Religious Freedomz in the USA

[Riot]

[Clip-Clop]

So he will now be taxing churches too?

Same rules. Good luck with that one.

[Danzig]

great idea! tax them, other than money received that's actually used for charitable purposes.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

So he will now be taxing churches too?

Same rules. Good luck with that one.

I would love it if all churches lost their 501C status. Where did Obama ask to tax churches?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I would love it if all churches lost their 501C status. Where did Obama ask to tax churches?

The cartoon says same rules.
Would you also love if tax deductible charitable donations went away?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

The cartoon says same rules.
Would you also love if tax deductible charitable donations went away?

charity should remain as it is. but we all know that charities do not only use donations for charitable works. anything spent on other than charity, churches included, should be taxed.
the money that goes to the huge fancy church buildings should be taxed. fancy facades aren't charitable. neither is high end cabinetry or fixtures. money for church vans? tax it. let the church actually show their charitable donations like the rest of us for their tax breaks. otherwise, they are a business with employees and property, just like all other businesses.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Would you also love if tax deductible charitable donations went away?

I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.

Might not change your donation plans, but I will tell you the people giving away millions and millions of dollars to charities (either partly or mostly) because they have to for the break, it would change they way they do things. A lot of research is funded that way. We should try it though, I am certain the tax increase would go directly to paying down our debt and helping out those in need.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

I wouldn't mind at all. Wouldn't change my charitable donation rate. What 'Zig said, though. Churches can show their "charity" for deduction like everyone else, and pay taxes on the rest at the business rate.

That money has already been taxed if you take away the donation write-off. Tax on tax on tax on tax. Always the solution.

[dellinger63]

[GenuineRisk]

This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.

I agree with virtually everything you say. But once you force that employer to pay that part of your pay everything changes. Once you demand something from that employer you take away the employers right to pay their employees as they wish. An employer should absolutely have the right to cut someones pay if they feel like it for whatever reason they want, employee A doesn't like it employee A can leave. Simple.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t. .

Then is the claim of conscientious objector bullsh*t?

Until indentured slavery is brought back one has the freedom to choose one's employer.

Besides who would want to work for a bullsh*t employer anyway?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This claiming that covering preventative health care, including contraception, interferes with an employer's religious freedom is bullsh*t.

Health insurance is not some gift your employer gives you out of the goodness of the employer's heart. It's part of your compensation package. It's part of your pay. When an employer says he is not going to cover certain things because it morally offends him, what he is saying is that he is choosing to pay you less, because he disapproves of how you might choose to spend the money he pays you.

It's no different than an employer saying since he's morally opposed to gambling, he's going to cut your wages so you can't afford to gamble anymore.

Really, ladies, it's for your own good. Your boss knows what's best for you, and he'll cut your salary to prove it. Because that's how much he cares about you.

[Riot]

Republicans: anti-woman, anti-gay, watch former voters walk away.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Might not change your donation plans, but I will tell you the people giving away millions and millions of dollars to charities (either partly or mostly) because they have to for the break, it would change they way they do things. A lot of research is funded that way. We should try it though, I am certain the tax increase would go directly to paying down our debt and helping out those in need.

That's why I said, "what 'Zig said".

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Then is the claim of conscientious objector bullsh*t?

Yes, they can't petition the federal government and state they want zero of their tax dollars going to the US war machine. They simply can't do that. For me it's a bit scary as someone who needs drugs to continue to live like me that religions can start getting into the business of determining which USDA approved drugs are allowed to be insured. That's heading down a path you really don't want to go down. But really we are already there as the "death Panels" thing was hilarious. They have been there forever always. Called Health Insurance Companies. Medical Bankruptcy is a uniquely American thing.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Until indentured slavery is brought back one has the freedom to choose one's employer.

Well, I'm not sure this is entirely true. I have what is known as a pre-existing condition and without drugs I would die within a year. I am very lucky right now to have medical coverage through my employment so I can still feed my kids. Without coverage I would go broke. Although the ACA is rancid horse crap and not single payer which is the ONLY logical option, the ACA did mention something about continued coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so as rancid as it is it is maybe a hair better than the rancidness currently in place. No one is required to cover my "pre-existing" condition I believe. So to say I have 35 million employment opportunities to find coverage I need isn't really being honest...keeping health care coverage is the new indentured slavery so to speak...it's a matter of life and death for me. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.

(in the real world, the "employer" chooses you, not vice versa as you stated. you don't walk into a business and state, "I'm starting work here tomorrow at 8 am and here is how much you are paying me." Normally you have to apply for a job, go through an interview process, and the employer makes his/her choice. You only have the freedom to choose where you apply, you have to get chosen.)

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

Well, I'm not sure this is entirely true. I have what is known as a pre-existing condition and without drugs I would die within a year. I am very lucky right now to have medical coverage through my employment so I can still feed my kids. Without coverage I would go broke. Although the ACA is rancid horse crap and not single payer which is the ONLY logical option, the ACA did mention something about continued coverage for "pre-existing" conditions so as rancid as it is it is maybe a hair better than the rancidness currently in place. No one is required to cover my "pre-existing" coverage I believe. So to say I have 35 million employment opportunities to find coverage I need isn't really being honest...keeping health care coverage is the new indentured slavery so to speak...it's a matter of life and death for me. For profit health insurance companies need to be vaporized completely. It's a sad situation.

And replaced by what? Government run healthcare? They cannot even handle the mail correctly.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

And replaced by what? Government run healthcare? They cannot even handle the mail correctly.

I tend to disagree. The mail service has been 100 percent accurate in my lifetime getting my payments of bills to large corporations. I mean 100 percent, zero have failed to make it there. They've all been cashed. In turn also 100 percent accuracy getting the bills from large corporations to me. Mom gets her Christmas package every single year...100 percent accuracy. Unbelievably good getting stuff from point A to pont B and they go places privatized places don't go. they may not make any money and lose a ton, but they handle the mail 100 percent correctly in my opinion. I view mail as the stuff that needs to get from point A to point B. Others may take a different view of it. So that is fine. By my perspective, they do what they do quite well.

Absolutely government run health care. It would end up way cheaper in the long run. Medicare for all.