Comparing charitable giving

[TitanTiger 20,542]

...Cheney. For other reasons, he isn't my favorite guy. But I do find it interesting that the one that is most likely to be called "greedy" is the one that gives the most to charity:

After Mr. and Mrs. Obama released their tax returns, the press quickly noticed that, between 2000 and 2004, they gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit)...

...The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2006, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmMxM...TJkZTM2YjRiNzI=

Color me shocked. Not at Obama since we'd already discussed his tax returns, but at the Cheneys. Holy crap. That's almost at the Rick Warren level (writer of The Purpose Driven Life). I read where he lives on 10% of his earnings and gives away the rest after taxes. Plus he stopped taking a salary from his church after the books took off and also paid back all the years of salaries he did take prior to the books hitting it big.

[RunInRed 16,528]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

[TitanTiger 20,542]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

[Tigermike 3,078]

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Actually they were separated at birth. But both took the same logic courses.

[RunInRed 16,528]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Alright Titan...you are losing your credibility quick...or maybe I'm moving too fast for you...one more time.

Age...or better yet, where you are in your financial life matters for several reasons:

1) As discussed in previous threads, if you don't have a bunch of money, it is harder to give it away. After all is said and done..even giving away 78%, Cheney is still living off of millions. So you can't dismiss this argument...it's easy to give away more when you HAVE IT TO GIVE AWAY.

2) Halliburton is only relevant in the sense it is HOW the Cheneys made a lot of their money (which of course the article forgets to mention...Mrs. Cheney's book deals - please...investments, yeah investments :::wink wink::: )

[TitanTiger 20,542]

Alright Titan...you are losing your credibility quick...or maybe I'm moving too fast for you...one more time.

Age...or better yet, where you are in your financial life matters for several reasons:

1) As discussed in previous threads, if you don't have a bunch of money, it is harder to give it away.

And having an income of $1 million isn't a bunch of money? Especially on the heels of making over $200k for the previous few years? Give me a break, red.

After all is said and done..even giving away 78%, Cheney is still living off of millions. So you can't dismiss this argument...it's easy to give away more when you HAVE IT TO GIVE AWAY.

First, you don't know what he gave when he made less, so this is just speculation.

Second, Cheney is worth between $30 million and $100 million (that's not liquid capital, just the sum of his assets overall). So in giving $6.7 million, Cheney gave away the equivalent of 6.7 to 22.3% of his entire net worth in one year. Even by that biased (against Cheney) measure, it's still a staggering amount.

Third, my contention never was that the amounts should have been equal, just that 6% vs 78% is fairly large. Age doesn't account for that difference, or at least it shouldn't. As it is, Obama giving 5-6% is merely matching what the working poor give on average in this country.

2) Halliburton is only relevant in the sense it is HOW the Cheneys made a lot of their money (which of course the article forgets to mention...Mrs. Cheney's book deals - please...investments, yeah investments :::wink wink::: )

Ahem:

The Cheneys' adjusted gross income in 2005 was $8,819,006 which was largely the result of the exercise by an independent gift administrator of stock options that had been irrevocably set aside in 2001 for charity. The Cheneys donated $6,869,655 to charity in 2005 from the exercise of these stock options under the terms of the Gift Administration Agreement and from Mrs. Cheney's book royalties from Simon & Schuster on her books America: A Patriotic Primer, A is for Abigail: An Almanac of Amazing American Woman, and When Washington Crossed the Delaware: A Wintertime Story for Young Patriots. As provided in the Gift Administration Agreement, gifts were made to three designated charities named in that Agreement. The Cheneys' return was filed on March 20, 2006.

In a press release of March 5, 2001, the Cheneys reported that they had established the Gift Administration Agreement on January 18, 2001 to donate all net after tax proceeds from various stock options that the Vice President had earned at Halliburton and for their service on the boards of directors of other companies to three designated charities...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060414-2.html

No one is hiding anything. In fact, the Cheney's set up a trust that would irrevocably donate all proceeds from his Halliburton stocks to charity.

But all of this is beside the point, which was that 5-6% is not exactly a lot of money for people making $1 million.

[RunInRed 16,528]

I believe (some one correct me if I'm wrong) Obama just topped a million in the last year or two due to book royalties. -- Random question, has any one on this board actually read either of these two books? -- And I also believe, his giving started to pick up in the past year or two once he started to make more. Certainly not 78%...but that is an anomoly by most stretches and yes, it surprised me as well. But don't fool yourselves, the Cheneys aren't exactly living a meager life because they gave all their money away.

