Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    "Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and president of the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), released a statement in which he challenged the values reflected in the federal budget that U.S. President George W. Bush proposed for 2006.

    "We are here today, in concerted action, because we believe that the Administration's proposed federal budget priorities stand in contradiction to biblical tradition," Hanson said in a March 8 meeting with reporters in Washington, DC.

    Hanson was joined by four other liberal denominational leaders: Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church; Elenora Giddings Ivory, director, Washington Office, National Ministries Division, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), representing the church's stated clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick; Ron Stief, leader of the public life and social policy ministry team, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Church of Christ; and James Winkler, general secretary, General Board of Church and Society, of United Methodist Church.

    Their statements bemoaned possible reductions in money for their social programs, which are funded "through federal and state programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, low-income housing, child care, child welfare services, Social Services Block Grants, WIC, Head Start and many other similar programs."

    (The operating budgets of member organizations exceeded $8 billion in 2004.) emphasis added

    Most of the "values voters" in America would not make the mistake of calling these denominational leaders biblical scholars or moral experts, because they have consistently condoned some of the most deviant behavior in our society.

    But now, all of a sudden, when their budgets may be cut, they get it -- they have a renewed depth of religious understanding and thorough insight into the proverb: "I'm ok, you're ok, but it's a sin to cut my budget."

    Frank Griswold actually had the audacity to say, "If passed in its current form, it would take Jesus'[b[b teaching on economic justice and stand it on its head."(snip)


    It would appear that certain religious organizations have been indirectly feeding from the 'public trough' for some time ... and curiously, they are NOT the ones who typically supported GWB.

  2. #2
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    You forgot to quote the most telling bits of all from this article:

    "Since when does Griswold respect or believe the teachings of scripture? Isn't this the man who condones the appointment of a practicing homosexual to the office of bishop?"

    "Maybe someday these leaders will begin to once again truthfully define sin -- biblically -- without the politically-correct garbage they normally spew. Until they do, their credibility will continue to diminish, and they will be less and less relevant to the world.

    Eventually, no one will take them seriously."

    ...and the part quoted in boldface should have been this:

    "Most of the "values voters" in America would not make the mistake of calling these denominational leaders biblical scholars or moral experts, because they have consistently condoned some of the most deviant behavior in our society."

    The writer would no doubt assert that anything posted here by either of us would be utterly without value--if he would castigate the validity of someone's political values simply for thinking a homosexual might be good in an ecclesiastical position. We are sinners, after all, of the most vile and reprehensible sort.

    I find it revolting that anyone would mention the word 'biblical' in association with any political statement, but perhaps Hanson, Griswold, et al have noted the tremendous advantage it has given conservative religious figures in pushing their agendas, and are fighting fire with fire.
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  3. #3
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    religious fanatics take the bible literally - the parts they like at least.

    for every quote AGAINST gays in the bible, I bet a scholar can find one condoning or supporting.

    bottom line : the bible is a guide for faith, not a literal instruction (too many conflicts)

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Actually, I omitted the majority of the gay related comments from that piece because I did not feel that they were material to the central point of my post ... that CERTAIN religious groups have been indirectly gleaning money from gov't funded programs for some time. Specifically ... "Their statements bemoaned possible reductions in money for their social programs, which are funded "through federal and state programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, low-income housing, child care, child welfare services, Social Services Block Grants, WIC, Head Start and many other similar programs." "

    The fact that the particular religious groups in question tend to be pro-gay, and that the political party which allowed these particular religious groups to indirectly feed at the public trough - while at the same time denouncing private (including primarily Catholic) school vouchers, 'faith based initiatives' etc. primarily denying gov't funding to more 'conservative' religious denominations - also tends to be pro-gay, is the subject for a different discussion.

    Your attempt to play the 'gay bashing' card does not erase the hypocracy of this situation, i.e. the fact that billions of dollars in tax money has been indirectly funneled to certain religious groups but not to others.

