Anyone can troll a website, but it takes talent to troll a whole town

• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1165203 wrote:Funding isn't that hard to determine as a word. lost revenue? sure. funding? Nope.

  Call it what you want. It looks, smells, and quacks like a duck; it's a duck.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1165205 wrote:Education most definitely is tax payer funded, at least partially.
  
  Nice deflection though. Equating education and religious belief funding are entirely different.

  Totally agree. I don't see the correlation at all.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1165208 wrote:Call it what you want. It looks, smells, and quacks like a duck; it's a duck.

  I didn't call it anything. I think it was you that chose funding as the operative word.
• I Wear Pants

  Skyhook79;1165198 wrote:So your education was tax payer funded then? Why didn't you pay for it yourself? Why did I have to fund your education?

  I was unaware that supporting education by the government was forbidden by the constitution.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1165213 wrote:I didn't call it anything. I think it was you that chose funding as the operative word.

  Is a subsidy a better word? To me lost revenue and funding are the same thing because the end result is the same. It doesn't matter to me what you call it.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1165218 wrote:Is a subsidy a better word? To me lost revenue and funding are the same thing because the end result is the same. It doesn't matter to me what you call it.

  If you meant subsidize to purchase the assistance of by payment then no, I don't see it as a better word. Maybe you do. Maybe you see funding as accurate. I don't.
  
  There's no payment and there's no providing of or furnishing of money.
  
  You certainly can and will call it what you wish though jut keep in mind that the government isn't required to tax anything.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1165178 wrote:
  The government isn't required to tax. By choosing not to doesn't mean they are providing them funding.

  Are you an idiot? Choosing not to tax would mean choosing not to tax a specific activity. But exempting certain organizations from income taxes has the identical effect of subsidizing them.
  
  For the sake of this example assume the tax rate is 20%. If a church that racks in $3,000,000 a year would normally get taxed at 20% then the government is losing out on $600,000 of revenue by exempting them. That's $600,000 dollars that another corporation who makes $3 mil is paying. By exempting the church, the government is subsidizing their activities.
  If you fail to see that, then you're blinded by stupidity.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165230 wrote:If you meant subsidize to purchase the assistance of by payment then no, I don't see it as a better word. Maybe you do. Maybe you see funding as accurate. I don't.
  
  There's no payment and there's no providing of or furnishing of money.
  
  You certainly can and will call it what you wish though jut keep in mind that the government isn't required to tax anything.

  But you realize the effect is the same right?
  
  We aren't saying the government is de-facto required to tax anything (though they do need to do that to you know, operate) but that there is a cost to us favoring churches by not taxing them that need not be there. It costs us money whether you want to call it opportunity cost or a subsidy or whatever. Effect is the same.
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165234 wrote:Are you an idiot? Choosing not to tax would mean choosing not to tax a specific activity. But exempting certain organizations from taxes has the identical effect of subsidizing them.
  
  ...

  The effect is certainly the same yet how that outcome is determined means everything legally.
  
  Not taxing an entity is a proper action by the government. Providing funding to religious entities is not. That's the difference. One is appropriate. One is not. Because the result is the same doesn't mean the influencing action is.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165237 wrote:But you realize the effect is the same right?
  ...

  Absolutely.
  
  In multiple posts I have said as much.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165240 wrote:Absolutely.
  
  In multiple posts I have said as much.

  So why are we arguing about semantics?
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165238 wrote:The effect is certainly the same yet how that outcome is determined means everything legally.
  
  Not taxing an entity is a proper action by the government. Providing funding to religious entities is not. That's the difference. One is appropriate. One is not. Because the result is the same doesn't mean the influencing action is.

  This seems like a sleezy way to justify the action. "Well technically we're not..."
  
  Are you in politics?
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1165238 wrote:The effect is certainly the same yet how that outcome is determined means everything legally.

  I didn't say anything about legality. The IRS/Congress can pass whatever statutory code they want until the Supreme Court rules against it. If they choose to subsidize religious organizations through exemption, then so be it, I just vehemently disagree with that practice because it's b*llsh*t for the government to subsidize religion (again, I'm not speaking to the legality).
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165242 wrote:So why are we arguing about semantics?