Anywho, as for Halliburton...it's good to see some open disclosure. But if you notice, the disclosures were post 2001 (after he became VP). Did he not make any money from Halliburton in the years before that...my hunch would be that's where he amassed a lot of his fortunes.

Regardless, Cheney is to be commended. The larger quesiton is, why Obama was even drug into this debate besides the fact that he's the only of the 3 candidates who have disclosed their full tax returns, which have recently been in the public eye. Anyone know what McCain's, Clintons, Riley, Langfords, Tubervilles, Gogues giving levels are? Just some thoughts.

[Auburn85 434]

why should it matter how much money Cheney makes? Isn't it more realisitc to go by percentages?

so rir, for cheney to give 78% isn't good enough? just because cheney makes millions debunks his giving?

i guess this is how some look at taxes and giving:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

did Bush not lower taxes on the middle class too?

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

If taxable income is over $349,700 those people pay 35%

If taxable income is $63,700 to $128,500 they pay 25%

If taxable income is $15,650 to $63,700 they pay 15%

35% isn't enough ?

[RunInRed 16,528]

why should it matter how much money Cheney makes? Isn't it more realisitc to go by percentages?

so rir, for cheney to give 78% isn't good enough? just because cheney makes millions debunks his giving?

i guess this is how some look at taxes and giving:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

did Bush not lower taxes on the middle class too?

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

If taxable income is over $349,700 those people pay 35%

If taxable income is $63,700 to $128,500 they pay 25%

If taxable income is $15,650 to $63,700 they pay 15%

35% isn't enough ?

No one is trying to debunk his giving...cool your jets and take off your partisan blinders.

But to debunk your realism, percentages matter. If you make 30k a year and give 80% away, you are living off of about 6k a year. If you make 1M and give 80% away, you are living off of 200k. Get it?

[Auburn85 434]

why should it matter how much money Cheney makes? Isn't it more realisitc to go by percentages?

so rir, for cheney to give 78% isn't good enough? just because cheney makes millions debunks his giving?

i guess this is how some look at taxes and giving:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

did Bush not lower taxes on the middle class too?

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html

If taxable income is over $349,700 those people pay 35%

If taxable income is $63,700 to $128,500 they pay 25%

If taxable income is $15,650 to $63,700 they pay 15%

35% isn't enough ?

No one is trying to debunk his giving...cool your jets and take off your partisan blinders.

But to debunk your realism, percentages matter. If you make 30k a year and give 80% away, you are living off of about 6k a year. If you make 1M and give 80% away, you are living off of 200k. Get it?

ok, true enough

but so what if it's still living off of 200k.

if you want a class warfare just say so.

[RunInRed 16,528]

I want no such thing. I like most believe in self-reliance and want the private sector to do things when possible. I also have very little problems with the current tax structure.

I would make two changes:

1)Increase top tax bracket (35%) to the level it was at before Bush (about 39%) so we can make much needed investments in our country

2)Raise the cap on SS so all earners pay tax up to the first 250k (instead of just 95k) so we can make SS solvent

Now if that is class warfare then I give up with you guys on this issue

[CCTAU 3,355]

I want no such thing. I like most believe in self-reliance and want the private sector to do things when possible. I also have very little problems with the current tax structure.

I would make two changes:

1)Increase top tax bracket (35%) to the level it was at before Bush (about 39%) so we can make much needed investments in our country

2)Raise the cap on SS so all earners pay tax up to the first 250k (instead of just 95k) so we can make SS solvent

Now if that is class warfare then I give up with you guys on this issue

Option 1 is the Robin Hood theory. Who gets to decide where the money is spent.

Option 2 sounds doable as long as those folks get their fare share back. Or. Let folks invest part their own money. But that would actually reward the workers of this country.

All I hear from the left is take the rich folk's money. They got plenty. That may be true, but they earned that money. What are the takers contributing to society? Other than another vote for a dimocrat.

As far as achmed goes, if he is truly a Christian, then his charitable contributions should match his belief.

[RunInRed 16,528]

Option 1:

That would be your elected congress

So if you are "a Christian" where does it state (I assume you are referencing a literal interpretation of some new testament passage) that you have to a certain percantage of your income...and what is that percentage? And I assume if you don't, you're going to hell right?

[Auburn85 434]

I want no such thing. I like most believe in self-reliance and want the private sector to do things when possible. I also have very little problems with the current tax structure.

