quote:

use state money to pay for private, religious schooling

How can this possibly be allowed?

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Not that complicated. Put the able bodied back to work and off the dole. Trump is already doing a good job of job creation. Let employer subsidized health care take care of it like it always did. Get employers back to competing for quality labor which is how employer subsidized health care came into being.

I'd disagree with the employer subsidies. The more disconnected an individual is from the real costs, the less control they have. There is no reason to have health insurance tied to a job.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

use state money to pay for private, religious schooling

How can this possibly be allowed?

It's the ultimate libertarian position. The state mandates that children be educated so the state gives vouchers to parents who can use them however they see fit as long as it's an accredited school. Power to the people and taken away from the central government bureaucracy. Something anyone interested in freedom should enthusiastically support.

The case before the Court is not about this however.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016...-playground-dispute/

Religious institutions already avoid a gozillion dollars in taxes each and every year, the loss of which is made up by everyone else who pays taxes - in what is an absurd and thinly veiled end around. The idea that they receive any tax money in the literal sense is doubly wrong.

Want to have a religious school? Fine. Want to send your kids there? Fine. Want tax dollars (even beyond those unpaid) to pay for it? No way, not even for a lowly playground surface.

Want to mayyyyyyybe consider such things? Require all such institutions to start paying the same taxes everyone else pays, immediately, and irrevocably, for perpetuity.

It's shameful to even ask.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Religious institutions already avoid a gozillion dollars in taxes each and every year, the loss of which is made up by everyone else who pays taxes - in what is an absurd and thinly veiled end around. The idea that they receive any tax money in the literal sense is doubly wrong.

Want to have a religious school? Fine. Want to send your kids there? Fine. Want tax dollars (even beyond those unpaid) to pay for it? No way, not even for a lowly playground surface.

Want to mayyyyyyybe consider such things? Require all such institutions to start paying the same taxes everyone else pays, immediately, and irrevocably, for perpetuity.

It's shameful to even ask.

Ahhh. So you're fine with taking my money to educate your crotch fruit in a government indoctrination center (formerly known a a public school). But if I want that same money, money that came out of my pocket, to be used to actually educate my kid at a private school rather than immerse him in leftist ideology for twelve years, you're NOT fine with that?

"Shameful to even ask"? Bullshit. It's your position on this issue that's untenable, not mine.

46, the non profit status of churches is because they are completely funded by donations of members, whose members already paid taxes on that income once. All non profit orgs are exempt, not just religious ones.

So the church "which was excluded from a state grant program to pay for soft surfaces on playgrounds run by not-for-profit groups" should get the same deal as any other group, not be excluded because of its religious purpose.

Either don't offer the public funds for playground surfaces (public interest in childrens safety probably prompted this in the first place), or offer to all without discrimination. Right?

All of the people attending those churches pay taxes and most school systems are funded with property taxes that are paid by the students and families who live in that area. It's absurd to discriminate on the basis of religion, something which is expressly prohibited in the constitution. I can't believe anyone who professes to be libertarian would support such centralized bureaucracy. Let the people decide how to spend the money that was involuntarily confiscated from them.

You object sending them to institutions that are privately funded because the institution 'didn't pay taxes'? What taxes did the government school pay? Do they pay taxes on all the income sent to them by the government? A lot of charter or STEM schools are secular and not funded by churches - it should be up to the parents of the children where to send them.

<Ending my discussion on this with this post so the thread can get back on topic>

quote:

Originally posted by rekstrom:
46, the non profit status of churches is because they are completely funded by donations of members, whose members already paid taxes on that income once. All non profit orgs are exempt, not just religious ones.

I think you are forgetting that donations to churches and other non-profits are allowed to be deducted from one's taxable income. If the taxpayer does that, then there was no Income Tax levied on the money contributed. Even if a taxpayer does not itemize deductions, the 10% Standard Deduction is in place and is based on the conjecture that one would tithe 10% to a church or other non-profit. (And even ones who do not contribute get the benefit of the Standard Deduction.)