  5. #5
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Personally, any god that can't pay his own bills and is dependent on government hand-outs to get his work done is not worth worshipping.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Personally, any god that can't pay his own bills and is dependent on government hand-outs to get his work done is not worth worshipping.
    I'll agree with that. Kill the private school vouchers and 'faith based initiatives' proposals, but be sure to pay that 8 billion dollars in redirected tax money back as well ! That way we'd have half a chance of a real separation of church and state ___ budgets !

  7. #7
    Senior Member AmericanDreams's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    97
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    what about ending the tax free status for churches ?

  8. #8
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanDreams
    what about ending the tax free status for churches ?
    Good question AD. While I'm not really religious myself, I didn't mean to come off as anti-religion. My problem is with churchgoers that claim god is all-powerful yet claim our government should fund efforts to get "his work" done is through government programs. George Bush would fall into this category in my opinion.

    One could make the argument that the government should tax all non-profit organizations. If the headquarters of the March of Dimes catches on fire the firemen will come out and put it out. Their employees and volunteers drive on the roads to get there and they expect the police to protect their facility. So why shouldn't they pay taxes like any other business? I suppose the idea of giving tax-exemptions to non-profits was based on the idea that these groups are doing things for the public good and every dime they don't have to use to pay taxes is a dime that they can use for the public welfare. You really have to question that premise these days though. For most charities, it seems their main objective is raising money. Some of the worst offenders are the huge, "non-profit" hospitals whose main goal seems to be to build bigger and bigger buildings. My own solution would be to simplify the tax code and adopt a flat tax. There would be no deductions for charitable contributions. Whatever you wanted to do with your money would be your business. Non-profit groups would pay taxes just as if they were any other business. I would not single out religious groups either favorably or unfavorably, they would be treated like any other business. I really think this would be the best for all non-profits in the long run. Has anyone heard about the IRS investigating the NAACP? Their non-profit status is being questioned because of some political statements their leader made. That could happen to any goup, liberal or conservative. Anytime you take something from the government, such as tax deductions, the government will eventually tell you what to do.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  9. #9
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    My problem is with churchgoers that claim god is all-powerful yet claim our government should fund efforts to get "his work" done is through government programs. George Bush would fall into this category in my opinion. One could make the argument that the government should tax all non-profit organizations.
    Sounds good, but here's the problem:
    1. Non-profits are not commercial businesses. As they are not ALLOWED TO MAKE PROFIT and all money raised MUST GO BACK TO MISSION, where's the taxable income? In a commercial business you're not taxed on the money you spend in business (IE, You make a million, spend a million, no tax)...if 100% goes back to mission work, wheres the tax?

    2. NPOs are usually 80% individual donor supported...and 20% from foundations (which are in turn 80/20 supported, or completely endowment funded) either way - the source money going in HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED and is considered by the giverment to be going for charitable purposes.

    3. working for nonprofits, I can tell you there's not any money left over...usually not enough. Every NPO I know has one or two "angels" who can be counted on to cover that $10,000 shortfall when it happens. Sorry, but doing good work (God's or someone else's) simply isn't leaving room for extra expenses. And, in order to reduce the number of government programs (or keep them from growing) we need nonprofits (where would hte kids now in United Way, Catholic Charities, or other programs go? ) to stay alive. Why cut off their wheels?

    I do agree that designating federal money for "faith based" initiatives is too far, but if a faith based group wants to compete fairly and side by side with my non-faith based nonprofits for grants of any kind (including federal) then let them do it.

    If the headquarters of the March of Dimes catches on fire the firemen will come out and put it out. Their employees and volunteers drive on the roads to get there and they expect the police to protect their facility. So why shouldn't they pay taxes like any other business?
    First of all, don't confuse income and property taxes. Most non profits DO pay property tax, which goes to the expenses you list above. Those that are exempt usually pay an "equivalent amount in lieu of taxes" to cover primary services like these. Though not a tax and not required, I have yet to meet a nonprofit that didn't make some kind of contribution

    For most charities, it seems their main objective is raising money. Some of the worst offenders are the huge, "non-profit" hospitals whose main goal seems to be to build bigger and bigger buildings.
    It seems that way but really behind the scens (f0r most nonprofits, and ALL small ones - when they get big it's like any other human endeavor....corruption creeps in) theres 20% of the staff (or more often volunteers) doing the fundraising and 80% of them doing the work. You just don't hear about the work most of the time, unless you're in a car crash and then are REAL HAPPY the hospital just added a trauma unit with helipad.


