Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS

Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

farglebargle -> Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 12:21:24 AM)
EVERYONE pays taxes. And if you're an Artificial Legal Entity, whose "CREATOR" is the Secretary of State, upon receipt of a filing from real people, there's no upper limit.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 4:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle EVERYONE pays taxes. And if you're an Artificial Legal Entity, whose "CREATOR" is the Secretary of State, upon receipt of a filing from real people, there's no upper limit. Careful what you wish for.

SilverMark -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 4:47:53 AM)
Perhaps more scrutiny, but it would harm real charities that do social good and that wouldn't work for me. Should political entities hold the same status as charitable organizations hold tax exempt status, might be a better question.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 6:00:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SilverMark Perhaps more scrutiny, but it would harm real charities that do social good and that wouldn't work for me. Should political entities hold the same status as charitable organizations hold tax exempt status, might be a better question. Obtaining tax exempt status quote: The Importance of Federal Tax Exemption Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) is the most common provision under which land trusts seek federal income tax exemption. Obtaining Section 501(c)(3) status is all important, since it provides other benefits in addition to income tax exemption, including; Eligibility to receive tax-deductible charitable gifts under IRC section 170; Exemption from federal employment taxes; Likelihood of similar exemption from state and local taxes; and Bulk postal rate privileges. Qualifying for Exemption To qualify for 501(c)(3) status, your non profit must be organized and operated exclusively for "exempt purposes." Such purposes may include scientific, educational, and charitable endeavors. The non profit's net earnings may not be distributed to its directors, members, or any individual. And it must comply with certain restrictions placed upon lobbying and other "political" activities. I am not posting this specifically for you, Mark. I'm posting it just in case anyone reading this stuff doesn't know exactly what is being talked about. The issue at hand here is that you are allowing a highly partisan group (government) to decide what "educational endeavor" qualifies as an exempt purpose. Depending on the Administration in power, that decision can change. Farglebargle's "solution" will cut out the partisanship of that process altogether, but it will also ruin quite a few social charities, as you mentioned. I have to wonder if anyone will accuse him of being against the poor, the elderly, etc. over it.

Moonhead -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 6:12:58 AM)
Maybe he feels that providing a safety net for the poor and the elderly is the government's role, rather than something that should be left in the hands of private citizens and plutocrats who want to try to claim the high moral ground over all the good work they do?

TravellerInLife -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 6:35:47 AM)
From what I've read, the IRS noticed a surge in 501c organizations disproportionate to other type organizations. I believe such a surge obligates review by the IRS. During audits, the IRS noticed most of the found problem 501c organizations had the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their legal name. Hence, the red flag on those groups. Obviously, review all recent 501c organizations. The red flag for an audit should be the ratio between money coming in and money going out to political or undocumented organizations.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 7:00:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe he feels that providing a safety net for the poor and the elderly is the government's role, rather than something that should be left in the hands of private citizens and plutocrats who want to try to claim the high moral ground over all the good work they do? So, there should be no charities to those same ends?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 7:04:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle EVERYONE pays taxes. I have another one. NOBODY pays taxes. At least, not for profit. We charge things we want to discourage. So... we want to discourage profit? I don't. [:)]

Moonhead -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 1:12:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe he feels that providing a safety net for the poor and the elderly is the government's role, rather than something that should be left in the hands of private citizens and plutocrats who want to try to claim the high moral ground over all the good work they do? So, there should be no charities to those same ends? Of course not. Donating to charity under late capitalism is like putting a band aid on a cancer patient's tumour.

