PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
How many "non-profits" abuse their tax status to enrich their founders?
Plenty.
Look no further than Jesse Jackson for an example.
Plenty.
Look no further than Jesse Jackson for an example.
US government nears debt limit
- Thread starter alonzomourning23
- Start date
No, I'm in the same camp as PAD, tax them all. Specifying certain [religious] groups is akin to respecting their establishment and should be unconstitutional. They should be taxed, just as I am taxed, on income. Fair is fair and all things equal under the law, right ?
It's not taxing "religion", it's the taxing of income of the business of religion. They are very different things. You can't tax god, but I don't see where it's written that we can't tax his self-appointed, so-called representatives.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ok, no law means no law. Therefore, they should not be given special priveleges. No special considerations will be made. They pay their taxes and they survive, they don't and the IRS will be knocking down their door.
The current laws clearly aid religion and are, therefore, unconstitutional.[/quote]
Bullshit. Tell me where any law requires the taxing of charitable contributions and gifts. When was the last time you paid taxes on the $5,000 your parents gave you for tuition?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's nice, but irrelevent. This is directed at individual places of worship. I'm not sure what congress has to do with it if a law were already passed. They don't decide what amount in taxes you or I pay, that's the job of the IRS. They wouldn't decide (they wouldn't have the time even if they wanted to) which ones were taxed.
And most churches would not be taxed. Most aren't rich, or bringing in excessive amounts of profit (or anything well beyond the needs). The exception is not tax free, the exception would be being taxed.[/quote]
Yeah, right, go on believing that the tax code isn't full of loopholes and special-interest giveaways. Perhaps you have never filled out a 1040.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Aren't churches a part of this country? They can't do whatever they want, they have laws they must follow. They may get exemption from certain laws, but only because of existing laws allowing such exemptions. They're not above the law.[/QUOTE]
Of course they're not above the law. But you need simply read the First Amendment to see that the intent is to keep government away from affecting religion.
The current laws clearly aid religion and are, therefore, unconstitutional.[/quote]
Bullshit. Tell me where any law requires the taxing of charitable contributions and gifts. When was the last time you paid taxes on the $5,000 your parents gave you for tuition?
[quote name='alonzomourning23']That's nice, but irrelevent. This is directed at individual places of worship. I'm not sure what congress has to do with it if a law were already passed. They don't decide what amount in taxes you or I pay, that's the job of the IRS. They wouldn't decide (they wouldn't have the time even if they wanted to) which ones were taxed.
And most churches would not be taxed. Most aren't rich, or bringing in excessive amounts of profit (or anything well beyond the needs). The exception is not tax free, the exception would be being taxed.[/quote]
Yeah, right, go on believing that the tax code isn't full of loopholes and special-interest giveaways. Perhaps you have never filled out a 1040.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Aren't churches a part of this country? They can't do whatever they want, they have laws they must follow. They may get exemption from certain laws, but only because of existing laws allowing such exemptions. They're not above the law.[/QUOTE]
Of course they're not above the law. But you need simply read the First Amendment to see that the intent is to keep government away from affecting religion.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Bullshit. Tell me where any law requires the taxing of charitable contributions and gifts. When was the last time you paid taxes on the $5,000 your parents gave you for tuition?[/quote]
Well it would be nice if my parents paid tuition, but we don't quite have the money for that.
But haven't you ever heard of a gift tax? They take about 40% from gifts. Remember when oprah gave out all those expensive cars and there was a huge problem when the recipients discovered all the tax they had to pay (though oprah eventually covered it)?
And who says all churches are truly charitable organizations? An organization can have its status as a charity revoked, when's the last time a church had its designation as a religious organization revoked? If you want to pay closer attention to charitable organization then I'm all for that, but you want to place religious ones as untouchable.
This has what to do with anything? Loopholes will be found whenever people pay taxes. Businesses find them, individuals find them, but we don't argue they shouldn't be taxed because there are loopholes.
It is? It seems the nature of that section of the first amendment is up for debate. Is it to keep government from religion? Religion from government? Or both? My guess is even when they were agreed to, you would get different reasons from different people. Honestly, I think there's little doubt that a man like thomas jefferson would be primarily concerned about protecting government and the people from religious isntitutions, especially considering his history. Here's a few quotes from thomas jefferson:
When you take into account the history of world events, of powerful, corrupt and malevolant religious institutions, why would there be universal concern for protecting religion? Some may have been concerned about that, but not all.
