1. All income taxes for individual persons/married couples and corporations will be levied on gross income over the amount equal to the poverty level income for a single-person household. No deductions or exemptions will be allowed, but the government can grant vouchers that can be used to pay taxes providing you spend money on something the government wants you to spend money on- health insurance or a retirement account for example.
2. Each taxpayer will pay an amount in taxes that is equal to the percentage of the gross national income that accrued to the taxpayer for the previous calendar year. If your income for last year equaled x% of the total gross income for all taxpayers last year, then you pay x% of this year's income in taxes.
3. Current tax-exempt corporations and organizations will retain their exemption.
As long as I get to be one of those tax exempt entities mentioned in line 3, I'm on board.
Some are, after all, more equal than others.
Number 3 would also make the number of "non-profit" organizations and funny "churches" explode.
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 02, 2011, 08:26:11 AM
Number 3 would also make the number of "non-profit" organizations and funny "churches" explode.
We have this kind of thing already. But what I propose would put a stop to some of it. Basing taxation on gross income and not allowing deductions would put a stop to a lot of "businesses" that people set up to support their hobbies so they can get tax write-offs.
Tax the non profits, churches included and you'll double the effect of the next natural disaster in this country. As one who has worked in several 'national disasters' with the Red Cross I can tell you the efforts of the government alone is like pissing in the ocean.
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 01, 2011, 09:20:21 PM
but the government can grant vouchers that can be used to pay taxes providing you spend money on something the government wants you to spend money on
No thank you. :)
QuoteDid you know that in Denmark, the poorest 30 percent pay 14.1 percent of all taxes and the richest pay 48.7 percent, while in the United States, the poorest 30 percent pay just 6.1 percent of all taxes and the richest 30 percent pay a whopping 65.3 percent? The surprising thing is not that the richest pay most of the taxes but that the U.S. has nearly the most progressive tax system in the world, while the Scandinavian countries have about the least progressive tax systems, contrary to commonly held belief.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/growing-the-economy-for-dummies/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/growing-the-economy-for-dummies/)
Basing taxes on gross income would shrink the money supply to a lot of what I consider to be illegitimate charities. The poor and middle class donate to churches and organizations like the Red Cross out of the goodness of their hearts and because they sincerely believe in what these non-profit organization do. Under the present tax code rich people donate to things like art museums because they want a tax shelter.
Quote from: Ajax on September 02, 2011, 12:18:58 PM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 01, 2011, 09:20:21 PM
but the government can grant vouchers that can be used to pay taxes providing you spend money on something the government wants you to spend money on
No thank you. :)
Consider it a way to privatize Social Security. Let employers pay money into a retirement account for each employee and then count that money as taxes paid for FICA.
Quote from: Ajax on September 02, 2011, 12:23:19 PM
QuoteDid you know that in Denmark, the poorest 30 percent pay 14.1 percent of all taxes and the richest pay 48.7 percent, while in the United States, the poorest 30 percent pay just 6.1 percent of all taxes and the richest 30 percent pay a whopping 65.3 percent? The surprising thing is not that the richest pay most of the taxes but that the U.S. has nearly the most progressive tax system in the world, while the Scandinavian countries have about the least progressive tax systems, contrary to commonly held belief.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/growing-the-economy-for-dummies/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/growing-the-economy-for-dummies/)
Part of the reason why I am proposing this. Something like 45% of U.S. households pay zero in federal income taxes. So what incentive do the people living in these households have to support federal budget cuts? Equalize the tax burden and fewer people will be willing to demand government handouts.
pretty sure the poorest 30% in the US are a lot poorer than the poorest 30% in denmark.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 01, 2011, 09:20:21 PM
1. All income taxes for individual persons/married couples and corporations will be levied on gross income over the amount equal to the poverty level income for a single-person household. No deductions or exemptions will be allowed, but the government can grant vouchers that can be used to pay taxes providing you spend money on something the government wants you to spend money on- health insurance or a retirement account for example.
2. Each taxpayer will pay an amount in taxes that is equal to the percentage of the gross national income that accrued to the taxpayer for the previous calendar year. If your income for last year equaled x% of the total gross income for all taxpayers last year, then you pay x% of this year's income in taxes.