I would make two changes:

1)Increase top tax bracket (35%) to the level it was at before Bush (about 39%) so we can make much needed investments in our country

2)Raise the cap on SS so all earners pay tax up to the first 250k (instead of just 95k) so we can make SS solvent

Now if that is class warfare then I give up with you guys on this issue

if we're content with raising taxes on the top bracket, how bout we use that to go towards paying off our debt rather than expanding government and making it bigger than it already is.

[RunInRed 16,528]

I want no such thing. I like most believe in self-reliance and want the private sector to do things when possible. I also have very little problems with the current tax structure.

I would make two changes:

1)Increase top tax bracket (35%) to the level it was at before Bush (about 39%) so we can make much needed investments in our country

2)Raise the cap on SS so all earners pay tax up to the first 250k (instead of just 95k) so we can make SS solvent

Now if that is class warfare then I give up with you guys on this issue

if we're content with raising taxes on the top bracket, how bout we use that to go towards paying off our debt rather than expanding government and making it bigger than it already is.

You mean like the balance budgets we had in 90s? And the budget surpluses we had to pay down debt in the 90s? Yeah, I thought that was a given.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

It's interesting about Cheney, but I don't see the point in a comparison of two men so differently situated.

One is a 67 year-old guy who became worth upwards to 100 million dollars after trading in on his government experience and becoming the CEO of a company that relies almost solely on the federal government for no bid contracts-- Republican approved redistribution of wealth. He became very wealthy as a result, despite never hitting his performance targets. He was even given the golden parachute that he did not qualify for per his contract. He has lived in government housing for the last seven years, having most of his living expenses picked up by the taxpayers while his wealth has continued to grow. His kids are grown and out of college. Cheney certainly never has to work another day in his life, even if he put all his money in a non-interest bearing account.

The other is 46 years old, has 2 small kids still in school, with college ahead of them. His taxable income last year was about $827K and he paid $277K in taxes. From his salary, he must maintain two separate residences in two of the most expensive cities in the country and routinely travel back and forth between them. He only recently has paid off his student loans. He made over a million dollars a total of one year of his life. He has a job that pays $165,200 a year. He has yet to accumulate the kind of wealth that continues to create significant wealth. It is unclear what other extended family obligations that he might have.

So if you want to praise Cheney for his generosity, I think that's fine. It was actually worked out years ago as indicated below. But what's the point of comparing two guys with so little in common?

BTW, here's a bit more on Cheney:

It appears that the VP is a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions, which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that would have applied absent the Katrina legislation. The press release indicates that the charitable contribution reflects the amount of net proceeds from an independent administrator's exercise of the VP's Halliburton options -- apparently, the VP had agreed back in 2001 that he would donate the net proceeds from the options to charities once they were exercised.

The press release seems to confirm, at least implicitly, the VP's efforts to take advantage of the Katrina legislation -- it mentions that the Cheneys wrote a personal check of $2.3 million to the administrator in December in order to "maximize the charitable gifts in 2005." Admittedly, I don't know anything about the transactions beyond the info in the press release, but my gut reaction is that the personal check was given in order to make sure the independent administrator had sufficient liquid assets to pay all of the promised charitable contributions before the 50% limit returned on 1/1/06.

Despite the importance of the Katrina legislation to his tax return, it looks like none of the charitable contributions actually went to Katrina-related charities (the press release lists the 3 charitable recipients, all of which were designated in the original 2001 gift agreement). While there's nothing inappropriate about that from a legal perspective, it does demonstrate how the legislation, which was sold to the public as providing relief to Katrina victims, provided significant tax benefits to the VP (and potentially other wealthy individuals) in situations that have nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/20...h_cheney_t.html

You'll note that this level of generosity was far from his norm:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030411-8.html

[TitanTiger 20,542]

It's still fairly generous at over 12% of his income.

Look, I realize they are in different places in life, but Obama isn't struggling to put kids through school or plan for their college educations on a cool one million dollars. Not even close.

I think as much as Democrats espouse taking care of the least of these, you'd think they would be more generous with charity. But neither he nor Clinton were particularly generous. Nor were Kerry or Gore. It strikes me as odd.

[AUTiger1 0]

Option 1:

That would be your elected congress

So if you are "a Christian" where does it state (I assume you are referencing a literal interpretation of some new testament passage) that you have to a certain percantage of your income...and what is that percentage? And I assume if you don't, you're going to hell right?

Just curious, but you don't attend Church do you? And no I am not judging you b/c of it. That is your right.

Now to answer your question the best I can and I am no Bible scholar in anyway, shape, form or fashion. I study from it daily and I try my best to learn all that I can. I don't believe that one ever stops learning, especially when it comes to the Bible. Otter, bojack, Ranger, DKW and others also might be able to shed some light on this.

