cornographic

 

If it did, is it any worse than the GOP using Mein Kampf as their playbook?

Buh boom, nice one

 

 

I think the problem is the system, not the churches. I think religion is bogus but there is no question that it is a great way of getting a group of people galvanized to help a worthy cause. I don't think that those churches who truly are striving to make an effort to do good in the world be taxed simply because there are other churches who are scamming the system. Instead, I think we need to make all of these groups more accountable as to what they are doing and how they are spending money. It isn't just religious groups that are abusing this system but charities across the board.

Not talking so much about the small town church and what not who are barely getting by, but, in particular, massive revenue generating insitutions like the Catholic Church, the mega evangelical churches and colleges, etc.

 

 

 

So, instead of setting up some consistent rules to govern everyone, you want to pick and choose on a church by church based how you and other feel they should be taxed.

 

Do you really not see the problem with this?

 

Sorry, gtg for the day amigo........buh bye...

 

 

Yes, I am making more. About 30% more. Yet I pay 300% more in federal taxes. I'm also in my 30s and have a net worth that's much lower than Bernie's (which is around $500k).

Does that strike you as the correct approach to taxing our citizens?

 

I'm happy to pay taxes, but I'm not happy to subsidize the behavior of wealthier people (e.g., their decision to save for retirement through a tax exempt plan or buy a house, particularly a housing equity loan so they can buy regular goods and services).

 

Our current system of taxation is fundamentally unfair, and Bernie's solution is to expand it.

$8000/month in taxes for you, wow, I don't know what you're doing, but that's a huge amount, at least in my book. But I really think you should get Bernie on the phone and settle it once and for all.

 

 

 

I overstated it; tax is about $7,200 a month for about $86,000 in federal taxes or an effective rate of about 27%. That doesn't include another $25,000 in state taxes and more in payroll taxes.

 

It would be really good if supporters of tax raises understood how much is already paid and how taxes really work for many earners in the country.

 

Like I said; I'll pay my taxes, but we need to stop giving special treatment to wealthier taxpayers whose income is the same as poorer/younger taxpayers.

 

Well, if you are making less than Bernie, that amt of tax seems way off. Upper marginal bracket-->$400k-- is only like 39%, right?

I think the problem is the system, not the churches. I think religion is bogus but there is no question that it is a great way of getting a group of people galvanized to help a worthy cause. I don't think that those churches who truly are striving to make an effort to do good in the world be taxed simply because there are other churches who are scamming the system. Instead, I think we need to make all of these groups more accountable as to what they are doing and how they are spending money. It isn't just religious groups that are abusing this system but charities across the board.

Not talking so much about the small town church and what not who are barely getting by, but, in particular, massive revenue generating insitutions like the Catholic Church, the mega evangelical churches and colleges, etc.

 

 

 

Looks like Zach Darlington will nvr see the filed due to the concussions, eh? Too bad, could've been a good one, me thinks.

he's been moved to wr. not sure if he will ever see the field there or not....but that is why you don't see him mentioned with the qb's now.

WR, wow, thats loco! Great position for a guy who has had concussion issues: NOT! Besides, we have WRs coming out the ying yang these days.

Onviously just trying to start drama here. You just went on about how it's too bad he can't play, then respond with that when you are told he could at a safer position.

 

I don't think WR is particularly safer, and I doubt he sees the field much, regardless.

Yes, I am making more. About 30% more. Yet I pay 300% more in federal taxes. I'm also in my 30s and have a net worth that's much lower than Bernie's (which is around $500k).

Does that strike you as the correct approach to taxing our citizens?

 

I'm happy to pay taxes, but I'm not happy to subsidize the behavior of wealthier people (e.g., their decision to save for retirement through a tax exempt plan or buy a house, particularly a housing equity loan so they can buy regular goods and services).

 

Our current system of taxation is fundamentally unfair, and Bernie's solution is to expand it.

$8000/month in taxes for you, wow, I don't know what you're doing, but that's a huge amount, at least in my book. But I really think you should get Bernie on the phone and settle it once and for all.

