CAIR Loses Tax-Exempt Status

Wrong. If you owe tax and that tax is rebated or abated, you have gotten a tax benefit.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understand your position perfectly. You equate tax exempt status as a REDUCTION in revenues, thereby implying you think the money SHOULD belong to the government, except they choose not to take it. What YOU and your bullshit socialist brain dead types fail to understand is the money does NOT belong to the government. Revenues are generated by taxation. Revenues are not "lost" by exempting certain types of income or organizations because the money does not belong to the government. The idea that the government is "subsidizing" by letting people/organizations keep their own money is ludicrous beyond belief.

Your are right on one thing: it is an easy concept to grasp: It is our money, not the fucking government's. Too bad it is beyond your mommy-government mind set abilities.

David St. Hubbins said:
I actually don't have a problem with churches being tax exempt and the compromise that you describe is the primary reason for it.
Click to expand...
That's fine. Now if you can get over the liberal-socialist idea that money belongs to the government unless they decide we can keep some of it, you might actually start thinking like a free man.

David St. Hubbins said:
The founders can suck a turd out of my ass. I couldn't care less what their view was of taxation of religious organizations.
Click to expand...
Uhuh. Why do you hate freedom?
 
Good Luck said:
I understand your position perfectly. You equate tax exempt status as a REDUCTION in revenues, thereby implying you think the money SHOULD belong to the government, except they choose not to take it. What YOU and your bullshit socialist brain dead types fail to understand is the money does NOT belong to the government. Revenues are generated by taxation. Revenues are not "lost" by exempting certain types of income or organizations because the money does not belong to the government. The idea that the government is "subsidizing" by letting people/organizations keep their own money is ludicrous beyond belief.

Your are right on one thing: it is an easy concept to grasp: It is our money, not the fucking government's. Too bad it is beyond your mommy-government mind set abilities.
Click to expand...

You really should look into professional help for your simmering rage and misplaced anger. It cannot be healthy. Revenues are certainly lost by the government exempting certain types of income or organizations. In the absence of the exemptions, revenues would be higher. And I understand whose money it is. It's just that the government can tax your money and when it exempts certain organizations it confers a benefit on those organizations that in financial terms is functionally equivalent to funding them.

Good Luck said:
That's fine. Now if you can get over the liberal-socialist idea that money belongs to the government unless they decide we can keep some of it, you might actually start thinking like a free man.
Click to expand...

FARGLE BARGLE.


Good Luck said:
Uhuh. Why do you hate freedom?
Click to expand...

I don't. Why are you a massive tool?
 
David St. Hubbins said:
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?"
Click to expand...
Yes. It's their money. If the government gives back MORE than was paid in, then that is funding. Every year I fill out my tax forms, and more often than not get a return on my taxes. Am I being "funded" with my tax return?

Grow a fucking brain.

David St. Hubbins said:
I'm not making that assumption. You are assuming that I am making that assumption.
Click to expand...
How can you possibly equate tax exemption as "funding" unless you view the money as belonging to the government? The assumption is valid because there is no other way of arriving at such a ridiculous conclusion that tax exemption and government giving people money is functionally the same thing.
 
Good Luck said:
Yes. It's their money. If the government gives back MORE than was paid in, then that is funding. Every year I fill out my tax forms, and more often than not get a return on my taxes. Am I being "funded" with my tax return?

Grow a fucking brain.
Click to expand...

It depends on why you get a refund. If you simply have more deducted than you are liable for under the prevailing rates then no. If you receive specific deductions like a mortgage interest deduction or a student loan interest deduction and the like then yes, the government is helping to fund your home purchase and your education


Good Luck said:
How can you possibly equate tax exemption as "funding" unless you view the money as belonging to the government? The assumption is valid because there is no other way of arriving at such a ridiculous conclusion that tax exemption and government giving people money is functionally the same thing.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple really. Lets say the corporate tax rate is 25%. Let's say corporation A had revenues of $100 and does not qualify for any applicable exemptions. It's post tax revenues are $75. Let's say corporation B had $100 in revenues but is not taxes because it is a Gadsen Flag manufacturer and Congress has exempted Gadsen Flag manufacturers from taxation. It's post tax revenues are $100. There is no functional difference between the government taxing the Gadsen Flag manufacturer at the regular rate and then sending it a funding check of $25 to promote the production of Gadsen Flags and just not taxing it.
 
WinterBorn said:
If you buy something at Walmart, then take it back and get a refund, is Walmart paying you? They gave you money.
Click to expand...

That's a terrible analogy. Paying taxes is not the purchase of a good or service. And unless the corporation under my scenario returned a pro rata share of government services proportional to the check received, the scenarios are not remotely similar.

WinterBorn said:
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.
Click to expand...

But once the tax is paid, the money is no longer the corporation's. It is the government's
 
Yurt said:
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.
Click to expand...

still waiting for nigel to make the connection
 
I can't believe this argument. It's silly. I'll continue to use the term funding with respect to situations like this. You guys are being pedantic
 
Do 503C orgs benefit from escaping taxation?

Do their donors?
 
The deductions are specifically taken from taxable income. How can you not make the connection? The money would have been owed to the IRS if they didn't use the deduction to reduce their income.
 
tinfoil said:
So then, taxpayers don't fund the government?
Click to expand...

The tax payers do fund the gov't.

Tax payers give the money they earned to fund the gov't. Deductions and exemptions allow those who earned their money to keep their money.

There is a difference.
 
tinfoil said:
The deductions are specifically taken from taxable income. How can you not make the connection? The money would have been owed to the IRS if they didn't use the deduction to reduce their income.
Click to expand...

But allowing a deduction is not the same as funding.
 
WinterBorn said:
But allowing a deduction is not the same as funding.
Click to expand...

But it is. It's revenue that IRS allows to be sent to the church. the IRS would have recieved the funds if they denied the exemption.

You are correct that the IRS doesn't write a check to fund the church. The tax payers did it for them and in the name of the government
 
tinfoil said:
But it is. It's revenue that IRS allows to be sent to the church. the IRS would have recieved the funds if they denied the exemption.

You are correct that the IRS doesn't write a check to fund the church. The tax payers did it for them and in the name of the government
Click to expand...

If you die and the obituary asks that we donate to Al Gore's EarthWarming Charity in leiu of flowers, did you fund the charity or did your friends?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top