My point is not to argue that this is the correct or only view (I'm not making any argument in regards to that), but to argue that it was one of the views at the time.
Just because the end result is the same, that doesn't mean the same reasoning is used by all. And clearly, in light of supreme court rulings in the past 50 or so years, the concern goes beyond simply protecting religion from government, especially in modern times.
Well it would be nice if my parents paid tuition, but we don't quite have the money for that.
But haven't you ever heard of a gift tax? They take about 40% from gifts. Remember when oprah gave out all those expensive cars and there was a huge problem when the recipients discovered all the tax they had to pay (though oprah eventually covered it)?
And who says all churches are truly charitable organizations? An organization can have its status as a charity revoked, when's the last time a church had its designation as a religious organization revoked? If you want to pay closer attention to charitable organization then I'm all for that, but you want to place religious ones as untouchable.
This has what to do with anything? Loopholes will be found whenever people pay taxes. Businesses find them, individuals find them, but we don't argue they shouldn't be taxed because there are loopholes.
It is? It seems the nature of that section of the first amendment is up for debate. Is it to keep government from religion? Religion from government? Or both? My guess is even when they were agreed to, you would get different reasons from different people. Honestly, I think there's little doubt that a man like thomas jefferson would be primarily concerned about protecting government and the people from religious isntitutions, especially considering his history. Here's a few quotes from thomas jefferson:
When you take into account the history of world events, of powerful, corrupt and malevolant religious institutions, why would there be universal concern for protecting religion? Some may have been concerned about that, but not all.
My point is not to argue that this is the correct or only view (I'm not making any argument in regards to that), but to argue that it was one of the views at the time.
Just because the end result is the same, that doesn't mean the same reasoning is used by all. And clearly, in light of supreme court rulings in the past 50 or so years, the concern goes beyond simply protecting religion from government, especially in modern times.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well it would be nice if my parents paid tuition, but we don't quite have the money for that.
But haven't you ever heard of a gift tax? They take about 40% from gifts. Remember when oprah gave out all those expensive cars and there was a huge problem when the recipients discovered all the tax they had to pay (though oprah eventually covered it)?[/quote]
So you're under the impression the Red Cross and United Way pay taxes on the contributions they receive? That's just not true.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']And who says all churches are truly charitable organizations? An organization can have its status as a charity revoked, when's the last time a church had its designation as a religious organization revoked? If you want to pay closer attention to charitable organization then I'm all for that, but you want to place religious ones as untouchable.[/quote]
Churches run on money contributed to them charitably, therefore they are charitable organizations. I don't know how that could be clearer.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This has what to do with anything? Loopholes will be found whenever people pay taxes. Businesses find them, individuals find them, but we don't argue they shouldn't be taxed because there are loopholes.[/quote]
The point is when government gets involved favors will be done for certain congregations/faiths and the opposite for others, something which should alarm everyone. I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if a wealthy mosque had a heavy tax levied against it while a poor Baptist church was given welfare.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It is?[/quote]
Yes, or at least that's an important part of it. I agree another important part is to keep religion out of government.
But haven't you ever heard of a gift tax? They take about 40% from gifts. Remember when oprah gave out all those expensive cars and there was a huge problem when the recipients discovered all the tax they had to pay (though oprah eventually covered it)?[/quote]
So you're under the impression the Red Cross and United Way pay taxes on the contributions they receive? That's just not true.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']And who says all churches are truly charitable organizations? An organization can have its status as a charity revoked, when's the last time a church had its designation as a religious organization revoked? If you want to pay closer attention to charitable organization then I'm all for that, but you want to place religious ones as untouchable.[/quote]
Churches run on money contributed to them charitably, therefore they are charitable organizations. I don't know how that could be clearer.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']This has what to do with anything? Loopholes will be found whenever people pay taxes. Businesses find them, individuals find them, but we don't argue they shouldn't be taxed because there are loopholes.[/quote]
The point is when government gets involved favors will be done for certain congregations/faiths and the opposite for others, something which should alarm everyone. I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if a wealthy mosque had a heavy tax levied against it while a poor Baptist church was given welfare.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It is?[/quote]
Yes, or at least that's an important part of it. I agree another important part is to keep religion out of government.
