If you donate too much, you are EVIL

on Apr 23, 2006

No, they weren't able to pin him down on conflict of interest because he took the steps to prevent himself from profiting by accepting the deferred pre-scheduled payments and giving all his after-tax profits to charity. Kudos to him for doing it, but he would be in deep trouble if he hadn't. Therefore, lauding him for his charitable nature doesn't ring true.

Fine! Give him a ho-hum! But since he did the right thing, why crucify him? That is what this article is about. Please re-read it as you seemed to have lost that message in all this rhetoric.

47

bakerstreet

on Apr 23, 2006

The article equates it with a "noble deed". Donating money when you don't have to is a "noble deed". He wanted to be VP and the charity was the price he paid to stay out of trouble. Had he not, it would have been scandalous, if not patently illegal.

Perhaps we've gotten to the point that anyone who keeps themselves out of trouble is "noble". For me "noble" is something a bit more.

48

lifehappens

on Apr 24, 2006

No, they weren't able to pin him down on conflict of interest because he took the steps to prevent himself from profiting by accepting the deferred pre-scheduled payments and giving all his after-tax profits to charity. Kudos to him for doing it, but he would be in deep trouble if he hadn't. Therefore, lauding him for his charitable nature doesn't ring true.

Let me get this right. He knew he was planning on running for office when he reicieved the stock options. Foreseeing a possible conflict of interest, he chose to set it up so the profits would go to charity (as opposed to a tax-shelter etcetc) In addition, he donated more of his own money to charity...grand total being a whopping 77% Which he can comfortably live without.

Well, heck, if we are going to whine about him, why not add that he didnt' donate ENOUGH? Yeah, he should have given till it hurt and he couldnt' afford the lifestyle he is living. Shame on him for not giving ALL of it away. He should have been wracked by guilt that HIS company was making money by doing a job. Shame on him. He is so selfish for not giving more......

Oh wait, how much did everyone else give?

Donating money when you don't have to is a "noble deed". He wanted to be VP and the charity was the price he paid to stay out of trouble. Had he not, it would have been scandalous, if not patently illegal.Perhaps we've gotten to the point that anyone who keeps themselves out of trouble is "noble". For me "noble" is something a bit more.

Scandal isn't a barrier to presidency....Slick Willie proved that. and "noble"? remember this was all a choice that he made. Cheney CHOSE to donate to a charity instead of other options. While donating while knowing that 1-it will give you distance from a scandal (which it didn't) and 2-will possibly give you cool points (which apparently it didn't), could be seen through less positive eyes, it is still donating money to others.

I'd rathar have this than listen to the liberal media demand I donate more and more money to Katrina, while they consider thier presence donation enough.

49

Dr Guy

on Apr 24, 2006

The article equates it with a "noble deed". Donating money when you don't have to is a "noble deed". He wanted to be VP and the charity was the price he paid to stay out of trouble. Had he not, it would have been scandalous, if not patently illegal.

He did not have to. There was no law saying he had to. He made a promise and he kept it. That is the noble deed.

50

Dr Guy

on Apr 24, 2006

I'd rathar have this than listen to the liberal media demand I donate more and more money to Katrina, while they consider thier presence donation enough.

Apparently the sticking point for many is the term "Noble Deed". IN retrospect, I should have gone PC and liberal and not used a descriptive term so everyone could have jumped on the 'lynch Cheney' bandwagon. But alas, when people do good things, I like to give them an attaboy, not a hot poker up the rear. I seem to be in a minority.

51

Tova7

on Apr 24, 2006

So if he gave 77% to charity.....how much will he get off on his taxes I wonder?

52

drmiler

on Apr 24, 2006

So if he gave 77% to charity.....how much will he get off on his taxes I wonder?

Yeah but you're forgetting something important here. He'd already paid the taxes on that 77% "before" he gave it to charity. So "any" money he got off on his taxes off-set by the money he paid in taxes on the 77%. Which is money he doesn't get to see.

