K Warner - no matter what great guy

[ramsanddodgers]

At risk of showing my nerdy CPA side..........the recepient doesn't pay the gift tax, the donor does. In fact, for every recepient a donor gives more than $10,000 in a calendar year, a gift tax return must be filed by the donor (ie. the Harpo Corp. has to file a Form 709 Gift Tax Return for every one of those women that gets a car from Oprah). However, each recepient has a lifetime exclusion of $1 million from each donor. So over her lifetime a recepient can receive $999,999 from Oprah before the first dollar of tax is collected.

Quite interesting, thank you! Obviously I have never been the donor nor the recipient of anything big enough to tax...lol

I suppose that the people who win stuff on game shows are paying taxes as income and not gifts then?

I had heard what I related about taxes on Oprah's cars on the radio, so somebody just was attempting to smear Oprah then, possibly. Either that or uninformed as I was.

[HUbison]

Quite interesting, thank you! Obviously I have never been the donor nor the recipient of anything big enough to tax...lol

You and me both, brother.

I suppose that the people who win stuff on game shows are paying taxes as income and not gifts then?

You're right. People can give you the world and you'll never pay a dime of tax. But if you guess the right letter or know the price of a box of mac & cheese or pick the right briefcase carrying model...........you'll get a whale of a Form 1099 to pay taxes on.

I had heard what I related about taxes on Oprah's cars on the radio, so somebody just was attempting to smear Oprah then, possibly. Either that or uninformed as I was.

Unless the ticket holders to that show WON the ticket somehow and KNEW they were getting a major prize, I'd say the story just came from an uninformed source. However, all the tax knowledge that flows through my mind takes up space where important things like "where did I put my keys" and "what's my 3rd child's name" should go.

So what you call uninformed I called blessed.

[AvengerRam]

But mission accomplished, AV. You've easily established yourself as the antithesis to what Warner and his family were apparently trying to accomplish. They were trying to brighten someone's day just for the sake of it and you seem to have accomplished just the opposite. You say you're teaching your kids these attitudes?

If you really can't give a guy like Warner the benefit of doubt then your judgment and character assessment skills are questionable at best.

You'll never see anyone's point of view but your own, Mok, as you view Kurt as nothing short of a Saint. As a result of your clouded perception (and your general dislike for me), you simply fail to read my words.

Yes, Kurt buying dinner for someone is nice.

But when he tells a reporter about it, he's serving himself, period.

You seem to think that I have no right to form any negative opinion about Kurt Warner. And yet, you feel you can judge me. I'm sure that inconsistency escapes you.

[Rampingitup]

I really tried to stay as out of this and above board as possible. But Av, I lose more respect for you with each reply you post about this.

His coming out about this to a reporter can be a way of making a point to a LOT of other people about the positives of "paying it forward." You do something nice for someone and they do it for someone else. Without hiring a PI how can you KNOW that someone needs something? So you randomly do something nice. It doesn't always have to be something big. "Gee, you are losing your house? Let me pay it off for you." Nor does doing something nice have to be charity. "Yes, I know you can afford dinner. But, let me pick up the check this time."

Kurt could just be showing his kids, random acts of kindness bring their own rewards.

And as for the charity having to be completely and totally anonymous. How would "you" do that? Pick an address at random and just send a money order to those people? You might have just sent your money to a drug dealer. Give to an established charity? How do you know your money really went to a needy family? The news is repleat with executives of charities abusing their authority, or wasting funds.

And finally as for letting people know. He IS a celebrity of sorts. And people DO look up to him as an example. When they see and hear that he is doing random acts of kindness it serves as an example to emulate. Is he a saint? No. Is he human? Of course he is. But that does not lessen the positive effect of his actions. Unless folks like you slam him down and start spouting unfounded accusations about his motives. And to be honest, I have yet to see you post a single positive message to anything, about anyone, on this entire forum. One would question your motives.

[atcchris]

You seem to think that I have no right to form any negative opinion about Kurt Warner. And yet, you feel you can judge me. I'm sure that inconsistency escapes you.

You didn't witness the event which gave rise to your judgement; we DID witness the event which gave rise to our judgement.

There is a difference.

[AvengerRam]

You didn't witness the event which gave rise to your judgement; we DID witness the event which gave rise to our judgement.

There is a difference.

I didn't witness the fact that there is a N.Y. Times article that contains Kurt's quotes about what he does at restaurants?

Sorry, you have no point here.

[AvengerRam]

And as for the charity having to be completely and totally anonymous. How would "you" do that?

Simple. Do something nice and then don't mention it to reporters.

And finally as for letting people know. He IS a celebrity of sorts. And people DO look up to him as an example. When they see and hear that he is doing random acts of kindness it serves as an example to emulate.

