This, from someone who claims subjective feelings are objective proof ? Isn’t that inconsistent ?
I never claimed such a thing.
One day I met a being that I call God. You’re telling me that I’m insane for believing it. I’m telling you you’re insane for trying to claim you know more about what I experienced than I do.
Erek
Er, I think they should be considered charities, I’m not qualified to speak to the nuances of US tax law. I’d also go a bit farther and say “as long as they don’t do so to make a profit” instead of “not charge ofr that help,” but yes, I basically agree with that.
I’d consider that a charity.
These too.
Guacamolebutts, animal rights organizations, the religious, whatever. 
I’d classify them all as charitable.
People who talk to invisible men usually qualify as unstable, yes.
When what you claim is impossible, I’m perfectly justified in not believing you.
People who are terrified of the majority of the populace due to a couple examples of nutcases, are generally unstable.
Spring is a Red Red Rose!
Debunk that metaphor for me please, wouldya?
Erek
I’m glad you guys were able to clear that up!
How about this? I play guitar on the street for passers-by. I do not charge anybody to listen but I do accept “donations.” Should that income be tax exempt?
Depends on what you do with the “donations”. If you purchase groceries for the food bank, yes. If you buy a six-pak and pizza for yourself, no.
I’ve already stipulated that money which churches spend on charity should be written off. It’s the cathedrals and the fancy hats and the sending of missionaries to preach at Maoris which should not be.
Every once in a while I have a moment of clarity, and I understand why muslims call us the Great Satan.
You can worship God or you can worship Mammon, but you can’t do both. It is comforting when the Mammonites are straight up about it though.
I’ve been claiming for years that the religion of America is Satanism. It’s the religion of MTV and money, putting materialism up as the end all be all. One thing I’ve gotta give Satan credit for, is he knows how to make money and willing thralls. Hell most of the people screaming “JESUS, JESUS, JESUS are Satanists.” so I can definitely understand how you would see missionary work as mere advertising.
Our culture has been too permissive. Not permissive in the sense that we should stop people from having drug orgies. I love drug orgies. Our culture has been too permissive in what we allow to call itself Christianity, and it’s sullied the word Christian to such a degree that everyone has completely forgotten the message, and think that Christianity means the exact opposite of what it does.
To put it to you straight, I’m an anarchist. I believe the government is a figment of your imagination. You can do anything you want here. There are parties where you can eat human flesh. You can get any drug you want. You can blow things up with near impunity, you can be rich, you can be poor, you can travel all around the country for essentially free. America is fantasy land. There is no such thing as hard reality here, it’s whatever you make it for yourself. So the real reason I don’t like taxing churches is because the poor churches are the gateways to enlightenment, they are like preschools for lost souls. The purpose of enlightenment is to transcend the government and it’s restrictions. The government is training wheels. Churches only illuminate people to the very most fundamental basic spiritual tenets.
The arguing that goes on here barely scratches the surface of most topics that are discussed. People joke about the Bush crime family, but they don’t realize that the government is run by a bunch of feudal corporate cartels. They don’t realize that there is a loophole for everything, that with a clever enough lawyer you can get away with anything. Michael Jackson rapes young boys, OJ Simpson murdered his wife, we are all pretty sure they did it, but they had good lawyers so they got out of it. We’ve got no law here, the law is a complete fiction. We live in the jungle, that’s the reality of the situation.
In all honesty tax-exempt status benefits you as much as it does the people going to church, because those churches are one of the main sources of order in this country. People think cops are there to protect them, the cops are just thugs with a badge. People think the army is out there fighting for them, nah the army is just low paid mercenaries for the oil companies. That’s the reality of the situation. It’s anarchy, and might makes right.
Hell, I’d bet a lot of you even believe that the European nobility are just figureheads and that they aren’t running shit anymore. You probably aren’t aware that the Federal Reserve is a privately held corporation that is owned by the European banks who are in turn owned by the Noble families of Europe, and have been since it’s inception.
That’s the reality of the situation. You’re near the bottom rung and you’re kicking at the fingers of the people coming up shortly after you. If you want to look at who’s taking money from your pockets, you should be looking up the ladder, not down, because the good old US of A is a for-profit corporation with shareholders and everything, but of course it’s fun to kick the slaves that are beneath you right?
