Liberals Make No Sense To Me

Ugly, ain't it. It surprises me that they don't want to get a tax credit for abortions. After all, they claim it is saving the world from the poor, unwanted dregs that would just be a burden on society, anyway.

Hey, maybe she is donating to PP out of remorse that she has a 24 year old daughter to support...

I'm a liberal and I complain about the government....and I will definately take money from them...however, I do understand the importance and have a good deal of respect for the workings of our country even though it's not perfect because it's run by people(sometimes really stupid and/or bad people).

Actually, as a liberal, some other liberals don't make sense to me...(i.e. The crazy ones)

~Zoo

Well working in the income tax business for almost 20 years it's interesting to see things. For one thing it's very obvious that the Liberals don't give to charitable organizations nearly even close what their conservative counterparts do. Why do you suppose? This is nothing new, I guess this was reported as fact back along. It's certainly fact in our office and we deal with at one point 600 clients. My husband seems to think it's like 5 to 1. The conservatives are five times as likely to give to charitable organizations as one liberal is.

I can also tell you which religion receives the most by seeing how the individuals give as well. Catholics....give the least and the Adventists give the most. It's real clear, not even debateable.

The other thing we see is the people who make generally the least give more; percentage wise that is. The more money one makes the less he gives. That, to me, is backed up quite well biblically speaking. We have at least two that make about a million dollars a year. I think we're lucky if we see three or four hundred dollars in donations during any given year given by them.

Funny the things you see when doing taxes.

Statistically, liberals give far less to charity, even secular ones, than conservatives do.

One study concluded that liberals substitute belief in government welfare for actual charitable donations.

Or my take - warm fuzzy thoughts are as good as actually doing something.

Do you poll your clients as to what their political leanings are when you are doing their taxes? How do you know whether they are liberal or conservative?



What do you mean it's not even debabeable--did you ever consider that people don't list their contributions on their taxes? Are you really going to make a grand statement about two entire religions based on the 600 clients in your practice?

Honestly, every Mass I've ever been to, people put cash in the basket--so unless they are going up and asking for a receipt afterwards, they wouldn't be counting it on their taxes.

My Motto in Business - Never discuss politics!  I am not as good as you and would not have held my tongue.

Do you poll your clients as to what their political leanings are when you are doing their taxes? How do you know whether they are liberal or conservative?

no we don't poll them. But after having a business relationship with them for many years, it's not hard to figure out where they stand even if they don't come right out...(some do some don't) tell us what political party they belong to. Lots of questions come out when you do somebody's taxes and charitable deductions is a question that gets asked. I mean, you can alot of times tell just from that alone. some give to churches, some give to political causes, some give to civic organizations. Lots of info gets discussed sometimes it may be current events. It's not real hard to figure out. I mean if you're giving to planned parenthood and have no church affliation or deductions or use four letter words that are not Christ like I can pretty much say by their fruits they are not Christian minded.

What do you mean it's not even debabeable--did you ever consider that people don't list their contributions on their taxes? Are you really going to make a grand statement about two entire religions based on the 600 clients in your practice?

based on 20 years of tax business this is the research we've come up with. Do your own research and see what you get. I noticed you didn't volunteer that you're a big giver debunking what I said. So could this be a true assessment based just on you? Be honest. I take it you're a Catholic? I'm not bashing you by stating this fact. It's just a fact we see over and over again. After a while you get so you can count on things.

I can also back this up with family and friends that I know........we have many Catholic relatives. . We do our family's tax returns for free. It's quite noticeable that while they go to mass, they maybe put 5 or 10 in the plate every week. That doesn't add up to much in a year and that's what we're going on. We have a few Adventists and in EVERY case they give the most, usually more than 10% of their yearly income. We have MORE Catholics than Adventists (we live in the NE) and we've seen very little in Charitable donations coming from them.

Honestly, every Mass I've ever been to, people put cash in the basket--so unless they are going up and asking for a receipt afterwards, they wouldn't be counting it on their taxes

I don't doubt this. You have alot of people that go to Mass. But that's not a very good barometer to go by. If they all put in 5-10 a week it may look like alot when the plate goes by, but is not a good way to measure because you have no idea these individual incomes.

I would venture to say that MOST if not basically ALL people are scrounging around looking for as many deductions as they can to cut their tax liability. So, I would say it's not reasonable to EXPECT that people aren't going to list their contributions.

I don't deduct my charitable contributions. It seems to take the away from the act. If I help a person or a charity, it's because I can and I want to help, not for a tax break. I know people that give only to reduce their tax burden, my former boss was one. Does that make them better people? There are also the people who give just to look like big shots.

First, it's not a fact--it is your observation. You would require a much greater sample for it to be a fact.

Second, I have no plans to make you privy to my financial condition. It's none of your business--and it is really not relevant to this conversation. That said, I agree with Loca that not everyone deducts charitable contributions. I'd also add that not everyone makes monetary contributions--is volunteering your time less valuable than writing a check?

