Pepper sprayed for public safety.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I truly believe Newt's views on the moonbase are the most sensible science uttered by a Republican candidated for President in the last 20 years.

didn't W green light the predators

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

okay. Bo, you go bite that mail man. Then my buddy Hank will post a story on that lawtalkers, and we'll see that suck up Ty do back flips to explain how you were justified to bite the guy. Hank says this Ty can't say anything bad about anything connected to me.

Meeting Hank has really rejuvenated my enjoyment of life.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

okay. Bo, you go bite that mail man. Then my buddy Hank will post a story on that lawtalkers, and we'll that suck up Ty do back flips to explain how you were justified to bite the guy. Hank says this Ty can't say anything bad about anything connected to me.

Meeting Hank has really rejuvenated my enjoyment of life.

I thought someone was going to try a Hilary joke.

S_A_M

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Niall Ferguson: Paul Krugman was right.

Correction: Paul Krugman is right for now. "For how many more years?" is the question.

I personally think the thing that will set off a fear of our debt down the road is this likely scenario:

1. Increasing unemployment/underemployment and wage stagnation;
2. Political refusal to implement something like Simpson Bowles;
3. Social unrest growing among hopeless excess labor.

These things point to a US trending toward a society like Brazil (high income, low income, minimal middle). That's not unworkable, but it's inherently not as stable as our current society. And higher risk, higher borrowing costs.

You can't borrow endlessly. Even Krugman assumes our increased borrowing is temporary. I think he's wrong. I stand by the assessment we're in an efficiency/globalization driven paradigm shift where the labor/capital disequilibrium is not going to correct for decades. Throw money it at all day long and all you'll do is treat symptoms.

We simply don't need as many bodies to do what we need to anymore. This creates a permanent oversupply of labor. Couple that with a high standard of living and massive debt overhangs (housing, student loans, consumer debt, etc.) and you have an economy driving with three flat tires. And there isn't an air pump for 1000 miles.

[Adder]

Recognizing that I know nothing about the applicable tax laws, why is this organization tax-exempt?

Archdiocese says it gave $650,000 to support Minnesota's gay marriage ban
Associated Press
Posted: 01/31/2012 12:01:00 AM CST
Updated: 01/31 12:37:27 PM

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis says it contributed $650,000 last year to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

The archdiocese says today that it spearheaded a statewide effort of Minnesota's Catholic bishops. Archbishop John Nienstedt has come out strongly in support of the ban. He says it's in line with fundamental church teaching that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

The archdiocese says the money comes from investment income.

The largest group working to defeat the amendment, Minnesotans United for All Families, said last week it had raised $1.2 million.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Adder

Recognizing that I know nothing about the applicable tax laws, why is this organization tax-exempt?

Archdiocese says it gave $650,000 to support Minnesota's gay marriage ban
Associated Press
Posted: 01/31/2012 12:01:00 AM CST
Updated: 01/31 12:37:27 PM

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis says it contributed $650,000 last year to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

The archdiocese says today that it spearheaded a statewide effort of Minnesota's Catholic bishops. Archbishop John Nienstedt has come out strongly in support of the ban. He says it's in line with fundamental church teaching that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

The archdiocese says the money comes from investment income.

The largest group working to defeat the amendment, Minnesotans United for All Families, said last week it had raised $1.2 million.

I'm guessing it is because the money came from investment income so it gets treated differently than tax-exempt donations.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Fugee

I'm guessing it is because the money came from investment income so it gets treated differently than tax-exempt donations.

Perhaps, although those investments were made with tax-exempt donations, no? And the church doesn't have to pay taxes on that investment income, right?

Helpfully, the IRS has a guide on taxation for churches (pdf), which says:


■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation,
■ the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns,

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Perhaps, although those investments were made with tax-exempt donations, no? And the church doesn't have to pay taxes on that investment income, right?

Helpfully, the IRS has a guide on taxation for churches (pdf), which says:


■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation,
■ the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns,

It's not a political campaign (those involve candidates, not ballot law questions) and it's not attempting to influence legislation (which is a bill before a legislature).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's not a political campaign (those involve candidates, not ballot law questions)

Based only on that IRS bulletin, that seems technically correct, although a ballot measure is a lot closer to a campaign than normal lobbying.

and it's not attempting to influence legislation (which is a bill before a legislature).