SilverMark -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/15/2013 5:34:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe he feels that providing a safety net for the poor and the elderly is the government's role, rather than something that should be left in the hands of private citizens and plutocrats who want to try to claim the high moral ground over all the good work they do? So, there should be no charities to those same ends? Of course not. Donating to charity under late capitalism is like putting a band aid on a cancer patient's tumour. Moonie, there are actual charities that indeed do good works, many fund a number of research projects in the medical field that wouldn't otherwise be funded. I do believe in the social safety net, but I also believe in charitiy and acts of kindness by people in altruistic pursuits. I think charities that spend far too much on adminsitrative costs, should be examined as to their status as non-profits, and I know there are many that are simply bogus, and not only should they lose their tax status, but those who run them should face criminal charges. (there are laws for such things, but mostly are civil issues as opposed to criminal, with the exception of tax prosecutions)

Moonhead -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 6:55:53 AM)
I'm not questioning that there are charities doing good work. I'm just pointing out to the wilfully obtuse that all of this good work should be the government's responsibility.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 8:25:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not questioning that there are charities doing good work. I'm just pointing out to the wilfully obtuse that all of this good work should be the government's responsibility. Government force isn't charity no matter how "charitable" it is to those who receive it. That's the bitch of it all.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 9:58:18 AM)
If you went to a consumption tax, you wouldn't need to differentiate between profit and non-profit

DesideriScuri -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 10:53:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280 If you went to a consumption tax, you wouldn't need to differentiate between profit and non-profit While I would agree with you, I would still want charities to maintain tax exempt status (as noted in my signature line). That's my biggest issue with most consumption tax plans, really. Charities, and foods should, imo, not be taxed.

Moonhead -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 12:02:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not questioning that there are charities doing good work. I'm just pointing out to the wilfully obtuse that all of this good work should be the government's responsibility. Government force isn't charity no matter how "charitable" it is to those who receive it. That's the bitch of it all. That's also what government is there for. Perhaps you'd be happier in that libertarian utopia Somalia, where they have no government, but plenty of gangsters, pirates and Jihadists instead?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 5:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not questioning that there are charities doing good work. I'm just pointing out to the wilfully obtuse that all of this good work should be the government's responsibility. Government force isn't charity no matter how "charitable" it is to those who receive it. That's the bitch of it all. That's also what government is there for. Perhaps you'd be happier in that libertarian utopia Somalia, where they have no government, but plenty of gangsters, pirates and Jihadists instead? You might want to try to build a bigger strawman next time. This one is too easy to topple. I have never once claimed that I wanted no government. And, you are dead ass wrong that libertarians are in favor of no government.

muhly22222 -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 6:25:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead I'm not questioning that there are charities doing good work. I'm just pointing out to the wilfully obtuse that all of this good work should be the government's responsibility. Why should it be the government's responsibility? I'm not attacking you at all, I'm genuinely interested in your reason for this. There's nothing inherent in the nature of government that it should provide a social safety net, or that it shouldn't provide one, so a person's preferences on what a government should provide to its citizens is based on something else. There are some things that the government has an obligation to provide that is inherent in the formation of the government. Protection from physical violence, some form of property rights, a system that protects the rule of law...the failure of an entity to provide those makes that entity not a government (or at least not a legitimate one, no matter what it calls itself), but some other type of entity. An entity's failure to provide food, healthcare, and material goods to its citizens does not mean that entity is not a government, merely that it is a government that has made the choice to let its citizens fail without a safety net in place for them...and there can be any number of reasons the government would have made that choice, everything from an unwillingness to spend the money, to lack of compassion, to a philosophical belief that people should take care of themselves.

dcnovice -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 6:59:59 PM)
FR Bias alert: I've spent the bulk of my career working for nonprofits. IMHO, a lot of cool things happen only because nonprofits are there to do them.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Simple solution. NO MORE NON-PROFITS (5/16/2013 11:56:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead That's also what government is there for. Perhaps you'd be happier in that libertarian utopia Somalia, where they have no government, but plenty of gangsters, pirates and Jihadists instead? You might want to try to build a bigger strawman next time. This one is too easy to topple. I have never once claimed that I wanted no government. And, you are dead ass wrong that libertarians are in favor of no government. I'm glad you called "bullshit" on that one, DS.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.1719971