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

• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165274 wrote:. The equivocation he's refusing to acknowledge is that a subsidy=funding

  I agree. I am not acknowledging that these two are the same.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165271 wrote: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.....

  That's not true. I have never argued the people are not losing anything. I even stated previously that there's an opportunity cost to not taxing religious entities.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1165279 wrote:I agree. I am not acknowledging that these two are the same.

  Fine, we disagree, it happens. At least you recognize an exemption is a subsidy
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165280 wrote:That's not true. I have never argued the people are not losing anything. I even stated previously that there's an opportunity cost to not taxing religious entities.

  So again, we're back to semantics.
  
  We called a subsidy funding, you disagreed with the definition.
  
  But that is maybe the least important part of what was being discussed. And this is why shit never gets done in congress (not saying you're the culprit here, just the situation in general), people squabbling over the definition of "funding" and "subsidy" when the operating definitions we're using for the terms are exactly the same. What you were calling subsidy, we called subsidy or funding. Really not a big deal there.
• Con_Alma

  I thought that was the purpose of the initial post...to state that I disagreed. It's really not more than that. I wasn't trying to argue for not taxing churches nor change someone else's mind regarding them areeing to not tax religious entities.
  
  It was as simple as stating my opinion on the post...nothing more.
• I Wear Pants

  Ok, makes sense then.
  
  Either way our government gives preference to religion which should not occur yet you won't see any outrage over that. But dear lord if two dudes want to marry each other, that is an injustice!
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165290 wrote:So again, we're back to semantics.
  
  We called a subsidy funding, you disagreed with the definition.
  
  But that is maybe the least important part of what was being discussed. And this is why **** never gets done in congress (not saying you're the culprit here, just the situation in general), people squabbling over the definition of "funding" and "subsidy" when the operating definitions we're using for the terms are exactly the same. What you were calling subsidy, we called subsidy or funding. Really not a big deal there.

  Some people don't want an awful lot to get done in congress. I'd rather they filibuster the hec kout of most things except the basic fundamentals of the country. I don't want them being active and present in most things anyway.
  
  The operational difference is a big deal in my mind. The government socially engineers many things by not charging people taxes if they do certain things. That shows me they are involved in too many things. It's a significant point.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165295 wrote:Ok, makes sense then.
  
  Either way our government gives preference to religion which should not occur yet you won't see any outrage over that. But dear lord if two dudes want to marry each other, that is an injustice!

  The injustice to me is that government has anything at all to do with marriage. I'd rather they rid any government benefit to all people and get the heck out of sanctioning marriages all together.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165297 wrote:Some people don't want an awful lot to get done in congress. I'd rather they filibuster the hec kout of most things except the basic fundamentals of the country. I don't want them being active and present in most things anyway.
  
  The operational difference is a big deal in my mind. The government socially engineers many things by not charging people taxes if they do certain things. That shows me they are involved in too many things. It's a significant point.

  I'd rather we actually have representatives voting intelligently and for the betterment of the people. I hate that it seems today many people have given up entirely on quality representation/legislation so they just hope for as little of it as possible. If we're truly to that point we might as well just start from scratch.
  

  Con_Alma;1165300 wrote:The injustice to me is that government has anything at all to do with marriage. I'd rather they rid any government benefit to all people and get the heck out of sanctioning marriages all together.

  We agree here completely.
• lhslep134

  

  Con_Alma;1165300 wrote:The injustice to me is that government has anything at all to do with marriage. I'd rather they rid any government benefit to all people and get the heck out of sanctioning marriages all together.

  I agree completely. Look, the Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental right to marry. At this point, with adoption and laboratory fertilization, I can't distinguish between a marriage between a man and woman and a same sex marriage, even if the "value" protected is procreation.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165310 wrote:I'd rather we actually have representatives voting intelligently and for the betterment of the people. I hate that it seems today many people have given up entirely on quality representation/legislation so they just hope for as little of it as possible. If we're truly to that point we might as well just start from scratch.
  
  ....

  The betterment of the people doesn't always require representatives. At times it's more efficient to have legislative body acting on the people's behalf. The problem is that it has evolved into them acting on too many things.
• Con_Alma

  lhslep134;1165311 wrote:I agree completely. Look, the Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental right to marry. At this point, with adoption and laboratory fertilization, I can't distinguish between a marriage between a man and woman and a same sex marriage, even if the "value" protected is procreation.

  There's no reason we need the government to marry. It's ridiculous.
  
  A marriage is nothing more than a relationship contract. It's the deemed "benefits" that come with it that are the issue. The financial impacts are the thing people are seeking dearly.
  
  There's got to be a way to end those incentives.
• sleeper

  

  A marriage is nothing more than right to have bedroom relations with your wife.
  
  /Con_Alma'd
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1165315 wrote:The betterment of the people doesn't always require representatives. At times it's more efficient to have legislative body acting on the people's behalf. The problem is that it has evolved into them acting on too many things.

  It certainly doesn't and I didn't claim it did.
  
  Yes they act on things they don't need to but also fail to act on things they don't. Just sticking a wrench in the gears to stop everything is not an effective strategy for the long run but it seems to be the favored strategy among a growing number of people. It's a middle ground that need not exist. Instead of pushing to stop legislation we should instead be actively working to pursue quality/worthwhile legislation at the expense of those unneeded bills and initiatives. "Just say no" is not a very good, or adult, strategy.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165325 wrote:It certainly doesn't and I didn't claim it did.
  
