Re: continuing proofs America is wacko [3]

by David H Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:10 pm

The way real world loophole works is that many for-profit corporations have founded their own not-for-profit charitable foundation which have many of the same names on each of their boards of directors. Then any time the corporation needs a tax write-off, they transfer funds to the charitable branch and take the deduction on their taxes. The charitable foundation is then free to do good works in districts of certain key politicians, thus neatly sidestepping both taxes and bribery/conflict of interest laws. Pretty smooth, huh?

Note that this isn't always all bad. Look at what the Microsoft / Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation has been doing recently.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:47 pm

Doesn't sound too hard a loophole to close- bar for-profit organisations from founding or funding a charity.
Make all charities have to be independent entities without cross over board members to any donor company.

by David H Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:53 pm

But that's the only way most charities are funded. Without the tax breaks, organizations like Habitat for Humanity, Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders and hundreds of others would lose almost all their funding in the US, and I think that's a significant part of their worldwide income.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:59 pm

Works fine in other countries where there isn't the US capitalist system- most UK charities are funded by corporate donations and the public.
Comic Relief is one of the biggest fund raisers in the UK for example.

Maybe American culture might have to change and the public might need to give more- and companies need to do it not for the tax breaks, bit for the PR.

by David H Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:10 pm

The US is actually rated two places ahead of the UK on this study. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country

But here's the kind of money that would disappear overnight. http://www.foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top50giving.html

That's almost half a billion dollars just from Novatis alone! Shocked

by **Amarië** Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:21 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Put them on a fair footing would be my solution- have a charity tax- all charities and churches get the same rate.
But no further exemptions on tax or any other laws (like marriage) on religious grounds until they can unequivocally prove the existence of God and what He wants.

God is a theory like any other theory. You would have to deliver unequivocally proof that God doesn't exist for this to work, and no one can provide that.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:36 pm

The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim.

The law cant give exemptions because people believe something is true.

I believe I should never have to pay for a buckie, and that further more the angels of pink elephants have told me this is so. Should the law give me an exemption from paying because I have a belief they cant disprove?
This would be ridiculous if we were talking about anything else whatsoever save religion- which gets this weird pass from normal thinking just because its religion.

by **Amarië** Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:27 pm

Scientists make extraordinary claims all the time. It's called a theory. I am simply saying that what you present as a solution to the problem won't work.

Every evidence given must be proved wrong, and until the whole universe and all laws of physics and quantum physics is mapped out and understood, anyone can say that "oh the solution to that mystery is God/the spaghetti monster/dark matter/unknown particle/". You can't win that discussion, so the smart thing is to not go there.

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:36 pm

No the smart thing is not to give tax breaks and gross exemptions in the law to people who can prove nothing and can only make claims.

Let them have their beliefs by all means- but there is just no good reason to let them circumnavigate the law on the basis of their theory.

by halfwise Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:52 pm

I still haven't been presented a clear definition of charity versus for-profit. Charities must pay employees and create a sizable operational fund, one which is best to keep growing. How do you distinguish this from a for-profit that decides to give some money away to a good cause?

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:55 pm

If its primary function is giving money away its a charity, if its primary function is paying shareholders, it isnt.

by halfwise Thu Jan 07, 2016 10:38 pm

Many small businesses don't pay shareholders. Many charities must use most of the money for operating costs. Some even employ homeless to make products, and sell them and just barely make enough to employ them. If taxed they couldn't operate, but they seem an awful lot like a business. Some businesses deliberately train homeless as community outreach. When does cross over into another? It's all very unclear, yet we seem to know a charity when we see one.

by David H Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:34 am

halfwise wrote:I still haven't been presented a clear definition of charity versus for-profit. Charities must pay employees and create a sizable operational fund, one which is best to keep growing. How do you distinguish this from a for-profit that decides to give some money away to a good cause?

"Charity" when used as a legal term is simply one subcategory of "Nonprofit". There's way too much tax law to give a clear definition of anything, but look up 501(c)3 status which includes charities, churches etc. 501(c)4 is community organizations, 501(c)5 is labor and agricultural organizations, 501(c)6 is political organizations, and there are a whole bunch more that I don't know off the top of my head, each with it's own crazy rules. Our tall ship organization is a 3, or farmer's association is a 5. If we were perceived to be lobbying politically, either organization would in theory lose its status and have to try to reorganize as a 6. To find the specific tests for a charity to become a nonprofit, I'm afraid you'll have to read 501(c)3.

Is that clear enough? Laughing

Edit: to be clearer though, in the real world not all charities have gone to the trouble to organize as a nonprofit, and therefore are not tax-exempt. Nor are the majority of nonprofits charities.

by halfwise Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:48 am

Right, I should not have conflated charities and non-profits.

It seems like the tax code had largely defined non-profits on a category by category basis. Not really feeling the urge to look up 501(c) right now, though it would be interesting to see if they have a general definition.

by David H Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:08 am

OK I grabbed a small bite from Wikipedia on this, but it's really a lot more convoluted than this. 501(c) status is a legal industry in itself. Rolling Eyes

The two exempt classifications of 501(c)(3) organizations are as follows:[33]

A public charity, identified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as "not a private foundation", normally receives a substantial part of its income, directly or indirectly, from the general public or from the government. The public support must be fairly broad, not limited to a few individuals or families. Public charities are defined in the Internal Revenue Code under sections 509(a)(1) through 509(a)(4).
A private foundation, sometimes called a non-operating foundation, receives most of its income from investments and endowments. This income is used to make grants to other organizations, rather than being disbursed directly for charitable activities. Private foundations are defined in the Internal Revenue Code under section 509(a) as 501(c)(3) organizations, which do not qualify as public charities.

Churches must meet specific requirements in order to obtain and maintain tax exempt status; these are outlined in IRS Publication 1828: Tax guide for churches and religious organizations.[34] This guide outlines activities allowed and not allowed by churches under the 501(c)(3) designation. A private, nonprofit organization, GuideStar, also provides information on 501(c)(3) organizations.[35]

by halfwise Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:29 am

So are they saying charities and non-profits are treated differently by the tax code? No, no....I'm gonna stay out of that for now until my head clears.

Incidentally, if you have the bandwidth to watch the John Oliver video I posted on the previous page, you'll see just how sketchy the 'requirements' for a church are.

by David H Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:11 pm

Since Petty brought up the Malheur National Forest occupation on the 2016 election thread, I thought I'd share a well-written article here.

In Oregon, a counterpoint to armed standoff emerges
Who represents the West?

To many Westerners, the armed protesters who took over the Malheur refuge are putting on political theater that undermines the approach favored by many who seek to reshape the region’s future without a revolution.

Three weeks into a tense standoff in eastern Oregon between armed antigovernment protesters and law enforcement, the number of players has unexpectedly enlarged. Offering a counterpoint, local residents, environmentalists, hikers, birders, and even a science-fiction legend have weighed in with a united message.

“Go home,” several townspeople told Ammon Bundy and his brother, Ryan, as the occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge sat stone-faced amid the yelling at a town meeting Tuesday. Where outsiders might see tough-looking Westerners, rifles shouldered, at loggerheads with brown-shirted rangers taking marching orders from Washington, residents say the narrative is far more complex.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/0122/In-Oregon-a-counterpoint-to-armed-standoff-emerges

by bungobaggins Sat Jan 23, 2016 10:48 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/good-samaritan-shot-killed-driver-stuck-snow-police/story?id=36462969

A Good Samaritan was shot and killed in North Carolina Friday evening after he tried to help a motorist who was stuck in the snow, police said.

The scene unfolded in Catawba County, outside Charlotte, around 5 p.m. when the suspect's car slid off the road and got stuck in snow.

According to the county's sheriff, Coy Reid, some people who were passing by stopped to help the man.

Reid said that the group believed there was something wrong with the man, so they said they were going to call the police.

"He heard them say that," Reid said. "He jumps out of the car with a pistol."

The group then took off running, but the suspect allegedly opened fire.

"He shoots and hits one of them," Reid said, adding that the victim fell to the ground.

After that "he walks over and fires multiple shots into him," Reid added.

The victim was later pronounced dead.

After the shooting, the suspect got back in his car, which was still stuck, Reid said.

Responding officers, ordered him out, but he allegedly refused to obey their commands, so police called in a special tactics unit, including an armored car.

Officers were able to take the man into custody.

It was unclear if he was charged or what the motive was in the shooting.

{{{I'd also like to add that if this storm hit the midwest, you'd barely hear about it on the news.}}}

by halfwise Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:34 pm

All but two elected officials in a small town halfway between San Antonio and nowhere were arrested by the Feds for corruption:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/07/3746990/texas-officials-indictment/

It does make me feel good to see various parts of the government taking action against other parts.

by Eldorion Sun Feb 07, 2016 9:37 pm

Damn. Feds don't play, son.

by bungobaggins Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:56 am

Superbowl beverage prices.

continuing proofs America is wacko [3] - Page 15 QtRfaTY

by halfwise Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:13 am

At least you'll never have to pee at those prices.

by malickfan Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:30 pm

If they are charging seven dollars for some water I dread to think how much the burgers cost...

by halfwise Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:44 pm

If they were checking to make sure nobody brought stuff in like in a movie theater, I think there's be grounds for a lawsuit.

The wine was going for $25/glass, so I figure a burger would be about the same.

by malickfan Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:53 pm

halfwise wrote:If they were checking to make sure nobody brought stuff in like in a movie theater, I think there's be grounds for a lawsuit.

The wine was going for $25/glass, so I figure a burger would be about the same.

$25 for a piece of greasy overcooked 'meat' in a stale bun?...I know it's all part of the experience but I'd give that a miss personally.

I'd agree that checking for outside food is perhaps a bit excessive, but I think I'd rather go hungry for a couple of hours than risk illness/injury, security is always excessive at these things and with good reason.