House votes to decriminalize marijuana at federal level

[Thunder Good-Oil]

if the money is ACTUALLY going to a charitable cause it would be tax free under my system. any money that doesn't go to a charitable cause, should be taxed. regardless of who gives it or receives it. There should be no special tax category for money earned that goes to pay someone's income, pays for capital improvements, or organizing an event because they are religious. that money should be taxed like any other companys' income is taxed, and yes the individual is still taxed.

Churches aren’t companies. Their mission isn’t to make a profit.

Under 501(c)(3) churches, schools, the arts, charities, scientific, sports, etc. get the same tax treatment. Why aren’t arts organizations being criticized for being exempt?

 

[LouderVol]

Not for profits, not churches. You want to tax them all.

right, if they don't meet some threshold for charitable use of their funds.

if they are doing all the good work you THINK they are doing, they will be fine. If they aren't they shouldn't be getting any tax breaks.

 

[LouderVol]

You’re very naive if you don’t believe that the IRS wouldn’t be weaponized and politicians will pick and choose which messages they dislike and will go after those voices.

Right now even Westboro Baptist is allowed to protest. That’s the price of freedom.

all of your arguments boil down to some bs complaint that churches shouldn't treated like anyone else. as far as the government is concerned, they SHOULD be treated like everyone else.

churches are not immune to the laws of the land because of the 1A.

 

[LouderVol]

And the insults continue.

Yes. Churches need donations to fund their operations.

If a group of people pool their money to create and fund a church, why should the government get a percentage?

I don't know of any other label that fits you, after you defended Joel Osteen, and argued that churches should be allowed to freely make money on the basis of their religion. if you don't like the term don't make their arguments for them.

and you shouldn't have started it. I have been called hateful, godless, leftist, Rachel Maddow, and few other insults and you are responsible for at least a couple of them.

I don't think the government should get a percentage of any group of people getting together to do something. but they do. the tenants of our nation say separation of church and state, so churches should not be treated any different.

 

[LouderVol]

Churches aren’t companies. Their mission isn’t to make a profit.

Under 501(c)(3) churches, schools, the arts, charities, scientific, sports, etc. get the same tax treatment. Why aren’t arts organizations being criticized for being exempt?

again you are being dishonest. I have said multiple times I would tax them all. I have been mentioning churches because that is where this conversation started, and I have been staying on topic.

you have tried to deflect instead of addressing the points I am making multiple times.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Thunder getting WORKED in here.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

right, if they don't meet some threshold for charitable use of their funds.

if they are doing all the good work you THINK they are doing, they will be fine. If they aren't they shouldn't be getting any tax breaks.

So providing spiritual enlightenment for a congregation isn’t good work but writing poems or putting together a soccer match is good work? Who gets to make that judgement?

“Not for Profit” doesn’t mean a charity. The stated mission of the organization is the threshold in use. It would be ridiculous to tax pooled money by members of HOAs, country clubs, neighborhood swimming pools, labor unions, PTAs/PTSOs, and many other not for profits. The government doesn’t get a piece of everything.

The accounting that you are proposing is impossible to administer fairly. It would require very sophisticated cost accounting systems and smaller NFPs don’t have the resources to accomplish what you propose. The rich organizations will be able to circumvent the concept. As I pointed out earlier, NORML is a lobbying group so they are not exempt under 502(c)(3). So they created a sister organization that is exempt with the mission of education.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

right, if they don't meet some threshold for charitable use of their funds.

if they are doing all the good work you THINK they are doing, they will be fine. If they aren't they shouldn't be getting any tax breaks.

Who/what gets to judge what is good work and how can thresholds possibly be measured?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

again you are being dishonest. I have said multiple times I would tax them all. I have been mentioning churches because that is where this conversation started, and I have been staying on topic.

you have tried to deflect instead of addressing the points I am making multiple times.

And I have made an economic argument that taxing all of the NFPs is ridiculous. For profit entities are subject to income tax. No not for profit is as long as they meet the existing criteria. Those that stray away from their stated mission can lose their exempt status and those that retain excess “earnings” are potentially liable for excise taxes.

Churches (and other NFP organizations) are good for the economy and generate lots of revenue for the government even without being subject to an income tax. Which goes back to the initial point - why single out churches for the government to take some of their funds?

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Thunder getting WORKED in here.

You have difficultly with comprehension.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I don't know of any other label that fits you, after you defended Joel Osteen,

How about somebody that respects freedom?

If Joel Osteen violates existing laws he’ll be punished by the government.

 

[LouderVol]

So providing spiritual enlightenment for a congregation isn’t good work but writing poems or putting together a soccer match is good work? Who gets to make that judgement?

“Not for Profit” doesn’t mean a charity. The stated mission of the organization is the threshold in use. It would be ridiculous to tax pooled money by members of HOAs, country clubs, neighborhood swimming pools, labor unions, PTAs/PTSOs, and many other not for profits. The government doesn’t get a piece of everything.