 

 

 

We aren't talking about how well they eventually did. We are talking about how well they did that first season, and lynch, for example, threw more interceptions than touchdowns.

 

 

 

and we're talking about tons of examples of redshirt or true freshman quarterbacks over the last decade that played very good to great in their first years

 

 

Sam Bradford, Marcus Mariota, Colt McCoy, Johnny Manziel, Jameis Winston, Josh Rosen, Braxton Miler, J.T. Barrett, Jake Browning, Terrell Pryor, Robert Griffin III, Taylor Martinez, Kellen Moore, Jared Goff, Christian Hackenburg, Baker Mayfield, Matt Barkley, Wes Lunt, Brett Hundley, do you need more? Not all pro style, admittedly, but almost all were accomplished throwers, and all of them played better as freshmen than we have had for quarterback play in the last several years.

 

Not all those guys were great shakes their 1st year starting, a number of those guys were project players because the team didnt have any better options at the time, e.g., RGIII, Hackenburg(who finished his senior year < 60% completions) I think Big Red beat RGIII his 1st year or 2. Terrelle Pryor couldnt hit the broad side of a barn his 1st 2 years and Brax never did become that great of a passer.

 

I'm glad we don't have to start a true frosh QB.

 

 

 

 

RGIII freshman numbers - 160/267 (59.9%) for 2091 yards, 15 TD, 3 INT ----- 173 rushes for 843 yards, 4.9ypc, 13 TD QBR of 142.0

 

Hackenberg freshman numbers - 231/392 (58.9%) for 2955 yards, 20 TD, 10 INT. QBR of 134

 

Terrell Pryor freshman numbers - 100/165 (60.6%) for 1311 yards, 12 TD, 4 INT ----- 139 rushes for 631 yards, 4.5ypc, 7 TD QBR of 146.5

 

 

 

 

Tommy Armstrong junior numbers - 222/402 (55.2%) for 3030 yards, 22 TD, 16 INT ----- 98 rushes for 400 yards, 4.1ypc, 7 TD QBR of 128.6

 

RGIII frosh record: 4-8

Hack: 7-5

I'll give ya Pryor, but the guy was never known for his passing skills.

Hey, if POB can beat out Tommy, I'm all for it, but doesn't look like it's going to happen.

 

We aren't talking about how well they eventually did. We are talking about how well they did that first season, and lynch, for example, threw more interceptions than touchdowns.

 

 

 

and we're talking about tons of examples of redshirt or true freshman quarterbacks over the last decade that played very good to great in their first years

 

 

Sam Bradford, Marcus Mariota, Colt McCoy, Johnny Manziel, Jameis Winston, Josh Rosen, Braxton Miler, J.T. Barrett, Jake Browning, Terrell Pryor, Robert Griffin III, Taylor Martinez, Kellen Moore, Jared Goff, Christian Hackenburg, Baker Mayfield, Matt Barkley, Wes Lunt, Brett Hundley, do you need more? Not all pro style, admittedly, but almost all were accomplished throwers, and all of them played better as freshmen than we have had for quarterback play in the last several years.

 

Not all those guys were great shakes their 1st year starting, a number of those guys were project players because the team didnt have any better options at the time, e.g., RGIII, Hackenburg(who finished his senior year < 60% completions) I think Big Red beat RGIII his 1st year or 2. Terrelle Pryor couldnt hit the broad side of a barn his 1st 2 years and Brax never did become that great of a passer. TMart could run like the wind but was always a nail biter as a passer:

I'm glad we don't have to start a true frosh QB.

 

 

 

 

That video doesn't show that same house. The houses are different. And from what I watched of the video, it's not tax exempt.

 

Private residences, even when owned by pastors, are not tax exempt.

 

 

Also, the average religious leader in this country makes between $30k and $70k a year.

 

The focus on the media/entertainment mega church pastor outliers seems disingenuous.

Obviously, any taxation on churches and pastors would be progressive.

Huh?

 

Progressive tax, like everyone else currently pays, or in theory, is supposed to pay.

