Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If I pay money to build a social club that I attend that isn't charity.Paying to build a church is no different.
Except nobody goes to the social club when they are starving because the social club doesn't feed people.Nor do they go to the social club when their house is burned or destroyed in a disaster...but they go to churches.And the 1st Amendment doesn't acknowledge social clubs
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure they do.The Bush tax cuts lowered both the absolute amount of taxes that are collected and the percentage of GDP. The tax rates in the US are currently at historic lows and the revenue is also at historic lows for modern times.There isn't a 1-1 effect however for a variety of reasons just like if you cut $1 in government spending especially during a recession you don't reduce your deficit by $1 but in fact it's less as Europe is finding out right now.If you say that increasing taxes across the board by 1% won't increase the amount collected by 1% but will be something less than that I will agree with you but especially when tax rates are low they will increase revenue.
This is not accurate.Cutting taxes has been shown to stimulate the economy, which resulted in higher revenues.Raising taxes can be shown to slow the economy, which would result in lower revenue.The tax revenue now being near 'historic lows for modern times' has MUCH more to do with the stalled economy than the current tax rates.Trying to argue that Bush's tax cuts did X without first proving that the economy would not have changed at all had he not lowered taxes is no different than me saying Bush's tax cuts are the only thing that saved the country from a depression.opinion.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not accurate.Cutting taxes has been shown to stimulate the economy, which resulted in higher revenues.Raising taxes can be shown to slow the economy, which would result in lower revenue.The tax revenue now being near 'historic lows for modern times' has MUCH more to do with the stalled economy than the current tax rates.Trying to argue that Bush's tax cuts did X without first proving that the economy would not have changed at all had he not lowered taxes is no different than me saying Bush's tax cuts are the only thing that saved the country from a depression.opinion.
What I wrote is totally accurate and I am saying exactly that cutting taxes stimulates the economy but that stimulation doesn't match the decrease in rates so the total amount of dollars collected is less than with the higher rates.Taxes as a % of GDP are a historic low for the modern era. That is not a function of a slow economy as thinking about it as a % of GDP factors in either a growing or shrinking economy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What I wrote is totally accurate and I am saying exactly that cutting taxes stimulates the economy but that stimulation doesn't match the decrease in rates so the total amount of dollars collected is less than with the higher rates.
Leaving the tax rates the same would not have stimulated the economy, thus lengthening a recession or even causing one. So to compare what they would have taken in from what they did requires you to guess the GDP level that cannot be ever truly known.Therefore the total amount being collected cannot be compared to another amount honestly enough to make your statement here.
Taxes as a % of GDP are a historic low for the modern era. That is not a function of a slow economy as thinking about it as a % of GDP factors in either a growing or shrinking economy.
But we do not base our tax rates on the % of GDP, if we have a bad year economically, the tax rates are not lowered and visa versa.I would that we did. We could ignore this silly 'balanced budget' talk that will never happen and actually force congress to live within their means.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another reform that needs to happen but has a "we can't get there from here" problem: the govt can only spend what it collected the previous year. In other words, pre-collect the money and determine spending based on that. That way, the problem of "oops, the economy tanked, I guess we're running a deficit" is eliminated as an excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another reform that needs to happen but has a "we can't get there from here" problem: the govt can only spend what it collected the previous year. In other words, pre-collect the money and determine spending based on that. That way, the problem of "oops, the economy tanked, I guess we're running a deficit" is eliminated as an excuse.
I obviously think this is horrible policy since I think fiscal policy should be counter cyclical. Your suggestion in a sense is what is being tried in Europe and would require austerity in the face of economic downturns which only make those downturns worse which decrease government revenues etc.One of the problems is that government accounting is different than business or personal accounting is. Investment is counted as an expense in full right away instead of the spending being amortized like a business would. Investment is necessary for governments just like it is for a business or a household.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I obviously think this is horrible policy since I think fiscal policy should be counter cyclical. Your suggestion in a sense is what is being tried in Europe and would require austerity in the face of economic downturns which only make those downturns worse which decrease government revenues etc.
This is the biggest benefit -- politicians would no longer be able to deepen economic downturns with discredited Keynesian dogma.
One of the problems is that government accounting is different than business or personal accounting is. Investment is counted as an expense in full right away instead of the spending being amortized like a business would. Investment is necessary for governments just like it is for a business or a household.
Hmmm.... I'll have to think about this. It seems to me you could account for long-term projects somehow....
Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said that. But for many people buying a home and utilizing the deduction allows them to afford to buy a home.
It seems implicit to me in any discussion of United States policy that the policy should serve the interests of the United States as a whole. The fact that giving people money (or not taking it) motivates people to do something that they otherwise wouldn't is not a startling revelation. It's also not evidence that this is a good policy.
Um, Ok. You don't have to believe it, I guess. Not sure what basis you would have for making such a statement.
I might require a recalibration from Midwest prices. Where I come from, people with $600,000 homes are too busy playing with their miniature giraffes to post on the interweb.
