-door undercutting > of any public debate on who should get this money.
First of all I don't think that all pet charities are tax deductible and secondly, I don't think that charitable contributions reduce your taxes on a 1 to 1 ratio. I believe that they may reduce your taxable income on a 1 to 1 ratio, which is not the same. Tax accountants please feel free to correct me. Are you arguing that tax deductions for charitable contributions are a bad thing? I thought the purpose of such deductions was to benefit charitable organizations and encourage the redistribution of wealth. Or are you just opposed to deductions for charitable causes that you don't feel are worthy? BTW, I'm not really thrilled about having a stadium within a half mile of my house funded either publicly or privately. I certainly wouldn't any public education money spent on such a project. If they can raise $200M privately then I'll just have to live with the noise, traffic, drunks, and sports riots. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