 

 

Taxes on religious leaders' incomes is subject to the exact same tax rate as any other person (which, in this country is "progressive" ... though it's really not due to all of the tax breaks we give wealthy people like Bernie Sanders).

 

LOL, still stuck on the Bernie thing, eh? Which reminds me, and you don't have to reveal details, but if you are paying $4000/month back on your 1/4 mil student and $8000/month on whatever else that was you mentioned, you must be making more than the Bern, aren't ya, Skippy? That's a ridiculous student loan ya got there, hope the education was worth it.

 

 

That video doesn't show that same house. The houses are different. And from what I watched of the video, it's not tax exempt.

 

Private residences, even when owned by pastors, are not tax exempt.

 

 

Also, the average religious leader in this country makes between $30k and $70k a year.

 

The focus on the media/entertainment mega church pastor outliers seems disingenuous.

Obviously, any taxation on churches and pastors would be progressive.

Huh?

 

Progressive tax, like everyone else currently pays, or in theory, is supposed to pay.

 

Looks like Zach Darlington will nvr see the filed due to the concussions, eh? Too bad, could've been a good one, me thinks.

he's been moved to wr. not sure if he will ever see the field there or not....but that is why you don't see him mentioned with the qb's now.

 

WR, wow, thats loco! Great position for a guy who has had concussion issues: NOT! Besides, we have WRs coming out the ying yang these days.

 

 

 

 

I think that tax exempt status should be removed from churches, if it's removed from all 501©(3) organizations.

 

And I definitely think that donations to college athletic programs should not be deductible, while we are at it.

 

 

We actually agree on something, that's a first.

We agree in outcomes more often than you realize.

 

 

Also, I'm not sure you actually agree with what I said about removing 501©(3) status from all charities, not just churches.

Yeah, alot of those charities are bogus, so I'd tend to go along with you on that. They say they are "non-profit" and such, but that's just to avoid taxes, and alot of times the $ doesn't go where it's supposed to, just ask Billary Clinton.

We are getting ever so close to having you see the light.

 

Take what you feel about bogus charities and ask yourself how government is any different. I wonder what government would score if graded by one of the charity watchdog organizations.

 

It strikes me that your position isn't so much that government can fix things but rather that government is a tool for reducing the wealth and power of individuals, whether human or corporate.

 

That's an ok theory, but ask yourself why, if a little government has been used by those wealthy and powerful people, a bigger government would not be used by those same wealthy and powerful people to protect their own interests.

 

If you want public services, you have to have the appropriate amount of taxation, and the rich have to pay their fair share--which, at this time, they are not--and the little guy shouldn't have to carry the brunt, that's all I'm saying. Also, if you want any advanced industry, you pretty much have to have tax subsidation because that's how all advanced countries developed it, US, Japan, Singapore, China, Hong Kong, W Europe, all of them.

If you don't want public services, then everything will be privatized and you will be paying bills thru the roof every month for all the stuff you get more cheaply thru socialized taxation, and everywhere you go there will be a toll or entry fee, blah blah blah.

I agree the current gov't is too big and regulates too much, especially small biz and the like, so, in an ideal situation, the gov't would provide, thru appropriate taxation, the desired public services--The Commons--for the population and nothing more.

The work place also has to be democratized socially and economically and that's where WSDEs come in.

That video doesn't show that same house. The houses are different. And from what I watched of the video, it's not tax exempt.

 

Private residences, even when owned by pastors, are not tax exempt.

 

 

Also, the average religious leader in this country makes between $30k and $70k a year.

 

The focus on the media/entertainment mega church pastor outliers seems disingenuous.

Obviously, any taxation on churches and pastors would be progressive.

 

 

Can you post the link to that actual picture?

 

 

I don't think this is a straight forward issue. Like so many things, the socialist/anti-religious take an extreme example to justify a wide ranging policy position that would impact a lot of people.

 

The question here is solely property because all of the employees, including the religious leaders, are taxed on their income. It's not as though all religious activity is tax free.

 

That said, I would do away with the 501©(3) deductions of any type, lower rates for everyone based on those saving and let people decide where they want to spend their dollars.

