Religious tax exemption Supreme Court case

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Au contraire, mon amis. It is frequently the regulations themselves that deepen, rather than solve, corruption. Government agencies generally become captive to the very industries that they supposedly regulate. This comes about because those appointed to head or even just work in agencies frequently have deep ties to the industries the agencies regulate. Now, obviously those tasked to regulate must know something about the subject matter that they are supposed to regulate. One can't really regulate in ignorance. But while regulations are supposed to hew to the spirit of the laws pertaining to the subject matter laws in question, the regulators have a lot of leeway about how to implement the laws. This is because the laws are by necessity rather vague, since the main skill of the legislators passing those laws is how to get elected and then re-elected. They are not subject matter experts, by and large. And very frequently it is the agencies that propose the wording of the laws that they want to legislators to enact, when it isn't the industry lobbyists who are doing it. 

Chevron deference is gone.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There is a lot of industry involvement in government because they don't dare let the politicians run their industries. That's why lobbyists are well paid. They are well paid because a lot of money is at stake. 

They’re not that good at running “their” industries themselves and if unregulated many would risk or directly inflict harm on others.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Why else do you think that there is such hew and cry over RFKjr being the HHS Secretary? Not because he has some rather controversial (and a few nutjob) opinions about the matters his agency regulates, but because he cannot be controlled by the industries he regulates. If he were under control, the powers that be would chuckle at his odd opinions, but leave him be. And he wouldn't be doing much to upset their apple carts -- if he were under control. 

He is doing everything the industries he is supposed to curtail would want. He is slashing apart all the regulatory agencies that make sure medication meets standards or that food isn’t poisonous.

He doesn’t have a few nutjob opinions. He is talking about how vitamins can cure measles resulting in cases of vitamin toxicity trying to follow his pseudoscientific nonsense. He just stocked vaccine agencies with vaccine deniers. Bringing measles and polio back BABY!

He isn’t some maverick defying industry. He is a lickspittle stepping back and letting them do exactly what they want. Scientists and doctors are afraid of him. Industry execs either love him or hate him based on his opinion of what they do. He isn’t respected by anyone of consequence.

He is a friend to snake oil salesmen. The almost completely unregulated untested supplement industry loves him.

His solution to my medical problem is to ship me off as slave labor to a rehabilitation farm.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Another form of corruption is when regulators politicize the industry they regulate. Those the current regime like get regulated lightly, while those it doesn't like get regulated much more strictly.

Regulators (i.e. the bureaucracies) aren’t that partisan. There is little incentive to be.

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Spoken like a true believer in government programs.

I don’t believe in the ‘privately or publicly owned good, government bad’ binary. Each should be evaluated on its own merits. These kinds of lazy shortcuts may make things simpler to make sense of but they don’t lead to better outcomes.

[Steve J]

On 6/8/2025 at 9:27 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

If you go back up to @Amulek's post, there are several things -

1: 501c3 is a federal status. A 501c3 status impacts certain types of taxes - but as a federal status, it only guarantees certain kinds of tax relief for federal taxes.

2: The issue here is about unemployment taxes. Unemployment programs are handled by the states - and so unemployment taxes are mandated by states. While some states exclude certain types of organizations from paying unemployment taxes, others do not. Wisconsin requires 501c3 organizations to pay unemployment taxes. In Michigan, where I live, a 501c3 has an interesting option. They do not have to pay unemployment taxes if they choose not to, however, they are then required to reimburse the state dollar for dollar whatever is expended for unemployment. For a variety of reasons, this is a tax break.

3: Wisconsin does exempt religious organizations from paying unemployment taxes. This is what is in question here. Does the charity organization run by a religion count as a religious organization? Religion owned organizations doesn't always count as religious for the purpose of this law - and those organizations can pay unemployment if they choose to. The catch here is that employees of a religious organization who don't pay unemployment taxes also cannot qualify to get state provided unemployment benefits.

4: When the article (linked in the OP) suggests that this could weaken the unemployment system in Wisconsin, it is merely because you could lose a percentage of revenue (as well as liabilities) - and in insurance systems, the more people pay in to the system, the more stable the system becomes, and the less of an impact administrative overhead causes.

