• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Cars plows pedestrians in Londond 2017 June 18

Started by Juan, June 18, 2017, 06:42:58 PM

Hog

Quote from: CozyRozie on June 20, 2017, 01:04:32 AM
Exactly, the amount of community help various churches (from all religions) are doing is immeasurable.
You start taxing them and social collapse will follow very soon, and Gov will need to raise taxes on general population at least 30% to take care of all those that till now are being cared for by 'churches'
Thinking of that Canadian anon who wrote that post is very typical of a leaf. Pure empty*headnessess
He might like to think again about his hate for "churches" and come up with some logical ideas.
Social collapse?  Please, look at scientology and the other quack type religions. Preying on praying people just to line their pockets, selling their holywater with promises of a better future. Its ridiculous.

My head's empty?   Please, check yourself out first.    I don't hate the churches, its some of the brainwashed people who run them and perpetuate the religion preached in them.

peace
Hog

Hog

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 20, 2017, 01:16:25 AM
Anyone receiving a salary from churches or any other non-profits are issued W-2s and file personal tax returns.  When people say ''tax churches'', I think they are talking about the donations given by the congregations, but I could be wrong which is why I asked.

As far as people getting rich, you've be amazed at the salaries of the top people at some of these ''non-profits''.  Even (especially) some of the smaller ones receiving government grants.  Its quite the scandal, in some cases.  Definitely not all, but some.  And yes, some ''religious'' organizations are in on this as well - for example the ones receiving money to help resettle refugees (ugh). 

Are we really looking to Bill Mahar for tax policy?  Why do people think Hollywood bigshots know more than anyone else about taxes, foreign policy, Congress, etc?  It seems to me most of them usually fall into one of two categories: they are either among the dumbest people out there, or just Lib shills.  Too often both.  Not to mention being smug jerks.  Like Bill Mahr.  Should name recognition and celebrity worship replace critical thinking and expertise?
I didn't realize that Bill Maher thought that churches should be taxed. MV mentioned it before and I agreed with him.
To answer your question, its not about what Bill Maher knows personally, its his live show format where he provides a platform for various differing opinions to talk. Its an entertaining 1 hour no commercials show that provides some laughs.

You speak of some of the nonprofit organizations, and yes, some of it is entirely disgusting.  Sometimes most of the money goes directly into various pockets, with sometimes only a small amount going into "the helping."

"Should name recognition and celebrity worship replace critical thinking and expertise?"  It works for elected officials.

peace
Hog

CozyRozie

Quote from: Hog on June 21, 2017, 01:17:05 AM
Social collapse?  Please, look at scientology and the other quack type religions. Preying on praying people just to line their pockets, selling their holywater with promises of a better future. Its ridiculous.

My head's empty?   Please, check yourself out first.    I don't hate the churches, its some of the brainwashed people who run them and perpetuate the religion preached in them.

peace
Hog

I don't have the capacity to explain it to you the negative domino effects that Taxing churches would bring.
Some time ago I listen to an expert in taxation and there is absolutely no question that it would create chaos.
If yew aer really interested in the topic from pragmatic point of view I'm sure google will help.
But if yew like to express yewr emotional feelings yew aer welcome to be in error on this topic.

*edit*
yes there are few really bad apples, but overall benefit is way to great to change it in order to shut down the crooks.

Quote from: Hog on June 21, 2017, 01:34:31 AM
I didn't realize that Bill Maher thought that churches should be taxed. MV mentioned it before and I agreed with him...

I'm a little thick sometimes.  I still don't quite get the point of taxing churches, or if we're even talking about general donations or something else. 

Let's say they are awful institutions with no redeeming value - what it he point of taxing money people give freely to it?  Is that going to reduce donations, or is it just going to punish an institution the Left hates?

A couple more points:

1)  MV is one of the ones who hates religion, or at least Christianity.  During the primaries he favored the idiot Trump and disliked Ted Cruz, mostly because Cruz is a fairly devout Christian.  Even though Cruz was better on every single issue that MV pretends to care about.  So who cares what MV thinks on taxing churches.

2)  Whether people like it or not, freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights.  Not only is it in the Bill of Rights, it is the first item listed in the First Amendment.  I suggest ''taxing'' contributions from the congregation is very likely an unconstitutional infringement on free exercise:

''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''

CozyRozie

If we are going to tax churches we need to be also taxing every single charitable organization, we need to tax donations to hospitals,women's shelters, LGBTQ Organizations,Etc,Etc, every freaking institution that isn't business but receives donations/grants, even grants from the Gov. given to charitable institution.

