why are the religious right? (Page 4)

There is actually a very nice income chart on wikipedia (it must be true!) that breaks it down by percentile.

I agree both sides are playing the game, hence I don't vote for either. I in fact have regularly said there is almost no difference between the two sides. This thread is about the religious right though, so I'm picking on them.

Just seeing this thread now and reading through.. it's gone a bit off track from what i was going to remark on back on page 1.  concerning tithing.  But maybe it will help the person's questions on the first page.

The church I'm a part of is considered a mega church.  I think our main campus has slipped out of the top ten this year though. But we are definately big. 10,000+ atttendence on weekend's.

   I bring this up since tithing is always a big topic both to people in the church and those outside it.  While many church's will quote the passage of bringing the first 10% of your income as a tithe, it very rarely happens.  I don't have this years numbers but I'm pretty sure the pattern is constistant from years past in that apx 15-20% of the church members actual do tithe on a regular basis.   then there are the ones that are considered semi regular, will donate a few months in a row, stopped, then start up again.  There are many that attend but don't give at all.   From the conversation's I"ve had with other church's it's pretty constistant at their church's also.  

the nice thing that ours does, and i'm sure others do. is they show you where that money is going and the results it has achieve. We get to see what the church's budget is for things, and where our money goes.  we are allowed to have a say in where our money also goes, a general fund. or one that is set up for specific goals.

 this nice part is pure bragging, but an example.  We support many ophanigize in Haiti still,  rebuilding, and providing meals.  We have "Mission trips" set up on a regular basis so people can go help with if they so choose.  Just resently we found out that we are now the largest provider of meals in Haiti and use local people, equiptment, supplies to provide it. Not meals brought in from outside the county.  Not any government agency, or celebrity endorsed program.  just a church in the Dallas/Ft Worth area that members decide to do something and have a continual presence there.

Since this is a much smaller scale than the government we can see where are money is going, & how it's being used.  Which is not something that happens when we (all of us) pay taxes regardless of which side polictially is taxing us. And like my example, even  devout church goers can decide not to tithe.  Where a tax, there really is no choice.

You mean this wiki chart? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

My problem is I don't think the left wants to help the poor either, they only want to help the poor with other people's money.

Additionally you cannot "wipe out" poverty if you keep ratcheting up the metric below which one is considered poor.

That's the chart! I also believe both parties are trying to carry us all into the poor house. If this thread was called the Religious Left I would have gone off on that too.

I know that.  Its just that being older than most here, I haven't voted Democrat in a very long time for reasons spanning decades.  That incident just happened to be the most recent reason for me.  The Democrat party of today resembles nothing of the party of my youth on a myriad of issues, including faith.

i assuming neither of you plan to ever collect Social Security or use Medicare.

Those are programs the Democrats brought about and Republicans fought tooth and nail.

That chart is from 2003 and still puts the 48th percentile at 42K.  I am sure that has gone down over the past few years as the median household income has fallen.

The thing is Charity comes from the individual, when it is coerced by the state it is no longer charity.  We need to have a rational discussion about what are rational expectations of standards of living and expectations for government services, including safety nets.  I am with you that neither side is willing to have that discussion in an honest and frank, aka no spin, discussion.  I do not lay the blame for that on either party I lay the blame for that on the people right and left.

I have never felt constrained by the title of a thread. 

From a purely mathematical perspective, doesn't the poverty line have to move in conjunction with the cost of those things considered essential in a modern society?

Also, are there separate poverty lines for individuals vs. families?

Finally, and semantically, it is incorrect to say that 47% of people don't pay taxes.  It is only correct to say that some percentage of people (I don't know if it's actually 47%) don't pay federal income taxes.

From an inflation standpoint yes from a standard of living standpoint not really no.  housing food and clothing are housing food and clothing, yes you need to adjust for inflation but you do not need to add housing, food, clothes, smartphone.

The poverty line is set generally at a number for a family of 4 then divided or multiplied by the appropriate #

That has been beaten to death at this point and for most when one says taxes one means income taxes, the only tax you have to file a tax return for so that you may or may not get some back at the end of the year.  If we put all the qualifiers on every single statement then a simple 3 line statement becomes half a page.

The majority of people who pay no federal tax do so because of tax policy changes that the Bush administration put in place.  If you make choices deemed "beneficial" to society, there are a lot of breaks in place,

For example, I haven't paid federal taxes in a while, if not ever.  In the years since 2008, I receive a bigger "refund" than I paid in via paycheck withholdings.  More than 2/3rds of American tax filers (so those that file singe and those that file married/H.O.H) make less than I do, yet because my wife is a college student and I have a kid, the rate cuts that Bush put in place plus the policies of Clinton (Lifetime Learning Credit) make it so I pay nothing.

While using the word "smartphone" conjures up a picture of someone living capriciously on the government dole, I think at some level there is a question of whether simply existing at a subsistence level allows a family to make any strides towards rising out of the depths of poverty (which appears to be what lots of people posting here and otherwise argue is a reasonable expectation of return on their investment). 

The topic of smartphones/computers/internet, etc., is a good example.  I think it can be argued that connectivity of a digital nature is becoming more and more necessary to successfully navigate the waters of 21st century America from both a business and consumer perspective.

Would you die without it?  Of course not.   But, my smartphone costs less per month than a newspaper subscription, a landline, an an internet connection would, and serves the purpose of all three (pretty useful in looking for a job).

Until federal income tax becomes the sole source of revenue for the social programs that are under discussion here, then it remains relevant that many people pay into those other sources of revenue (and thus aren't receiving something for nothing) even if they don't pay federal income taxes.

(raising my hand...) if they stop the witholding from my paycheck for these programs I would gladly sign a waiver that I can't collect...and while you're at it, refund me what I've already paid in (and will probably never see again anyway if Congress can't get their head out of their butt)....I can do a better job of investing the money and providing for myself

To which social programs are you referring?  If you mean SS and Medicare most people will get back everything they have paid into the system, plus inflation adjustment, plus interest, and them some.  If you are talking about the myriad of "social welfare" programs those come out of income tax.  Those are the programs under discussion as far as I know, the "social welfare" ones.  The other two need to be reformed yes but then I have never heard anyone say there should be no safety net in either realm.  The question is what standard of living is considered safety net.

Ditto!

I would even be willing to go back to what SS was originally meant for, a safety net for the poorest of the elderly but that is in exchange for a serious reduction of the rate.

Sorry, my comment was a total hijack.

Original OP was talking about faith. 

But it is in large part republican policies that have reduced tax rates (such as the Bush tax cuts) and added tax credits (such as the earned income credit and child tax credits, though they've been abetted by democrats here) to allow a larger # of poor people to not pay federal income taxes.  Something like 1/2 of the 46% are retirees, veterans, disabled, on SS who would not be expected to pay federal taxes anyway.  But add in a giant recession and lowered incomes and you have a lot of people who are now making a low enough income that they can use the tax credits to get below their lowered tax rate and pay no federal income taxes.  I agree the big republican criticism is that there are so many people with no skin in the game but it's ironic that republican policies played such a large role in making it that way.