    Has anyone heard about the IRS investigating the NAACP? Their non-profit status is being questioned because of some political statements their leader made. That could happen to any goup, liberal or conservative. Anytime you take something from the government, such as tax deductions, the government will eventually tell you what to do.
    I bet (not having seen the cas) the NAACP got caught up in the VERY detailed, VERY complex and VERY costly to monitor (here's a cost no company has) "501" series of regulations. Most NPOs are 501c3 organizations, which are normal charities that can do only a VERY limited amount of lobbying or political work in specified ways. Then there are 501c4s which are primarily for lobbying, and other types of charities too. If you step over any one of a number of lines (too much lobbying, allowing major donors to have influence on your work, etc) you can lose your tax exempt status. The rules are fair, but if you mess up there are BIG penalties, including having to pay back costs and taxes.

  10. #10
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Sounds good, but here's the problem:
    1. Non-profits are not commercial businesses. As they are not ALLOWED TO MAKE PROFIT and all money raised MUST GO BACK TO MISSION, where's the taxable income? In a commercial business you're not taxed on the money you spend in business (IE, You make a million, spend a million, no tax)...if 100% goes back to mission work, wheres the tax?
    If a non-profit truly spent every dime they took in, they would owe no tax. Actually, there is an accounting term for the, "profit" or money that a non-profit has leftover at the end of the year, I forget what it is. Such a system would encourage NPO's to do what they should be doing anyway.

    2. NPOs are usually 80% individual donor supported...and 20% from foundations (which are in turn 80/20 supported, or completely endowment funded) either way - the source money going in HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED and is considered by the giverment to be going for charitable purposes.
    That's true and a good point. But what business is it of the government what you do with your money anyway? If someone wants to horde every last dime or give anyway every last cent to charity it should not be any business of the government. By giving tax deductions, the government is trying to encourage certain behavior while punishing other behavior, a dangerous prospect in my opinion.

    3. working for nonprofits, I can tell you there's not any money left over...usually not enough. Every NPO I know has one or two "angels" who can be counted on to cover that $10,000 shortfall when it happens. Sorry, but doing good work (God's or someone else's) simply isn't leaving room for extra expenses. And, in order to reduce the number of government programs (or keep them from growing) we need nonprofits (where would hte kids now in United Way, Catholic Charities, or other programs go? ) to stay alive. Why cut off their wheels?
    I don't dislike charities at all. But with every tax cut/deduction/credit, the government is trying to tell us what to do with our money. I question whether that is a legitimate role of government. It's not an emotional argument on my part, more of a philosophical one.

    I do agree that designating federal money for "faith based" initiatives is too far, but if a faith based group wants to compete fairly and side by side with my non-faith based nonprofits for grants of any kind (including federal) then let them do it.
    As I've posted in other threads, IMHO, any faith-based charity that gets on the government's payroll is crazy. Would they be so eager to take the money if Hillary Clinton were president? Besides, doesn't the term, "faith" imply a dependence on God? Where's the faith if your funds come from a government check? Have things gotten so tight in heaven that God has to beg the U.S. government for help?

    First of all, don't confuse income and property taxes. Most non profits DO pay property tax, which goes to the expenses you list above. Those that are exempt usually pay an "equivalent amount in lieu of taxes" to cover primary services like these. Though not a tax and not required, I have yet to meet a nonprofit that didn't make some kind of contribution
    I'm not confusing the two, I never heard of a non-profit paying property taxes. Perhaps they do where you live, but all the places I've ever lived, NPO's paid no property taxes. In fact, they also didn't pay sales taxes on their purchases. I've even heard of cities trying to block the building of churches in their towns on the grounds that they don't pay any property tax and it would be a financial burden to the city.