53

Tova7

on Apr 24, 2006

Yeah but you're forgetting something important here. He'd already paid the taxes on that 77% "before" he gave it to charity. So "any" money he got off on his taxes off-set by the money he paid in taxes on the 77%. Which is money he doesn't get to see.

Buwhahaha.

Huh?

I know when we deduct for charity it lowers our tax bracket overall...so say for easiness that we gave $10,000 to charity. We paid taxes of $2200 on it. (Random numbers here).

When we go to file our income tax return, that $10,000 right off the top lowers our total yearly income and we pay less taxes on the rest of our money. Which saves us well over $2200.

Now that is about the extent of any tax knowledge I have...and that only by hearing. I don't do our taxes, but I am present when they are reviewed and I must sign.

Of course I wouldn't know anything about taxes on millions of dollars.

54

Dr Guy

on Apr 24, 2006

So if he gave 77% to charity.....how much will he get off on his taxes I wonder?

It is a net zero sum game because of the tax law change. If the laws had not been changed, he would have owed taxes on money he did not keep.

55

Dr Guy

on Apr 24, 2006

Yeah but you're forgetting something important here. He'd already paid the taxes on that 77% "before" he gave it to charity. So "any" money he got off on his taxes off-set by the money he paid in taxes on the 77%. Which is money he doesn't get to see.

Yea, What Doc said!

56

Dr Guy

on Apr 24, 2006

I know when we deduct for charity it lowers our tax bracket overall...so say for easiness that we gave $10,000 to charity. We paid taxes of $2200 on it. (Random numbers here).

When we go to file our income tax return, that $10,000 right off the top lowers our total yearly income and we pay less taxes on the rest of our money. Which saves us well over $2200.

Now that is about the extent of any tax knowledge I have...and that only by hearing. I don't do our taxes, but I am present when they are reviewed and I must sign.

Of course I wouldn't know anything about taxes on millions of dollars.

Look at it this way. You earn $1m. You pay $300k in taxes. Then you file your return. You donate the $1m. so you deduct $1 on your return. Net effect. 0 in taxes and 0 in income.

Charitable contributions are deductions, not credits. you do not get make out, and in the end you really only lose because most people dont donate 100%. So you donate $1000, you save maybe $300 intaxes. You still donated more than you got.

57

drmiler

on Apr 24, 2006

Buwhahaha.

Huh?

I know when we deduct for charity it lowers our tax bracket overall...so say for easiness that we gave $10,000 to charity. We paid taxes of $2200 on it. (Random numbers here).

When we go to file our income tax return, that $10,000 right off the top lowers our total yearly income and we pay less taxes on the rest of our money. Which saves us well over $2200.

Ha ha nothing. You seem to forget "before" you get that money, taxes MUST be paid on the sum. If you don't understand that just take a look at your paycheck. See where the government took "their" share? And that's before you file your taxes. There's no getting around that. Uncle Sam takes his bite off the top. And just an fyi....I do my own taxes!

58

Dr Guy

on Apr 24, 2006

....I do my own taxes!

KFC can help.

59

Tova7

on Apr 24, 2006

There's no getting around that. Uncle Sam takes his bite off the top.

Ain't that the truth.

And just an fyi....I do my own taxes!

So we should expect you to be posting from the federal pen soon?

60

Tova7

on Apr 24, 2006

Look at it this way. You earn $1m. You pay $300k in taxes. Then you file your return. You donate the $1m. so you deduct $1 on your return. Net effect. 0 in taxes and 0 in income.

Charitable contributions are deductions, not credits. you do not get make out, and in the end you really only lose because most people dont donate 100%. So you donate $1000, you save maybe $300 intaxes. You still donated more than you got.

Yeah what you said.

HAHAHA

I didn't even know the law changed but then why would I? I don't do our taxes, too many deductions and business stuff my husband has to do it.