Jim Johnson, Heretic.

No kidding. I did a joke thread way back when about starting a church so I could have compound on the beach.
 
I cant name anything churches do for free. They pay no income tax, they pay no property tax, they pay no sales tax. And theyre always first in line for government grants.

Ditto for non-profits.

Let's start with both when we overhaul government policies.
 
Considering the virulent and predjudicial attitudes of most churches, they deserve to be taxed as any other business would be.

Many non-profits are bogus tax dodges as well. :mad:
 
OBAMA BACKPEDALS.

Holder changed his tune today. He now says that Arizona Law is consistent with Federal Immigration Law but inconsistent with Federal Policy. I'll translate that for you. Obama has no intention of enforcing Federal Law, and if Arizona enforces the law, then AZ is inconsistent with Obama's policy. Got that? Obama expects to lose the court fight, so Holder sez they'll monitor AZ and nail them for racial profiling after the law takes effect.
 
Sorry but many non-profits, staffed by volunteers, that DO do good work in the community deserve every break they can get.

Bogus non-profits that rort the system give me the sh*ts!

Churches and Religious Groups, oh yes please.
 
Sorry but many non-profits, staffed by volunteers, that DO do good work in the community deserve every break they can get.

Bogus non-profits that rort the system give me the sh*ts!

Churches and Religious Groups, oh yes please.

Good Deeds are the crux of it. If a church or non-profit operates FREE daycare or FREE medical care or FREE cafeteria or FREE cathouse, then off course leave them alone.

One of our local non-profits recently closed its doors cuz its gubmint funding went bye-bye. Well, its board of directors voted themselves huge bonus chex the day they fired the staff. They had about 500K in the bank. Staff got complimentary awards of $10 to $100, and the board got $50K to $150K each.
 
Just the way it developed in society (and it developed a good long time before there was a "we," if you mean the United States). Why do we rely on volunteer firemen and EMTs but pay men playing field games eleventy-seven million dollars a year?
 
If a non-profit offers free daycare then you get free daycare. If a church offers free daycare then you get free daycare with a dash of propaganda and mindless obedience thrown in. I always adored Mother Theresa until I discovered she only saved people if they were willing to come to Christ.

And relying on volunteer firemen (a necessary and dangerous job) versus paid sportsman and even the arts...well...

I'm involved in Emergency Services and there is a vast difference in attitude between the paid staff and the volunteer workers. Paid staff IMO don't care nearly as much as volunteers do. Paid staff say "disaster, but I'm not getting overtime, I'm not touching another maimed body until someone sorts out my rates". Volunteers are like "I'm here because I want to be here, because it's my duty to give back to the community, because I kind of enjoy the buzz of the blood and gore in comparison to my boring lawyer's office."

Having been 'rescued' by both in training ops I know who I'd rely on - the person with the passion, not the financial reward.
 
So if we stop paying these pro football and basketball players, they'll play with more heart? Sounds like a plan. :D
 
Ah, but now we're talking ridiculous sums of money which skewers my theory.
May be part of the problem that paid emergency workers don't get nearly enough. On the plus side this prevents the temptation to breakfast on steroids :)
 
TRUANT is correct.

I was a volunteer fireman 35 years ago. It was a lot of fun. We were paid $1 per fire or call up to search for drowned bodies, etc. The professional staff were hag ridden and depressed much of the time. Like, when the pols wanted help the volunteers told them to fuck off, the paid staff rabbed their ankles and loaded their pickups with signs.

Locally, the amateur fast pitch softball games were lots more fun to watch than the MLB Rays and Yankees.

Jackie Gleason says the same; when Jack Warner paid him $100 a week he didnt think twice about telling Jack to kiss his ass. When Jack paid him $1000 a week he had a different attitude.
 
Confused

Tell me somebody; What's the correlation between volunteer firemen or volunteer anything for that matter and multimillionaire sports figures who never had any intent to entertain us.?

We have to pay to watch the pros but we're not forced to.

A constitutional right in the offing maybe?
 
Tell me somebody; What's the correlation between volunteer firemen or volunteer anything for that matter and multimillionaire sports figures who never had any intent to entertain us.?

We have to pay to watch the pros but we're not forced to.

A constitutional right in the offing maybe?

Tax breaks would logically relate to degree of value to society.

But they were brought into this thread as it relates to aspects of society that have logic or don't.

In turn, what does what you have to pay to watch have to do with firemen or EMTs?
 
The establishment clause - taxation would leave the door open for selective, i.e., discriminatory, enforcement, much like "faith based" financing does in praxis.
 
As long as U.S. government continues to foist off the social services responsibilities of society as a whole on the churches and nonprofits, I think they certainly should continue to get tax breaks.
 
Say again ...

Tax breaks would logically relate to degree of value to society.

But they were brought into this thread as it relates to aspects of society that have logic or don't.

In turn, what does what you have to pay to watch have to do with firemen or EMTs?

What do those three sentences say? They're absolutely meaningless as they relate to one another as far as I can see. So tell me more.
 
What do those three sentences say? They're absolutely meaningless as they relate to one another as far as I can see. So tell me more.

Why? Why do I care if they mean anything to you--or that you can't--or don't choose to--understand what I wrote? I'm comfortable with your confusion.
 
Tell me somebody; What's the correlation between volunteer firemen or volunteer anything for that matter and multimillionaire sports figures who never had any intent to entertain us.?

We have to pay to watch the pros but we're not forced to.

A constitutional right in the offing maybe?

The question is: Who brings more enthusiasm and heart to the game.

The Yankees play ball here in Tampa, and its not uncommon to see 2-3 of their star players show up at the Little League games to watch the kids. Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig did the same. But most ball players dont.
 
The establishment clause - taxation would leave the door open for selective, i.e., discriminatory, enforcement, much like "faith based" financing does in praxis.

Explains the churches tax exemption quite succinctly. Not the non-profits. That's a whole different can of worms.
 
Why do churches and non-profits get free tax rides?

Wrong question. The right question is: why do OTHER people and organizations have to pay taxes? There is no moral, ethical, or logical reason to compel anyone or any organization to fork over their property to a band of armed thugs who merely claim legitimacy.
 
Wrong question. The right question is: why do OTHER people and organizations have to pay taxes? There is no moral, ethical, or logical reason to compel anyone or any organization to fork over their property to a band of armed thugs who merely claim legitimacy.

Is this a trick question? To pay the bills that keep a complex society going, of course. (dummy)
 
Wrong question. The right question is: why do OTHER people and organizations have to pay taxes? There is no moral, ethical, or logical reason to compel anyone or any organization to fork over their property to a band of armed thugs who merely claim legitimacy.

Your myopic assertion is proof of your idiocy................go lightly.....wear flowers in your hair....
 
Back
Top