3. Current tax-exempt corporations and organizations will retain their exemption.
Number 3 should end now. Churches and nonprofit religious organizations are a perfect place to hide money and it's happening everywhere. Closed books?...privacy?....no wonder there's one on every corner...Watch donations drop like a brick when they are'nt tax exempt...wonder how these churches get sooo big and control thier areas?...makes ya go hmmm??? I wonder..
Quote from: Garden guy on September 02, 2011, 03:59:31 PM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 01, 2011, 09:20:21 PM
1. All income taxes for individual persons/married couples and corporations will be levied on gross income over the amount equal to the poverty level income for a single-person household. No deductions or exemptions will be allowed, but the government can grant vouchers that can be used to pay taxes providing you spend money on something the government wants you to spend money on- health insurance or a retirement account for example.
2. Each taxpayer will pay an amount in taxes that is equal to the percentage of the gross national income that accrued to the taxpayer for the previous calendar year. If your income for last year equaled x% of the total gross income for all taxpayers last year, then you pay x% of this year's income in taxes.
3. Current tax-exempt corporations and organizations will retain their exemption.
Number 3 should end now. Churches and nonprofit religious organizations are a perfect place to hide money and it's happening everywhere. Closed books?...privacy?....no wonder there's one on every corner...Watch donations drop like a brick when they are'nt tax exempt...wonder how these churches get sooo big and control thier areas?...makes ya go hmmm??? I wonder..
So foolish, I am sure there are shenanigans going on. You know what else is going on 99% of what Americans give in money and time to charity and efforts to make our country and world a better place go on in the non-profits and Churches. Lots of times that money and time is given to gain some tax advantage but society still nets way ahead on this so who cares.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 02, 2011, 02:53:32 PM
pretty sure the poorest 30% in the US are a lot poorer than the poorest 30% in denmark.
And the rich aren't so filthy rich. He should compare the tax RATES not the taxes collected. Denmark doesn't have the income gap that we do.
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 02, 2011, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 02, 2011, 02:53:32 PM
pretty sure the poorest 30% in the US are a lot poorer than the poorest 30% in denmark.
And the rich aren't so filthy rich. He should compare the tax RATES not the taxes collected. Denmark doesn't have the income gap that we do.
The Rich in this country are pretty filthy rich.
List of countries by distribution of wealth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by distribution of wealth[1] including Gini coefficients. The higher a Gini coefficient the more unequal is the distribution of wealth. The worldwide Gini coefficient of 89.2 e. g. means that one of 10 persons owns 99%, while the others share the remaining percent.[2] If the world's wealth was $1000, then one person would own $990 and the other nine owning $1.11 each on average.
Rank↓ Country↓ Gini-Index [%]↓ Adult population [million]↓ Adult pop. [%]↓ Wealth per adult [$]↓ Wealth [%]↓
- World 89.2 3,697.518 100 33,893 100
1 Japan 54.7 100.933 2.7 227,600 18.3
2 China 55.0 842.063 22.8 3,885 2.6
3 Spain 57.0 32.165 0.9 86,958 2.2
4 South Korea 57.9 33.242 0.9 41,777 1.1
5 Italy 60.9 (61)[3] 46.416 1.3 122,250 4.5
6 Finland 62.1 (68)[3] 3.328 0.09 37,171 0.15
7 Australia 62.2 13.690 0.4 94,712 1.0
8 Netherlands 65.0 12.046 0.3 144,406 1.4
9 Taiwan 65.5 15.476 0.4 105,613 1.3
10 Bangladesh 66.0 66.483 1.8 2,424 0.1
11 Germany 66.7 (78)[3] 64.810 1.8 109,735 5.7
12 India 66.9 570.595 15.4 1,989 0.9
13 Vietnam 68.2 44.025 1.2 1,986 0.1
14 Canada 68.8 (75)[3] 22.764 0.6 95,606 1.7
15 United Kingdom 69.7 (66)[3] 43.871 1.2 169,617 5.9
16 Pakistan 69.8 67.968 1.8 2,633 0.1
17 Russia 69.9 107.493 2.9 4,140 0.4
18 Thailand 71.0 40.160 1.1 6,717 0.2
19 Turkey 71.8 40.391 1.1 16,218 0.5
20 France 73.0 44.358 1.2 114,650 4.1
21 Niger 73.6 51.431 1.4 862 0.0
22 Argentina 74.0 23.307 0.6 40,225 0.7
23 Mexico 74.9 56.132 1.5 23,305 1.0
24 Indonesia 76.4 124.445 3.4 2,421 0.2
25 Sweden 77.6 (89)[3] 5.546 0.15 83,918 0.6
26 Brazil 78.4 104.213 2.8 15,958 1.3
27 United States 80.1 (84)[3] 202.865 5.5 201,319 32.628 Switzerland 80.3 5.497 0.1 222,641 1.0
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 02, 2011, 04:17:39 PM
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 02, 2011, 02:53:32 PM
pretty sure the poorest 30% in the US are a lot poorer than the poorest 30% in denmark.
