tithing

Why Does Mitt Cheat His Country But Not His Church?

As tax day approaches, the presidential campaign has looked like this: 1) Buffet rule. 2) Mitt’s taxes 3) Who gives to charity.

In an attempt to shift focus away from Mitt’s efforts to make sure other rich people like him don’t have to pay taxes, John Sununu suggested that Obama and Biden don’t give enough to charity.

When Joe Biden went to New Hampshire on Thursday to attack Mitt Romney’s tax proposals, the Romney campaign greeted Biden by attacking President Barack Obama’s charitable giving rate. On a campaign conference call with reporters, former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, a Romney backer, said the following:

In their own private lives, it would be nice to see some contributions to charity that are significant out of President Obama and Joe Biden. I think it is an interesting contrast to make with the presidential candidate the Republicans have now put together a nomination for, that is Mitt Romney, former Governor Romney, who gave almost 15% of his income last year to charity.

In response, the White House has released the Obamas’ taxes, showing they donated 22% of their income, a higher percentage than they paid in taxes.

I expect we’ll dwell on this for a while, but the entire tax versus charity debate ignores one thing: 10% of Mitt’s money, by Mormon Church rule, goes to the Church. The only debate (and it is a big debate in some quarters) is whether that 10% is pre- or post-tax. So when Sununu boasts that 15% of Mitt’s income goes to charity, what he really means is Mitt gives 5% after paying the amount required to pay by his Church.

All that got me thinking. Why is it that Mitt cheats his country but not his Church? Continue reading

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @chinahand And American-style dick waving always works so well with Chinese officials playing a long game.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @KailiJoy Who's saying the opposite? They're saying the now-50+ year old kid should have sued in public?
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij What it does INSTEAD of saying, "FISC was wrong" is say "you need an SST to narrow bulk for this law," but doesn't say how far.
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij Congress had never knowingly bought off on that definition before. This bill doesn't redefine the term, thereby leaving in place
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij The "bulk" is tied to the definition of "relevant to," which bill doesn't touch, and therefore ratifies as FISC interpreted.
15mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij No. Again, the bill DOES prohibit IC-definition bulk collection on Verizon, but not (explicitly) on Western Union.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @B_Meson I don't think I'm available before. So go ahead. @pdp7 @tinleyharrier @jujueyeball
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij Right. Those are communications corporations. That says nothing abt companies like Western Union, Visa. @Krhawkins5
19mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij And again, that's all IC's definition of bulk, not ordinary human definition. @Krhawkins5
21mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij Right now selector for dragnet is "Verizon," which is bulk. That does not prohibit use of non-communications corps. @Krhawkins5
22mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij IMO (there is disagreement) it IS swiss cheese for non-comms. For comms will end IC-def bulk under FISA @normative @Krhawkins5
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @manish_vij But it's kind of wrong Q bc it accepts IC definition of bulk, which is not normal English def. @normative @Krhawkins5
28mreplyretweetfavorite
May 2015
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31