(04-05-2015 07:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 02:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:20 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another reason to have a consumption tax.

What the f**k are talking about? What does a consumption tax, which has never worked ever, have to do with gays forcing churches to perform gay marriages?

A consumption tax paradigm without any exemptions would eliminate the tool (removal of tax exempt status) that the gay rights activists are attempting to use to affect change. I understand that might not be popular policy with those that support non profits. It would though eliminate the use of this type of political blackmail.

The last time I checked my sales receipts they still include sales taxes. Sales taxes are consumption taxes...pure and simple.

If we already have a 'consumption' tax in sales taxes, there's no need for ANOTHER consumption tax. So why do you continually beat that drum?

Just responding to your assertion that consumption taxes did not work. I explained my reason for bringing it up initially very clearly. The rest is your problem. I suggest you do a bit of research into HR 25 and get back with me. Then we can have cordial conversation about it...OK?

(04-05-2015 02:08 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:20 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another reason to have a consumption tax.

What the f**k are talking about? What does a consumption tax, which has never worked ever, have to do with gays forcing churches to perform gay marriages?

If consumption taxes have never worked ever, why do the 30+developed countries that comprise OECD get 40% of their total tax revenues from consumption taxes?
That sounds like working to me.

Someone once purposed a banking transaction tax on ALL banking transactions. The tax would be very small since money turns over so many times. It would tax no only deposits but investment banking transactions. With this tax all other taxes would be eliminated. At first I didn't like this idea, but it would tax all the black market activity since all money eventually gets processed through banks.

And the first thing that would happen is that all multinationals would pull out of the US banking system. Wall Street would become a ghost town. That's why Hillary and Schumer moved very quickly to kill the idea when it came up about 10 years ago.

It's still around as a proposal, by the way, but I doubt it will gain much traction.

(04-05-2015 07:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 02:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:20 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another reason to have a consumption tax.

What the f**k are talking about? What does a consumption tax, which has never worked ever, have to do with gays forcing churches to perform gay marriages?

A consumption tax paradigm without any exemptions would eliminate the tool (removal of tax exempt status) that the gay rights activists are attempting to use to affect change. I understand that might not be popular policy with those that support non profits. It would though eliminate the use of this type of political blackmail.

The last time I checked my sales receipts they still include sales taxes. Sales taxes are consumption taxes...pure and simple.

If we already have a 'consumption' tax in sales taxes, there's no need for ANOTHER consumption tax. So why do you continually beat that drum?

We don't at the federal level, only state and local. I'm fully in support of the fair tax so that politicians don't get purchased by lobbyists as they currently do. But that is why the fair tax has no chance. Too much for the politicians to lose.

(04-04-2015 09:53 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  http://www.conservativecolorado.com/top-...rches-down

Today, in a stunning statement, Jeran Artery, Chairman of Wyoming Equality argued that churches who do not support same sex marriage should lose their tax exempt status.

"Churches that lobby to have freedoms and rights taken away from ANYONE should absolutely have their 501©3 status revoked!!"

Talk about tolerance, freedom of speech, and religious freedom. Disagree with Artery's views of same sex marriage and your church will be shut down.

Gone are the days of pluralism. This is what tyranny looks like.

Wyoming Equality, Artery's organization, seeks to enhance the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in the Equality State by providing: Education, Information, Activities, Support, a Networking System, and an Advocacy System for people impacted by gender and sexual orientation issues.

Is anyone surprised? Lazy Tom has said the same thing on a spin room thread.

(04-06-2015 07:55 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 07:04 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 02:20 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:20 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another reason to have a consumption tax.

What the f**k are talking about? What does a consumption tax, which has never worked ever, have to do with gays forcing churches to perform gay marriages?

A consumption tax paradigm without any exemptions would eliminate the tool (removal of tax exempt status) that the gay rights activists are attempting to use to affect change. I understand that might not be popular policy with those that support non profits. It would though eliminate the use of this type of political blackmail.

The last time I checked my sales receipts they still include sales taxes. Sales taxes are consumption taxes...pure and simple.

If we already have a 'consumption' tax in sales taxes, there's no need for ANOTHER consumption tax. So why do you continually beat that drum?

We don't at the federal level, only state and local. I'm fully in support of the fair tax so that politicians don't get purchased by lobbyists as they currently do. But that is why the fair tax has no chance. Too much for the politicians to lose.

I agree. They will never do it voluntarily. They will have to be forced to do it. A constitutional amendment movement would be necessary.

(04-05-2015 04:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:16 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm no tax lawyer, but aren't churches non profit institutions?

The left has been trying to destroy Norman Rockwell America for 60+ years. This is just one more step in that direction. They won't be satisfied until gay sex is the norm and churches are just museums.

Yea, but they are trying to say that conferring a tax benefit on a "discriminatory" organization is the government supporting that position.

When that battle comes, and it will, they will probably win that one as well.

I know we all use hyperbole here a lot, especially me. But if they start taxing churches and churches close their doors, that is the end of America as we've known it for 400 years. It's all over.

no way. the flock gives their money to the church for no other reason than their faith. they would gladly give 20% more to cover the taxes.

(04-06-2015 02:20 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 04:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:16 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm no tax lawyer, but aren't churches non profit institutions?

The left has been trying to destroy Norman Rockwell America for 60+ years. This is just one more step in that direction. They won't be satisfied until gay sex is the norm and churches are just museums.