[quote name='elprincipe']So you're under the impression the Red Cross and United Way pay taxes on the contributions they receive? That's just not true.[/QUOTE]
Reading zo's post, I don't see that at all.
[quote name='elprincipe']Churches run on money contributed to them charitably, therefore they are charitable organizations. I don't know how that could be clearer.[/QUOTE]
I think Zo's point is that if the church is really only using the money to function, then it essentially becomes a business, and therefore should be covered under regular tax law. Then of course you get into churches that are essentially political organizations, campaigning for candidates and what not.
[quote name='elprincipe']The point is when government gets involved favors will be done for certain congregations/faiths and the opposite for others, something which should alarm everyone. I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if a wealthy mosque had a heavy tax levied against it while a poor Baptist church was given welfare.[/QUOTE]
Well, you could simply say that if a church makes profit above $X amount, then they are taxed. Of course, if the money is used for charitable work, you simply use the tax laws designed for charitable organizations.
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, or at least that's an important part of it. I agree another important part is to keep religion out of government.[/QUOTE]
GROUP HUG!
Reading zo's post, I don't see that at all.
[quote name='elprincipe']Churches run on money contributed to them charitably, therefore they are charitable organizations. I don't know how that could be clearer.[/QUOTE]
I think Zo's point is that if the church is really only using the money to function, then it essentially becomes a business, and therefore should be covered under regular tax law. Then of course you get into churches that are essentially political organizations, campaigning for candidates and what not.
[quote name='elprincipe']The point is when government gets involved favors will be done for certain congregations/faiths and the opposite for others, something which should alarm everyone. I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if a wealthy mosque had a heavy tax levied against it while a poor Baptist church was given welfare.[/QUOTE]
Well, you could simply say that if a church makes profit above $X amount, then they are taxed. Of course, if the money is used for charitable work, you simply use the tax laws designed for charitable organizations.
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, or at least that's an important part of it. I agree another important part is to keep religion out of government.[/QUOTE]
GROUP HUG!
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
^^ I think alonzo can speak for himself as to what he meant.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']So you're under the impression the Red Cross and United Way pay taxes on the contributions they receive? That's just not true.[/quote]
You mentioned personal gifts, between individuals. While the example you mentioned (tuition) wouldn't count as a gift, you weren't talking about organizations like those just mentioned. They are exempt from that tax.
They are? So if someone gives me money charitably then I'm a charitable organization? It's not why its given, but what is done with it. Churches may technically be non profit organiztions, but, in reality, there are exceptions. Some organizations truly are churches, but also clearly make a profit.
Some charities are religious organizations (salvation army), but not all religious organizations are charities (the local catholic church).
I'm not sure why a church would get welfare. But if a wealthy mosque takes in money well beyond its needs then yes it should be taxed. A poor baptist church would be significantly harmed by the taxation.
]
You mentioned personal gifts, between individuals. While the example you mentioned (tuition) wouldn't count as a gift, you weren't talking about organizations like those just mentioned. They are exempt from that tax.
They are? So if someone gives me money charitably then I'm a charitable organization? It's not why its given, but what is done with it. Churches may technically be non profit organiztions, but, in reality, there are exceptions. Some organizations truly are churches, but also clearly make a profit.
Some charities are religious organizations (salvation army), but not all religious organizations are charities (the local catholic church).
I'm not sure why a church would get welfare. But if a wealthy mosque takes in money well beyond its needs then yes it should be taxed. A poor baptist church would be significantly harmed by the taxation.
]
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You mentioned personal gifts, between individuals. While the example you mentioned (tuition) wouldn't count as a gift, you weren't talking about organizations like those just mentioned. They are exempt from that tax.[/quote]
And these churches we are talking about, are they individuals or organizations? You must agree with me then.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They are? So if someone gives me money charitably then I'm a charitable organization? It's not why its given, but what is done with it. Churches may technically be non profit organiztions, but, in reality, there are exceptions. Some organizations truly are churches, but also clearly make a profit.
Some charities are religious organizations (salvation army), but not all religious organizations are charities (the local catholic church).[/quote]
Churches are run entirely on a budget of charity, therefore they are charitable organizations. I don't understand why you can't accept such a simple and obvious fact.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure why a church would get welfare. But if a wealthy mosque takes in money well beyond its needs then yes it should be taxed. A poor baptist church would be significantly harmed by the taxation.