How is that for common sense Mr.Leaf   

Quote from: Mega-Dildos, Hoagy on June 20, 2017, 01:51:36 AM
I see your point. I just wish there was a way to prevent abuse of the system.

They are big cities because they have been run by democrats. We could talk about republican held big cites like... Tombstone or one of those big cities in Montana.

I think if you blame the lefties for that list you have then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Our big cities used to be amazing.  Factories, jobs, opportunity, growth, innovation, ideas.  A true melting pot, the center of our culture.

Look at them now.  Forced bussing ran the middle class out of many of them.  Soft on crime policies generated enormous amounts of crime and ran out everyone who could get out.  High taxes, red tape, and a general unfriendly business climate ran businesses, employers, jobs, and opportunity out. 

Poor prioritizing of city resources, and sweetheart union contracts for city work in exchange for votes led to high costs, bloated city payrolls, general inefficiency, and crumbling infrastructure.  The city officials are in charge of the schools, the parks, the streets, the so-called justice system, the handout programs - which are all disasters.  They are in charge of the police departments, who they claim to be racist and lousy.  They are responsible for handling the homeless problem, which is a disgrace.

Having seen it up close where I live, I could go on and on.  It's the same mindset in every big city in our nation, each with the same failed policies, and each getting the same results.  How is any of that anyone else's fault except the people who have been in charge of them all these years?  Look how much NYC improved in just a few years under Giuliani - hardly a conservative - only to regress as soon as the ''Progressives'' got it back.

Yeah, I'm blaming the Lefties for that list.

Hog

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 21, 2017, 02:17:25 AM
I'm a little thick sometimes.  I still don't quite get the point of taxing churches, or if we're even talking about general donations or something else. 

Let's say they are awful institutions with no redeeming value - what it he point of taxing money people give freely to it?  Is that going to reduce donations, or is it just going to punish an institution the Left hates?
I'm not 100% sure.

It shouldn't reduce donations, it would surely have negative effects on the institution.

peace
Hog

Hog

Quote from: CozyRozie on June 21, 2017, 02:27:17 AM
If we are going to tax churches we need to be also taxing every single charitable organization, we need to tax donations to hospitals,women's shelters, LGBTQ Organizations,Etc,Etc, every freaking institution that isn't business but receives donations/grants, even grants from the Gov. given to charitable institution.

How is that for common sense Mr.Leaf
I think you might be asking me a question, but I don't get the "Leaf" connotation.
Any hoo,  no just tax the churches, the rest can stay as is.  You keep assuming the equation has to be a*b=ab, when it doesnt.

peace
Hog

Hog

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 21, 2017, 02:21:54 AM
A couple more points:

1)  MV is one of the ones who hates religion, or at least Christianity.  During the primaries he favored the idiot Trump and disliked Ted Cruz, mostly because Cruz is a fairly devout Christian.  Even though Cruz was better on every single issue that MV pretends to care about.  So who cares what MV thinks on taxing churches.

2)  Whether people like it or not, freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights.  Not only is it in the Bill of Rights, it is the first item listed in the First Amendment.  I suggest ''taxing'' contributions from the congregation is very likely an unconstitutional infringement on free exercise:

''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''
Something similar is listed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it's also listed as our first fundamental freedom.
"
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
"

It would seem that during the times at which our countries were born,(Canada is 150 years old on July 1st, 2017) that the freedom to practice religion was very important. To some, maybe to most, it still is.  I just think that religion takes things too far. I can understand spirituality, but being sneered at by a congregation because your donation "jingled" instead of "crinkled" is utter B/S.  Its all a money grab.

peace
Hog




Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Hog on June 21, 2017, 11:03:53 PM
Something similar is listed in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it's also listed as our first fundamental freedom.
"
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
"

It would seem that during the times at which our countries were born,(Canada is 150 years old on July 1st, 2017) that the freedom to practice religion was very important. To some, maybe to most, it still is.  I just think that religion takes things too far. I can understand spirituality, but being sneered at by a congregation because your donation "jingled" instead of "crinkled" is utter B/S.  Its all a money grab.

peace
Hog

I question the veracity of b given your laws on hate speech.