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 02, 2011, 02:53:32 PM
pretty sure the poorest 30% in the US are a lot poorer than the poorest 30% in denmark.
How many poor in Denmark have a car? Cable TV? Internet access? Enough junk food to be overweight?
Quote from: Garden guy on September 02, 2011, 03:59:31 PM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 01, 2011, 09:20:21 PM
1. All income taxes for individual persons/married couples and corporations will be levied on gross income over the amount equal to the poverty level income for a single-person household. No deductions or exemptions will be allowed, but the government can grant vouchers that can be used to pay taxes providing you spend money on something the government wants you to spend money on- health insurance or a retirement account for example.
2. Each taxpayer will pay an amount in taxes that is equal to the percentage of the gross national income that accrued to the taxpayer for the previous calendar year. If your income for last year equaled x% of the total gross income for all taxpayers last year, then you pay x% of this year's income in taxes.
3. Current tax-exempt corporations and organizations will retain their exemption.
Number 3 should end now. Churches and nonprofit religious organizations are a perfect place to hide money and it's happening everywhere. Closed books?...privacy?....no wonder there's one on every corner...Watch donations drop like a brick when they are'nt tax exempt...wonder how these churches get sooo big and control thier areas?...makes ya go hmmm??? I wonder..
Typical knee-jerk liberalism. What happens when the government destroys the 1st Amendment by taxing churches into non-existence?
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 02, 2011, 04:41:08 PM
The Rich in this country are pretty filthy rich.
So just what is it that entitles you to their money?
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 02, 2011, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 02, 2011, 04:41:08 PM
The Rich in this country are pretty filthy rich.
So just what is it that entitles you to their money?
When that money is not wholey theirs when they got it with special advantages only afforded to them set by those like them..so..yet mame...
Quote from: Garden guy on September 02, 2011, 05:32:12 PM
When that money is not wholey theirs when they got it with special advantages only afforded to them set by those like them..so..yet mame...
Examples? Documentation?
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 02, 2011, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 02, 2011, 04:41:08 PM
The Rich in this country are pretty filthy rich.
So just what is it that entitles you to their money?
I more of a big tax payer but I do realize I pay more because the government does much more for people who earn more. That was not the point of my post it was more to point out that the Rich in the country are kicking ass as opposed to not so filthy rich. I am not vilifying the rich.
It is still surprising to me that there are people out there who do not get the basic morals and practicality of taxing progressively. My guess is you are smart enough to understand we are all just more beholden to political dogma than morals or just what actually works.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 02, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
I more of a big tax payer but I do realize I pay more because the government does much more for people who earn more.
Examples? Documentation other than your say-so?
QuoteIt is still surprising to me that there are people out there who do not get the basic morals and practicality of taxing progressively.
There is no morality to it; it's theft.
Jax-native68 you are completely totally wrong about everything
I also think it's STUPID to compare a country with about 312,000 people with a country the size of the Miami Metro area of about 5.5 million. And show me where 45% pay no taxes...
Break that down for me.
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
If the government could not maintain society the Rich man would suffer more than the poor man that is the history of our world. Enforcing contracts benefits the rich more than the poor. Policing protects the haves from the have nots. Subsidizing roads and airports benefits those who can travel more. Providing a secure market place for society is more utilized by the rich and on and on. Western culture is a moral construct based on Judo-Christian tradition. This is basic 101 stuff Jax Native.
Again the rich aren't evil and there are lots of arguments to be made for basic conservative philosophy.
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
Thank you...words to live by...