No, I don't. I don't think everyone should own a home. Falling home values is bad for everyone.
That's absurd. Falling home prices are good for people who want to buy homes.
So you are trying to say that people across the country are rooting for homes to go lower so they can buy one?
Yes? Is this a trick question? I mean, obviously the people who own homes aren't rooting for this, but the other people count, too.
The hardships of homeowner has to do with the types of loans they got.
They got loans for way too much ****ing money, secured by a temporarily overvalued asset.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I might require a recalibration from Midwest prices. Where I come from, people with $600,000 homes are too busy playing with their miniature giraffes to post on the interweb.
$600K doesn't get you much in a lot of places. Ocho is in California where even after the housing bust homes are a lot more expensive then the midwest.This home just sold for $1.18 Million in Toronto and will most likely be bulldozed and a new home put on the lot and it isn't even in one of the most expensive neighbourhoods.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-a...article2362078/next-bungalow03_1382658cl-8.jpg
Link to post
Share on other sites
That picture makes me sad.
and it should but because there are a few examples like this doesn't mean that whole system is bad...according to a few on here the governement is going to take the extra money gathered from the lost deductions and provide the same services as the church...so as always the poor who need the charity will get screwed by the government more. Does anyone really believe that any government agency can do better for less then a nonprofit?It is constant in our country well intending liberals hate the poor and don't believe people should be able to or are able to live without big brother taking care of them...it is sad and wrong.it is still a spending problem.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's super awesome that they went bankrupt. I love that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except nobody goes to the social club when they are starving because the social club doesn't feed people.Nor do they go to the social club when their house is burned or destroyed in a disaster...but they go to churches.And the 1st Amendment doesn't acknowledge social clubs
This is absolutely hilarious. I love the argument that because sometimes some churches (and Christians) do good things, all churches become untouchable charitable institutions.We have a bunch of churches in my city. There was a huge storm a few years back, people lost power for weeks. Some people went to the church for food. Unbelievably, there was no food there because they are a church and not a food bank. Some people went there for shelter. Amazingly, there were no beds there because they are a church and not a hostel. Luckily, there are generous people in this city running restaurants, food banks, hotels and shelters, and people had food and beds. And yet, the church qualifies for tax deductions, while the hotels and restaurants who put up people for free do not.There is a local hunting group in the city that does an absolute ton of charitable work. Fundraisers, food collection, etc. It is a social club for people who like to do good things. The local church does not do any fundraising or provide assistance to anyone that is not a member of their church. That's fine - there's no reason for them to help people who aren't a part of their organization. And yet, donations to the church are deductible while the social club's are not...why? Because other churches and religious people (Christians) in history and other parts of the world have done charitable things? Bullshit. If people go to a church for food or shelter, then the church needs to set up a food bank or shelter, let anyone use them, and keep donations to those areas separate. Then we can talk about deducting those donations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is absolutely hilarious. I love the argument that because sometimes some churches (and Christians) do good things, all churches become untouchable charitable institutions.We have a bunch of churches in my city. There was a huge storm a few years back, people lost power for weeks. Some people went to the church for food. Unbelievably, there was no food there because they are a church and not a food bank. Some people went there for shelter. Amazingly, there were no beds there because they are a church and not a hostel. Luckily, there are generous people in this city running restaurants, food banks, hotels and shelters, and people had food and beds. And yet, the church qualifies for tax deductions, while the hotels and restaurants who put up people for free do not.There is a local hunting group in the city that does an absolute ton of charitable work. Fundraisers, food collection, etc. It is a social club for people who like to do good things. The local church does not do any fundraising or provide assistance to anyone that is not a member of their church. That's fine - there's no reason for them to help people who aren't a part of their organization. And yet, donations to the church are deductible while the social club's are not...why? Because other churches and religious people (Christians) in history and other parts of the world have done charitable things? Bullshit. If people go to a church for food or shelter, then the church needs to set up a food bank or shelter, let anyone use them, and keep donations to those areas separate. Then we can talk about deducting those donations.
You do know that social clubs can be tax exempt...........my croquet club basically is, as long as it doesn't have any profits, so they throw a big year end party and spend the money on high end booze.But it is funny that you say people go to the church when they need help, and the church facilitates them, using other resources. If your restaurant lets hundreds of people fill their business all day and feeds them for free, then they would do this thing called....write off the costs...which is a variation of tax exemptions isn't it?Of course this is all moot, Christians make up such a large voting block and atheist such an insignificant one, that there is no worry for at least a hundred years of there being even a bill put up to vote.And let's face it, atheist ain't never going to try to start their own country, what with them being parasites on Christian countries and all.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know that social clubs can be tax exempt...........my croquet club basically is, as long as it doesn't have any profits, so they throw a big year end party and spend the money on high end booze.But it is funny that you say people go to the church when they need help, and the church facilitates them, using other resources. If your restaurant lets hundreds of people fill their business all day and feeds them for free, then they would do this thing called....write off the costs...which is a variation of tax exemptions isn't it?Of course this is all moot, Christians make up such a large voting block and atheist such an insignificant one, that there is no worry for at least a hundred years of there being even a bill put up to vote.And let's face it, atheist ain't never going to try to start their own country, what with them being parasites on Christian countries and all.