Ah, but it is. Last year, when the money was spent, it was a bill before the legislature to put the question on the ballot. The referendum will happen this fall.

Beyond that, it seems like a truly silly policy draw the distinction you suggest. Which, of course, doesn't mean you are wrong. But this is quite explicitly political activity and tax exempt entities are not supposed to be making substantial expenditures on political activity.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Based only on that IRS bulletin, that seems technically correct, although a ballot measure is a lot closer to a campaign than normal lobbying.



Ah, but it is. Last year, when the money was spent, it was a bill before the legislature to put the question on the ballot. The referendum will happen this fall.

Beyond that, it seems like a truly silly policy draw the distinction you suggest. Which, of course, doesn't mean you are wrong. But this is quite explicitly political activity and tax exempt entities are not supposed to be making substantial expenditures on political activity.

If those reasons don't convince you, it is BECAUSE GOD SAID SO.

There is the need for some care when spending funds lobbying bills (or ballot measures) like this, but with care, tax exempt organizations can and often do do so. Planned Parenthood is just as good at this as is the Catholic Church. I have no doubt many organizations cross the line, but I'd be surprised if either one of those two did at a state or national level - they have too much at stake and are too cautious and well-advised.

Now, might some individual churches cross the line occassionally? No, they cross it more often than that.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If those reasons don't convince you, it is BECAUSE GOD SAID SO.

There is the need for some care when spending funds lobbying bills (or ballot measures) like this, but with care, tax exempt organizations can and often do do so. Planned Parenthood is just as good at this as is the Catholic Church. I have no doubt many organizations cross the line, but I'd be surprised if either one of those two did at a state or national level - they have too much at stake and are too cautious and well-advised.

Now, might some individual churches cross the line occassionally? No, they cross it more often than that.

Yeah, if there is one thing we know about the Catholic Church, it's that they never, ever cross any lines they shouldn't cross.

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Adder

Based only on that IRS bulletin, that seems technically correct, although a ballot measure is a lot closer to a campaign than normal lobbying.



Ah, but it is. Last year, when the money was spent, it was a bill before the legislature to put the question on the ballot. The referendum will happen this fall.

Beyond that, it seems like a truly silly policy draw the distinction you suggest. Which, of course, doesn't mean you are wrong. But this is quite explicitly political activity and tax exempt entities are not supposed to be making substantial expenditures on political activity.

But given the size of the Catholic Church in Minnesota (both in terms of its activities and the amount of money that goes through its coffers), I can't imagine that $650,000 would be considered substantial. I also suspect that it being an official act, they got the OK from lawyers who know a heck of a lot more about 501(c)(3) tax law than any of us in this discussion.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Yeah, if there is one thing we know about the Catholic Church, it's that they never, ever cross any lines they shouldn't cross.

Have you been reading Dan Brown again?

I have no doubt the Catholic Church could pull a Grand Inquisitor any time it benefitted them, but this isn't a case where they need to. If there were a legal issue that could bite them, there are plenty of individuals who could just write their check to a special fund instead of the church coffers. Give them some credit for cleverness. Remember, they've got Jesuit lawyers.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Fugee

But given the size of the Catholic Church in Minnesota (both in terms of its activities and the amount of money that goes through its coffers), I can't imagine that $650,000 would be considered substantial. I also suspect that it being an official act, they got the OK from lawyers who know a heck of a lot more about 501(c)(3) tax law than any of us in this discussion.

Your latter point is certainly correct.

But my point wasn't so much whether they have behaved consistently with the law, but rather whether the law here make any sense if it allows this sort of thing.

Oh, and to express frustration with the local catholic church.

As to whether that's substantial, I only know what that bulletin says, but it did not sound to me like "substantial" necessarily means relative to overall size. If I recall, it says $1 mil. is presumptive substantial rather than some proportionate measure. ETA: Nope, that's wrong. The expenditure test doesn't apply to churches.

Finally, this is just the Diocese of St. Paul & Minneapolis. Not all of Minnesota. But still a lot of activities and money.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Have you been reading Dan Brown again?

Have you not been reading newspapers over the last 20+ years?