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:38:29 PM
I also think it's STUPID to compare a country with about 312,000 people with a country the size of the Miami Metro area of about 5.5 million. And show me where 45% pay no taxes...
Break that down for me.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm
63.2 million people in this country, people whose income is less than $50,000, had zero federal income tax liability in 2010.
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
and do you see where conservativism got us all...in the gutter and you can thank the republican conservative ideas rules and regulations..
Jax Native here you go.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/269537/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-world-of-class-warfare-the-poors-free-ride-is-over (http://www.hulu.com/watch/269537/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-world-of-class-warfare-the-poors-free-ride-is-over)
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
What is "Genuine Conservatism"?
I reject all isms, but none more so than absolutism.
Quote from: Garden guy on September 03, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
and do you see where conservativism got us all...in the gutter and you can thank the republican conservative ideas rules and regulations..
Conservatism hasn't existed as a political force in the United States since FDR was in the White House. What we have now is libertarianism that masquerades as conservatism. But libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 03, 2011, 08:34:34 AM
Jax Native here you go.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/269537/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-world-of-class-warfare-the-poors-free-ride-is-over (http://www.hulu.com/watch/269537/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-world-of-class-warfare-the-poors-free-ride-is-over)
And?
Quote from: buckethead on September 03, 2011, 08:49:14 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
What is "Genuine Conservatism"?
I reject all isms, but none more so than absolutism.
I'll start a new thread.
At least slick left with a balanced budget and a surplus. And you should be more upset that Ford pardoned Nixon when he committed a crime against everyone in the country. After reading your other post, it seems obvious the only part of conservatism you are concerned about is the money part. The Jon Stewart clip, is funny and completely true. If there is a class warfare it's because conservatives resent the poor having a refrigerator because they are too poor pay taxes. The poor do pay taxes, when they buy clothing, buy gas. Even when you are poor there are essential needs like soap and other necessities. The ones who have the privilege of working a low paying job still pay in SS and Medicare. Your view sounds more resentful and without compassion for those who can't do better for themselves. Not all the Welfare recipients and low wage earners want to be in the situation they are in. But so many "conservatives" believe they just want to leech off of society. I understand you are not a Republican and I guess not a Tea Party member, but I love how the right and other conservative types, and my all time favorite Fox News shills attacked Warren Buffet for his personal view of taxation.
On that side if you don't stand in line with their ideology you are demonized.
Quote from: avonjax on September 03, 2011, 10:21:52 AM
At least slick left with a balanced budget and a surplus.
Technically no. Federal law says that all money collected in Social Security taxes must be held in trust by the United States government and invested in the safest securities available- U.S. government bonds. Legally the federal government has to borrow money, i.e, it has to loan the money it collects in Social Security taxes to itself, so by definition the federal budget cannot be balanced.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on September 03, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
and do you see where conservativism got us all...in the gutter and you can thank the republican conservative ideas rules and regulations..
Conservatism hasn't existed as a political force in the United States since FDR was in the White House. What we have now is libertarianism that masquerades as conservatism. But libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing.
You have it exactly backward. What we have now is "conservatism" trying to mask itself as libertarianism. It is the Fundamentalist Christian conservatives yelling, "Small Government, low taxes", and when they get elected the first thing they do is hurry to pass laws extending the governments reach into women's reproductive rights and pass other laws trying to get tax payers money to support religious institutions. They don't want small government, they want the Christian equivalent of Sharia law....more intrusive government into peoples' personal lives.
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 03, 2011, 10:50:24 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 09:08:45 AM
Quote from: Garden guy on September 03, 2011, 08:28:52 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 03, 2011, 08:25:42 AM
Quote from: avonjax on September 02, 2011, 11:40:44 PM
You are a typical Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter right wing, I care only about myself and family and the less fortunate can go to hell bunch.
I am sick of you all.
You don't know me from Adam. I would not give you 2 cents for this lot combined. I was the first Republican in my family when I registered to vote when I turned 18. But I left the Republican Party when Slick was acquitted with 10 GOP votes. Since then I have come to reject the libertarianism of the Republican Party establishment in favor of genuine conservatism.
and do you see where conservativism got us all...in the gutter and you can thank the republican conservative ideas rules and regulations..