Erek
This is factually incorrect, the Fed is a institution while not technically owned by the US Government, mainly becuase there is nothing really to own, is controlled by the Federal Government. The “shares” that the European banks “own” are merely certificates recognizing the capital they have in the system.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/steer/2004/1014.html
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
As to the rest of your post, well, good luck in transcending the illusion of government.
Do you understand what “tax exempt” means? Seriously–explain what, exactly, you mean by tax exempt here.
You have just flushed any remaining shred of credibility you had with that ridiculous conspiracy. What’s next, the Illuminati?
Well, expand it. If I organize street buskers (so that, for example, there’s a variety of music, and people have acess to inexpensive supplies, and we can present an organized front to City Council to prevent anti-panhandling ordinances from being applied to our members), and I derive a salary from my work, ought I be able to incorporate as a nonprofit?
Let’s go deeper: the way that we musicians are able to provide our charitable services is through our music. Our instruments are, um, instrumental to that. Nonprofits don’t pay sales tax on their legitimate business expenses; does this mean that we can buy all our instruments, strings, resin, sheet music, etc. without paying sales tax?
If so, why shouldn’t an individual musician incorporate as a nonprofit in order to avoid that sales tax?
Daniel
:eek:
:eek:
:eek:
:eek: :eek: :eek:
Wow. Dan Brown meets Jerry Jenkins. Or am I being whooshed in some way?
In any instance where someone is working full-time to raise funds for a charitable purpose, it would seem reasonable to allow them to cover their living costs and expenses from the funds raised. Lots of room for argument over what constitutes a reasonable amount or proportion of donated income, though.
Wouldn’t surprise me if you could find a neighbourhood orchestra or music therapy group who have done exactly what you describe, and probably individuals too, although the costs of compliance with non-profit accounting rules might preclude it.
I figured that credibility amongst people who value money over God and is fairly unimportant. Especially since those people would never see any discernable benefit from the churches losing tax-exempt status. It’s simply atheistic proselytizing, they have some sort of idea of ethical fairness that removes a whole host of other factors deemed as “irrelevant” by them because it doesn’t suit their agenda.
Anyone who doesn’t think the illuminati rule is an idiot. The smarter more enlightened people have more power than the dumber ditch diggers. I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch. For instance, George HW Bush who was a member of skull and bones like so many prominent families, has a lot of power in this world. If you think that’s extremist then may you not walk into a lamp post as you move around with your eyes tightly shut. The word Illuminati is an epithet that was created for Freemasons. It was meant to be insulting originally.
I’ll put it to you in the simplest terms I can. America was formed by corporate interests. When those corporate interests were formed, the rich people were most often European nobles. It’s not a conspiracy theory to think that when America left European feudalism for American Capitalism that the rich people who owned lots of shares in the corporations that held the indentures of the populace, and laid claim to the land by virtue of the fact that they subsidized the expedition, would have found some way to protect theri investment after the American Revolution. The founding fathers were rich landholders who wanted more power as they did not hold noble title. Early America’s power was based off of land ownership, which is different from feudalism how? Because they pay their serfs wages, and their serfs have the right to pack up and go look for work elsewhere?
The Banks that hold stock in the federal reserve also have a place in the policymaking of that institution, which was designed to regulate, well, banks. Next you’re going to say that it’s an illuminati conspiracy theory to think that Saudi and Texas aristocracy control the oil industry.
Look up the word conspiracy would you? It means they are working together with evil intent. I never implied evil intent. I only implied that the ancient networks still existed, that they didn’t just disappear, they only faded into the background. If you think that the Queen of England can’t influence foreign policy you’re daft.
Erek
I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Should I have to pay income tax on any donations I get from playing guitar on the street?
See here’s the issue I have with this whole line of thinking. It’s a slave mentality. People see “Those others over there have a benefit I don’t have.” Instead of suggesting that they also should have those benefits, they suggest that “those otehrs over there” shouldn’t have them.
It’s bassackwards. We should be looking to increase freedom, not reduce it in some sort of insane quest for equity.
Erek
Wow. Stay away from a thread for a day and you miss a lot!
The illumati. Hadn’t heard that one in awhile. :eek: