Religion and tax.

[Xelasnave.1947]

Where on earth did you come up with that bizarre notion?

I dont know in so far as I cant give authority but I thought the idea behind interest rate moveme t was to control the employement a d therefore inflation. I dont think I got it out of thin airbut at myage who knows.

More employment would mean more money circulating in the economy, and businesses grow and multiply to absorb the greater spending power of more people. The more businesses the more competition, and generally the lower the prices of goods and services.

Yes.

Without welfare, there would be incentives to work, graduate high school, and marry before having children...the three biggest predictors of getting out of poverty.

Sounds reasonable.
I e joyed your post thank you.
Alex

 

[Syne]

I dont know in so far as I cant give authority but I thought the idea behind interest rate moveme t was to control the employement a d therefore inflation. I dont think I got it out of thin airbut at myage who knows.

When not being artificially manipulated to engineer the economy, the prime rate, on which other interest is based, is just a measure of risk. Lower employment typically means higher risk of defaulting on loans and higher interest to cover those losses, but government guarantees, i.e. "too big to fail", artificially reduce the risk and interest rate. Usually the justification for holding the prime rate down is to allow more business loans to boost employment. It's generally a bad idea and hasn't proven to work.

 

[Jeeves]

About taxing church properties....
Why not?

 

[Syne]

Taxes are fungible.

 

[iceaura]

More employment would mean more money circulating in the economy, and businesses grow and multiply to absorb the greater spending power of more people.

That depends on wages.

Without welfare, there would be incentives to work, graduate high school, and marry before having children...the three biggest predictors of getting out of poverty.

That's also the case with welfare.

If the incentives aren't there, some other explanation than welfare is needed. If what you are really talking about is not incentives, but punishments, then a little more clarity about who you intend to punish is in order.

 

[Jeeves]

Reason to exempt church properties from taxation:

Taxes are fungible.

Good. Therefore all taxes should be abolished.
No more military; no more police; no more prisons; no more presidents.
Theocracy or anarchy.

 

[Syne]

Someone doesn't seem to know what fungible means.
If an individual or entity is taxed, that money comes out of the same pool of funds as any other. So it makes no difference whether the tax is directed at the income, property, etc.. Any tax levied on religion violates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Property taxes could hinder the building of new churches or limit the free exercise of religion.

Don't like it? Change the First Amendment.

 

[Jeeves]

Bull. Shit.

adjective, Law.
1.
(especially of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind.

Money qualifies on all counts. Doesn't differentiate between tax, fees, business transactions or loan interest.

Utterly inapplicable to freedom of religious practice.

 

[Syne]

Bull. Shit.

Money qualifies on all counts. Doesn't differentiate between tax, fees, business transactions or loan interest.

Utterly inapplicable to freedom of religious practice.

And? I said "Taxes are fungible." That literally means that one tax, say income, is "freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another", say property tax.
All taxes infringe on the "free exercise of religion", since taxes are trivially not free.

And no amount of red-in-the-face-cursing is going to change that fact. Like Obama said, if you don't like it win an election. You just have to win enough to change the Constitution.

 

[Jeeves]

And? I said "Taxes are fungible." That literally means that one tax, say income, is "freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another", say property tax.

And you were wrong.

 

[Syne]

And you were wrong.

Bare assertions are not arguments.

 

[Jeeves]

Nevertheless.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I said "Taxes are fungible."

In all honesty I thought it was some sort of slang but I looked it up, so I thank you for increasing my vocabulary.
Do you think that the tax exemptions maybe taken by some who dont deserve it.
Alex

 

[Syne]

Nevertheless.

More non-argument.

In all honesty I thought it was some sort of slang but I looked it up, so I thank you for increasing my vocabulary.
Do you think that the tax exemptions maybe taken by some who dont deserve it.

Yeah, I always appreciate new vocabulary too.
There's always someone willing to game any system, and I'm sure there's plenty of even secular non-profit charities administered by people who earn many times the median salary. But 'deserve' is a judgment call based on legal criteria. Is there a dollar figure at which point an endeavor ceases to be religious or charitable? I don't really see how. If an organization that provides 1000 scholarships a year, ceases to be a legit charity for earning enough to provide 2000 scholarships a year, it seems to only penalize success and limit philanthropy. I really can't justify wasting more charitable donations by arbitrarily splitting it up among more charities, each with their own overhead.

That depends on wages.

More people working means more money circulating in the economy. It only depends on the wages due to ridiculous things like $15 minimum wage, that artificially increase prices and cool the economy.

That's also the case with welfare.

If the incentives aren't there, some other explanation than welfare is needed. If what you are really talking about is not incentives, but punishments, then a little more clarity about who you intend to punish is in order.

No, welfare typically provides more money than can immediately be made at an initial transitioning job, pays better for single parents than married, and has no high school requirement, which many jobs do. This means that welfare explicitly incentivizes these three largest predictors of lifelong poverty.

 

[iceaura]

And? I said "Taxes are fungible." That literally means that one tax, say income, is "freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another", say property tax.

That's not what fungible means, and that's nowhere near the case for taxes. For example, different taxes have different effects on the costs of governance, the expenditures that will be necessary from the money collected.

 

[iceaura]

No, welfare typically provides more money than can immediately be made at an initial transitioning job, pays better for single parents than married, and has no high school requirement, which many jobs do. This means that welfare explicitly incentivizes these three largest predictors of lifelong poverty

Failure to punish is not an incentive. And as posted: :" If what you are really talking about is not incentives, but punishments, then a little more clarity about who you intend to punish is in order."

More people working means more money circulating in the economy.

That depends on the wages. If you got everyone working by disproportionately lowering the wages, you don't get more money circulating.

 

[Syne]

That's not what fungible means, and that's nowhere near the case for taxes. For example, different taxes have different effects on the costs of governance, the expenditures that will be necessary from the money collected.

LOL! I quoted from the actual definition of "fungible". The tax burden on any individual or entity is completely fungible. You're just making a nonsensical straw man about tax collection. Try to keep up.

No, welfare typically provides more money than can immediately be made at an initial transitioning job, pays better for single parents than married, and has no high school requirement, which many jobs do. This means that welfare explicitly incentivizes these three largest predictors of lifelong poverty

Failure to punish is not an incentive. And as posted: :" If what you are really talking about is not incentives, but punishments, then a little more clarity about who you intend to punish is in order."
What on earth are you on about? Where did ANYONE say anything about punishing anyone? Show us. Otherwise, quit making transparently non-sequitur straw man arguments. If you'd make less getting a job than on welfare, that it incentive to stay on welfare. If you get more money as a single mother, that is incentive to remain single. And if a HS diploma only matters in the job market, it's a moot point on welfare.
That depends on the wages. If you got everyone working by disproportionately lowering the wages, you don't get more money circulating.

Actually you do, because the price of goods and services in a free market economy are effected by wages. Lower wages means cheaper goods and services, maintaining the rate and value of circulation. Again, basic economics.