We're talking about tax deductions for contributions, not the tax exempt status of the organization. Try to keep up. I love your complete lack of logic too...thinking that your croquet club is tax exempt...so long as they make no profits. I guess your balloon business is tax exempt too, if you make no profits.Your second paragraph not only misreads what I wrote (the church did not help them) but continues to be a logical wasteland.Also, non-religious does not mean atheist. You know this of course, but lets clarify that it wouldn't be christians against atheists in this respect, just immoral religious people (a small minority) against moral religious people and non-religious people. However, since the Republicans would just use non-sensical BG-spin to rile up the idiotic religious dogmatist section of their fanbase if the Dems ever tried to put this through, I agree it is a longshot.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking about tax deductions for contributions, not the tax exempt status of the organization. Try to keep up. I love your complete lack of logic too...thinking that your croquet club is tax exempt...so long as they make no profits. I guess your balloon business is tax exempt too, if you make no profits.
We just had a meeting of the club, where the CPA explained tax laws...but you are right, he must be wrong.
Your second paragraph not only misreads what I wrote (the church did not help them) but continues to be a logical wasteland.
And we all know that your church is all churches.
Also, non-religious does not mean atheist. You know this of course, but lets clarify that it wouldn't be christians against atheists in this respect, just immoral religious people (a small minority) against moral religious people and non-religious people. However, since the Republicans would just use non-sensical BG-spin to rile up the idiotic religious dogmatist section of their fanbase if the Dems ever tried to put this through, I agree it is a longshot.
Of course it wouldn't be Christians against atheist, that would be like people who like logic against the tiny number of people who think squares are round.But it is funny how you think the republicans would trick people into voting in a way that reflects how they live their lives every day. half of whom are democrats.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems implicit to me in any discussion of United States policy that the policy should serve the interests of the United States as a whole. The fact that giving people money (or not taking it) motivates people to do something that they otherwise wouldn't is not a startling revelation. It's also not evidence that this is a good policy.
We have had this system for quite some time. Changing it now would have a catastrophic affect on property values. Many people would not be able to afford the homes they are in if this was changed. Myself being one of them.
I might require a recalibration from Midwest prices. Where I come from, people with $600,000 homes are too busy playing with their miniature giraffes to post on the interweb.
Well, your numbers are still off, but sorta what bob said.
That's absurd. Falling home prices are good for people who want to buy homes.
This is such short term thinking. It would be good for them they day they bought it, would it still be good for them 2 years later if it kept falling? How about 5?Think of the people who didn't get bad loans, bought what they could afford and now for reasons other than losing their house they need to move. New job, bigger family, parent moving in with them, etc. Those people can't sell their homes. When you have prices where they were 15-25 years ago on homes, that isn't good. Your posts read from someone who wants to buy a home but are waiting for prices to drop.
Yes? Is this a trick question? I mean, obviously the people who own homes aren't rooting for this, but the other people count, too.
Not really. What is your cutoff. If someone can't afford a 200K home, is it better if all 200K homes are now 100K so they can afford it? Not only will this affect property values, foreclosures, etc. It will also affect rents. Rents will drop. As we gone over time and time again, deflation is not a good thing. A market correction fine and normal. What we are dealing with now has surpassed that.
They got loans for way too much ****ing money, secured by a temporarily overvalued asset.
That was only the tip of the iceberg. Now people or strategically letting go of houses. Hell people that bought in 2009 are letting go of houses because now they are 20-30% less.I'm not sure what point you are trying to make except apparently some places in the mid west have really cheap homes, and you think cheap housing is good so more people can buy homes. Did you let Barney Frank and Maxine Waters borrow your account.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We're talking about tax deductions for contributions, not the tax exempt status of the organization. Try to keep up.
To get a tax deduction for your contribution, it must be to an organization that is tax exempt.
Link to post
Share on other sites
To get a tax deduction for your contribution, it must be to an organization that is tax exempt.
But I assume that not all non-profit organizations are classified as charities. My community tennis club is a non profit but the membership fees can't be classified as a charitable donation.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But I assume that not all non-profit organizations are classified as charities. My community tennis club is a non profit but the membership fees can't be classified as a charitable donation.
There is no such thing as a non-profit organization for Federal purposes. It's either tax exempt or not. If it's tax exempt, then people can take a deduction for donations.I don't know all the details of BG's club. I highly doubt that he was trying to say that the only requirement they must meet is that they don't have a profit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as a non-profit organization for Federal purposes. It's either tax exempt or not. If it's tax exempt, then people can take a deduction for donations.I don't know all the details of BG's club. I highly doubt that he was trying to say that the only requirement they must meet is that they don't have a profit.
They must also play croquet...It's in the tax code
Link to post
Share on other sites
They must also play croquet...It's in the tax code
The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...