    It seems that way but really behind the scens (f0r most nonprofits, and ALL small ones - when they get big it's like any other human endeavor....corruption creeps in) theres 20% of the staff (or more often volunteers) doing the fundraising and 80% of them doing the work. You just don't hear about the work most of the time, unless you're in a car crash and then are REAL HAPPY the hospital just added a trauma unit with helipad.
    I had more in mind the big charities and their slick fundraising campaigns. But I stand by my criticism of the "non-profit" hosptials. Some years ago where I lived, the local newspaper did a study of the amount of "charity" work the local non-profit hospitals reported to the state hospital board. The results were shameful, especially considering all of the hospitals had originally been started by church groups.

    I bet (not having seen the cas) the NAACP got caught up in the VERY detailed, VERY complex and VERY costly to monitor (here's a cost no company has) "501" series of regulations...
    Nope.
    NAACP Faces IRS Investigation

    By Mike Allen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A08


    The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the NAACP's tax-exempt status because the civil rights group's chairman, Julian Bond, "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush" during a speech this summer, according to documents the group provided yesterday.

    There you go. You accept a government benefit (tax deductability of your contributions) and the government will tell you what you can and cannot say.

    Some years ago I read a book. The title was "Your Rights Under Fire" or something like that. While I couldn't go along with some of the author's conspiracy theories, he did have a quote from a U.S. Supreme Court decision. In that decision, the court basically said that if you take the government's money, you have to obey the government's rules. The time will come, and may already be here, when the government will seek to control all NPO's the way the government always seeks to control people, through the purse strings. The best thing for non-profit organizations themselves would be to get off the government's payroll. That includes tax-deductions.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  11. #11
    Moderator Djoser's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Key West
    Posts
    16,343
    Thanks
    1,395
    Thanked 5,487 Times in 2,768 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Good question AD. While I'm not really religious myself, I didn't mean to come off as anti-religion. My problem is with churchgoers that claim god is all-powerful yet claim our government should fund efforts to get "his work" done is through government programs. George Bush would fall into this category in my opinion.
    I would definitely agree with this!
    You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
    George Clinton

    ______________________________________

  12. #12
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    If a non-profit truly spent every dime they took in, they would owe no tax. Actually, there is an accounting term for the, "profit" or money that a non-profit has leftover at the end of the year, I forget what it is. Such a system would encourage NPO's to do what they should be doing anyway.
    Non profits are allowed "endowments" basically cash reserves to make sure they can cover the "lean times" or have enough money to continue operating long into the future. is that what you're thinking?

    Chekc http://www.guidestar.org and you can look at the "990 form" - nonprofit's public tax record, and see exactly how it works

    By giving tax deductions, the government is trying to encourage certain behavior while punishing other behavior, a dangerous prospect in my opinion.
    you can write off interest on home mortgages, and MANY other things (including gas guzzzling cars used for "business" - why pick on just the charities? Knock off all deductions, maybe we can talk about the charities - but I still stand by them as doing work we don't want to pay governmetn to do - VERY cheaply, by comparison

    If people want to do good with their money, why should they be taxed on that money first? Just as a business that doesn't pay taxes on expenses, charities are an "expense" that makes sense to exempt. Now, should all deductions be in place (like 2nd homes) NO! Those are bigger scams as I read the statistics


    I don't dislike charities at all. But with every tax cut/deduction/credit, the government is trying to tell us what to do with our money. I question whether that is a legitimate role of government. It's not an emotional argument on my part, more of a philosophical one.
    Please! Help us reform tax law...but do it from the front end, not by picking one category and disallowing it without providing a way for survival

    I'm not confusing the two, I never heard of a non-profit paying property taxes. Perhaps they do where you live, but all the places I've ever lived, NPO's paid no property taxes. In fact, they also didn't pay sales taxes on their purchases. I've even heard of cities trying to block the building of churches in their towns on the grounds that they don't pay any property tax and it would be a financial burden to the city.
    the services you mentioned are paid for by proterty tax

    churches are one category (in my state) that pay no prop taxes..some charities do.