][/QUOTE]
Thank you for finally showing your true colors in this regard. Under your system, the government supports some religious organizations while hurting others. Not only is this absolutely antithetical to everything this country has ever stood for, but I'm absolutely positive even your ACLU friends would be appalled.
Next question: shall the government give tax breaks to the KKK while putting the hurt on, say, Jerry Falwell? I wonder how deep this rabbit hole will go...
And these churches we are talking about, are they individuals or organizations? You must agree with me then.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']They are? So if someone gives me money charitably then I'm a charitable organization? It's not why its given, but what is done with it. Churches may technically be non profit organiztions, but, in reality, there are exceptions. Some organizations truly are churches, but also clearly make a profit.
Some charities are religious organizations (salvation army), but not all religious organizations are charities (the local catholic church).[/quote]
Churches are run entirely on a budget of charity, therefore they are charitable organizations. I don't understand why you can't accept such a simple and obvious fact.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not sure why a church would get welfare. But if a wealthy mosque takes in money well beyond its needs then yes it should be taxed. A poor baptist church would be significantly harmed by the taxation.
][/QUOTE]
Thank you for finally showing your true colors in this regard. Under your system, the government supports some religious organizations while hurting others. Not only is this absolutely antithetical to everything this country has ever stood for, but I'm absolutely positive even your ACLU friends would be appalled.
Next question: shall the government give tax breaks to the KKK while putting the hurt on, say, Jerry Falwell? I wonder how deep this rabbit hole will go...
Michaellvortega
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 30 (100%)
Just steal all the oil in Iraq like they stole water from earth in the movie "V" (the one with the reptile people and Freddie krugger) and say it wasn't us and that we have to pull out and how sorry we are to back out now.
[quote name='elprincipe']1. runaway entitlement spending
2. runaway defense spending
3. pork barrel crap
That is most of the federal budget. I've told people on this board before that we need to cut the government budget to 20-25% of what it is now eventually before the government becomes so big it overwhelms the people (it's getting damn big and damn close).
1. Phase out Social Security. (21.1%)
2. Phase out Medicare. (12.0%)
3. Cut defense spending (currently 17.4%)
4. Eliminate certain departments (Education being #1, let the states look to this issue)
5. Stop pork barrel spending.
There is tons that can be cut. Interest itself on the debt is 7.2% of our spending. We need to be cutting so much we run a surplus and eventually reduce that number, which is something the irresponsible Republican-majority Congress failed to do when we had the chance.[/QUOTE]
Phasing out Social Security and Medicare that are the two things that I believe we should never cut. Period. They should be embedded in the books as our constitution and amendments are, as the declaration of independence is. They are staples of our society and do a lot of good. They aren't perfect, but it is better than nothing. I would simply say to raise taxes over everybody but more for the richest 2% of Americans.
2. runaway defense spending
3. pork barrel crap
That is most of the federal budget. I've told people on this board before that we need to cut the government budget to 20-25% of what it is now eventually before the government becomes so big it overwhelms the people (it's getting damn big and damn close).
1. Phase out Social Security. (21.1%)
2. Phase out Medicare. (12.0%)
3. Cut defense spending (currently 17.4%)
4. Eliminate certain departments (Education being #1, let the states look to this issue)
5. Stop pork barrel spending.
There is tons that can be cut. Interest itself on the debt is 7.2% of our spending. We need to be cutting so much we run a surplus and eventually reduce that number, which is something the irresponsible Republican-majority Congress failed to do when we had the chance.[/QUOTE]
Phasing out Social Security and Medicare that are the two things that I believe we should never cut. Period. They should be embedded in the books as our constitution and amendments are, as the declaration of independence is. They are staples of our society and do a lot of good. They aren't perfect, but it is better than nothing. I would simply say to raise taxes over everybody but more for the richest 2% of Americans.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='elprincipe']And these churches we are talking about, are they individuals or organizations? You must agree with me then.[/quote]
You said red cross and united way, I said those were organizations, not people, and because they are charities they are exempt from the tax. I'm not sure what you're asking.
No, that's not what defines a charitable organization. It is the use of that money. If I set up an organization that is funded solely by charitable donations, but all the money goes towards investing in the stock market for personal gain, then my company is not a charity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLC,GGLC:1969-53,GGLC:en&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Charitable+organization
Now, can it honestly be said that no earning go to benefit private individuals? Or that all churches operate exclusively for philosophical reasons?
