Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/28/20888815/nra-russia-senate-report-tax-exempt-investigation-irs-new-york-dc-james-attorney-general Does anybody find the argument that the NRA would basically dissolve if they were no longer tax exempt kind of bogus? Not that I like the NRA, just that they'd have revenue sources like membership fees. Sure, they'll lose some members and have to downsize, but that's different from closing down entirely.

[Frumple]

They get their membership fees largely through that kind of hysteria. They've been pushing that sort of rhetoric for like years, decades or somethin', and they're still around. It's horseshit, just the kind of horseshit their members will shell out money for.

[Strife26]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/28/20888815/nra-russia-senate-report-tax-exempt-investigation-irs-new-york-dc-james-attorney-general Does anybody find the argument that the NRA would basically dissolve if they were no longer tax exempt kind of bogus? Not that I like the NRA, just that they'd have revenue sources like membership fees. Sure, they'll lose some members and have to downsize, but that's different from closing down entirely.

No more bogus than the idea that they're going to lose tax-exempt status, but that isn't exactly a high bar.

[Trekkin]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/28/20888815/nra-russia-senate-report-tax-exempt-investigation-irs-new-york-dc-james-attorney-general Does anybody find the argument that the NRA would basically dissolve if they were no longer tax exempt kind of bogus? Not that I like the NRA, just that they'd have revenue sources like membership fees. Sure, they'll lose some members and have to downsize, but that's different from closing down entirely.

The arguments against it have already been discussed, but I could see a scenario in which they don't have the money to put on enough events to demonstrate that they have a large pool of single-issue voters. A good deal of their political power comes from the impression that they can dictate how every gun nut in America will vote; their lobbying efforts mostly revolve around convincing politicians of this fact. Without that pressure, gun control legislation might pass again, at which point those same gun nuts might decide the NRA no longer represents their interests and so stop giving them money, which would limit their ability to gin up visibly rabid support and continue the downward spiral.

Yes, this is almost certainly mostly hysteria, but the possibility remains that a single big financial hit could destabilize their core business model enough beyond a recoverable state, particularly with confidence in them already shaken.

[nenjin]

I'd make the same argument about tax exemption for religious organizations. At least they fit the definition of "charitable organization" though more readily than the NRA does.

[Naturegirl1999]

I'd make the same argument about tax exemption for religious organizations. At least they fit the definition of "charitable organization" though more readily than the NRA does.

Religions don't need tax exemption. Religions are known to be stories. I shouldn't get a tax exemption for HanselGretelism.

[McTraveller]

The idea behind allowing religious organizations to keep their tax exempt status is that on average they are fairly efficient at providing social services. They also allow individuals to both actually have and more importantly feel like they have control over how their charitable contributions are being spent.  This latter aspect has a not-so-surprising non-monetary benefit in terms of keeping a population happy.

You also have to account for the fact that a sudden removal of the tax exempt status would be extremely disruptive to a large chunk of society: More than $130B a year is donated to "religious" organizations (about 30% of the more than $400B a year given as charitable organizations).

If you think the public sector can do a better job with this money than the religious organizations (on average mind you, not picking the egregious abusers or the cream of the crop), then please at least push for a phasing out of the exempt status rather than a sudden removal.

[hector13]

I'd make the same argument about tax exemption for religious organizations. At least they fit the definition of "charitable organization" though more readily than the NRA does.

Religions don't need tax exemption. Religions are known to be stories. I shouldn't get a tax exemption for HanselGretelism.

You get a tax exemption for being non-profit, though.

Even if you don’t necessarily, you know, spend beyond your expenses on anything.

[Naturegirl1999]

The idea behind allowing religious organizations to keep their tax exempt status is that on average they are fairly efficient at providing social services. They also allow individuals to both actually have and more importantly feel like they have control over how their charitable contributions are being spent.  This latter aspect has a not-so-surprising non-monetary benefit in terms of keeping a population happy.

You also have to account for the fact that a sudden removal of the tax exempt status would be extremely disruptive to a large chunk of society: More than $130B a year is donated to "religious" organizations (about 30% of the more than $400B a year given as charitable organizations).

If you think the public sector can do a better job with this money than the religious organizations (on average mind you, not picking the egregious abusers or the cream of the crop), then please at least push for a phasing out of the exempt status rather than a sudden removal.

Yes, it should be phased out

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The idea behind allowing religious organizations to keep their tax exempt status is that on average they are fairly efficient at providing social services. They also allow individuals to both actually have and more importantly feel like they have control over how their charitable contributions are being spent.  This latter aspect has a not-so-surprising non-monetary benefit in terms of keeping a population happy.

You also have to account for the fact that a sudden removal of the tax exempt status would be extremely disruptive to a large chunk of society: More than $130B a year is donated to "religious" organizations (about 30% of the more than $400B a year given as charitable organizations).

