CAIR Loses Tax-Exempt Status

[Cancel 2018. 3]

CAIR Loses Tax-Exempt Status

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has lost its tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service for failing to file legally required annual reports for three consecutive years, the federal agency said. CAIR is one of 275,000 groups targeted by the IRS for being out of compliance with filing requirements. “The IRS believes the vast majority of these organizations are defunct, but it also announced special steps to help any existing organizations to apply for reinstatement of their tax-exempt status,” the agency said in announcing the action.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44411

too bad it is not permanent

 

[tinfoil]

I would love to see ALL religious exemptions ended

I'm tired of funding fairy tale clubs

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I would love to see ALL religious exemptions ended

I'm tired of funding fairy tale clubs

how is not taxing = funding?

 

[Bonestorm]

how is not taxing = funding?

Forgoing tax revenue that would otherwise be collected is the functional equivalent of funding.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Forgoing tax revenue that would otherwise be collected is the functional equivalent of funding.

no it isn't. so when i get tax deductions, the government is funding my business? you're such a socialist, you believe that if an organization or individual does not pay a certain tax, then they are getting funded by the government because the government is entitled to all the money.

 

[Good Luck]

Forgoing tax revenue that would otherwise be collected is the functional equivalent of funding.

Yea, right. We keep forgetting that, according to you big mommy government twits, it is actually the governments money until they decide how much of it we get to keep.

But, for those of you ignorant of reality, keep this in mind: tax exempt churches have no say in how our government is run - and I am quite certain you like it that way. Start taxing churches, and that means churches WILL have a say in how government is run. No taxation without representation. If an organization is taxed, then they have every right to demand their issues be represented. Imagine the kind of PAC the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could put together.

See, the founders knew what they were doing when they established the standard of not taxing religious organizations.

 

[Bonestorm]

no it isn't. so when i get tax deductions, the government is funding my business?

Yes.

you're such a socialist, you believe that if an organization or individual does not pay a certain tax, then they are getting funded by the government because the government is entitled to all the money.

It's got nothing to do with socialism. If the government would tax you X dollars but instead gives you a deduction of X-Y dollars, the government has given you the benefit of Y dollars. Not really complicated.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Forgoing tax revenue that would otherwise be collected is the functional equivalent of funding.

So the government is 'funding the populace' by the amount they don't tax us?

That is one of the most retarded things I have heard.... you may be close to topping Ditzie's 1/3 comment with that line of crap.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yea, right. We keep forgetting that, according to you big mommy government twits, it is actually the governments money until they decide how much of it we get to keep.

What? I'm just pointing out that tax deduction reduce the amount of revenue the government would otherwise collect and that those deductions benefit those that receive them. This isn't really a difficult concept to grasp.

But, for those of you ignorant of reality, keep this in mind: tax exempt churches have no say in how our government is run - and I am quite certain you like it that way. Start taxing churches, and that means churches WILL have a say in how government is run. No taxation without representation. If an organization is taxed, then they have every right to demand their issues be represented. Imagine the kind of PAC the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops could put together.

I actually don't have a problem with churches being tax exempt and the compromise that you describe is the primary reason for it.

See, the founders knew what they were doing when they established the standard of not taxing religious organizations.

The founders can suck a turd out of my ass. I couldn't care less what their view was of taxation of religious organizations.

 

[Bonestorm]

So the government is 'funding the populace' by the amount they don't tax us?

That is one of the most retarded things I have heard.... you may be close to topping Ditzie's 1/3 comment with that line of crap.

What you said is indeed stupid, but it isn't what I said.

 

[tinfoil]

no it isn't. so when i get tax deductions, the government is funding my business? you're such a socialist, you believe that if an organization or individual does not pay a certain tax, then they are getting funded by the government because the government is entitled to all the money.

Listen, man, it's econ 101. You can not be serious. Tax revenue is decreased by the deductions. I see where you're problem is with the wording, but the reality is, this is the description taught in modern economics. I'm afraid I'm guilty of learning this from the keynesian lessons. But the juxtaposition is valid. Reduced tax liability via a deduction can be equated with the notion of subsidy and further rhetorical treatment renders the final product "government funds ..."

Yes, it is rhetoric. I admit this, but it's also a valid notion

 

[WinterBorn]

What? I'm just pointing out that tax deduction reduce the amount of revenue the government would otherwise collect and that those deductions benefit those that receive them. This isn't really a difficult concept to grasp.

No one said that a tax deduction or tax exemption isn't beneficial. What they are saying is that the gov't is not funding something or someone that gets a deduction or exemption. As was pointed out, the assumption that money belongs to the gov't and what they allow us to keep comes from them is lunacy.

 

[tinfoil]

Correct me if I'm wrong. People are allowed to reduce their taxable income by making donations to churches?

 

[tinfoil]

It's the same thing with tax deductions for mortgage interest. why should some rich guy get to reduce his tax burden by an amount greater than some people earn anually simply because he can afford it? The reason we're given is that it give incentive for people to buy homes and this creates jobs , presumably, and thus the revenue is made up for according to the logic. Is it true? Who knows? The concept does not defy reality IMO.

However, I can't see why donations to religious entities are justified.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So the government is 'funding the populace' by the amount they don't tax us?

That is one of the most retarded things I have heard.... you may be close to topping Ditzie's 1/3 comment with that line of crap.

i was going to say something along these lines...i don't recall ever hearing anyone claim that when the government does not tax us, they are in fact funding us

thank goodness the government doesn't tax me at 100%, because that means the government is funding every dollar i make

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

So when rightwingers tout tax cuts as "good or business", what are they claiming as the benefit to that business?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Listen, man, it's econ 101. You can not be serious. Tax revenue is decreased by the deductions. I see where you're problem is with the wording, but the reality is, this is the description taught in modern economics. I'm afraid I'm guilty of learning this from the keynesian lessons. But the juxtaposition is valid. Reduced tax liability via a deduction can be equated with the notion of subsidy and further rhetorical treatment renders the final product "government funds ..."

Yes, it is rhetoric. I admit this, but it's also a valid notion

the notion is only valid is you assume the government has a right to tax 100% of everything

 

[Bonestorm]

No one said that a tax deduction or tax exemption isn't beneficial. What they are saying is that the gov't is not funding something or someone that gets a deduction or exemption.

But it is the functional equivalent. Let's say that instead of reducing corporate tax liability in the first instance, corporations paid tax at the applicable corporate tax rate and then the government sent them back a check in the amount of the applicable deductions and exemptions. Would you still hold the view that the receipt of these funds from the government do not amount to "funding?"

As was pointed out, the assumption that money belongs to the gov't and what they allow us to keep comes from them is lunacy.

I'm not making that assumption. You are assuming that I am making that assumption.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

for tinfoil and dungheap


funding

Definitions (3)

1. Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.

2. Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.

3. Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.

 

[WinterBorn]

But it is the functional equivalent. Let's say that instead of reducing corporate tax liability in the first instance, corporations paid tax at the applicable corporate tax rate and then the government sent them back a check in the amount of the applicable deductions and exemptions. Would you still hold the view that the receipt of these funds from the government do not amount to "funding?"

If you buy something at Walmart, then take it back and get a refund, is Walmart paying you? They gave you money.

If we tax corporations and then send them some of THEIR money back, we are not funding them. We are giving them back THEIR money.