5: Religious charities are a much easier subject for this kind of decision than are some other religion owned organizations. And the Catholic Charities self funded unemployment benefits also make this case easier. It is much more complicated to argue that a Catholic hospital system should be exempt (but based on this ruling, you could try to make a reasonable argument that they are religious). In the current employee challenged state of healthcare (Wisconsin currently has more than 1.2 million open healthcare job listings), it would seem very strange to have an employer like that eliminate such a benefit - so we may not have such a decision to look at any time soon - but, we may see some organizations use this as an attempt to cut costs - and to challenge where the line is between religious and not religious but religion owned - and also instances where there is no self-provided unemployment benefit (which would increase savings) - but where there may be a significant interest on the part of the state.

6: Should the impact become large enough to destabilize the unemployment program in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin legislature could simply end the exemption. This would not violate any sort of protected status. And the more that this law is used to apply to marginally religious applications, the easier such a change would become politically.

For a variety of reasons, this is a tax break….

Specifically for 510c3…. Or would it be a tax break for all businesses?

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Chevron deference is gone.

They’re not that good at running “their” industries themselves and if unregulated many would risk or directly inflict harm on others.

He is doing everything the industries he is supposed to curtail would want. He is slashing apart all the regulatory agencies that make sure medication meets standards or that food isn’t poisonous.

He doesn’t have a few nutjob opinions. He is talking about how vitamins can cure measles resulting in cases of vitamin toxicity trying to follow his pseudoscientific nonsense. He just stocked vaccine agencies with vaccine deniers. Bringing measles and polio back BABY!

He isn’t some maverick defying industry. He is a lickspittle stepping back and letting them do exactly what they want. Scientists and doctors are afraid of him. Industry execs either love him or hate him based on his opinion of what they do. He isn’t respected by anyone of consequence.

He is a friend to snake oil salesmen. The almost completely unregulated untested supplement industry loves him.

His solution to my medical problem is to ship me off as slave labor to a rehabilitation farm.

Regulators (i.e. the bureaucracies) aren’t that partisan. There is little incentive to be.

I don’t believe in the ‘privately or publicly owned good, government bad’ binary. Each should be evaluated on its own merits. These kinds of lazy shortcuts may make things simpler to make sense of but they don’t lead to better outcomes.

I deleted that post shortly after posting it. Felt I was wasting my time. And I was. You get the last word

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Steve J said:

For a variety of reasons, this is a tax break….

Specifically for 510c3…. Or would it be a tax break for all businesses?

It would be a tax break for all businesses - since unemployment taxes are usually paid by the employer (there are a few states with cost sharing to employees). In Michigan, to go back to my example, employees of a 501c3 are allowed to collect unemployment, and the actual money paid out is then billed to the business. This is a partial tax break since generally employers pay a bit more into the system than their employees collect out. It is usually a somewhat complicated system, and the Michigan system is explained here. In Michigan, there are three parts to unemployment taxes - a chargeable portion (based on actual claims), a reserve portion (based on total payroll - this would be something like an escrow account), and an unchargeable portion, which reflects overhead, and starts at 1% with a reduction based on number of years without a claim (down to 0.1%). Any organization which pays only actual claims would effectively pay for the first part, would ignore the reserve, and would get a tax break on the unchargeable amount. Unemployment taxes in Michigan are paid on the first $9,000.00 of earnings per employee per year. If your company has had no unemployment claims for the past 10 years in Michigan, and your reserve is current, your actual unemployment taxes would be 0.1% of the first $9,000.00 in earnings for each of your employees (or roughly $9.00 per employee per year). There might be considerable amounts in your reserve though. The required reserve levels in Michigan is 3.75% of total payroll for the previous year. Suppose that your total payroll was in the neighborhood of 12 Mil, your reserve would be $450,000. And, to make things simple, let's assume a gross pay for that $12 mil averages to 100K per employee (120 employees). And assuming with 120 employees that you do have recent claims, your unchargeable portion would be 1% of $9,000 for each employee or $10,800 per year - or roughly 0.09% of payroll. This is not particularly significant.

For states that allow certain employers to completely opt out of unemployment, there would be significant savings. But their employees would also have no unemployment insurance.