Please don't take the fact that I'm not going to tell you what percetanage of my salary I donate to mean that I do nothing--rather it means I don't feel the need to defend myself. Those who I help, both charitable organizations and individuals, are more than aware and they are the only ones that matter.

But a question for you, does it make you feel better to imply that you are more generous than I am? or than all Catholics are?

well it's a fact based on 20 years of research with clients coming and going. If you doubt me, then check with your local CPA and ask him/her. That's unbiased right?



how many would I need?



but that's not what we're talking about. You don't deduct time spend doing good deeds on your tax return. From a Christian POV I'd say both are what would please God. It's all his anyhow. We're just giving him back a portion of what he's already given us. We can't outgive God. The more we give the more he blesses us whether it's financial or serving.



Did I imply that? Where? How so? I'm not an Adventist either. Personally I don't mind saying that I could give more than I do. If you are asking.... I think I don't give enough. I would certainly not be the first beating my chest, saying "look how good I am."

usually people who say this....please don't take this wrong...I said usually...but they don't really give enough for it to be an issue. I agree with you to some extent tho because we've done this as well. While we give by check mostly, we also occasionally dump cash into the plate and we don't worry about it. But the IRS has come out with even tougher rules this year regarding this issue. In the past you could declare cash to a certain degree but now they want even cash verified. Our church treasurer just sent out notices saying if we want a deduction we need to put it into envelopes now. Otherwise if you don't care just put in as usual.

There's nothing wrong with declaring your deductions on your tax return as far as God is concerned. It's not like you're bragging about it and it's perfectly legal. Normally speaking only you and your accountant would know anyhow. Motivation as you said, is a very big part of why we give in God's eyes. He'd rather see someone give 10 and all they could afford with the right heart attitude than those that give 10,000 for self interest only. The only instruction in the NT on giving is that God loves a cheerful giver. That's the key.

First of all, it is a fact. WWW Link

thanks Doc. I didn't even think to go via the net. I'm just going on our experience anyhow. But a question for you since I know you are more involved in the Catholic circles than I. Do you think most Catholics are liberal?

Where I live, that's what I see. Of course I'm not too far from MA and you know that is largly a Catholic state and where many of our relatives live. My in-laws were strong Catholics but I wouldn't describe them as liberal. They were more moderates in their belief system both religiously and politically. The rest in the family seem pretty liberal.

To be fair, I do have two dear friends here that are strong believers in the CC and are as conservative as I am.

I dont think you can pigeon hole Catholics by politics. As we all know, 2 of the most liberal members of congress are Catholics. And it has been my experience that our Church has a good sprinkling of liberals, but then my family is almost all conservative. When it comes to faith, to be true to it, you have to be socially liberal - but not politically. We dont look to the government to help the poor, we look to ourselves. But on other issues, we are very conservative. Birth control and abortion are the ones that spring readily to mind.

Some have ranted and raved that the Catholic church supports Saddam Hussein, but the truth is they were remaining true to their core beliefs. They do not support the death penalty. I doubt many if any Catholics liked Saddam, but they did speak out against his sentence. In that respect, they are like believers in Free speech. While we may abhor the Nazis and racists that use it to preach their hate, we know that we must defend their right to say it because of our belief in the principal.

For tax purposes it doesn't matter how little it is. If I go make a donation at goodwill, I don't get a receipt. If I hand over $5 to a homeless person, I don't write it down and I couldn't prove it anyway. I'm not saying that I'm a high dollar giver. I do what I can and I could do more. I really feel better helping individuals than organizations. I do give the shoeboxes for Samaritan's purse each year at Christmas. I give to a Catholic mission in Juarez Mexico but they prefer donated items over cash because the government there is so corrupt that the cash never gets to where it's supposed to be. I purchase extra school supplies to donate to the stuff the bus each year. I donate snacks for VBS. I give money to the K of C, the Salvation Army, Shriners, schools, sports teams etc. when they are doing fundraisers at the store. When I do go to church, and I don't go every week, I put cash in the basket. I give. But someone like you could look at my tax return and lump me into the group that doesn't give and that's just not accurate. Any of the indvidual contributions are not high dollar but they do add up over the course of a year. I don't know how much you have to give for it to be an issue $100? $1000? $10,000?

A fact is that Catholic Person X gave less than Protestant Person Y. A theory is that based on that fact Catholics give less than Protestants. The second sentence is not a fact--it is a theory. In social science (which this is) many scientific philosophers would argue that what we call "facts" are not objective and are theory-laden. Am I being pendantic? Possibly.

If you read the article, it was not talking about person X and Y. It was talking averages. That is taking total collections and dividing by the number of parishioners. And it is not even close. I am Catholic as all here know. But I am not a denier when it comes to the less than pretty parts of my faith, or my Church.