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by rekstrom:
46, the non profit status of churches is because they are completely funded by donations of members, whose members already paid taxes on that income once. All non profit orgs are exempt, not just religious ones.

I think you are forgetting that donations to churches and other non-profits are allowed to be deducted from one's taxable income. If the taxpayer does that, then there was no Income Tax levied on the money contributed. Even if a taxpayer does not itemize deductions, the 10% Standard Deduction is in place and is based on the conjecture that one would tithe 10% to a church or other non-profit. (And even ones who do not contribute get the benefit of the Standard Deduction.)

flashguy

How do you get a 10% standard deduction?

Also, the deductions are so limited few get them in full and the more you make the less you have, deductions, that is.

Does anybody else feel this?

There seems to be a subtle shift in the wind. All of the Democrat fabricated BS about Russia collusion and election hacking, the never ending investigations, the constant obstruction of anything that President Trump does, the continual claims of wrong doing that never turn out to be true, -- it all seems to slightly and slowly be back firing on the DEMs.

President Trump is hitting back. MSM has had to retract some of their fabricated lies. It is beginning to have a feel that more and more of the country is recognizing that the DEMs only goal is to overturn the results of the election.

That the DEMs are doing nothing to move the country forward and resolve some really big problems we have. The nonstop hysterics of Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, etc are being recognized for what they truly are.

May just be my imagination (or wishful thinking) but I think the wind might be shifting.

Time and again the other side attacks what Trumps has said only to quietly admit later that he was right.

And possibly another Supreme Court Appointment?

Not to speak ill of anyone but what are the chances Darthbader making it another 4 years?

Ex: Those of faith and particularly those who are anti abortion object (to put it lightly) to their tax dollars being used to fund such thing's that go against their beliefs. See: Planned Parenthood drama. A position, BTW, that I agree with even though I support PP, broadly.

Likewise, those who are not of such religious inclinations object to *their* tax dollars being spent to fund things of a religious nature, wheher it be religious schools or anything else of a faith based nature.

Neither should have to pay for the other, ever. You (the universal) don't want to bake a gay cake, I don't want to have to pay for new pews or playgrounds, and so on. *That's* liberty.

It's as simple as that.

That Churches and other religions institutions also avoid a *tremendous* amount of taxes that everyone else has to pay is just icing on the cake, and when combined with the idea that they also want some tax dollars in a direct sense, is too much. *Way* too much.

Anyway. That's that. Carry on.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by rekstrom:
46, the non profit status of churches is because they are completely funded by donations of members, whose members already paid taxes on that income once. All non profit orgs are exempt, not just religious ones.

I think you are forgetting that donations to churches and other non-profits are allowed to be deducted from one's taxable income. If the taxpayer does that, then there was no Income Tax levied on the money contributed. Even if a taxpayer does not itemize deductions, the 10% Standard Deduction is in place and is based on the conjecture that one would tithe 10% to a church or other non-profit. (And even ones who do not contribute get the benefit of the Standard Deduction.)

flashguy

How do you get a 10% standard deduction?

Also, the deductions are so limited few get them in full and the more you make the less you have, deductions, that is.

I have my taxes done by a CPA and I do itemize, so I've not looked at a plain vanilla 1040 in a long time, but there used to be a line where you took 10% off your total income and it was called the Standard Deduction. Those who itemized did not use that line. Have they changed the law and the form?

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by rekstrom:
46, the non profit status of churches is because they are completely funded by donations of members, whose members already paid taxes on that income once. All non profit orgs are exempt, not just religious ones.

I think you are forgetting that donations to churches and other non-profits are allowed to be deducted from one's taxable income. If the taxpayer does that, then there was no Income Tax levied on the money contributed. Even if a taxpayer does not itemize deductions, the 10% Standard Deduction is in place and is based on the conjecture that one would tithe 10% to a church or other non-profit. (And even ones who do not contribute get the benefit of the Standard Deduction.)

flashguy

How do you get a 10% standard deduction?

Also, the deductions are so limited few get them in full and the more you make the less you have, deductions, that is.