[longview]

On 6/9/2025 at 3:11 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

duplicate removed

Edited June 17, 2025 by longview
duplicate removed

[longview]

On 6/9/2025 at 3:11 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Regardless, there are a lot of areas where we really need the help of government regulation, and I mentioned a few of them. So, rather than tossing out some sort of gut reaction - that any government engagement is some sort of overreach, why don't you try and add something intelligent to the conversation.

Mollie Engelhart wrote a very powerful column that seriously question the overreach of bureaucracy in so many ways. See: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/make-it-make-sense-why-are-we-punishing-the-farmers-doing-the-right-thing-5863593

She outlines very cogent points:

• Why is it that the organic apple must wear a label, pay a certification fee, and carry a price premium—while the conventional apple, grown with chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, is simply called an apple? What if we flipped that? What if the organic apple was just an apple—and the one grown with chemical inputs had to be labeled chemically grown? Why does the burden fall on the farmer doing the right thing, while the one using harmful practices skates by without warning, cost, or consequence?
• Our rules make it harder to farm responsibly. A chemical farmer can spray right up to the edge of their fence line, but an organic farmer must give up 25 feet on all sides—and sell that buffer zone as non-organic. How does that make any sense?
• The system is rigged. It pushes farmers toward chemical dependency—not because they want to—but because doing the right thing is cost-prohibitive and over-regulated. Organic farmers pay annual fees and a percentage of their sales just to carry the label. They’re taxed not just financially, but logistically and emotionally—while conventional farmers get a free pass to pollute.
• Consider this: Research has shown that living within a mile of a golf course significantly increases your risk of Parkinson’s. Why? Because of a widely used herbicide that’s banned in other countries yet still sold here—often by foreign companies that won’t allow its use in their own homelands. Why do we allow that without tax, penalty, or even a warning label?
• Even within the regenerative and organic movements, we’re adding roadblocks. Equity audits have been folded into some certification programs. While I believe all men are created equal in the image of God, blending social justice metrics into a farming standard makes the transition away from chemical farming even less accessible to the very farmers we’re trying to reach. If we want to include social goals, let’s create a separate certification for those values. But let farming standards focus on soil, animals, and food.
• And here’s the bigger question: Why are we trusting distant bureaucracies to keep our food safe instead of trusting our neighbors and fellow American farmers?
• We’ve been conditioned to believe that federal regulation protects us, but often, it protects itself. Bureaucracy and red tape don’t make food healthier—they make it harder and more expensive to grow. They widen the gap between citizens and their food, and between intention and impact.
• We are so far removed from functioning as a constitutional republic that many Americans don’t even remember that’s what we are. But it’s time we return to that foundation—where power is decentralized, communities are strong, and individuals take responsibility for what they grow, eat, and support.
• We need less regulation and more relationship. We need to know who’s growing our food. We need to support local systems—small farms, medium farms, and large local farms that feed their communities. We need to rebuild a robust hub-and-spoke food network that serves people, not just centralized corporations.
• Why is raw milk illegal in many states, while shelf-stable, ultra-processed food-like substances—linked to chronic disease—are perfectly legal? We’re afraid of the wrong bogeyman. We’re being lulled to sleep by the illusion of convenience, but there are real consequences: to our health, our water, our soil, and the survival of the American family farm.
• If we want a food system that supports health, freedom, and regeneration, we must stop rewarding the polluters and punishing the protectors.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, longview said:

A chemical farmer can spray right up to the edge of their fence line, but an organic farmer must give up 25 feet on all sides—and sell that buffer zone as non-organic. How does that make any sense?

Because organic means not contaminated by unallowed chemicals, many of which might blow over on to property, a buffer is required.  If she/you are arguing the chemical farmer shouldn’t be allowed to spray closer than 25 feet to their property line to make it more consistent with what’s required for the organic farmer, buffers for everyone, or divide the difference so it’s 15 feet buffer zone on for each when next to each other (25 for each when solo) that gets to be sold as nonorganic, that does sound sensible to meet the needs of both.  The chemical farmer can use the ‘organic’ pesticides etc that are allowed for their 15 feet buffer zone if they want to use that area, though of course like the organic farmer, can’t label it organic (because of the likelihood of contamination from the nonorganic chemicals they use elsewhere).