Pat robertson got into significant trouble for his involvement in politicis, and CBN had its tax exempt status revoked because it engaged in political activities. Yet, it is funded by charitable donations. Same with the christian coalition, charitable donations yet they are not exempt.
Ummmm........wow. So, in your view the government is supporting religion now, right? And the government only taxes those who meet a certain criteria based on their use and amount of funds. It has nothing to do with what the entity is, but has everything to do with how that entity is operated.
You said red cross and united way, I said those were organizations, not people, and because they are charities they are exempt from the tax. I'm not sure what you're asking.
No, that's not what defines a charitable organization. It is the use of that money. If I set up an organization that is funded solely by charitable donations, but all the money goes towards investing in the stock market for personal gain, then my company is not a charity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGLC,GGLC:1969-53,GGLC:en&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:Charitable+organization
Now, can it honestly be said that no earning go to benefit private individuals? Or that all churches operate exclusively for philosophical reasons?
Pat robertson got into significant trouble for his involvement in politicis, and CBN had its tax exempt status revoked because it engaged in political activities. Yet, it is funded by charitable donations. Same with the christian coalition, charitable donations yet they are not exempt.
Ummmm........wow. So, in your view the government is supporting religion now, right? And the government only taxes those who meet a certain criteria based on their use and amount of funds. It has nothing to do with what the entity is, but has everything to do with how that entity is operated.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='Fire']Phasing out Social Security and Medicare that are the two things that I believe we should never cut. Period. They should be embedded in the books as our constitution and amendments are, as the declaration of independence is. They are staples of our society and do a lot of good. They aren't perfect, but it is better than nothing. I would simply say to raise taxes over everybody but more for the richest 2% of Americans.[/QUOTE]
I don't think massive government control of health care and retirement systems has been a good thing. Remember, both systems are rapidly going bankrupt and have hurt Americans in the long run. Anyone who invested money into the stock market compared to Social Security would have a much higher return, and health care costs have soared as government has controlled more and more of that sector of our economy. Social Security in particular is a massive Ponzi scheme which robs from younger workers to pay seniors ever-increasing benefits.
I don't think massive government control of health care and retirement systems has been a good thing. Remember, both systems are rapidly going bankrupt and have hurt Americans in the long run. Anyone who invested money into the stock market compared to Social Security would have a much higher return, and health care costs have soared as government has controlled more and more of that sector of our economy. Social Security in particular is a massive Ponzi scheme which robs from younger workers to pay seniors ever-increasing benefits.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
FYI I believe our other lines of discussion have reached a dead end, so I'm just going to continue with this:
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ummmm........wow. So, in your view the government is supporting religion now, right? And the government only taxes those who meet a certain criteria based on their use and amount of funds. It has nothing to do with what the entity is, but has everything to do with how that entity is operated.[/QUOTE]
No, right now government is keeping out of religion by not taxing it. You would have government get involved in taxing of religions, and even further you would have government tax certain religions while leaving others untaxed. Present is no government involvement while your system would mean government supporting/penalizing certain religious groups. Fortunately, my position is enshrined in the First Amendment, and for obvious reasons that is unlikely to change.
Further, I still am flabbergasted by your belief that somehow our tax code will be applied without bias, loophole or special interest perk when it comes to religious groups when those are rampant among other groups it is applied to. Either you don't know too much about the tax code or you're living in dreamland.
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Ummmm........wow. So, in your view the government is supporting religion now, right? And the government only taxes those who meet a certain criteria based on their use and amount of funds. It has nothing to do with what the entity is, but has everything to do with how that entity is operated.[/QUOTE]
No, right now government is keeping out of religion by not taxing it. You would have government get involved in taxing of religions, and even further you would have government tax certain religions while leaving others untaxed. Present is no government involvement while your system would mean government supporting/penalizing certain religious groups. Fortunately, my position is enshrined in the First Amendment, and for obvious reasons that is unlikely to change.
Further, I still am flabbergasted by your belief that somehow our tax code will be applied without bias, loophole or special interest perk when it comes to religious groups when those are rampant among other groups it is applied to. Either you don't know too much about the tax code or you're living in dreamland.
bread's done