His whole argument has already been debunked.
I don't have access to Globe back issues, but it was (yet another) study from, I think, Brandeis or Babson. If you level the playing field w/r/t taxes and net income retention (red states get far more federal money back from than they contribute in taxes, and the opposite is true for blue states, so the blue states are, in effect, subsidizing the so-called red state charity), there isn't a lot of difference. --The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle. [ Parent ]
That's a stretch, man. Book is by Arthur C. Brooks, at Syracuse. Did you RTFA ?
I posted the link to rile blix in the spirit of his own self-deprecation, not argue the truth of the point. [ Parent ]
Duh. Do we have to re-educate you?[ Parent ]
red states get far more federal money back from than they contribute in taxes, and the opposite is true for blue states, so the blue states are, in effect, subsidizing the so-called red state charity
How is anything I replied to showing a grave misunderstanding of that ? You said the taxes coming back to a state "subsidize" the charitable giving. I said that's a stretch, and pointed to one way fed money comes back to the state, and tried to find any relation to how that causes joe six-pack to give more money to charity, and I still don't see what you said as holding any water.
Either restate your case, or illustrate it in better terms.[ Parent ]
It's just an old chestnut they pull out every tax season. The dust it off, put someone else's name on it, and spew it again. It's been debunked over and over. You can find it yourself.--The three things that make a diamond also make a waffle. [ Parent ]