The accounting that you are proposing is impossible to administer fairly. It would require very sophisticated cost accounting systems and smaller NFPs don’t have the resources to accomplish what you propose. The rich organizations will be able to circumvent the concept. As I pointed out earlier, NORML is a lobbying group so they are not exempt under 502(c)(3). So they created a sister organization that is exempt with the mission of education.

I don't think any of that should be counted. this is where you are getting lost, unless its actual charity, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting/healing the sick, homing the homeless, I would have no issue with teaching various skills either, etc, I don't think it should be counted. and for the record my church does poems and soccer matches too, and I know they aren't the only ones.

why should the label "not for profit" matter? why would it be ridiculous? and don't use the tax code to justify the tax code, that's like using a word to define itself. and depending on what you mean by "pooling", not sure if you are playing semantics or not, gathering various people's money together into a collect group wouldn't be taxable for me. it would depend on what they do with it. paying the board members, taxable. buying meals for the children's food drive, not taxable. building a new pool structure, taxable; giving money to the widowed spouse of member, not taxable.

I have no idea why you are ok with any organization being able to spend money on a solid gold toilet, and not being taxed on that money. clearly its not serving any greater good.

 

[LouderVol]

Who/what gets to judge what is good work and how can thresholds possibly be measured?

apparently Congress writes tax laws. they would get to define however they saw fit. but its pretty clear that building a 25 million dollar church isn't an act of charity.

 

[LouderVol]

And I have made an economic argument that taxing all of the NFPs is ridiculous. For profit entities are subject to income tax. No not for profit is as long as they meet the existing criteria. Those that stray away from their stated mission can lose their exempt status and those that retain excess “earnings” are potentially liable for excise taxes.

Churches (and other NFP organizations) are good for the economy and generate lots of revenue for the government even without being subject to an income tax. Which goes back to the initial point - why single out churches for the government to take some of their funds?

Irrelevant. I have never claimed there was an economic reason. I would be completely ok if this "new" - in your world only- "church" tax generated zero income, and not a single dollar more went to the IRS. I just don't think that being a "church" is a good enough reason to receive some special tax status. period. end of argument. that is all I am arguing. and you can't muster a refute of that single point, and instead want to drag in any number of red herrings.

again, churches aren't being singled out. start another thread about PP getting special tax status and I will push the same argument there. we are talking about churches in this thread, because we are talking about churches. I am not going to bring up barbecue places when talking about my favorite church, I am going to talk about churches. I have no idea why this is a concept you can't understand.

 

[LouderVol]

How about somebody that respects freedom?

If Joel Osteen violates existing laws he’ll be punished by the government.

again, no one's freedom is being taken away. this is just another red herring you keep throwing out.

turning the tables on you a bit here, but you apparently have NO problem with 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of people's freedom being taken away with taxes. you only care about churches, so don't come in here arguing you care about freedom when you are mum on 99.999999999% of cases.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I don't think any of that should be counted. this is where you are getting lost, unless its actual charity, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting/healing the sick, homing the homeless, I would have no issue with teaching various skills either, etc, I don't think it should be counted. and for the record my church does poems and soccer matches too, and I know they aren't the only ones.

why should the label "not for profit" matter? why would it be ridiculous? and don't use the tax code to justify the tax code, that's like using a word to define itself. and depending on what you mean by "pooling", not sure if you are playing semantics or not, gathering various people's money together into a collect group wouldn't be taxable for me. it would depend on what they do with it. paying the board members, taxable. buying meals for the children's food drive, not taxable. building a new pool structure, taxable; giving money to the widowed spouse of member, not taxable.

I have no idea why you are ok with any organization being able to spend money on a solid gold toilet, and not being taxed on that money. clearly its not serving any greater good.

Arts organizations, educational institutions, scientific organizations, churches, and several other 501(c)(3) not for profits are exempt. Dinkey wants to single out churches to be taxed. You want them all to be taxed unless they meet some charitable criteria (as determined by what group?). Both stances are horrible ideas.

Income taxes aren’t assessed on the expenses. So when a group of people pool their funds, how would you tax it based on how it will be spent at some future date? There’s already the possibility of excise taxes being accessed if a not for profit’s retained earnings are excessive.

HOAs are an example of members pooling their funds for a not for profit purpose. Churches do the same. Most of Lakewood’s (and other churches) funds come from their members. Those pooled funds are currently recorded as “revenue” to the organizations. If you want to treat them as taxable, it’s going to be recorded in their accounting system as paid in capital which isn’t going to be taxed. Then without recording it as revenue the expenses will be far greater than the recorded revenue resulting in massive losses on the books. There needs to be income to assess a tax.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

apparently Congress writes tax laws. they would get to define however they saw fit. but its pretty clear that building a 25 million dollar church isn't an act of charity.