  ...

  Agreed. I know you didn't claim such a thing. I chose to state that the betterment of people doesn't always require representative.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1165321 wrote:A marriage is nothing more than right to have bedroom relations with your wife.
  
  /Con_Alma'd

  ???
  
  It's a relationship contract according to the law.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1165325 wrote:...
  Yes they act on things they don't need to but also fail to act on things they don't. Just sticking a wrench in the gears to stop everything is not an effective strategy for the long run but it seems to be the favored strategy among a growing number of people. ...

  The reason doing less is being more favored in my opinion is because more damage is being done or less desired things are being effected than those things that should be addressed.
  
  I would gladly give up the things they could be "fixing" and let them stay "broke" to mitigate the damage they are doing by acting in other areas. That's just my view.
  
  I don't need the government for progress. It can certainly help and make it happen faster but the damage they cause by trying to "help" is getting ridiculous.
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1165338 wrote:???
  
  It's a relationship contract according to the law.

  So you had pre-marital sex?
• OSH

  

  I Wear Pants;1165157 wrote:By providing an incentive to donate to religion they are. And taxpayers are subsidizing religion because there's a lot of revenue that could go towards roads and **** which as far as I'm aware of churches and churchgoers use to get to and from church activities. There is a cost to society for religions, or any group/person, being tax exempt. The question is whether it's worth it, in the case of religion I'd think not.
  
  

  
  You really enjoy lame memes don't you? Nothing like overgeneralizations.
  
  There is also a lot of good that ANY nonprofit does that the government doesn't do with taxes. I would prefer many of these non-profits operate how they are instead of allowing the federal government to screw up even MORE money. I don't agree with Planned Parenthood, but if they continue to educate women -- that's more than what the federal government is doing for many of those women.
  

  I Wear Pants;1165171 wrote:There are other ****ty charities yes. But even those ones you're talking about (probably things like Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc which are very large charities) the whole purpose is to help people in need. That is not the purpose of religion. Do they provide services and help? Sure they do sometimes but that is not why they exist. They exist to spread their faith/practice it.
  
  And some of the larger charities require leadership that is akin to a CEO for a large company and you won't get anyone if you don't pay them well. Of course some of them take that overboard.
  
  It'd be easier if we just taxed them all instead of deciding things, that way there is no favoritism anywhere.
  
  It's interesting how you constantly deflect the topic from faults with religion onto literally anything, secular charities being your target this time.

  The purpose of "churches" are to help people in need too. Do they do their job? That's debatable.
  
  Would I prefer that we didn't build massive and grandiose temples...absolutely! But as much as I do not like organized religion, there are many that do GREAT things on a large scale. There are many that do so much more positive things than what that money would be doing if it were taken in taxes.
  
  Pretty much ever private and college university in the country is non-profit (not counting Phoenix, DeVry, etc.). Those institutions do so much more than what any government could do if you taxed them. I would venture to say that every Division I athletic program that is separate from the institution is non-profit -- they do more than tax money would.
  
  Just what we need...more taxes being taken out from everyone and everything. That'll fix things...
  

  I Wear Pants;1165177 wrote:Close the tax loopholes then. Of course the right (read: very much religious) doesn't want to do that because it's the filthy poor people ruining everything. There should not be gigantic companies, churches, or charities that don't pay taxes.

  They don't pay taxes but they make up for it other ways...or hopefully they do. I wouldn't mind if they actually had some sort of stipulations -- however that may be. I really don't like seeing "non-profits" have thousands and millions of dollars sitting around and not actually going to good use. There are non-profit private and public universities that have $600 million worth in their endowment and still charging $50,000+ for tuition...to me, that's terrible. I understand having some operating funds for the future...but that's outrageous.
• Skyhook79

  

  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.

  No not really. Most Colleges have very liberal professors who like to push their agenda onto the students, you would call it brainwashing if it were a Church, I have had to sit through many a class in College where this went on. On top of that they make you buy books at outrageous prices in these classes where they either are getting a kickback from the publisher or it is a book written by them. College Education is fast becoming one of the biggest scams on the American People in the history of America.
• sleeper

  

  Skyhook79;1165430 wrote:No not really. Most Colleges have very liberal professors who like to push their agenda onto the students, you would call it brainwashing if it were a Church, I have had to sit through many a class in College where this went on. On top of that they make you buy books at outrageous prices in these classes where they either are getting a kickback from the publisher or it is a book written by them. College Education is fast becoming one of the biggest scams on the American People in the history of America.

  Then don't go to college. Let me know how that works out for you.
• Skyhook79

  

  I Wear Pants;1165215 wrote:I was unaware that supporting education by the government was forbidden by the constitution.

  It's not and neither is giving Churches non-profit status.
• Skyhook79

  

  sleeper;1165432 wrote:Then don't go to college. Let me know how that works out for you.

  That is not what is in question. Why do I have to fund your College Education with my tax dollars?
• Skyhook79

  

  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 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.

  How much did GE rake in 2011 and how much tax revenue did they send in to the IRS?
• Skyhook79

  

  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.

  I have other $10,000 that I spent on vacation, the $10,000 you loaned me and then said forget about the debt I donated to my local Church. I also did not claim it on my taxes. Although I am not sure why I owe you $10,000 to begin with.