Since being labeled organic opens the organic market to them, it does seem appropriate for it to be regulated to make sure customers get what they pay for.  But I personally believe chemical treated produce (organic does have pesticides, etc, just ones that are deemed “natural”) should have that info on it as well and fees would need to be paid to provide confirmation they don’t use chemicals that aren’t on their label.

One might also add a pollution cleanup fee for farmers using the more polluting types of pesticides and fertilizers, but that’s more regulation again…so to solve the problems the writer points out, I am not seeing less regulation, but more.

Quote

Research has shown that living within a mile of a golf course significantly increases your risk of Parkinson’s. Why? Because of a widely used herbicide that’s banned in other countries yet still sold here—often by foreign companies that won’t allow its use in their own homelands. Why do we allow that without tax, penalty, or even a warning label

Because there is not enough regulation barring them from doing so

Quote

individuals take responsibility for what they grow, eat, and support.

Which they can only do with the appropriate information, which growers won’t typically provide on their own, so regulation is needed.

Quote

Why is raw milk illegal in many states, while shelf-stable, ultra-processed food-like substances—linked to chronic disease—are perfectly legal?

Deaths from raw milk may be relatively rare, but unnecessary illness would be a lot higher if it was legal everywhere imo.  Costs are not outweighed by benefits (I think raw milk tastes better—I love raw goat milk, but I don’t see the science supporting it’s actually healthier).

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9987020/#:~:text=Data source,228 hospitalisations and three deaths.

Quote

If we want a food system that supports health, freedom, and regeneration

I would love to see in-depth nutrition and healthy meal preparation become part of required education standards country wide so people understand the problems with many ultra processed foods as well as develop skills that allows them to take advantage of local produce more so there is less dependence on unhealthy ultra processed foods (not all processing is unhealthy, especially for those with FODMAP sensitivities; canned beans will cause less issues than homemade from dried for example).  This would likely require more regulation as well as minimum wage increases as it typically takes more time to prepare less processed foods.

Quote

We need….more relationship. We need to know who’s growing our food. We need to support local systems—small farms, medium farms, and large local farms that feed their communities. We need to rebuild a robust hub-and-spoke food network that serves people,

Which takes time.  Therefore higher wages so less second or third jobs needed for low income workers so that they have the time to visit and evaluate the local sources. 

Edited June 18, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

Mollie Engelhart wrote a very powerful column that seriously question the overreach of bureaucracy in so many ways. See: https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/make-it-make-sense-why-are-we-punishing-the-farmers-doing-the-right-thing-5863593

She outlines very cogent points:

• Why is it that the organic apple must wear a label, pay a certification fee, and carry a price premium—while the conventional apple, grown with chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, is simply called an apple? What if we flipped that? What if the organic apple was just an apple—and the one grown with chemical inputs had to be labeled chemically grown? Why does the burden fall on the farmer doing the right thing, while the one using harmful practices skates by without warning, cost, or consequence?
• Our rules make it harder to farm responsibly. A chemical farmer can spray right up to the edge of their fence line, but an organic farmer must give up 25 feet on all sides—and sell that buffer zone as non-organic. How does that make any sense?
• The system is rigged. It pushes farmers toward chemical dependency—not because they want to—but because doing the right thing is cost-prohibitive and over-regulated. Organic farmers pay annual fees and a percentage of their sales just to carry the label. They’re taxed not just financially, but logistically and emotionally—while conventional farmers get a free pass to pollute.
• Consider this: Research has shown that living within a mile of a golf course significantly increases your risk of Parkinson’s. Why? Because of a widely used herbicide that’s banned in other countries yet still sold here—often by foreign companies that won’t allow its use in their own homelands. Why do we allow that without tax, penalty, or even a warning label?
• Even within the regenerative and organic movements, we’re adding roadblocks. Equity audits have been folded into some certification programs. While I believe all men are created equal in the image of God, blending social justice metrics into a farming standard makes the transition away from chemical farming even less accessible to the very farmers we’re trying to reach. If we want to include social goals, let’s create a separate certification for those values. But let farming standards focus on soil, animals, and food.
• And here’s the bigger question: Why are we trusting distant bureaucracies to keep our food safe instead of trusting our neighbors and fellow American farmers?
• We’ve been conditioned to believe that federal regulation protects us, but often, it protects itself. Bureaucracy and red tape don’t make food healthier—they make it harder and more expensive to grow. They widen the gap between citizens and their food, and between intention and impact.
• We are so far removed from functioning as a constitutional republic that many Americans don’t even remember that’s what we are. But it’s time we return to that foundation—where power is decentralized, communities are strong, and individuals take responsibility for what they grow, eat, and support.
• We need less regulation and more relationship. We need to know who’s growing our food. We need to support local systems—small farms, medium farms, and large local farms that feed their communities. We need to rebuild a robust hub-and-spoke food network that serves people, not just centralized corporations.
• Why is raw milk illegal in many states, while shelf-stable, ultra-processed food-like substances—linked to chronic disease—are perfectly legal? We’re afraid of the wrong bogeyman. We’re being lulled to sleep by the illusion of convenience, but there are real consequences: to our health, our water, our soil, and the survival of the American family farm.
• If we want a food system that supports health, freedom, and regeneration, we must stop rewarding the polluters and punishing the protectors.