    I had more in mind the big charities and their slick fundraising campaigns.
    Like any business, nonprofits need advertising (we call it outreach) to survive. Why should we be required to have crappy ads? Now as someone who does marketing for NPOs (and started a nonprofit to do it cheaper and leave more money for mission) I know alot of the big guys waste big bucks, but don't throw the baby out with bathwater

    threatened to revoke the NAACP's tax-exempt status because the civil rights group's chairman, Julian Bond, "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush" during a speech this summer, according to documents the group provided yesterday.
    Bigger question here: are we as a nation willing to allow our PRESIDENT to determine the correct limits of free speech? You take their money, you follow their LAWS, not the whim of the leader. Or are we OK with a single elected official dictating what we can and cannot think?


    The best thing for non-profit organizations themselves would be to get off the government's payroll. That includes tax-deductions.
    In theory, MAYBE. In reality, if the donations were'nt deductible, they woudn't come in. The nonprofits would close. Good work would not get done, and the Administrtion and big companies (whatever political ilk) would be in complete control. Not a space I'm comfortable in.

    BEFORE WE GO AFTER CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS, CONSIDER:
    If you put money in a 401k at work, it's tax protected and completely for personal use - you give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be? (remember each employee can 401k something like $10,000 per year tax free - that's ALOT of money throughout the workforce more than most of us give to charity)

    Your employer matches your 401k contribution and gets to deduct that as a business expense - if they (as only smaller companies legally can, big ones get no deduction) give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?

    You put money in a health plan or "flex benefits" account for uncovered health expenses (called a cafeteria plan in some companies) it's pre-tax dollars and tax protected for personal/family use - give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?

    Your employer matches your contribution and gets to deduct that as a business expense - if they (as only smaller companies legally can, big ones get no deduction) give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?

    I put money in an IRA for personal use, that's tax protected - I give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?(remember each personcan 401k something like $7,000 per year between Roth and regular IRAs - that's ALOT of money throughout the workforce more than most of us give to charity)


    I put money in an business for personal gain, that's tax protected - I give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?


    I put money in an real estate for personal gain, that's tax protected - I give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?

    I put money in an offshore factory to make products I sell in the US, that's tax protected - I give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?

    You choose to have kids - and get a deduction for it, plus free schools and stuff paid for by my (Double Income No Kids) family's taxes. I give money to a charity to benefit the community, it shouldn't be?

    Just adding up the retirement numbers - $10,000 (I actually think it's 11) plus 3k for Roth and 3k for regular IRA (one of those is 4,000 but is also post tax, only the interest is tax protected) and you're at 17,000 dollars. Times 100 million employees in the US - now THERE's a chunk of change.

    Look at the IRS numbers, and tell me how large the nonprofit slice of the pie really is. Then look at the other writeoffs you're allowed, and decide if you want them excluded.

    Anyway I'm off to my local nonprofit, originally faith -based hospital that was voted the BEST trauma and MRI center in our region. So glad they have the money to take care of the facilities that our local government-run hospital can't maintain (because they waste money on things like new tires for EVERY car EVERY 90 days bought from a committee member).
    Last edited by discretedancer; 03-14-2005 at 09:43 AM.

  13. #13
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by Djoser
    I would definitely agree with this!
    Watch it Dj. If word gets out that you agree with me on something, I might get kicked out of the local republican party.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  14. #14
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Some Religions groups Irate over GWB budget

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Non profits are allowed "endowments" basically cash reserves to make sure they can cover the "lean times" or have enough money to continue operating long into the future. is that what you're thinking?
    No, I mean the money, if any, leftover at the end of the year after all the bills have been paid. Say a charity takes in $800,000 in donations, grants, fees, interest etc. Say that same charity spends $799,000 on various programs related to its mission, overhead, fundraising etc. The charity had a "profit" of $1,000. Only its not called a profit when dealing with a charity. Please, please don't make me dig out my accounting book.
    you can write off interest on home mortgages, and MANY other things (including gas guzzzling cars used for "business" - why pick on just the charities? Knock off all deductions, maybe we can talk about the charities - but I still stand by them as doing work we don't want to pay governmetn to do - VERY cheaply, by comparison

    If people want to do good with their money, why should they be taxed on that money first? Just as a business that doesn't pay taxes on expenses, charities are an "expense" that makes sense to exempt. Now, should all deductions be in place (like 2nd homes) NO! Those are bigger scams as I read the statistics
    Oh, I'm definitely not picking on charities.