Conservatism hasn't existed as a political force in the United States since FDR was in the White House. What we have now is libertarianism that masquerades as conservatism. But libertarianism and conservatism are not the same thing.
You have it exactly backward. What we have now is "conservatism" trying to mask itself as libertarianism. It is the Fundamentalist Christian conservatives yelling, "Small Government, low taxes", and when they get elected the first thing they do is hurry to pass laws extending the governments reach into women's reproductive rights and pass other laws trying to get tax payers money to support religious institutions. They don't want small government, they want the Christian equivalent of Sharia law....more intrusive government into peoples' personal lives.
There is nothing inherently conservative about small government or low taxes. Abortion is murder and sleeping around leads to the destruction of society- something that liberals and libertarians want.
That's a rediculous statement...no one wants the distruction of society...it just seems that you have completely forgotten that it is exactly the conservative ideas rules and regulations that we followed...we did...now look where it put us all...
Quote from: Garden guy on September 03, 2011, 08:25:21 PM
That's a rediculous statement...no one wants the distruction of society...it just seems that you have completely forgotten that it is exactly the conservative ideas rules and regulations that we followed...we did...now look where it put us all...
What are you babbling about? Conservatives have not told you libs to sleep around. Conservatives have not told you libs to get high. Conservatives have not told you libs to ignore history or human nature while you strive to create your liberal utopia.
No they lead with their Jerry Farwellian examples.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 02, 2011, 05:26:28 PM
Enough junk food to be overweight?
The reason healthier diets are beyond the reach of many people is that such diets cost more. On a per calorie basis, diets composed of whole grains, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit are far more expensive than refined grains, added sugars and added fats.
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, uses data from the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Census to argue that disparities in income produce a wide range of social illsâ€"like obesity, teen pregnancy, mental illness, murder, and infant mortalityâ€"that could be addressed by shrinking the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Sources:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2229523/pagenum/2
Quote from: Diderot on September 04, 2011, 09:37:10 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 02, 2011, 05:26:28 PM
Enough junk food to be overweight?
The reason healthier diets are beyond the reach of many people is that such diets cost more. On a per calorie basis, diets composed of whole grains, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit are far more expensive than refined grains, added sugars and added fats.
The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, uses data from the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Census to argue that disparities in income produce a wide range of social illsâ€"like obesity, teen pregnancy, mental illness, murder, and infant mortalityâ€"that could be addressed by shrinking the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
Sources:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/01/040105071229.htm
http://www.slate.com/id/2229523/pagenum/2
Good healthy foods are expensive because of the massive amounts of sugars fats etc in our diets and are there because of the huge heavily subsidized food conglomerates that have taken over our food supply at the hands of CEO's who could care less about he human healthy system..all they care about is the goverment cash to grow corn and soy....we are all screwed.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 02, 2011, 05:28:05 PM
Typical knee-jerk liberalism. What happens when the government destroys the 1st Amendment by taxing churches into non-existence?
Let's look at the first Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Exempting religious organizations from paying taxes is a clear case of our government "respecting an establishment of religion," precisely what the framers intended to prohibit.
This is not to suggest that you abandon your church or your faith. For one thing, any religious organization that lives up to its commitments to its congregation and community would have nothing to fear from filing a tax return, just like every other non-profit. For another, when these institutions pay taxes like every other non-profit, each citizen's tax burden is significantly lessened and consequently he or she maybetter endow a worthy institution with individual support.
It is the flip side of the same coin: as your right to practice a religion must be respected by government, it may not support churches by tax subsidies or any other means.
Source:
http://taxthechurches.org/
Taxing churches is not pragmatic they do more than their share of civic and charitable good. Taxing them would just take away from that. It may not be how you feel things should be done but that is a simple truth.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 02, 2011, 09:48:38 AM
Tax the non profits, churches included and you'll double the effect of the next natural disaster in this country. As one who has worked in several 'national disasters' with the Red Cross I can tell you the efforts of the government alone is like pissing in the ocean.
OCKLAWAHA
If churches engage in charitable work that benefits the community, do all citizens have an interest in supporting such endeavors with, say, various tax exemptions? Of course. This is the sound basis for tax exemptions for non-profit organizations, whose activities and finances are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny. In the case of religious organizations, however, the books are closed.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 04, 2011, 10:05:44 AM
Taxing churches is not pragmatic they do more than their share of civic and charitable good. Taxing them would just take away from that. It may not be how you feel things should be done but that is a simple truth.
Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches.
So what if churches do not engage in charitable work? Or do so far less efficiently, effectively - or charitably - than the many non-profits or government programs we do not subsidize in this way? Religious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status. Many amass great wealth and vast media empires - all of it off the tax rolls. The point is that religious organizations can and do espouse doctrines of intolerance and hatred, filter funds to foreign enemies, and cause far more harm than good in their communities. They are nevertheless entirely tax-exempt, their finances never scrutinized, because they qualify as "religious organizations."
Quote from: Diderot on September 04, 2011, 09:37:10 AM
The reason healthier diets are beyond the reach of many people is that such diets cost more.
This is a catch-22 situation. If American consumers didn't demand so much junk food, junk food wouldn't be produced in so much abundance meaning junk food wouldn't be as cheap as it is. And considering the fuel and fertilizer it takes to grow the corn that gets turned into high fructose corn syrup compared to the fuel and fertilizer it takes to grow a head of lettuce, production costs for an individual candy bar are likely higher than they are for a serving of salad. But because we grow more corn than we do lettuce, the economy of scale means lettuce is more expensive than corn syrup.
The federal government determines poverty-level income by measuring how much money it costs to buy the food needed for an adequate diet. I don’t know if the formula has been updated any in recent years, but when I researched the issue back in the 1990s the food costs used to determine poverty were based on prices from the 1960s- which were higher then they are now when adjusted for inflation because we didn’t have cheap high fructose corn syrup and palm kernel oil back then.
QuoteOn a per calorie basis, diets composed of whole grains, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit are far more expensive than refined grains, added sugars and added fats.
But that’s the problem. The daily calorie intake for the average American is something like 1/3 higher now than it was 40 years ago. Back in the 1960s the federal government recommended that fallout shelters be stocked with enough food to give every occupant a diet of 2000 calories a day and this is about what an average American ate at the time. But today the average calorie consumption is anywhere from 3000 to 5000+ calories a day. Food prices are high because Americans demand more food than they really need.
QuoteThe Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, uses data from the World Bank, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Census to argue that disparities in income produce a wide range of social illsâ€"like obesity, teen pregnancy, mental illness, murder, and infant mortalityâ€"that could be addressed by shrinking the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
You couldn’t isolate income from the effects of other factors such as family structure or religion or lack thereof. The Kennedy Family is one of the richest in the country, but it also has a high concentration of obesity, mental illness, murder and infant mortality, not to mention adultery and bootlegging and divorce.
Quote from: Garden guy on September 04, 2011, 09:55:19 AM
Good healthy foods are expensive because of the massive amounts of sugars fats etc in our diets and are there because of the huge heavily subsidized food conglomerates that have taken over our food supply at the hands of CEO's who could care less about he human healthy system..all they care about is the goverment cash to grow corn and soy....we are all screwed.
Not entirely. Anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of the fruits and vegetables that are grown in the U.S. end up being wasted. They are either purchased and not eaten, or they rot during storage and transportation to markets that are thousands of miles away from where they are grown.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/from-farm-to-fridge-to-garbage-can/?ref=science
http://www.antropologi.info/blog/anthropology/2004/study_says_usa_wastes_nearly_half_its_fo
Quote from: Diderot on September 04, 2011, 10:01:36 AM
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 02, 2011, 05:28:05 PM
Typical knee-jerk liberalism. What happens when the government destroys the 1st Amendment by taxing churches into non-existence?
Let's look at the first Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Exempting religious organizations from paying taxes is a clear case of our government "respecting an establishment of religion," precisely what the framers intended to prohibit.
This is not to suggest that you abandon your church or your faith. For one thing, any religious organization that lives up to its commitments to its congregation and community would have nothing to fear from filing a tax return, just like every other non-profit. For another, when these institutions pay taxes like every other non-profit, each citizen's tax burden is significantly lessened and consequently he or she maybetter endow a worthy institution with individual support.
It is the flip side of the same coin: as your right to practice a religion must be respected by government, it may not support churches by tax subsidies or any other means.