I don’t believe anything anyone in the Engelhart family says. They ran their vegan restaurants in an almost cult-like way and then were caught not being vegan. Now their restaurants are serving meat or something.

Also regenerative farming is a mix of some agricultural practices and some witchy woo woo nonsense that they claim will do almost magical things that science doesn’t support.

The whole ‘distant bureaucracies are evil’ thing is rhetorical nonsense. The farmer has a profit motive to cut costs and sell substandard food if they can get away with it. The bureaucracy that maintains food standards has the motive to make sure food is safe. And we aren’t going to be able to go back to a model where we use personal relationships with individual farmers as a form of social shaming to avoid this. She wants to go back to subsistence agriculture where farmers still did try to cheat others?

Raw milk often carries dangerous diseases. Yes, the United States is okay with too much toxic crap in our food. People in the EU are shocked by our low standards. The solution isn’t to make more dangerous things legal to sell. The introduction of pasteurization saved and continues to save millions of lives. Going backwards on this is a really dumb move akin to deciding vaccines aren’t necessary. We will not learn from history so why not bring back tuberculosis, typhoid fever, measles, and polio because we are unfamiliar with how horrible they can be? Ugh……….

The American family farm is dying and will be dead soon. Most of the family farms now are legal fictions owned by agri-corps trying to suck up that sweet agricultural subsidy money. Also some of the few surviving family farms are going under since DOGE just cut all kinds of agricultural supports and cancelled reimbursements for eco-friendly improvements many farmers had already paid for so more will be going under. Also the recent tariff debacle has convinced many international buyers to buy crops elsewhere so that won’t help either.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

17 hours ago, longview said:

Why is it that the organic apple must wear a label, pay a certification fee, and carry a price premium—while the conventional apple, grown with chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, is simply called an apple? What if we flipped that? What if the organic apple was just an apple—and the one grown with chemical inputs had to be labeled chemically grown? Why does the burden fall on the farmer doing the right thing, while the one using harmful practices skates by without warning, cost, or consequence?

What kind of nonsense is this?

All food production is required to meet certain standards. Additional requirements are necessary for products that wish to carry the label "organic". The certification fee is required because of the additional requirements necessary to get that "organic" label - but - there is no requirement for farmers who grow crops consistent with the organic certification to actually label their crops as organic. Farmers want to get the organic label in part because there is a demand for organic crops and they can charge a premium price. This isn't a burden for farmers, it is a benefit:

Quote

Organic soybean costs range from about $1 to $6 per bushel higher than those for conventional soybeans due to both lower yields and higher per-acre costs, while the average organic price premium in 2006 is more than $9 per bushel.

You can see from that study that while going organic had a large variable increased cost, even in the worst case, that increased cost results in significantly higher prices because of the premium value of organic certified product. The logic behind the certification and its costs is simply the desire to make the label "organic" meaningful. If the certification requirement to use the label disappeared, everything would suddenly become "organic" no matter how it was grown, and the concept would immediately lose any real value. However, any farmer is more than welcome to spend the extra money without using the label - and the government wouldn't care. So an organic apple doesn't have to wear a label. But if it does want to wear the label, the farm has to be certified. So, again, this statement you provide is nonsense. And, I think, there is a significant and necessary public interest in these kinds of certifications. Who was it that asked for the government to provide this oversight of the organic label? It was the farmers themselves.