    Here's where I'm coming from. The tax system is set up to encourage certain behavior and to discourage certain behavior.

    Discouraged Behavior:
    Savings and investment. You will sometimes hear politicians say that, "america has the lowest savings rate of any country in the industrialized world". True. What they fail to tell you is the U.S. is one of the few countries in the industrialized world that taxes people's interest and investment income. I work, make some money, pay taxes on my income. I take some of that money and save it or invest it and show a little profit. The government then taxes my profit. Talk about double taxation! It's not that americans are any less inclined to save and invest that the french or germans. Its that americans have figured out that there is a strong disincentive to do so in the form of the tax code.

    Encouraged Behavior:
    Home ownership. The government thinks that this is a good thing. So they make your home mortgage interest and property taxes tax-deductible. But what about the guy living in New York or San Francisco that can't afford a home? In effect he is being penalized for his inability to afford a home by losing out on that tax deduction.

    Child Deductions: The government wants to help "working families", so they give you a deduction for child care expenses and a deduction on your tax form for the child. But what about the single person with no kids? The couple that can't, or chooses not to have children, or the couple whose kids are grown? I'm not anti-homeowner, anti-child, or anti-charity (i have a child and you can be sure i take my deduction). I just object on philosophical grounds to the government using the tax code to tell people what to do with their money. Both parties are equally to blame for doing this BTW. That's why I favor a straight flat tax with no deductions. You pay your bill to the government based on what you make, what you do with the rest is up to you.

    the services you mentioned are paid for by proterty tax

    churches are one category (in my state) that pay no prop taxes..some charities do.
    Perhaps things are different in different parts of the country. I remember when I lived in Dallas that legally formed non-profits paid no taxes of any kind. No property taxes, no income taxes, they even had a little form that they could take to Office Depot and not have to pay the sales tax on the purchase of their office supplies and stuff.

    Bigger question here: are we as a nation willing to allow our PRESIDENT to determine the correct limits of free speech? You take their money, you follow their LAWS, not the whim of the leader. Or are we OK with a single elected official dictating what we can and cannot think?
    There was some conservative group, The Heritage Foundation, I think, that was audited by the IRS every single year of the Clinton Administration. What goes around comes around I suppose. But why? Let's get the government out of the business of regulating non-profits and let Julian Bond say whatever the hell he wants. You do that by getting the government out of the money business. There is some ultra-right-wing private, church-run college on the east coast. This school had a rule against "inter-racial" dating. A despicable rule? Yes. So the government stepped in and said, "you can't have that rule against blacks and whites dating". The college said, yes we can, we are a private institution. No, the government said, some of your students get government guaranteed student loans, you have to do what we say. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the government. The government will eventually attempt to do the same thing using the threat of removing the tax-deductibility of the donations. It appears they already are.

    Anyway I'm off to my local nonprofit, originally faith -based hospital that was voted the BEST trauma and MRI center in our region. So glad they have the money to take care of the facilities that our local government-run hospital can't maintain (because they waste money on things like new tires for EVERY car EVERY 90 days bought from a committee member).
    I'm not arguing there are not good charitable hospitals. But I've read several articles lately about so-called non-profit hospitals hounding poor people literally to death, forcing poor people into bancruptcy and just generally abusing people simply because they are poor.

    Several years ago the county-run hospital decided that there were way too many poor people with no insurance coming into the ER, more thant he government had budgeted for. So they came up with a novel idea. Once they had reached their quota of non-insured ER patients for the day, they would radio the ambulances and order them to take them to the private hospitals where state law forbid them from refusing treatment to anyone based on their ability to pay. Talk about balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

Similar Threads

  1. Converting Religions - Is there a RIGHT reason?
    By Lysondra in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-14-2008, 11:17 PM
  2. Weekend Commentary time - disrespecting religions
    By Melonie in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-22-2005, 10:59 AM
  3. i fucking hate religions!!
    By mermaidnz in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 11-21-2004, 12:45 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •