Jump to content

Great news!


Recommended Posts

So they have set up two off shore companies that are in locations often used by those who are avoiding taxes.  I am curious as to what companies these are related to or if it is to the ecclesiastical side of the Church.  

I never quite understood the self-righteous indignation that some have for those who actual use the tax code for legal deductions.  Do these same people use deductions on their income taxes?  If so, then what is the problem?  If you use deductions should others not use deductions?  The logic never makes sense to me.

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How long did it take them to put that update at the top in admitting they are not even sure if the church is involved?

I wonder how they know this.  And how D. Michael Quinn knows about the corporate side of the LDS church, that he has written about in a book called "The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power", which will be available to buy in October 2016.  

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how they know this.  And how D. Michael Quinn knows about the corporate side of the LDS church, that he has written about in a book called "The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power", which will be available to buy in October 2016.  

Thanks for the info Tacenda.  I did not know about this new book. 

Link to comment

Great News!  Val, did you read the facts - oh, maybe not so great news.  Dang it.  We try so hard to destroy that bugger and then facts come out and blows it all to kingdom come.  Well, a good blog is hard to find and a good journalist is an even more rare to find.  Facts are just too cruel, but we can count our blessings, at least we can call the Mormon Church anti-gay.  That seems to be the moniker of choice when all else fails. 

Edited by Storm Rider
Link to comment

The thread title is sarcastic. I don't want any financial scandal about the church to come out. Even if there was, the members would ignore it and move on. While I do believe the IRS is an illegal entity and that the income tax is extortion, they are, unavoidably, the law at this time. Thank you, Woodrow Wilson.

I am glad the church is not part of the Panama Papers. 

Link to comment
On May 10, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Storm Rider said:

So they have set up two off shore companies that are in locations often used by those who are avoiding taxes.  I am curious as to what companies these are related to or if it is to the ecclesiastical side of the Church.  

I never quite understood the self-righteous indignation that some have for those who actual use the tax code for legal deductions.  Do these same people use deductions on their income taxes?  If so, then what is the problem?  If you use deductions should others not use deductions?  The logic never makes sense to me.

 

I think the problem comes when people hide money rather than reporting it as income. Off shore accounts are also used by the rich who have managed to influence law t

as a  loophole to legally avoid paying income that a poor or even middle class person has a difficult time doing. The rich get richer through creating legal loopholes and manipulating the laws. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

I think the problem comes when people hide money rather than reporting it as income. Off shore accounts are also used by the rich who have managed to influence law t

as a  loophole to legally avoid paying income that a poor or even middle class person has a difficult time doing. The rich get richer through creating legal loopholes and manipulating the laws. 

We both agree that the rich have access to far more loop holes than the poor.  However, that is the problem with a progressive tax system - the only people that can really take advantage of the broad range of tax deductions - what we call loop holes - are those who actually have assets and money.  

Don't get me wrong - I support a progressive tax system.  What I am against is the incessant tinkering with the tax system to create countless deductions that make the entire tax system so complicated an average person must use an accountant to do their taxes.  It almost seems like the US Tax Code is a jobs creations bill for the accounting industry and the tax preparation industries.  It was one of the reasons that I am interested in a flat tax approach - a system with no tax deductions - that is also progressive in nature.  The more you make the more you pay.  Such a system would put a lot of accountants out of the tax business, but the result would be a fair system for all.

Link to comment

Tax laws favor both the poor and the rich.   It's the middle class that gets the shaft most of the time.  My sister, who is on food stamps, medicaid and doesn't work (and there's nothing wrong with that), who has 3 kids and a husband who works part time at a minimum wage job and also gets disability for a seizure disorder, has gotten back over $4,000 for a tax return the last three years.  My parents (a nurse and a supervisor in the oil field) make around $150,000 and have owed roughly a $1000 for the last few years after doing their taxes.

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We both agree that the rich have access to far more loop holes than the poor.  However, that is the problem with a progressive tax system - the only people that can really take advantage of the broad range of tax deductions - what we call loop holes - are those who actually have assets and money.  

Don't get me wrong - I support a progressive tax system.  What I am against is the incessant tinkering with the tax system to create countless deductions that make the entire tax system so complicated an average person must use an accountant to do their taxes.  It almost seems like the US Tax Code is a jobs creations bill for the accounting industry and the tax preparation industries.  It was one of the reasons that I am interested in a flat tax approach - a system with no tax deductions - that is also progressive in nature.  The more you make the more you pay.  Such a system would put a lot of accountants out of the tax business, but the result would be a fair system for all.

It is not almost like. There are lobbying groups out to keep the tax code difficult to preserve an industry.

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

We both agree that the rich have access to far more loop holes than the poor.  However, that is the problem with a progressive tax system - the only people that can really take advantage of the broad range of tax deductions - what we call loop holes - are those who actually have assets and money.  

Don't get me wrong - I support a progressive tax system.  What I am against is the incessant tinkering with the tax system to create countless deductions that make the entire tax system so complicated an average person must use an accountant to do their taxes.  It almost seems like the US Tax Code is a jobs creations bill for the accounting industry and the tax preparation industries.  It was one of the reasons that I am interested in a flat tax approach - a system with no tax deductions - that is also progressive in nature.  The more you make the more you pay.  Such a system would put a lot of accountants out of the tax business, but the result would be a fair system for all.