  I didn't think I was. The point of government funding of religious activities isn't the route to take if you want the result changed....in my opinion.
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165244 wrote:I didn't say anything about legality. The IRS/Congress can pass whatever statutory code they want. If they choose to subsidize religious organizations through exemption, then so be it, I just vehemently disagree with that practice because it's b*ll**** for the government to subsidize religion (again, I'm not speaking to the legality).

  I didn't say you did. It was me that referred to legality.
  
  You may think it's garbage and not agree with it but in the end similar results do not equate to the actions being the same.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165243 wrote:This seems like a sleezy way to justify the action. "Well technically we're not..."
  
  Are you in politics?

  It may indeed be sleezy and I don't seek to justify it. I even stated above that I wouldn't be opposed to taxing churches.
  
  I don't, however see an effective cease to the practice based on the Government not being permitting to fund religious activities because I don't believe that's accurate.
  
  No, I am not in politics.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1165248 wrote: but in the end similar results do not equate to the actions being the same.

  What are you talking about? The government is subsidizing religious organizations by exempting them from income tax. That's not an opinion, that's logic.
  
  Question for you: If you owe me $10,000 and I say "Don't worry about it man, you don't have to pay me" then you turn around and spend that $10,000 on a vacation, do you think I helped fund your vacation? Yes or no.
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165253 wrote:What are you talking about? The government is subsidizing religious organizations by exempting them from income tax. That's not an opinion, that's logic.
  
  Question for you: If you owe me $10,000 and I say "Don't worry about it man, you don't have to pay me" then you turn around and spend that $10,000 on a vacation, do you think I helped fund your vacation? Yes or no.

  Lol You definitely did not fund my vacation. It's the same scenario. You didn't provide the funds to me at all.
  
  Just because you aren't charging me my debt doesn't equate to you funding me.
• fish82

  

  sleeper;1165137 wrote:Why should religious organizations receive any benefit from the government? That is subsidizing religion by the state, which is unconstitutional.

  LOL...run that theory up the legal flagpole and report back how well you do with it. :rolleyes:
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165253 wrote:What are you talking about? The government is subsidizing religious organizations by exempting them from income tax. That's not an opinion, that's logic.
  
  
  
  Question for you: If you owe me $10,000 and I say "Don't worry about it man, you don't have to pay me" then you turn around and spend that $10,000 on a vacation, do you think I helped fund your vacation? Yes or no.

  Do you think that just because the outcome is the same the initiating action must then have been the same?
  
  You definitely did not fund my vacation. It's the same scenario. You didn't provide the funds to me at all.
  
  Just because you aren't charging me my debt doesn't equate to you funding me.
• sleeper

  

  fish82;1165264 wrote:LOL...run that theory up the legal flagpole and report back how well you do with it. :rolleyes:

  When I acquire enough funds, you can have no doubt in your mind I will spend the vast majority of it completely ruining religious institutions.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165266 wrote:Do you thin that just because the outcome is the same the initiating action must then have been the same?

  No, but in this case it is. You seem to be arguing that in legal technicality the government doesn't have to tax anyone so we aren't losing anything. But the reality is that we do tax people and companies so by having some groups we don't tax we are favoring or subsidizing them/their activities.
  
  You are correct in theory but the actuality is that it's a subsidy.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1165263 wrote:Lol You definitely did not fund my vacation.

  I didn't say fund. I said helped fund. Did I help fund your vacation? Yes or no
• lhslep134

  

  I Wear Pants;1165271 wrote:
  You are correct in theory but the actuality is that it's a subsidy.

  I think he's agreeing it's a subsidy. The equivocation he's refusing to acknowledge is that a subsidy=funding
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165272 wrote:I didn't say fund. I said helped fund. Did I help fund your vacation? Yes or no

  Thought I answerd. No.
  
  Just because you aren't charging me my debt doesn't equate to you "helping" fund my vacation.
  Funding is providing financial resources to make some project possible. You didn't provide them.