Some passages for you:

In Genesis 14 Abraham tithes one tenth of all he had to Melchizedek, this is also citied in Hebrews 7. Romans 4 tells us that we are to walk in the footsteps of faith that Abraham did. In Genesis, the 22:28 chapter I believe, or it could be 28:22, (forgive me if I get a chapter or verse confused, all I can say is read the book, it want hurt you )Jacob told God "and all of that you gave me, I will give a full tenth to you". Remember that this was all before the Law of Moses, the Law simply regulated the tithe. Leviticus 27:30 tells us that our tithe is God's not ours and in Malachi 3:8-10 God commands us to tithe and that to refuse is disobedience. So there is some Old Testament for you. Now for the New Testament passages that I can give you. 1 Corinthians 16:2 tells us that each first day of the week the members of the church "lay by and store as they have prospered". 2 Corinthians 9:6-8 instructs us to give cheerfully and not grudgingly. Jesus also said in Matt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.". So you can see even Christ said it to be so.

But to answer your question there is no set amount under the New Testament (if there is I haven't found it) and it is a free-will offering. As stated in 1 Corinthians 16:2, you tithe as you have prospered. Most people take the ten percent that was given in the Old Testament. Once again the amount should not be known or is it anyones business except he/she that is tithing and God. A Christian knows that all that he has is a blessing from God so we should give back to him so that the Church has money to operate and that his word will be spread throughout the world. You tithe as you have prospered or my interpretation would be you tithe with keeping up with your income.

Hope that gives you somewhat an answer and does not confuse you.

[TexasTiger 13,136]

It's still fairly generous at over 12% of his income.

Look, I realize they are in different places in life, but Obama isn't struggling to put kids through school or plan for their college educations on a cool one million dollars. Not even close.

I think as much as Democrats espouse taking care of the least of these, you'd think they would be more generous with charity. But neither he nor Clinton were particularly generous. Nor were Kerry or Gore. It strikes me as odd.

Well, if that's the case you really want to make, then by all means make it. Throw in a few celebrities who waste millions on frivolous things while talking about what we need to do for the poor while you're at it.

One thing that is different, however, is that most of the Dems that you're talking about don't object to folks in their income bracket paying higher tax rates to address programs they favor. Folks can disagree with those policies, but the Dems you're talking about readily admit that they think government has a bigger role to play, and that the more well to do should pay more to support it, and don't object to having their own taxes raised to do it. Some charities do wonderful things, some charitable contributions may have less impact. Viewpoints will vary on each one.

On the other hand, some libruls are quite generous:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/25/magazines/...arity1.fortune/

BTW, Cheney's 12% that year was primarily the proceeds from his wife's book, which is pretty standard procedure for spouses of Presidents and VPs who write books, but it was still a choice.

But the difference in this comparison is this-- if I write a best seller and make $1.7 million this year, I'm mostly banking it, after taxes, to make sure my family has some security in case something happens to me next year. If I somehow manage to come into tens of millions of dollars over the next twenty years, as Cheney did, and THEN I win $170 million in the lotto, I'll gladly give it all away and then some. In fact, long before that point, I would have already felt that I had met my obligations to assure my family would be comfortable if something happened to me and would be planning how to give most of my wealth away before my death. If my children were Cheney's kids age, I wouldn't really worry about leaving them anything, as long as they were healthy. If they were Obama's kids age, I'd be very concerned that their needs would be met. I just see these two men as very differently situated and, thus, such a comparison is pretty meaningless.

[RunInRed 16,528]

It's still fairly generous at over 12% of his income.

Look, I realize they are in different places in life, but Obama isn't struggling to put kids through school or plan for their college educations on a cool one million dollars. Not even close.

I think as much as Democrats espouse taking care of the least of these, you'd think they would be more generous with charity. But neither he nor Clinton were particularly generous. Nor were Kerry or Gore. It strikes me as odd.

Ever heard of the Heinz Foundation?

Anywho, Titan, I believe your flaw was even mentioning Obama in the original post..again why not just put a post about Cheney's charitable giving if you were so enamored with the numbers? You weren't trying to score political points were you?

[arnaldoabru 11]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Why aere you bringing me into this, and it's arnaldo

[arnaldoabru 11]

For a fair comparison ... Cheney is at least in his 60s right? ... I'd like to see his tax returns from his late 30s and 40s. Your comparing a man who has already amassed his fortunes to someone who just made his first million. Apples and oranges to say the least.