I am sure that you can find a Person X who is Catholic that gave a lot more to the church than any Protestant ever did (and I happen to know one like that). But that is the exception, and as you previously alleged, anecdotal.

I do give the shoeboxes for Samaritan's purse each year at Christmas.

oh I love to do these boxes every year. It's not only helpful but it's fun to do. It sounds to me like you're a very giving person. We should give as we are asked or how God puts people into our lives. I do try to make sure it's really going to the people tho as much as I can as well. Too much corruption out there.

Loca, all I can say is.... think of it this way. Try to keep track this year and deduct it on your return, and then you will have more to give next year because you're not giving it to the government. The government already gets their fair share. This way you can pick who to give it to instead of most likely lining some politician's pocket. Thanks Doc for your answer.

Dr. Guy--I think we are talking about two different things. Your article might be fact, I don't know--I haven't had time to read it. My point was that what KFC said wasn't a fact. If the first 600 cats I see are all brown--that doesn't mean that all cats are brown, right? By the same token if 600 Adventist give more than 600 Catholics, that doesn't mean that all Adventist give more than Catholics. That's what I was trying to get at.

I'm reading a book on the philopshy of science right now--I think it's influencing my thought process.

It was a fact. However the method of arrival at the fact was not scientific.

A closer analogy would be that since I am warmer on sunny days than cloudy ones, I conclude the sun is hot. Hardly a scientific reasoning, but the conclusion is correct.

shades: you're implying that your standard of 'fact' would ever be possible. It wouldn't. At the level of certainty you're asking for there would be very few facts.

Well let's look at what I said first: I said this:



As you should be able to see I was talking about what we see in our office. It's very clear that one group are better givers than another EVERY time. That's why it wasn't even debateable. I'd go even further than that and dare say that the few Adventists we have probably give more collectively than the MANY Catholics we do collectively.

Now while I was speaking locally, It would not be a stretch for me to believe this would most likely be a universal principle as well, certainly after Doc pulled up his site. But also, keeping Doc's site in mind....that was dated 1993. After 2000 the CC had and still has major contribution problems due to the church scandal and it's been widely reported that giving had gone down drastically. So it's probably even more than a gap than it was in that 1993 site's findings.

As far as 600 Brown Cats go, what about the law of averages? Doesn't that come into play? Obviously if only 600 Adventists came in, I wouldn't be able to come up with my point.

Really? I disagree.

If an inductive reference from the observations is justified, it should meet three criteria:

1. The number of observations forming the generalization must be large
2. The observation must be made under a variety of conditions
3. No accepted observation statement should conflict with the "derived law" (or universal principle)

I would say that numbers 1 and 2 are the most important, and that two is missing in this case. You have a small sample from one tax office in one state of the US. Not a variety of conditions. I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that KFCs observations may not lead to the "fact" that Catholics give less.

It is possible to arrive at a false conclusion based on true observations. Take the story of the turkey often credited to Bertrand Russell. The turkey is feed at 9am. As days go by, each morning, the turkey is fed at the same time. The turkey concludes that each day he will be fed at the same time. However, on Christmas Eve, the turkey is killed. The turkey's conclusion (that he will be fed at 9am every day) is a false conclusion that was based on true observations.

All that said, KFC, I apologize for the extremely off topic hijack. If anyone is interested in this philosophy of science stuff, I'm reading "What is this Thing called Science" by A. F. Chalmers. It's interesting--if dense.

PS. KFC-I'm sure the law of averages comes in somewhere, but I haven't reached that chapter yet. I'll have to get back to you.

It depends on whether you are taking a random sample or not. If you are in an area that only has brown cats, obviously all cats are brown. Taking a random sample of 600, if you find the sample average to show all cats are brown, you can consider that all cats in the population are brown, statistically speaking. Of course there are variances given sample standard error from x-bar (sample average, a known variable) and mu (population average, an unknown variable), but ultimately, if taking a random sample it is very fair to extrapolate "facts" considering the confidence interval.

n=1000 is considered a strong sample size (where n = sample size), where x-bar is close to mu.
n=600 is considerably smaller, but still large enough that x-bar (sample mean) is representative of mu (population average). This is more useful if using a confidence interval, but with a significant sample average, even 600, the confidence interval at say 95% is fairly specific.

LW--You're making me blush--but I sincerely appreciate the kind words. I just wish I really did have "inner peace"--but I'm working on it...




Again--discussing a point that is tangential to the article.

Statistics are all well and good, but I would argue that it is not logical to derive facts from observation statements in order to make universal principles. Does it happen? Yes. Does that make it completely accurate? Of course not.

You may be able to use induction to get from a series of observations to a universal principle; however I would still argue that the observation would need to be made over a variety of conditions and it wasn't in this case. The scope was too narrow to declare that it is a fact that Catholics give less than Adventists.