House votes to decriminalize marijuana at federal level

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It's not hateful to have multi-million dollar institutions taxed. You're defending things that don't give a **** about you. Set a threshold so first Baptist church on Bum**** Nowhere Avenue doesn't get taxed but the 40000 square foot behemoth in Carollton does.

Problem solved. The American taxpayer can sleep a little better, and your panties are a little less bunched.

It’s your panties that are in a twist because the government doesn’t take from churches. Even the profitable churches put their money to work and generate massive benefits to governments. They don’t divy up those profits among their leaders. They grow their ministries and social programs. Why TF should the government tax them other than to attack them because some in power and some hateful citizens want to control every message?

Should the 39,999 square foot ones maintain their exempt status?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I forget the part where it mentions the net positives of abortion versus televangelists. Perhaps you could point it out for me?

Check out the 1A. It’s kind of specific and vacuuming bits of kids out of mother’s wombs as a form of birth control isn’t part of it.

 

[Vol8188]

Lol @ assuming most churches are charitable.

You're on the spectrum. Do the research.

You’d be hard pressed to find a non charitable church, but keep embarrassing yourself

 

[Vol8188]

Pretty sure anyone with an IQ surpassing that of a great dane's average life expectancy can figure out which churches are duping the feds and which ones are are actually existing within the confines of being Christlike.

Hell, I'm not even religious and it's easy to see.

Smoke weed every day.

Why do we need some ideological purity test for tax policies?

People donated money. Donations should not be taxed. If you don’t feel they don’t pass your purity test, there’s a really easy solution.

Don’t give them your money.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

It’s your panties that are in a twist because the government doesn’t take from churches. Even the profitable churches put their money to work and generate massive benefits to governments. They don’t divy up those profits among their leaders. They grow their ministries and social programs. Why TF should the government tax them other than to attack them because some in power and some hateful citizens want to control every message?

Should the 39,999 square foot ones maintain their exempt status?

Not in a twist at all. I simply stated that churches should be taxed before casinos and you started throwing around words like "hateful" because this is clearly an emotionally charged subject for you.

I'm sorry you got red in the face about it. I'll tiptoe on more eggshells next time so as to not bruise your heart.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You’d be hard pressed to find a non charitable church, but keep embarrassing yourself

Define charitable. Give more than they take? Or simply give?

I give thousands to charitable causes every year. The tax deductions are there but are negligible. No way most churches would give enough to skirt taxes if they were any other type of organization.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Why do we need some ideological purity test for tax policies?

People donated money. Donations should not be taxed. If you don’t feel they don’t pass your purity test, there’s a really easy solution.

Don’t give them your money.

Some biblical interpretations demand a flat portion of one's income as tithe. Some churches require it.

"Don't give them your money" becomes "don't attend that church" and the goalposts start a shufflin'.

 

[Vol8188]

Define charitable. Give more than they take? Or simply give?

I give thousands to charitable causes every year. The tax deductions are there but are negligible. No way most churches would give enough to skirt taxes if they were any other type of organization.

“give enough to skirt taxes”…not even sure what you’re saying here.

And how exactly could an organization “give more than they take”? If that’s your standard (an unsurprisingly ignorant one), then no organization meets your standard.

Once again, there’s an easy solution here. Instead of advocating for more laws to regulate people you don’t like, you could simply abstain.

 

[Vol8188]

Some biblical interpretations demand a flat portion of one's income as tithe. Some churches require it.

"Don't give them your money" becomes "don't attend that church" and the goalposts start a shufflin'.

No one is forced to donate. If you feel your church is too pushy, there’s other options. You’re the only one wanting to force compliance here

 

[McDad]

Some biblical interpretations demand a flat portion of one's income as tithe. Some churches require it.

"Don't give them your money" becomes "don't attend that church" and the goalposts start a shufflin'.

I don't track at all. Trying to understand but it eludes me.

Are you saying parishioners are compelled to tithe via threat of excommunication and therefore, taxes on that tithe are now justified? Or, taxes are a way to protect congregants from being bullied into giving?

Another confusion, if 'don't attend that church' shifts the goalposts, what if the church-goer switches to another church and tithes there instead? How did that move a goalpost?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I'd tax the church way before taxing the consolation prize for having your culture destroyed.

Way more money my way too.

Maybe more money, but far more damage.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Since it’s been suggested that the government should have some sort of standards on which church activities or programs should or shouldn’t be tax favorable to donors should we do the same for the massive educational institutions? Maybe only the donations that can be shown to be directly supporting the education of future medical professionals and teachers and engineers, etc be deductible while those that supported teaching Dinkey how to write poems should be excluded.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I think with any of them receiving a tax incentive as a church or charity have to prove that some relatively high percentage of their money actually goes towards that charitable work.

The mega churches and televangelists aren't holding up their end of the charity work relative to the money they make and should be taxed.

render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.

My church would be happy to take that challenge. Don't focus on the bad players. There is a lot of good being done.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Define charitable. Give more than they take? Or simply give?

I give thousands to charitable causes every year. The tax deductions are there but are negligible. No way most churches would give enough to skirt taxes if they were any other type of organization.

You only do it for the deductibility? I donate and can't write off any of it.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I don't track at all. Trying to understand but it eludes me.

Are you saying parishioners are compelled to tithe via threat of excommunication and therefore, taxes on that tithe are now justified? Or, taxes are a way to protect congregants from being bullied into giving?

Another confusion, if 'don't attend that church' shifts the goalposts, what if the church-goer switches to another church and tithes there instead? How did that move a goalpost?

It was more directly responding to his point.

I'm saying tithing isn't the same as donating. Apples and oranges. Expected versus appreciated.

As far as moving goalposts, that was directed towards his argument. "Well, then don't donate" isn't always realistic. Therefore, the next logical step would be "well, don't go there" which, I will add, he immediately said after that post.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You only do it for the deductibility? I donate and can't write off any of it.

How in the hell did you interpret that as "I only do it for the tax deductions?"

 

[DinkinFlicka]

My church would be happy to take that challenge. Don't focus on the bad players. There is a lot of good being done.

"Ignore the bad ones, regardless of their prevalence. Only focus on the good ones (when we argue about tax exemption status)."

 

[DinkinFlicka]

No one is forced to donate. If you feel your church is too pushy, there’s other options. You’re the only one wanting to force compliance here

Nope. Simply stated that I'd tax a church before a casino and the Jesus harpies started squawking.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Since it’s been suggested that the government should have some sort of standards on which church activities or programs should or shouldn’t be tax favorable to donors should we do the same for the massive educational institutions? Maybe only the donations that can be shown to be directly supporting the education of future medical professionals and teachers and engineers, etc be deductible while those that supported teaching Dinkey how to write poems should be excluded.

Oh, I'm an aspiring poet now? Is that your dig?

Maybe you should have studied literature at your community college. You may have learned how to write a decent joke in the process.

 

[LouderVol]

Small churches and charities don’t have the expensive lawyers and accountants to interpret costs and creatively categorize them as expenses to suit the government’s rules. Neither do the poor or most of the middle class. welcome to America, it sucks for everyone. Churches specifically meet the criteria by simply having services. Incredibly lazy and too low of a bar which allows way too many to take advantage claiming to be a "church". When they also serve communities that’s added value. Abortions are quite a stretch to label as charitable use of donations.again PP does more than abortions, and before you label me a baby killer I am against most abortions, but its simply the truth to say PP does more than abortions. tax them on abortions, but count the rest as charity.

Churches relieve a great deal of the burden that would fall to governments, so their tax status is very well deserved. and requiring a little bit of back up to support that claim should be a minimum. heck I have to prove I made a charitable donation, but the group I donate too doesn't have to back up their use of that donation as actual charity work? A group of nuns started the national network of food banks. Locally a coalition of churches started the ones (Knoxville, Chattanooga, Tri-cities) in East Tennessee from the ground up.we can go tit for tat, Joel Osteen. Perry Stone. Even guys like Billy Graham who didn't have a scandal attached to their name accrued a net worth of 25 million. hard to claim that as charitable income imo.

Even the wealthy churches generate massive revenue for governments. The preachers and others on their payrolls are taxed. yeah, everyone is hit by multiple layers of taxes, its not some unique anti-church stance. its an equality stance everyone, everything, should be taxed the same. The construction companies that have built a half million churches in this country have contributed huge revenues to the government.

It’s just hateful rhetoric to call for churches to be taxed. how is it hateful? thats just a deflection. under my stance PP would also be taxed, and plenty of other groups you disagree with. equality. The government doesn’t have the resources or the good and fair judgement to determine which churches are using their funds appropriately. they have the resources to track down 600 bucks of digital wallet money, they have the resources. Plus they’d also spend a fortune losing court battles over which 1st Amendment rights they’ve trampled. under my proposal the answer would be zero. there would be no unique religious target or tax. everyone who can't prove X level of charity gets taxed. period. don't care if you are a non-charity, PP, the local Catholic church, the small baptist church down the road, or Joel Osteen.

you have need to establish how equality equals hate.

 

[LouderVol]

You’d be hard pressed to find a non charitable church, but keep embarrassing yourself

to what level though? 1%, 5%, 15%, 30%, 50%, 75% of operating budget? at some point they should be taxed like the rest of us, and I don't see a problem creating that threshold.

My office organizes and funds several charitable events and projects. my understanding of the tax code says we can take some deductions for that; but we don't get close to a 501c status.

 

[McDad]

It was more directly responding to his point.

I'm saying tithing isn't the same as donating. Apples and oranges. Expected versus appreciated.

As far as moving goalposts, that was directed towards his argument. "Well, then don't donate" isn't always realistic. Therefore, the next logical step would be "well, don't go there" which, I will add, he immediately said after that post.

tithing isn't the same as donating? That's an interesting position.

Is tipping the same as gratuity added?

 

[LouderVol]

Since it’s been suggested that the government should have some sort of standards on which church activities or programs should or shouldn’t be tax favorable to donors should we do the same for the massive educational institutions? Maybe only the donations that can be shown to be directly supporting the education of future medical professionals and teachers and engineers, etc be deductible while those that supported teaching Dinkey how to write poems should be excluded.

I think that very thing, removing the protections of the educational institutions, have been argued by many in this forum. with what universities are charging for an education now vs just a few years ago shows they aren't responding to any real market forces, and its purely an drive for more income.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

tithing isn't the same as donating? That's an interesting position.

Is tipping the same as gratuity added?

Am I expected to give to St. Judes? Am I expected to tithe at your typical Southern Baptist church?

I know you know those aren't the same.

 

[McDad]

Am I expected to give to St. Judes? Am I expected to tithe at your typical Southern Baptist church?

I know you know those aren't the same.

is tipping the same as gratuity added?