Why would being in one's 60s versus your 40s account for this large a disparity? It would be one thing if we were talking about the difference between 5-6% and 10-15%. But 6% vs 78%? And Rick Warren is in his late 40s I believe, just to show another example.

And all of this is without even mentioning Halliburton...which could be another thread altogether.

It wasn't mentioned because it has absolutely zero to do with the subject. Just like Muslim fathers and racist pastors weren't mentioned. I swear you and arnold have been getting together for beers and conversation lately.

Alright Titan...you are losing your credibility quick...or maybe I'm moving too fast for you...one more time.

Age...or better yet, where you are in your financial life matters for several reasons:

1) As discussed in previous threads, if you don't have a bunch of money, it is harder to give it away. After all is said and done..even giving away 78%, Cheney is still living off of millions. So you can't dismiss this argument...it's easy to give away more when you HAVE IT TO GIVE AWAY.

2) Halliburton is only relevant in the sense it is HOW the Cheneys made a lot of their money (which of course the article forgets to mention...Mrs. Cheney's book deals - please...investments, yeah investments :::wink wink::: )

Don't they have a gay daughter?

[RunInRed 16,528]

Option 1:

That would be your elected congress

So if you are "a Christian" where does it state (I assume you are referencing a literal interpretation of some new testament passage) that you have to a certain percantage of your income...and what is that percentage? And I assume if you don't, you're going to hell right?

Just curious, but you don't attend Church do you? And no I am not judging you b/c of it. That is your right.

Now to answer your question the best I can and I am no Bible scholar in anyway, shape, form or fashion. I study from it daily and I try my best to learn all that I can. I don't believe that one ever stops learning, especially when it comes to the Bible. Otter, bojack, Ranger, DKW and others also might be able to shed some light on this.

Some passages for you:

In Genesis 14 Abraham tithes one tenth of all he had to Melchizedek, this is also citied in Hebrews 7. Romans 4 tells us that we are to walk in the footsteps of faith that Abraham did. In Genesis, the 22:28 chapter I believe, or it could be 28:22, (forgive me if I get a chapter or verse confused, all I can say is read the book, it want hurt you )Jacob told God "and all of that you gave me, I will give a full tenth to you". Remember that this was all before the Law of Moses, the Law simply regulated the tithe. Leviticus 27:30 tells us that our tithe is God's not ours and in Malachi 3:8-10 God commands us to tithe and that to refuse is disobedience. So there is some Old Testament for you. Now for the New Testament passages that I can give you. 1 Corinthians 16:2 tells us that each first day of the week the members of the church "lay by and store as they have prospered". 2 Corinthians 9:6-8 instructs us to give cheerfully and not grudgingly. Jesus also said in Matt 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.". So you can see even Christ said it to be so.

But to answer your question there is no set amount under the New Testament (if there is I haven't found it) and it is a free-will offering. As stated in 1 Corinthians 16:2, you tithe as you have prospered. Most people take the ten percent that was given in the Old Testament. Once again the amount should not be known or is it anyones business except he/she that is tithing and God. A Christian knows that all that he has is a blessing from God so we should give back to him so that the Church has money to operate and that his word will be spread throughout the world. You tithe as you have prospered or my interpretation would be you tithe with keeping up with your income.

Hope that gives you somewhat an answer and does not confuse you.

I think Tzedakah and Mitvah comes in many forms. I'll leave it at that.

[arnaldoabru 11]

I want no such thing. I like most believe in self-reliance and want the private sector to do things when possible. I also have very little problems with the current tax structure.

I would make two changes:

1)Increase top tax bracket (35%) to the level it was at before Bush (about 39%) so we can make much needed investments in our country

2)Raise the cap on SS so all earners pay tax up to the first 250k (instead of just 95k) so we can make SS solvent

Now if that is class warfare then I give up with you guys on this issue

Option 1 is the Robin Hood theory. Who gets to decide where the money is spent.

Option 2 sounds doable as long as those folks get their fare share back. Or. Let folks invest part their own money. But that would actually reward the workers of this country.

All I hear from the left is take the rich folk's money. They got plenty. That may be true, but they earned that money. What are the takers contributing to society? Other than another vote for a dimocrat.

As far as achmed goes, if he is truly a Christian, then his charitable contributions should match his belief.

Where does it say you have to be a Christain to be President.You had better be afraid of those Zorastrians.

[BamaGrad03 0]

Where does it say you have to be a Christain to be President.You had better be afraid of those Zorastrians.

Well, we let mental midgets post here...so I guess we could relax our rules on who can be president.