why, thank you honey. As usual, I appreciate your brilliance.
Printable View
why, thank you honey. As usual, I appreciate your brilliance.
well I'll be amiss if I didn't think that this is ruthie's other halfQuote:
Originally Posted by scroff
tis true?
if not then truly; you are made for each other (sorry B :) )
Taxing religions is probably a non-starter. Any accountant worth his salt could produce an operating statement for a non-profit making organisation showing there is no surplus to tax. Remember it is not income that is taxed but profit.
Having said that, people like the Bakers in the US did a pretty good job in trying to blur the lines and bring most if not all tele-evangelism into disrepute.
Is it just me or have we digressed from J2's original homily on the spread of political correctness?
Edit: added the word no as that was my original intent.
It will never happen here...too many people of faithQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Vidcc
Perhaps, and many faiths do use their surplus for worthy causes, taxation of which would not be desireable. It is, however, less agreeable to see such funds used to build flash follies and expensive cars for the charismatic leader/guru of the relevant cult/faith.
I was taken with the debate I saw on Yahoo regarding Halloween/Samhain. As it falls on a Sunday this year it is apparently causing a little (although presumably minor) ruckus in some US States. Most of the contributions were surprisingly balanced a well informed. It was pleasing to see.
tis true. Scroff is my love. :wub:Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
ShitBergerFlickel!!!:angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthie
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Lol.
There are other ways to tax. Like I said, paying property tax would be a real good start. And nutjobs like Falwell and Pat Robertson need to be "re-assessed" as a for profit organization. If they have to re-write the tax code to do it... so be it.
Oh, yea....
Sorry B...
Ok, I'll shut up now (at least in this thread)