I think a flat tax is a great step forward. I also kinda like the VAT (value added tax) that they have in Europe. Basically you pay about 30% tax on luxury items. If you can afford these items you can afford the tax. No one forces you to buy things that are not essential. It does no good to hide money off shore. If you want to spend it, you pay a tax. I like the counsel of Brigham Young. 'Work less, wear less, spend less.  Maybe people would not go into so much debt as well. 

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/15/2016 at 5:41 AM, Storm Rider said:

We both agree that the rich have access to far more loop holes than the poor.  However, that is the problem with a progressive tax system - the only people that can really take advantage of the broad range of tax deductions - what we call loop holes - are those who actually have assets and money.  

Don't get me wrong - I support a progressive tax system.  What I am against is the incessant tinkering with the tax system to create countless deductions that make the entire tax system so complicated an average person must use an accountant to do their taxes.  It almost seems like the US Tax Code is a jobs creations bill for the accounting industry and the tax preparation industries.  It was one of the reasons that I am interested in a flat tax approach - a system with no tax deductions - that is also progressive in nature.  The more you make the more you pay.  Such a system would put a lot of accountants out of the tax business, but the result would be a fair system for all.

That's an oxymoronic statement.

Link to comment

I wish we could fix property taxes.  It is my understanding that  a lot of the property tax goes to schools..(which is not a bad thing).  But..for those who have paid off their homes and no longer have children in the school system, this just doesn't seem right to me. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

That's an oxymoronic statement.

Yup, you know how to engage and you have a profound understanding of nuance.  Yes, a towering intellect is on the scene engaging at the highest levels of true conversation.  The guru of......well, of ....hmm, absolutely nothing.  

How about actually saying something of value and cease the drive-by banalities.  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I wish we could fix property taxes.  It is my understanding that  a lot of the property tax goes to schools..(which is not a bad thing).  But..for those who have paid off their homes and no longer have children in the school system, this just doesn't seem right to me. 

Except their Soc Security and government benefits as well as other taxes will be paid by many of those children and the better educated those children are, the better income they have generally and the less tax burden those seniors have to bear.  It is all connected.

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Except their Soc Security and government benefits as well as other taxes will be paid by many of those children and the better educated those children are, the better income they have generally and the less tax burden those seniors have to bear.  It is all connected.

 

I agree Calm..I saw it that way too..It just seems no one ever gets to actually own their property..and that goes for the property my kid will have.  I wish there was a way for one generation to benefit the other without being taxed for life..yes, I am so dreaming!:D 

Link to comment

If they are looking for direct benefit, you could point out that having good schools in the locality will raise property value, perhaps even enough to cover the difference in taxes they might pay (the money for schools must come from somewhere, if not property taxes, then it will have to come through other avenues).  Requiring only parents with children using the schools to pay for schools would raise their expenses to where they would likely be having less kids, which means less productivity in society when these age groups hit adulthood later on.

Crime rates go down, etc., also contributing to a better lifestyle of seniors.

Would they really have wanted to have to pay the full amount of cost of schooling for their children during that time of their lives so that they can skip paying for schools when their children are adults instead of spreading it out over a lifetime, including a time period where many are the most financially secure they have ever been over their lifetimes? Do we really want to encourage people not to have children by further exempting them from contributing to a healthy society by helping to provide wide access to needed resources for caring for children?

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I agree Calm..I saw it that way too..It just seems no one ever gets to actually own their property..and that goes for the property my kid will have.  I wish there was a way for one generation to benefit the other without being taxed for life..yes, I am so dreaming!:D 

I agree that it is annoying that you can never actually own property.   You're forever renting it from the government and even after its paid off, if there ever comes a time when you can't afford the taxes (such as later in life), you lose it. 

I imagine that makes some seniors feel very insecure knowing they can never get rid of that expense and guarantee a place to live. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Calm said:

If they are looking for direct benefit, you could point out that having good schools in the locality will raise property value, perhaps even enough to cover the difference in taxes they might pay (the money for schools must come from somewhere, if not property taxes, then it will have to come through other avenues).  Requiring only parents with children using the schools to pay for schools would raise their expenses to where they would likely be having less kids, which means less productivity in society when these age groups hit adulthood later on.

Crime rates go down, etc., also contributing to a better lifestyle of seniors.

Would they really have wanted to have to pay the full amount of cost of schooling.   for their children during that time of their lives so that they can skip paying for schools when their children are adults instead of spreading it out over a lifetime, including a time period where many are the most financially secure they have ever been over their lifetimes? Do we really want to encourage people not to have children by further exempting them from contributing to a healthy society by helping to provide wide access to needed resources for caring for children?

There are so many ways to look at this and you have some great points.  Great schools mean good neighborhoods, well educated kids and stabalized truancy/crime.  That is a given and a good thing.  But..on the other hand, those parents with kids in schools are getting great tax deductions are they?  What I would really like to see is another avenue to take care of schools without the burden on the property tax.  To at least have a set of years after you have paid for your home/property where this tax is finally obsolete.  There are senior citizens set back every year with this tax.  I don't know.  Hard to be fair in  world that isn't fair.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...