CozyRozie

Quote from: Hog on June 21, 2017, 10:49:53 PM
I think you might be asking me a question, but I don't get the "Leaf" connotation.
Any hoo,  no just tax the churches, the rest can stay as is.  You keep assuming the equation has to be a*b=ab, when it doesnt.

peace
Hog

you just proved that you are intellectually inadequate and I'm not wasting any more of mine time trying to help you to understand simple things in life.
 

Quote from: Hog on June 21, 2017, 10:45:31 PM
I'm not 100% sure.

It shouldn't reduce donations, it would surely have negative effects on the institution.

peace
Hog

Doesn't that bring us to the fundamental purpose of taxes?  Conservatives say taxes are to fund the few necessary activities only government can do, or can best do.  The Left sees them as a way of funding their grandiose bureaucratic plans to run society, punish those they don't like, and redistribute wealth.

Who should get to determine which organizations are beneficial - those involved with them and funding them with their own money, or those outside the organization who have a different agenda?  I would suggest that in the absence of illegal activity, people who don't wish to be involved should focus on their own business.  Isn't that what ''enlightened'', ''tolerant'' people do?

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 21, 2017, 02:21:54 AM
... ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.''

In addition to taxing churches, I have another idea for taxing people we don't like because of their views.  Its even in regards to First Amendments rights, so those advocating the taxation of churches should be very eager to agree.

Lets tax protesters and demonstrations.  One idea would be for everyone joining the demonstration sign up with their name, address, social security number etc.  After the demonstration is over, those who've suffered property damage, theft, hired private security, and suffered loss due to inconvenience would file claims for reimbursement.  Cities and other jurisdictions would file claims for police overtime, court costs, and other expenses.  All this would be added up, with an administrative fee of 25% added to the total, then divided by the number of demonstrators.  Each would then be assessed a tax for their fair share. 

Who could be against this very reasonable tax?  I'm sure MV would be in favor

Hog

Quote from: CozyRozie on June 21, 2017, 11:43:15 PM
you just proved that you are intellectually inadequate and I'm not wasting any more of mine time trying to help you to understand simple things in life.

Which part proved my inadequate intelligence?

peace
Hog


albrecht

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on June 22, 2017, 06:07:18 PM
Lets tax protesters and demonstrations.  One idea would be for everyone joining the demonstration sign up with their name, address, social security number etc.  After the demonstration is over, those who've suffered property damage, theft, hired private security, and suffered loss due to inconvenience would file claims for reimbursement.  Cities and other jurisdictions would file claims for police overtime, court costs, and other expenses.  All this would be added up, with an administrative fee of 25% added to the total, then divided by the number of demonstrators.  Each would then be assessed a tax for their fair share. 

Who could be against this very reasonable tax?  I'm sure MV would be in favor
A good idea. However I recall Obama's BLM has claimed in court can't be sued because it is not a real group, has no official leadership, etc but operate like terrorist cell networks. Not sure how argument ended up but your idea of taxing the individuals involved in violent riots, protests, etc that cause damage, block traffic, etc is a good idea. I think using a RICO statute to go after the major funders/donors and people involved. Any tax-exempt Foundation or entity showing funding or helping the subversive groups, at minimum, would look the tax-free charity status. Also face recognition should be used to identify those who are illegal, owe taxes, owe back child-support, have an open warrant on them, work for any public entity that receives tax dollars, etc and that information should be given to relevant authorities for follow-up at a later time on an individual basis (since it might be hard to effect an arrest during the riot itself.) Also the photographs could be shown (it is legal to take photographs of people in a public place) on the web so that employers, parents, etc of the violent extremists would know who they are and cut off funding, not hire, kick out the house, etc.

CozyRozie

Quote from: CozyRozie on June 21, 2017, 11:43:15 PM
you just proved that you are intellectually inadequate and I'm not wasting any more of mine time trying to help you to understand simple things in life.


Quote from: Hog on June 22, 2017, 06:52:55 PM
Which part proved my inadequate intelligence?

peace
Hog

hmmm....
pls, don't pull Hillary on me



paladin1991

Quote from: 𝓶𝓲𝓴𝓾𝓽𝓱𝓲𝓷𝓰01 on June 22, 2017, 07:13:33 PM
UK don't stand a chance they are neutered pathetic girly men

https://www.facebook.com/LADbible/videos/3253433874703780/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED

Those lads need to be careful.  Achmed, Haji and the boyz can't be held accountable in a Sharia court if they go about in skirts.

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod