House votes to decriminalize marijuana at federal level

[MercyPercy]

Even if that’s true, it isn’t the government’s role to police it with an envy tax.

An "envy" tax? No one here is using that goofy terminology but you.

Brother I don't want to be taxed anymore than you do. Taxation is theft, and all that jazz. However in a world where the reality is that we ARE getting taxed, I see no reason why these big business organizations, particularly ones that prey upon the vulnerable elderly, should be exempt and my business not? I haven't fleeced a single blue hair out of their pensions (yet).

 

[Vol8188]

More like they should be paying their fair share if I have to.

I'm happy with my "malevolence." I wouldn't expect someone like you to understand anything outside of your tiny little bubble. Perhaps you should go outside, make a friend, and cease playing Aldi Chomsky on here.

You’re cute. “I can’t defend my dumb claims, so I’ll just say the other guy has no friends!”

In third grade, that would’ve cut deep.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I don't think the IRS is built to just go after those chasing a profit.

the IRS code is not the 1A/4A. and again there wouldn't be an issue because its not a tax on churches or religion.

as 8188 pointed out there are for profit religious groups. under your argument they shouldn't be taxed either. joel osteen's books probably shouldn't be taxed because I am sure they full of his Prosperity Gospel BS. why wouldn't that be tax exempt too? its religion. Seems like the IRS is already capable of making those distinctions you swear they can't.

Churches would be taxed on book sales.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You’re cute. “I can’t defend my dumb claims, so I’ll just say the other guy has no friends!”

In third grade, that would’ve cut deep.

"You're mean! You should go to church!"

That never cut deep, even in third grade.

 

[McDad]

how does any business consider their income? I would assume earned income, but not familiar with everything that would equal.

Two scenarios:
a business that generates 1 million dollars in income, and spends 50% on charitable activities.
a church that generates 1 million dollars in income(donations), and spends 5% on charitable activities.

under the current laws that church gets a pass as a 501c, while the business does not. doesn't seem like an equitable situation, and is dodging the purpose of a 501c. I don't want to get bogged down with the specifics because I can't imagine if that scenario existed that the business is paying too much in taxes with that much deduction, but its the general point.

if things were equal the business would be the 501c in that scenario, while the church isn't. I don't see how that as wrong or hateful.

Businesses exchange goods or services for money. That is "earned" from a personal taxes standpoint. Those are earnings in a corporate standpoint.

The charity has exchanged nothing. There aren't earnings. So, I think it's a distinction that matters. You may not have an answer...and that's okay.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

An "envy" tax? No one here is using that goofy terminology but you.

Brother I don't want to be taxed anymore than you do. Taxation is theft, and all that jazz. However in a world where the reality is that we ARE getting taxed, I see no reason why these big business organizations, particularly ones that prey upon the vulnerable elderly, should be exempt and my business not? I haven't fleeced a single blue hair out of their pensions (yet).

Bootlicker.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

can't believe I found someone willing to stick up for Joel Osteen. Has his Prosperity Gospel saved you, or made you (tax free) money?

dude has increased his net worth off of selling bs religion, that is enough for me to not like him. and before you try to turn the tables, yeah I don't like all the Catholics who have done the same either and I want them all taxed too.

if he has done so much good work I am sure his charitable work would qualify him under my standard and your Lord and Savior will be safe from the evils of the IRS.

go forth and being profitable brother, spread the word of the almighty dollar!! and as always Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

Since you don’t like him then you’re fine with the government attacking him?

 

[Vol8188]

"You're mean! You should go to church!"

That never cut deep, even in third grade.

lol let’s not pretend the personal attacks here started with me. I hate to push my religion on you, but the whole not lying thing could probably help you.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

The charity has exchanged nothing. There aren't earnings.

Interesting. I don't see it that way at all.

 

[McDad]

Joel shouldn't have to pay in their world because The First Southern Baptist church on Route 34 does good work.

This is the nature of government rules and regs. Some will exploit. That isn't a reflection on those that don't.
The answer isnt more taxes on more "businesses". The answer is no business taxes

 

[DinkinFlicka]

lol let’s not pretend the personal attacks here started with me. I hate to push my religion on you, but the whole not lying thing could probably help you.

I shot first. I'm not here to coddle your socially awkward quirks and lack of spacial awareness. However, you can't chastise me for ad hominems when you are also engaging in them. Lol.

 

[MercyPercy]

Bootlicker.

I'm just jelly of all that money they're making.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I'm just jelly of all that money they're making.

I'm jealous of their lock ins and pizza parties. Abstinence. Carrots on sticks.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It'd still be a problem because I'd still be paying 4 different taxes to sell someone a shot of whiskey.

You also write it off when you sample your inventory.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You also write it off when you sample your inventory.

You mean sampling it after buying it?

 

[LouderVol]

And the additional 1% wouldn’t make a material difference fiscally. But it would erode citizen’s rights even more.