Source:
http://taxthechurches.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland
The State of Maryland passed a law that levied a tax on the currency that was issued by the Baltimore, Maryland branch of the Second National Bank of the United States, which had been chartered by Congress in order to exercise its power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. James McCulloch, the manager of the bank branch in Baltimore, Maryland sued the state and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Maryland law as unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the decision for the Court and declared that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If the state of Maryland had the power to tax the federal government, then the state of Maryland had the power to destroy the federal government.
So if the government can tax a church, the government has the power to destroy a church and this would violate my right to freely exercise my religion so any taxation of churches clearly violates both the U.S. and Florida State constitutions.
As i watch this thread over the past few days from a european country under fair tax ( 23.5% sales) im becoming convinced that for all the bad things of our tax legislation, there are plenty of good things such that when something of an economic illness hits the U.S. we sneeze and everyone else catches the cold.
Quote from: JeffreyS on September 04, 2011, 10:05:44 AM
Taxing churches is not pragmatic they do more than their share of civic and charitable good. Taxing them would just take away from that. It may not be how you feel things should be done but that is a simple truth.
We have a lot of churches in Jacksonville that operate out of storefronts. As long as these storefronts are not owned by the church the property involved is subject to property taxes. These taxes would naturally be reflected in the rent which churches pay to use the storefronts so what they pay in taxes is just that much less that they have to do social welfare work.
But then most churches in Jacksonville don’t care about doing any social welfare work. So, personally I would amend the Constitution so we could give churches power to take a more active role in society (economics and politics) without making them go through a bunch of court fights. But I would also specify that church property could be taxed if it isn’t used for legitimate church functions- the church’s property would be taxed any day that the church isn’t open to the public with clergy on the premises.
One of the churches I contacted back when I was looking for space for my school had a congregation of about 20 people with 10 acres of land. The church had an artesian well as its water supply, but since it didn’t have JEA the health department said the church either had to limit its congregation to 25 people or limit its use of the property to 60 days a year. The pastor had no intention of getting a JEA water supply and a year or so after I talked to him the “church†sold the property to a real estate developer for a half-million. I want a constitutional amendment that would put a stop to such fraud in the name of religion.
Quote from: Diderot on September 04, 2011, 10:14:50 AM
This is the sound basis for tax exemptions for non-profit organizations, whose activities and finances are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny.
Since when? Documentation?
And why don’t you tell us the whole story?
Any non-profit tax-exempt organization, PBS/NPR for example, is free to lobby the government and engage in politics- as long as the non-profit isn’t a church. The minute a church takes a stand on a political issue it risks having its tax-exempt status revoked by the government.
Of course this wasn’t always the case. Churches didn’t use to have to give up their right to lobby the government in order to exercise their right to practice their religion. But then some churches in Texas criticized the lib Lyndon B. Johnson and he had the law changed. http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm
Quote from: Diderot on September 04, 2011, 10:17:30 AM
Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches.
So?
QuoteSo what if churches do not engage in charitable work? Or do so far less efficiently, effectively - or charitably - than the many non-profits or government programs we do not subsidize in this way?
Do you have proof or documentation for any of these claims?
QuoteReligious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status.
Other tax-exempt organizations do not? Do you remember about a decade or so ago where the local head of United Way was being paid a 6-digit annual salary?
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 04, 2011, 10:17:49 AM
But because we grow more corn than we do lettuce, the economy of scale means lettuce is more expensive than corn syrup... we didn’t have cheap high fructose corn syrup and palm kernel oil back then.
In your first statement you agree that healthy food is more expensive than unhealthy food for the consumer. Now let's turn back to your example of Denmark. Denmark is taxing unhealthy food with a higher content of sugar, fat and salt. This serves to balance food prices so that healthier foods can be subsidized and poorer families can eat healthier.
Are we going to allow the food industry to continue to blame diet related health problems on overweight people? Or instead, are we going to place the blame where it most likely belongs â€" on the food system?
In addressing the issue of obesity, we are confronted with dueling hypotheses. The conventional hypothesis promoted by the food industry is that obesity is a problem of people, specifically fat people. They claim that people, in their quest for self-gratification, choose sedentary lifestyles and calorie-dense foods.