If you think the public sector can do a better job with this money than the religious organizations (on average mind you, not picking the egregious abusers or the cream of the crop), then please at least push for a phasing out of the exempt status rather than a sudden removal.

lol churches literally make their money off of being bigots.

Real great social service, the priest needs a new sports car and knows just the queers to bash so he can get it. How about instead he pays his taxes and the government doesn't repossess his fucking church?

[Naturegirl1999]

The idea behind allowing religious organizations to keep their tax exempt status is that on average they are fairly efficient at providing social services. They also allow individuals to both actually have and more importantly feel like they have control over how their charitable contributions are being spent.  This latter aspect has a not-so-surprising non-monetary benefit in terms of keeping a population happy.

You also have to account for the fact that a sudden removal of the tax exempt status would be extremely disruptive to a large chunk of society: More than $130B a year is donated to "religious" organizations (about 30% of the more than $400B a year given as charitable organizations).

If you think the public sector can do a better job with this money than the religious organizations (on average mind you, not picking the egregious abusers or the cream of the crop), then please at least push for a phasing out of the exempt status rather than a sudden removal.

lol churches literally make their money off of being bigots.

Real great social service, the priest needs a new sports car and knows just the queers to bash so he can get it. How about instead he pays his taxes and the government doesn't repossess his fucking church?

Yes.

[McTraveller]

@MetalSlimeHunt - you picked up on the "abusers" to be sure.  90%* of the churches out there don't have their clergy in "sports cars."   The median attendance of a congregation in the US is only something like 75 people.  And generally only about 10-25% of that attendance donates anything at all.

*Made up, because I'm not going to bother looking up the actual number for this.  I'm not trying to defend the abusers - they should be punished.  But many of us take our religious (or non-religious, for that matter) social views pretty seriously.  Statements like these are - religious-ist?  Do we have a word for that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Given what they've done, I'm being plenty fair. In fact, it's the literal definition of fair treatment to be treated just as the rest of society is. If I wanted an actual accounting, I'd point out the equally true nature of many churches as GOP political organizations rather than religious organizations, and so they should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws. Or that there's no reason secular society should give a single solitary shit about things like "priest-penitent privilege" when those priests and penitents are often child rapists, or religious exemptions to child abuse and healthcare, or religious exceptions to anything really.

God forbid we discuss actual restitution for the grand history of terror inflicted by churches in the US alone.

And so it is not just fair but merciful to want only that church organizations stop pretending to be our social welfare net and actually fucking pay their fair share like everybody else in this society ought to.

[Naturegirl1999]

Given what they've done, I'm being plenty fair. In fact, it's the literal definition of fair treatment to be treated just as the rest of society is. If I wanted an actual accounting, I'd point out the equally true nature of many churches as GOP political organizations rather than religious organizations, and so they should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws. Or that there's no reason secular society should give a single solitary shit about things like "priest-penitent privilege" when those priests and penitents are often child rapists, or religious exemptions to child abuse and healthcare, or religious exceptions to anything really.

God forbid we discuss actual restitution for the grand history of terror inflicted by churches in the US alone.

And so it is not just fair but merciful to want only that church organizations stop pretending to be our social welfare net and actually fucking pay their fair share like everybody else in this society ought to.

I agree with all of this. Stories should not be tax exempt. Especially when the proponents of these stories wish to kill those who don't believe in them. I learned somewhere that most US states will not punish parents if their child dies because the parent refuses medicine for their kid in favor of faith healing. It's terrible that this is allowed to happen.

[Trolldefender99]

Given what they've done, I'm being plenty fair. In fact, it's the literal definition of fair treatment to be treated just as the rest of society is. If I wanted an actual accounting, I'd point out the equally true nature of many churches as GOP political organizations rather than religious organizations, and so they should not be protected by anti-discrimination laws. Or that there's no reason secular society should give a single solitary shit about things like "priest-penitent privilege" when those priests and penitents are often child rapists, or religious exemptions to child abuse and healthcare, or religious exceptions to anything really.

God forbid we discuss actual restitution for the grand history of terror inflicted by churches in the US alone.

And so it is not just fair but merciful to want only that church organizations stop pretending to be our social welfare net and actually fucking pay their fair share like everybody else in this society ought to.

While you seem to be mostly focused on catholic/christian churches, in a sense calling religious leaders child predators is an assault on islam as well and other religious sects priests and leaders. Its very few than majority. It be like because one teacher takes advantage of a child, and saying all teachers are like that or even a majority are. Its definitely goes in the line of bigotry because you are insulting all religions and don't think it should be allowed on a public forum. One can be athiest and not approve of religion, but calling religious leaders pedos is racist/bigotry. Its not just white people that are religious, so keep that in mind. The vast majority that are religious are actually non-white