I agree with that when he does things that most people CAN emulate. But throwing money around is not something that most people can do.

[atcchris]

I didn't witness the fact that there is a N.Y. Times article that contains Kurt's quotes about what he does at restaurants?

ALL you know is that there is an article. You inferred greatly from it. You did not witness the behavior in which you believe Warner engaged. Therefore, the judgement you are making on it is based on inferrence and supposition rather than you seeing it for yourself. It relies on much which is NOT known, rather "suspected".

We, however, ARE witness to your behavior. We have seen the words you have typed, and we can, therefore, rightfully hold you accountable for them.

Sorry, you have no point here.

I think others can be a better "judge" of that.

[Rampingitup]

I still think you are missing the point and denigrating the man. It doesn't have to be about money. What he did involved money, but the principle he was teaching and the point he was making was not about money. He did something nice for someone he did not know, randomly. He may have told a reporter about the kinds of things he does, but he did not tell the reporter the name of the family, which he did not know. And if he hadn't told the reporter, as you insist, it would have been your "true act of charity" but then it is not an example to others, since we would not know about it.

It is much like receiving an award or medal. If I receive an award for my poetry it is not completely about me, my poetry, and my talent, as much as it is also an example to others about the art, what can be done with it, and that they can aspire to do that as well.

Kurt did a random act of kindness as an example to his kids. He then told a reporter, not necessarily about that one single act, but that it is something he does regularly. That then becomes an example to others, like us. He doesn't tell a reporter then none of us have the benefit of the example.

He does a lot of other charity work, like a lot of other celebrities, and we rarely hear about all of it. But the parts we do hear about can be an inspiration.

Acknowledge the good and stop trying to diminish the effect by assigning motives you have no evidence for.

This is also my last word on this subject. Av, you can't, or won't see our point, and you don't think we see or understand yours. I do see yours, but don't agree with it and think you are maligning a good man. I am willing to discuss things but not argue. And at this point this has stopped being a discussion.

[AvengerRam]

ALL you know is that there is an article.

Which tells me that Kurt told a reporter about this.

You did not witness the behavior in which you believe Warner engaged.

So what? I'm not criticizing his decision to buy someone dinner. I'm criticizing his decision to publicize it by telling a reporter. There's no dispute that he did that.

We, however, ARE witness to your behavior. We have seen the words you have typed, and we can, therefore, rightfully hold you accountable for them.

Do you always refer to yourself with a first-person plural pronoun? If so, you might want to see someone about that.

[AvengerRam]

I do see yours, but don't agree with it and think you are maligning a good man.

And, contrary to what you think, I see yours. I just don't agree with it and think many of you are over-hyping a good man who also likes publicity.

[BernieM]

I have reason to believe that Kurt is actually experiencing financial difficulties.

I saw him in a restaurant recently and said, "Hey, Kurt, how about you pay for my dinner tonight."

Kurt responded that he could not afford to feed me.

[atcchris]

Which tells me that Kurt told a reporter about this.

Not necessarily. And even if he did, you don't know who brought it up, if the reporter heard about it then put him on the spot or whatever. You know nothing about i.

So what? I'm not criticizing his decision to buy someone dinner. I'm criticizing his decision to publicize it by telling a reporter. There's no dispute that he did that.

You jump to that conclusion. You INFER that, you do not know that. There IS dispute.

Do you always refer to yourself with a first-person plural pronoun? If so, you might want to see someone about that.

This is a message board and not a PM. You are showing yourself to us, and that IS plural.

[AvengerRam]

What are you talking about? Warner told the reporter. That is not my inference, that's a fact. He was interviewed, and he told her about it. She quotes him. Read the article.

Seriously, Chris... this is why I don't like discussing things with you. Its one thing to have differing opinions. That's fine. But you refuse to acknowledge simple facts, and that makes the discussion pointless.

[moklerman]

He's been doing this for 8 years, AV. It isn't a publicity stunt or self serving. You're just wrong. You contend that it's charity which makes the act tainted but it isn't charity. It's generosity.

Whether you realize it or not, you're essentially putting Warner in the same class as T.O. and Rosenhaus.

Rather than taking the story about Warner at face value and recognizing a kind act, you've set yourself up as the authority on who, what and how generosity should be offered. The fact that Warner didn't choose to hide it or keep it a secret is somehow a deceitful act in your eyes.

What did you do this Thanksgiving?
Oh, I went down to the homeless shelter to help out.
Good for you, you glory seeking, attention *****.
But, you asked me--
Screw you, you just went down there for the attention.

EDIT: Man, I hate this mother-fluffy, bullship, cork-sucking P.C. world. How is wh-re an unreadable word?