I am sure. And those people get a $1,000 tax credit for having a child. Romney gets a $77,000 tax credit for having a horse. That's money they are not paying into US taxes for their vast wealth, a tax break unavailable to most of us, and a prime example of welfare for the rich.
"The New York Times report led Matt Yglesias and some others to conclude, mistakenly, that the Romneys had taken a tax deduction for the full amount of their loss. That’s not actually true. An excerpt from Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax return showing their declared loss for “Rob Rom Enterprises LLC”—the legal entity through which the Romneys and the Ebelings co-own Rafalca. When taxpayers report a loss, they aren’t always able to take a deduction for it. The Romney’s 2010 tax return (above) shows that the lion’s share of the $77,731 “Rob Rom Enterprises” loss was, in the parlance of the tax code, “disallowed.” That is, it wasn’t eligible for a deduction in the 2010 tax year. The Romneys’ actual “allowable loss”—the part that could be used for a deduction that year—was $50 (only 0.06% of the total declared loss)." Everyone can declare a loss on a business, not just the rich.
Not only are people getting paid to provide the therapy, all you have to do is look at the sponsor page for PATH or any therapeutic riding center and you will see that the biggest $$ providers are "evil corporate entities" and wealthy individuals. It isn't the poor 90% with no tax breaks who are donating, other than perhaps time (which is extremely valuable). The people being served at these centers are almost always part of that same 90%.
Where we lived in Florida before moving to New York, we supported a riding center through our church and also the kids riding lessons. The page is attached showing the variety of sponsors. The therapy sessions are free as uscvball inferred. http://havenhorseranch.org/sponsors.html
Yes. Most people are inclined to help their fellow man if they can. Rich people are better able to help than poor people. Have you ever heard of a poor philanthropist?
Even with tax incentives the rich don't contribute enough to compensate for the loss of public dollars for most charitable endeavors. Moreover they get to donate personally only to the charities they prefer, they buy influence upon that charity, and they gain philanthropic brownie point that they can use for political advantage.
I was once a believer in term limits because it keeps 30-year legislators from amassing such power. But after term limits were installed in Louisiana, I have changed my mind. What it has gotten us is a legislature full of short-timers with a short-sighted agenda. They have few concerns for long-term impacts and consequences. They only care about getting re-elected in their first term and only care about what pork they can bring home in their second. The long-term planning has gone by the wayside to our great detriment. They push problems down the road so that it someone else problem. They rob profits from trust funds and pensions because they won't be around when the bills come due and that money is needed. We need a system that doesn't limit somebody's term, so that we get representatives with a long-term agenda. Best to limit how much political power that seniority bestows on those who stay a really long time. A balance point must be found.
Both parties representatives are more concerned committee appointments and being a Washington insider than working for the good of the country. The term limits I would like to see is 16 total years in DC, with an exception if you get elected President for the last four and then you can run again as you avoid being a lame duck right away.