Yea, but they are trying to say that conferring a tax benefit on a "discriminatory" organization is the government supporting that position.

When that battle comes, and it will, they will probably win that one as well.

I know we all use hyperbole here a lot, especially me. But if they start taxing churches and churches close their doors, that is the end of America as we've known it for 400 years. It's all over.

no way. the flock gives their money to the church for no other reason than their faith. they would gladly give 20% more to cover the taxes.

Maybe some would, not all. Wouldn't this law also force gay groups to pay taxes on their charitable contributions? I'm sure they stay in business through contributions as that group is not in a business that produces income.

If churches lost their non-profit status they wouldn't be destroyed. They would just pay taxes on the contributions. Many special programs (ministries) that the churches foot for the flock would just be reduced.

(04-06-2015 02:34 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:20 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 04:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:16 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm no tax lawyer, but aren't churches non profit institutions?

The left has been trying to destroy Norman Rockwell America for 60+ years. This is just one more step in that direction. They won't be satisfied until gay sex is the norm and churches are just museums.

Yea, but they are trying to say that conferring a tax benefit on a "discriminatory" organization is the government supporting that position.

When that battle comes, and it will, they will probably win that one as well.

I know we all use hyperbole here a lot, especially me. But if they start taxing churches and churches close their doors, that is the end of America as we've known it for 400 years. It's all over.

no way. the flock gives their money to the church for no other reason than their faith. they would gladly give 20% more to cover the taxes.

Maybe some would, not all. Wouldn't this law also force gay groups to pay taxes on their charitable contributions? I'm sure they stay in business through contributions as that group is not in a business that produces income.

If churches lost their non-profit status they wouldn't be destroyed. They would just pay taxes on the contributions. Many special programs (ministries) that the churches foot for the flock would just be reduced.

I would argue that if churches lose non-taxable status than all charities would as well.

maybe flat tax or simple tax?

Gay groups could lose any non-tax status (if they have any) simply because they're haters and discriminate against churches and God.

(04-06-2015 02:39 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Gay groups could lose any non-tax status (if they have any) simply because they're haters and discriminate against churches and God.

why make that narrow minded argument. it goes both ways.

(04-05-2015 08:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 02:08 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 01:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:20 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 09:07 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Another reason to have a consumption tax.

What the f**k are talking about? What does a consumption tax, which has never worked ever, have to do with gays forcing churches to perform gay marriages?

If consumption taxes have never worked ever, why do the 30+developed countries that comprise OECD get 40% of their total tax revenues from consumption taxes?
That sounds like working to me.

Someone once purposed a banking transaction tax on ALL banking transactions. The tax would be very small since money turns over so many times. It would tax no only deposits but investment banking transactions. With this tax all other taxes would be eliminated. At first I didn't like this idea, but it would tax all the black market activity since all money eventually gets processed through banks.

And the first thing that would happen is that all multinationals would pull out of the US banking system. Wall Street would become a ghost town. That's why Hillary and Schumer moved very quickly to kill the idea when it came up about 10 years ago.

It's still around as a proposal, by the way, but I doubt it will gain much traction.

Something between a bank transaction and a consumption tax that expands the number of taxpayers and is revenue neutral, until budget cuts are made, should lower everyone's tax burden while eliminating an unnecessarily complex tax code currently designed to benefit some penalize others and redistribute wealth. I'd like to see a tax code that eliminates personnel and corporate income taxes which establish winners and losers.

(04-05-2015 06:59 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 10:16 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm no tax lawyer, but aren't churches non profit institutions?

The left has been trying to destroy Norman Rockwell America for 60+ years. This is just one more step in that direction. They won't be satisfied until gay sex is the norm and churches are just museums.

Yea, but they are trying to say that conferring a tax benefit on a "discriminatory" organization is the government supporting that position.

When that battle comes, and it will, they will probably win that one as well.

So you're saying the 1st amendment is going to be repealed by judicial fiat?

Not repealed. It will be subjugated to other rights deemed to be more important.

(04-06-2015 02:36 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:34 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:20 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 04:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 12:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yea, but they are trying to say that conferring a tax benefit on a "discriminatory" organization is the government supporting that position.

When that battle comes, and it will, they will probably win that one as well.

I know we all use hyperbole here a lot, especially me. But if they start taxing churches and churches close their doors, that is the end of America as we've known it for 400 years. It's all over.

no way. the flock gives their money to the church for no other reason than their faith. they would gladly give 20% more to cover the taxes.

Maybe some would, not all. Wouldn't this law also force gay groups to pay taxes on their charitable contributions? I'm sure they stay in business through contributions as that group is not in a business that produces income.

If churches lost their non-profit status they wouldn't be destroyed. They would just pay taxes on the contributions. Many special programs (ministries) that the churches foot for the flock would just be reduced.

I would argue that if churches lose non-taxable status than all charities would as well.

maybe flat tax or simple tax?

HR 25 would only tax new goods purchased by the church...just like everyone else. It would have a minimum impact on them.

You can't have "separation of church and state" whilst also promoting the taxation of churches.

Complete idiots.

Another gay thread?

LMFAO

(04-05-2015 06:26 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  But so many gays said they would never go after churches, were they lying.

There's a shocker.

Not like anyone predicted this would happen.