I am not going to argue that farming without chemicals would be good. In fact, farming without the commercial fertilizers would be even better. The reality is that organic foods aren't any different nutritionally than non-organic foods. This is all something of a PR move to try and increase the value of agriculture in a competitive market - and, if this helps local producers become profitable, then I am all for it. But to argue that the government regulation on the use of a label is somehow overreach is really idiotic.

[longview]

5 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What kind of nonsense is this?

Quote

Glyphosate History

Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine) was first created in 1950 by a Swiss chemist while researching potential new pharmaceuticals. When no pharmaceutical application was found, the chemical was eventually patented in 1964 for use as a boiler and pipe cleaner, due to its ability to effectively bind to and remove minerals like calcium, magnesium, manganese, copper and zinc.

In 1970, Monsanto chemists Dr. Phil Hamm and Dr. John Franz identified the herbicidal activity of glyphosate, and patented it for use as an herbicide in 1971. The formulated glyphosate product, called “Roundup”, was first sold commercially by Monsanto in 1974. It was used for both residential and agricultural purposes. In agriculture, its use was first limited to pre-plant field clearing and halting weed growth between rows of crops.

Introduction of Roundup Ready GMOs

In 1996, Monsanto (no longer considered a chemical company, but rather a biotech company) introduced “Roundup Ready” glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified seeds. Soy, corn, and cotton had been modified to grow even when sprayed with the herbicide glyphosate. This trait of herbicide resistance led to an explosion in the use of glyphosate, because now farmers could spray vast amounts of glyphosate directly on their growing crops and kill all weeds competing for the soil nutrients.

For the two decades following the introduction of Roundup Ready GMOs, glyphosate use rose almost 15-fold globally. Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the US from 1974 to 2014 has been sprayed in just the last ten years.

Today, on average, 84% of glyphosate applied in agricultural settings is applied to soybeans, corn or cotton. According to the EPA, about 280 million pounds of glyphosate are applied to an average of 298 million acres of cropland annually.

Is it possible that regulatory agencies were improperly influenced into allowing the use of Monsanto's product Roundup? The GMO plants were engineered to resist the poisoning effect of glyphosate in order to kill undesirable weeds? Then later this product was applied more massively to enable killing the crops for the purpose of "pre-drying" to facilitate harvesting on schedule? That this process has led to greater incidences of cancer and other neurological problems?

Edited June 18, 2025 by longview

[Stargazer]

Placeholder

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, longview said:

Is it possible that regulatory agencies were improperly influenced into allowing the use of Monsanto's product Roundup? The GMO plants were engineered to resist the poisoning effect of glyphosate in order to kill undesirable weeds? Then later this product was applied more massively to enable killing the crops for the purpose of "pre-drying" to facilitate harvesting on schedule? That this process has led to greater incidences of cancer and other neurological problems?

Sure.

However, before we jump down that rabbit hole, let me point out the elephant in the room. You don't use cases where things go wrong as arguments against government regulation. After all, Roundup would almost certainly be being used (with no restrictions at all) if there were no regulatory agencies. And we would still be using DDT, chlorpyrifos, and so on.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Is it possible that regulatory agencies were improperly influenced into allowing the use of Monsanto's product Roundup? The GMO plants were engineered to resist the poisoning effect of glyphosate in order to kill undesirable weeds? Then later this product was applied more massively to enable killing the crops for the purpose of "pre-drying" to facilitate harvesting on schedule? That this process has led to greater incidences of cancer and other neurological problems?

“Is it possible” is the way you start leading questions that want you to believe that aliens built the pyramids.

Who caught and revealed the problem? A government agency.

Who falsified the data that led to approval? Private contractors.

Blaming this on the government is patently ridiculous. This story is pretty much a perfect case study on why more regulation and government fact-checking is needed yet someone is spinning it as a government problem? This is the best they got?

[longview]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Blaming this on the government is patently ridiculous. This story is pretty much a perfect case study on why more regulation and government fact-checking is needed yet someone is spinning it as a government problem? This is the best they got?

Yet it is going to take an "outsider" taking over the Dept. of Health and Human Services to make the necessary reforms and "clean ups" to root out so much corruption in the bureaucracy: X-Twitter Post

Edited June 19, 2025 by longview
readability

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 6/8/2025 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

If you go back up to @Amulek's post, there are several things -

1: 501c3 is a federal status. A 501c3 status impacts certain types of taxes - but as a federal status, it only guarantees certain kinds of tax relief for federal taxes.

2: The issue here is about unemployment taxes. Unemployment programs are handled by the states - and so unemployment taxes are mandated by states. While some states exclude certain types of organizations from paying unemployment taxes, others do not. Wisconsin requires 501c3 organizations to pay unemployment taxes. In Michigan, where I live, a 501c3 has an interesting option. They do not have to pay unemployment taxes if they choose not to, however, they are then required to reimburse the state dollar for dollar whatever is expended for unemployment. For a variety of reasons, this is a tax break.

3: Wisconsin does exempt religious organizations from paying unemployment taxes. This is what is in question here. Does the charity organization run by a religion count as a religious organization? Religion owned organizations doesn't always count as religious for the purpose of this law - and those organizations can pay unemployment if they choose to. The catch here is that employees of a religious organization who don't pay unemployment taxes also cannot qualify to get state provided unemployment benefits.

4: When the article (linked in the OP) suggests that this could weaken the unemployment system in Wisconsin, it is merely because you could lose a percentage of revenue (as well as liabilities) - and in insurance systems, the more people pay in to the system, the more stable the system becomes, and the less of an impact administrative overhead causes.

5: Religious charities are a much easier subject for this kind of decision than are some other religion owned organizations. And the Catholic Charities self funded unemployment benefits also make this case easier. It is much more complicated to argue that a Catholic hospital system should be exempt (but based on this ruling, you could try to make a reasonable argument that they are religious). In the current employee challenged state of healthcare (Wisconsin currently has more than 1.2 million open healthcare job listings), it would seem very strange to have an employer like that eliminate such a benefit - so we may not have such a decision to look at any time soon - but, we may see some organizations use this as an attempt to cut costs - and to challenge where the line is between religious and not religious but religion owned - and also instances where there is no self-provided unemployment benefit (which would increase savings) - but where there may be a significant interest on the part of the state.

6: Should the impact become large enough to destabilize the unemployment program in Wisconsin, the Wisconsin legislature could simply end the exemption. This would not violate any sort of protected status. And the more that this law is used to apply to marginally religious applications, the easier such a change would become politically.

It's been a while, but this article just hit my feed. To deal with the expected fallout of the decision (which went against the state of Wisconsin), the Wisconsin DoJ is arguing that the best remedy is to simply remove the benefit to all religious organizations and make everyone pay unemployment taxes:

Quote

 

Kaul and two assistant attorneys general argue that removing the exemption from paying unemployment taxes for all affected religious groups — rather than expanding the exemption for other similar religious social service organizations — is the preferred remedy.

“By striking the exemption, this Court can avoid collateral damage to Wisconsin workers while still curing the discrimination the U.S. Supreme Court identified,” Kaul wrote.

...

In his brief, Kaul argues that, indeed, to avoid having to exempt major religious hospital systems from the unemployment system, Wisconsin must end the exemption entirely.

 

What is going on here, and the purpose of this article, is that Wisconsin is going to ask the Court if the elimination of the unemployment exemptions meets the Court's standard for equality. This seems likely to be the case, despite the protests from Catholic charities. My own interests are simply that the discussion dovetails so well with my earlier comments and expectations.

[The Nehor]

On 6/19/2025 at 11:21 AM, longview said:

Yet it is going to take an "outsider" taking over the Dept. of Health and Human Services to make the necessary reforms and "clean ups" to root out so much corruption in the bureaucracy: X-Twitter Post

Really late but missed this reply.

So the thing that previous administrators were working towards needed an outsider to come in and *checks notes* continue to move in the same direction? How impressive! Yes, we truly needed a crackpot to come in and shake things up so they could continue to do the same thing on this one issue. What a glorious win!!!!

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Really late but missed this reply.

So the thing that previous administrators were working towards needed an outsider to come in and *checks notes* continue to move in the same direction? How impressive! Yes, we truly needed a crackpot to come in and shake things up so they could continue to do the same thing on this one issue. What a glorious win!!!!

Your post is disjointed. Do not understand what you are saying?