There are tens of thousands of members and tens of thousands of members at that church. $25 million isn’t unreasonable (it’s actually more like $100 million). Who decides when the facility isn’t appropriate?

Congress doesn’t administer what they pass as laws. Agencies like the IRS would be doing the judging.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Irrelevant. I have never claimed there was an economic reason. I would be completely ok if this "new" - in your world only- "church" tax generated zero income, and not a single dollar more went to the IRS. I just don't think that being a "church" is a good enough reason to receive some special tax status. period. end of argument. that is all I am arguing. and you can't muster a refute of that single point, and instead want to drag in any number of red herrings.

again, churches aren't being singled out. start another thread about PP getting special tax status and I will push the same argument there. we are talking about churches in this thread, because we are talking about churches. I am not going to bring up barbecue places when talking about my favorite church, I am going to talk about churches. I have no idea why this is a concept you can't understand.

Dinkey singled out churches.

Section 501(c)(3). You are proposing keeping charities and dropping the rest (religious, education, scientific, arts, etc). Since you don’t like any of it, get your people voted in to modify or repeal it. Good luck with that.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

again, no one's freedom is being taken away. this is just another red herring you keep throwing out.

turning the tables on you a bit here, but you apparently have NO problem with 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of people's freedom being taken away with taxes. you only care about churches, so don't come in here arguing you care about freedom when you are mum on 99.999999999% of cases.

Religious freedom. Giving the federal government the power to interfere with church organizations’ operations to that degree puts any of them at risk.

Income taxes on individuals is the most practical way to generate revenue for the federal government. The hundreds of Lakewood employees pay millions to the IRS. I’m being a realist. The federal government must have revenue to support programs and agencies for the common good. Collecting taxes from not for profits isn’t practical.

Taxing not for profits would be a train wreck for society. Economically, in my well supported opinion, it results in a fiscal net negative for the federal government.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Churches aren’t companies. Their mission isn’t to make a profit.

Under 501(c)(3) churches, schools, the arts, charities, scientific, sports, etc. get the same tax treatment. Why aren’t arts organizations being criticized for being exempt?

It's the mission of most churches. There are clearly some though, that have exerted their earning power to a point where they have abandoned that premise

 

[McDad]

apparently Congress writes tax laws. they would get to define however they saw fit. but its pretty clear that building a 25 million dollar church isn't an act of charity.

Good intentions. Horrible precedent.

Remember income taxes?. 2% on the richest 1% or some ridiculous figure. Now look at it.

Taxes established to pay for the civil war still on the books. Every year politicians fighting over rates to con people out of their votes.

No sir, not interested in your proposal.
The the "bad" will answer to God. The good are fine. We don't want the IRS and politicians getting a foot in the door for new taxes, new control, and new manipulation.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It's the mission of most churches. There are clearly some though, that have exerted their earning power to a point where they have abandoned that premise

Mission as in declared purpose. Churches and other not for profits are allowed to make a profit. They pretty much need to to stay solvent and be able to function.

They have rules to follow and if they don’t abide by them they put their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status at risk. There are certainly some outliers that have failed to comply. The overwhelming majority of them abide. Because some haven’t complied isn’t a good reason to take away the tax exempt status from ALL of them.

Lakewood has been around for something like 65 years and they have been highly successful at drawing members and attendees. The big numbers can appear excessive. But a $30 million budget when there are hundreds of employees isn’t really unreasonable. Neither is investing $100 million in a facility serving tens of thousands of followers.

The MSM likes to stir it up reporting on JOs $10 million home. But is that all that unusual for somebody that has written 2 NYT #1 books? IMO he’s an entertainer as well as a preacher. Famous people tend to also be rich people.

I’m not triggered by that guy or that church. Obviously several VN posters are.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Mission as in declared purpose. Churches and other not for profits are allowed to make a profit. They pretty much need to to stay solvent and be able to function.

They have rules to follow and if they don’t abide by them they put their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status at risk. There are certainly some outliers that have failed to comply. The overwhelming majority of them abide. Because some haven’t complied isn’t a good reason to take away the tax exempt status from ALL of them.

Lakewood has been around for something like 65 years and they have been highly successful at drawing members and attendees. The big numbers can appear excessive. But a $30 million budget when there are hundreds of employees isn’t really unreasonable. Neither is investing $100 million in a facility serving tens of thousands of followers.

The MSM likes to stir it up reporting on JOs $10 million home. But is that all that unusual for somebody that has written 2 NYT #1 books? IMO he’s an entertainer as well as a preacher. Famous people tend to also be rich people.

I’m not triggered by that guy or that church. Obviously several VN posters are.

Lot of good info. That's it. That you won't acknowledge a few of them don't warrant an investigation/audit is the result of your party loyalty

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Lot of good info. That's it. That you won't acknowledge a few of them don't warrant an investigation/audit is the result of your party loyalty

Which party?

 

[volinsd]

Anyone got any weed news round here???

Asking for a friend