I have my taxes done by a CPA and I do itemize, so I've not looked at a plain vanilla 1040 in a long time, but there used to be a line where you took 10% off your total income and it was called the Standard Deduction. Those who itemized did not use that line. Have they changed the law and the form?

flashguy

It's a set amount about $6,000. So if you earn $30,000 it's actually 20% not subject to tax.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Ex: Those of faith and particularly those who are anti abortion object (to put it lightly) to their tax dollars being used to fund such thing's that go against their beliefs. See: Planned Parenthood drama. A position, BTW, that I agree with even though I support PP, broadly.

Likewise, those who are not of such religious inclinations object to *their* tax dollars being spent to fund things of a religious nature, wheher it be religious schools or anything else of a faith based nature.

Neither should have to pay for the other, ever. You (the universal) don't want to bake a gay cake, I don't want to have to pay for new pews or playgrounds, and so on. *That's* liberty.

It's as simple as that.

That Churches and other religions institutions also avoid a *tremendous* amount of taxes that everyone else has to pay is just icing on the cake, and when combined with the idea that they also want some tax dollars in a direct sense, is too much. *Way* too much.

Anyway. That's that. Carry on.

46 Your thoughts are worth so much discussion but not here. Could you open another thread on it?

President Trump does not propose to eliminate the charitable deduction, buy into a radically unhistorical idea such as yours or want to discriminate in your way. Really. Another thread? People are resisting taking up the matter here.

The Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships is part of the U.S. Department of Education but it was part of HHS too. The concept of using public funds to deliver services through faith communities has a long history from before the U.S. Constitution to today.

It was Obama, not Trump who attacked faith organizations. National Review

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:
Time and again the other side attacks what Trumps has said only to quietly admit later that he was right.

And possibly another Supreme Court Appointment?

Not to speak ill of anyone but what are the chances Darthbader making it another 4 years?

For some reason, any time I see Ruth anywhere, I think of Weekend at Bernie's.

More winning, I can't take much more

Unemployment among black Americans ages 16 years and over fell to 7.5 percent in May, its lowest level since December 2000.

Black unemployment has been on the decline since February — falling from (February) 8.1, (March) 8.0, (April) 7.9, and (May) 7.5 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The national unemployment rate in May was 4.3 percent, its lowest level since May 2001.

Unemployment for black Americans has historically hovered below their white counterparts. The Great Recession drove black unemployment near Great Depression-era levels, reaching 16.8 percent in March 2010. While most Americans were feeling the negative affects of the housing crisis, it was black lawmakers who were beginning to publicly blame President Obama for black America’s morass.

In August 2011, Congresswoman Maxine Waters called the black unemployment rate “unconscionable.”

A month later, Waters hammered President Obama for failing to “acknowledge the economic disaster in the African American community” while addressing his jobs agenda in the battleground state of Iowa.

Days later, then-Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Emanuel Cleaver told reporters, “If Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House.”

In a campaign speech in North Carolina last October, then-candidate Trump offered a “new deal” to black Americans based on three pillars — “safe communities, great education, and high-paying jobs.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...west-level-17-years/

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Does anybody else feel this?

There seems to be a subtle shift in the wind. All of the Democrat fabricated BS about Russia collusion and election hacking, the never ending investigations, the constant obstruction of anything that President Trump does, the continual claims of wrong doing that never turn out to be true, -- it all seems to slightly and slowly be back firing on the DEMs.

President Trump is hitting back. MSM has had to retract some of their fabricated lies. It is beginning to have a feel that more and more of the country is recognizing that the DEMs only goal is to overturn the results of the election.

That the DEMs are doing nothing to move the country forward and resolve some really big problems we have. The nonstop hysterics of Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, etc are being recognized for what they truly are.

May just be my imagination (or wishful thinking) but I think the wind might be shifting.

I feel it too. It's very subtle, but yes, I think people are seeing the light of President Trump. Not the numbers we'd like to see, but I do think it'll continue in our favor.

with any sort of luck, we may have another vacancy on the Court to fill

life is good