Not at all.

the church goer is not taxed for going to church. the church goer is not taxed for donating, they would still be able to claim that. this wouldn't impact citizens at all.

I have never argued that their taxation is based on the government's needs or fiscal stability. I have argued they should be taxed if they aren't meeting the definition of a charity. the freedom OF religion has stood up both ways. Freedom to practice it, and freedom to not practice it, nor be subject to its rules or standards. I also believe in the separation of church and state, which is clearly not being practiced by the IRS.

the government should never be picking winners and losers.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

You mean sampling it after buying it?

Exactly. You should add that expense back if you want to comply with what has been composed in the code.

 

[LouderVol]

You’d obviously need to change the existing laws.

But either way, why are you defending the use of force against any charity based on the % they donate?

Why not simply abstain?

because I believe the only way for a better government is for everyone to actually be treated the same. and yes that means removing government protectionism that runs counter to one of the stated principles of this nation. separation of church and state.

and it wouldn't be aimed at charities. anyone would be open to that threshold. you personally make 55 million from Gospel Prosperity books and donate the required percentage, guess what? Tax free baby.

as long as the state is picking winners and losers it is artificially creating forces that drive the nation in bad directions. or at least the available bad directions increase, with no perceptible change in the number of good directions. and seeing as how power and money corrupt, something most religions preach about, arguing that governments SHOULD be involved in those decision MORE seems counter institutive to a goal of a "better" government.

if you believe in a minimalist/constitutional government there would be no carved out protections for anyone, including churches.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Not at all.

the church goer is not taxed for going to church. the church goer is not taxed for donating, they would still be able to claim that. this wouldn't impact citizens at all.

I have never argued that their taxation is based on the government's needs or fiscal stability. I have argued they should be taxed if they aren't meeting the definition of a charity. the freedom OF religion has stood up both ways. Freedom to practice it, and freedom to not practice it, nor be subject to its rules or standards. I also believe in the separation of church and state, which is clearly not being practiced by the IRS.

the government should never be picking winners and losers.

Going to church is just one form of practicing a religion. Building a place of worship and spreading the messages are others. 1A covers more than simply sitting in a pew on Sunday.

 

[LouderVol]

Churches would be taxed on book sales.

why? they are probably religious books.

seems like you are both admitting there is nothing special, from a tax code perspective, about the RELIGIOUS aspect of it.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

why? they are probably religious books.

seems like you are both admitting there is nothing special, from a tax code perspective, about the RELIGIOUS aspect of it.

The IRS tax guide on the subject says “certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business”. Selling books is an unrelated business. It doesn’t say that anything on the periphery that’s touched by religion is exempt.

 

[LouderVol]

Businesses exchange goods or services for money. That is "earned" from a personal taxes standpoint. Those are earnings in a corporate standpoint.

The charity has exchanged nothing. There aren't earnings. So, I think it's a distinction that matters. You may not have an answer...and that's okay.

you are arguing that a church, as an organization, doesn't provide a service to its followers/members? I mean I guess you could claim whatever percentage comes as purely random donations. but any targeted or informed donation is certainly going to get SOMETHING in return. especially if they donator claims it in their own tax deductions. in most cases wouldn't it just be that the donator is paying (donating to) the charity to perform a service (charitable action) for them? those who can do, those who cannot pay others to do.

or are we circling back to the difference of a tithe vs a donation? I think your argument would align with mine if we agreed on the percentage. I have a hard time calling the money a "charitable church", that spends 5% on charity, a donation.

as far as the government is concerned churches should be considered like Miss Cleo.

 

[MercyPercy]

Justice for miss Cleo!

 

[LouderVol]

The IRS tax guide on the subject says “certain income of a church or religious organization may be subject to tax, such as income from an unrelated business”. Selling books is an unrelated business. It doesn’t say that anything on the periphery that’s touched by religion is exempt.

so again, the religious nature of the action doesn't matter to the IRS. glad we agree.

seems like its the CHARITABLE nature of the church that is the basis for its special exemption. what have I been arguing this whole time? That the taxes should be based on the level of charity, regardless of source.

and using the IRS tax laws to justify the IRS tax laws is weak and redundant. under that logic if my rules were in place I could sit here and argue for them simply because the IRS is doing it.

 

[LouderVol]

Going to church is just one form of practicing a religion. Building a place of worship and spreading the messages are others. 1A covers more than simply sitting in a pew on Sunday.

have you seen most of the places of worship being built? they are palaces with who knows how many accessory structures. I guess that 50ksqft air conditioned gym is really important to making sure people hear the good word. its one of my biggest beefs with how the Catholic Church spends its money. if the finishes are anything more than painted gyp and concrete floors, it is not necessary for religious worship, and is money that should be going to a better cause than the aesthetics.

and I am really interested to hear which religions REQUIRE a specific place of worship? I don't remember Christ requiring too many purpose built structures to preach in. Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there.