An equally logical alternative hypothesis, which remains largely unexamined, is that obesity is a problem of society, particularly the pervasiveness of unhealthy, calorie-dense foods. Certainly, many Americans have unhealthy lifestyles, but most Americans have also only very limited access to the nutrient-dense foods they need for good health.
Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9176000/9176897.stm
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Columbia%20--%20Plate-Palate-Ballot.htm
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 04, 2011, 10:57:09 AM
So, personally I would amend the Constitution so we could give churches power to take a more active role in society (economics and politics) without making them go through a bunch of court fights.
what? are you blind to the fact that churches taking an active role in politics is slowly (hopefully not surely) turning this country into a theocracy? are you implyïng that after sending thousands ov our soldiers to get whacked by theocrats in the middle east, we should let them take over our own country?
i may be exaggerating, but it angers me quite a bit that you just said it should be
easiër for religious groups to affect politics--especially when our constitution (yeah, the one you want to change) specifically says they
shouldn't.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 04, 2011, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: Diderot on September 04, 2011, 10:17:30 AM
Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches.
So?
So if a church is using money to do legitimate charitable work, such as feeding the hungry without requiring them to pray for their food, then it should be open for a tax exemption. However, they should have to file tax forms, be scrutinized and audited just like any other non-profit organization.
Quote from: jax-native68 on September 04, 2011, 11:07:59 AM
QuoteSo what if churches do not engage in charitable work? Or do so far less efficiently, effectively - or charitably - than the many non-profits or government programs we do not subsidize in this way?
Do you have proof or documentation for any of these claims?
MinistryWatch.com produces a list of 30 ministries that engage in questionable practices that should cause donors to pause before giving. They refer to this list as "Donor Alerts" as these organizations have various red flag issues including: revocation of tax-exempt status, government investigations of their practices, extremely high salaries, in short, improperly using their tax-exempt status to finance lavish lifestyles.
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who wanted to know if these ministries improperly used their tax-exempt status to finance lavish lifestyles. He found that many of the churches had “multiple for-profit and non-profit entities†â€" though none had filed any tax forms â€" and that “the number and types of entities, including private airports and aircraft leasing companies, raises concerns about the use of the church‘s tax-exempt status to avoid taxation.â€
When a church is building airports and buying airplanes, is it time for a reality check? Indeed, you can buy all sorts of goodies from the men and women of God.
Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40960871/ns/politics-capitol_hill/t/televangelists-escape-penalty-senate-inquiry/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/06/cbsnews_investigates/main3456977.shtmlQuote from: jax-native68 on September 04, 2011, 11:07:59 AM
QuoteReligious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status.
Other tax-exempt organizations do not? Do you remember about a decade or so ago where the local head of United Way was being paid a 6-digit annual salary?
I believe you are referring to the national group's president six-figure salary of William Aramony in 1992.
That's a great example. Regular non-profit organizations enjoy a tax exemption, but they’re also open to public scrutiny and can be audited at any time. How was it that William Aramony came under fire for spending the charity's money on Concorde jet tickets, chauffered limousines, and real estate?
They were audited.Churches on the other hand are not audited because they’re deemed religious organizations. This also means that Churches can and do abuse their tax exempt status.
Source:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930604&slug=1704775
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on September 04, 2011, 01:09:51 PM
what? are you blind to the fact that churches taking an active role in politics is slowly (hopefully not surely) turning this country into a theocracy?
Slowly?
"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. We have no king but Jesus."
-Fmr. Attorney General John Ashcroft
"Intentional governmental advancement of religion is sometimes required by the Free Exercise Clause."
-Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia
Sources:
http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jan/13/news/mn-11936/2
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html
i didn't know about those. that's scary.
Well, you do know that our national motto is, "In God we trust"?
The 1956 law signed by President D Eisenhower changed it from, "E Pluribus Unum." ("from many, one").
How much better of a society would we be today if we had our kids incorporate, "from many, one" as part of the pledge of allegiance, instead of "under God"? Perhaps we would be more open to diversity.
Our founders had it right:
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -James Madison
i think 'in god we trust' is a good example ov how these things can kind ov slip in under the radar--i've known about it for as long as i can remember, but i never really think about it.
"In God we trust" is also an example of how the state can use a warped sense of religion. The Christian God says money is the root of all evil and we try to say well you'll like it if we put your name on it.