 

As to the taxation of church property, I don't have a problem in theory requiring churches to pay a property tax commiserate with the level of services they receive. I'd be curious to see what that figure really is for the typical church.

 

I do know that the $71,000,000,000 is manipulated and probably based on the total value of all property and not just what would be payable as a % of real property.

Socialists aren't necessarily anti-religious or atheists. Socialism is an socioeconomic critique, not a religious critique, though some guys like Marx were atheists. Jesus was a socialist, so there's that. The religious critique here is mine.

 

I pulled that image off Google images which links to a msg board on the subject of religious mega mansions--which you can Google separately:

 

http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/198721-petition-remove-tax-exempt-status-churches-3.html

 

Jesus advocated the central government's control of production and distribution?

 

Huh, must have missed that chapter. Though admittedly I'm the product of an episcopal upbringing so they might have glossed over those points...

 

Jesus broke up the banksters(money changers), so to speak, fed the masses, advocated the Golden Rule. Real socialism is of, for, and by the People, i.e., the proletariat revolution--workers take over, not that USSR or Chinese, central/state dictatorship crapola. There really hasn't been a true socialistic country in the world, to date, though there have been a handful of attempts--all destroyed by fascists.

Looks like Zach Darlington will nvr see the filed due to the concussions, eh? Too bad, could've been a good one, me thinks.

Very few true frosh QBs are going to step into the starting job and carry the team, I don't care who they are. Jameis Winston is an exception and it's not like the guy didn't throw his fair share of picks his 1st year--and his 2nd year--but he was obviously a legit 5* special talent, he really "jumped off the page". I'm glad we have a seasoned starter there in TA that can carry the torch and give POB or whoever time to get there "feet on the ground", hah, see what I did there?

 

 

I think that tax exempt status should be removed from churches, if it's removed from all 501©(3) organizations.

 

And I definitely think that donations to college athletic programs should not be deductible, while we are at it.

 

 

We actually agree on something, that's a first.

We agree in outcomes more often than you realize.

 

 

Also, I'm not sure you actually agree with what I said about removing 501©(3) status from all charities, not just churches.

 

Yeah, alot of those charities are bogus, so I'd tend to go along with you on that. They say they are "non-profit" and such, but that's just to avoid taxes, and alot of times the $ doesn't go where it's supposed to, just ask Billary Clinton.

 

 

Not paying taxes is far from being on the public dole. How one concludes that not paying taxes is the same as receiving welfare indicates the 'logical' thinking of a liberal.

It's exactly the same thing, actually.

 

Yeah, I agree -- not that I'm necessarily opposed to it for churches.

 

I think this applies in general. To the extent that individuals or organizations can operate without or with low taxes, they are effectively being publicly supported for their activity. That's fine for some things, but there should be good reasons for them.

 

zoogs, my man, you are a refreshingly sane person here on the Board, and I appreciate that .

Can you post the link to that actual picture?

 

 

I don't think this is a straight forward issue. Like so many things, the socialist/anti-religious take an extreme example to justify a wide ranging policy position that would impact a lot of people.

 

The question here is solely property because all of the employees, including the religious leaders, are taxed on their income. It's not as though all religious activity is tax free.

 

That said, I would do away with the 501©(3) deductions of any type, lower rates for everyone based on those saving and let people decide where they want to spend their dollars.

 

As to the taxation of church property, I don't have a problem in theory requiring churches to pay a property tax commiserate with the level of services they receive. I'd be curious to see what that figure really is for the typical church.

 

I do know that the $71,000,000,000 is manipulated and probably based on the total value of all property and not just what would be payable as a % of real property.

Socialists aren't necessarily anti-religious or atheists. Socialism is an socioeconomic critique, not a religious critique, though some guys like Marx were atheists. Jesus was a socialist, so there's that. The religious critique here is mine.

I pulled that image off Google images which links to a msg board on the subject of religious mega mansions--which you can Google separately:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/church-and-state/198721-petition-remove-tax-exempt-status-churches-3.html

 

 

 

 

There is abso

 

 

 

 

 

I think POB looks fine, but he lifts his back foot/leg off the ground when he throws, which seems odd.

I think POB played a lot of baseball in his younger days before focusing on football. Most baseball players/pitchers follow through with their back foot after throwing the ball. It's probably just a holdover from playing baseball.

 

Wouldn't the QB Whisperer Langs get him to change that already, or you think he's ok with it?

 

It's just him following through. If it helps POB get his legs into his throws, it's not a huge deal.

 

Okie dokie, then. I just hadn't seen the motion so pronounced before in a QB.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a QB lifting the back leg and bringing it forward. In-fact many QB coaches teach that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKekaOuWtog. If you look at Peyton, he has similar mechanics, the only difference is that POB leg lift is a little more pronounced. Might have been due to nerves, and trying to put a lot of power into his throw.

I noticed it on his h.s. vids, must be the baseball influence, as mentioned. Just hope a renegade DT or DE doesn't break it for him.

 

i just hope none of the guys get hurt by a "renegade" tackle.

 

I dunno, with his leg sticking that far out, I can envision some crazy pile up where he and leg are bent/contorted all over the place.

 

I would rather have his leg lifted up in the air, instead of stuck on the ground waiting for flying bodies to hit it while it's stationary.

 

Well, hitting the QB below the knees is illegal now, me thinks, but I could see him getting hit, say from the front by a few guys, and suddenly he's falling back doing the splits, with guys falling on top of him. I know, prlly nvr happen in a million yrs, right? I think if you are more or less standing on 2 feet your chances are better.

I use Brady as my guide, no lifty the back leggy much:

But mainly, I just thought that much of a hind leg lift looked fairly unorthodox.

I think that tax exempt status should be removed from churches, if it's removed from all 501©(3) organizations.

 

And I definitely think that donations to college athletic programs should not be deductible, while we are at it.

 

 

We actually agree on something, that's a first.

 

 

There is abso

 

 

 

 

 

I think POB looks fine, but he lifts his back foot/leg off the ground when he throws, which seems odd.

I think POB played a lot of baseball in his younger days before focusing on football. Most baseball players/pitchers follow through with their back foot after throwing the ball. It's probably just a holdover from playing baseball.

 

Wouldn't the QB Whisperer Langs get him to change that already, or you think he's ok with it?

 

It's just him following through. If it helps POB get his legs into his throws, it's not a huge deal.

 

Okie dokie, then. I just hadn't seen the motion so pronounced before in a QB.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a QB lifting the back leg and bringing it forward. In-fact many QB coaches teach that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKekaOuWtog. If you look at Peyton, he has similar mechanics, the only difference is that POB leg lift is a little more pronounced. Might have been due to nerves, and trying to put a lot of power into his throw.

I noticed it on his h.s. vids, must be the baseball influence, as mentioned. Just hope a renegade DT or DE doesn't break it for him.

 

i just hope none of the guys get hurt by a "renegade" tackle.

 

I dunno, with his leg sticking that far out, I can envision some crazy pile up where he and leg are bent/contorted all over the place.

Tax exempt church mansion:

There is abso

 

 

 

 

 

I think POB looks fine, but he lifts his back foot/leg off the ground when he throws, which seems odd.

I think POB played a lot of baseball in his younger days before focusing on football. Most baseball players/pitchers follow through with their back foot after throwing the ball. It's probably just a holdover from playing baseball.

 

Wouldn't the QB Whisperer Langs get him to change that already, or you think he's ok with it?

 

It's just him following through. If it helps POB get his legs into his throws, it's not a huge deal.

 

Okie dokie, then. I just hadn't seen the motion so pronounced before in a QB.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a QB lifting the back leg and bringing it forward. In-fact many QB coaches teach that.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKekaOuWtog. If you look at Peyton, he has similar mechanics, the only difference is that POB leg lift is a little more pronounced. Might have been due to nerves, and trying to put a lot of power into his throw.

I noticed it on his h.s. vids, must be the baseball influence, as mentioned. Just hope a renegade DT or DE doesn't break it for him.