Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[Skull Pilot]

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

Processed food is fattening, unhealthy crap. Look at the packaging. Sugary crap. All you can buy in the inner city.

uh huh.

Why do you think diabetes is an epidemic, esp. in black areas? DUH.

because the fat people CHOOSE to eat like crap

No, not all fat people choose to do it. Some are addicted, some have metabolism problems, and some just eat crap.

addiction is a choice.

sorry but no one is going to have the DTs from going cold turkey from sugar and real metabolism problems are the exception not the rule when it comes to people being fat

 

[Skull Pilot]

healthy food is NOT more expensive than processed crap
Soda is not cheaper than water or even iced tea you make at home

like I said if you eat off the dollar menu for every meal every day you spend more than enough money to buy real food for the week

The problem here is that people CAN do things cheaper, but they need to be EDUCATED in how to do things, this is becoming a cycle of you compartmentalizing things and then dismissing them all, but then finding out that what you said shouldn't happen is what should happen to deal with the next thing.

you don't have to educate people about what they already know

you want to get educated on food prices then get your ass to the supermarket and look around

you don't need some government program for that

Well, you're wrong.

Firstly, what "people know" is usually full of mistruths, things that are plain wrong, assumptions and the like. Secondly what they know will be on the basic level, and not on a detailed level, and sometimes this isn't enough to encourage people to do something about it.

I've changed my eating habits lately because I've found stuff out that disturbs me. I know sugar is bad for me, but I ate it anyway. Why? Because I could get away with it. What I wasn't considering was the sugar not only makes people fat, it causes other problems that I did not know about, and for that reason and other issues involving diabetes because a family member was told they'd get diabetes and they didn't get it because they went on a strict diet, when their father had got diabetes.

You're trying to make this issue as simple as possible. It's not just about food prices. Hence why education is needed. No doubt you could learn a lot, you just haven't.

So here's for some education.

Sugar and what it does to your brain.

It leads to hyperactivity.
It leads to yeast growth, things like eczema, throat infections and ear infections. So if you have these problems it could potentially be because of too much sugar.
It hinders the absorption of vitamin B into your body. Vitamin B helps regulate your blood sugar levels. It also reduces the amount of oxygen going to the brain and it increase adrenaline in your body. The impact of these are forgetfulness, mood swings and other negative issues.

I had a look at McDonald's food calculator and a medium sized milkshake has 200% the daily recommended value for sugar for a 7-10 year old. A Big Mac has 33%. You go take kids on a trip to McDonalds and you could be giving them a massive dose of sugar 300% or more of their daily recommended value for just one meal. Then add that to the other two meals and snacks in a day and you might be looking at 600% daily recommended value. Imagine what this does to a kid's education. They're going to suffer at school, not meet their potential. You see all these kids that are overweight.

Childhood Obesity Facts | Overweight & Obesity | CDC

36.5% of American adults are overweight. Probably a large portion of these take too much sugar in their daily lives.
12.7 million children are obese.

"The prevalence of obesity among children aged 2 to 5 years decreased significantly from 13.9% in 2003-2004 to 9.4% in 2013-2014."

The rate is lowering. However it's not surprising that the highest rates of obesity are in the places with the worst education

you have no idea what I know about nutrition and what I have learned I learned without some government program to tell me.

everyone already knows what's healthy and what's not. Even you admitted that. So wasting money telling people what to eat is not going to change anything

No, I don't. That wasn't the point I was making. The point is that most people don't know what I just wrote.

Just because you learned what you learned without a govt program, doesn't mean that others can't learn from govt programs, or that govt programs aren't effective.

You keep pounding on that everyone knows. I keep telling you that people know basics and it's often not enough, which is clear when 1/3 of US people are OBESE. You think people want to be obese? I grew up with a girl who struggled her ass off to not be overweight and failed miserably, and the main reason was her parents didn't know shit about how to stop her from eating shit. He whole life has been a struggle, and it's not her fault. Education would have changed this.

You seem to think education is bad, and you can see what poor education is doing to the US, and it's not positive.

yes it is her fault.

you will do anything to say people aren't responsible for the choices they make

my mother ate like crap and fed us crap but when I was a teenager I made a different choice and stopped eating crap. I started exercising all by choice.

even your fat friend knew when she was a teenager than diet and exercise was the way to lose weight

 

[Dschrute3]

They're arresting poor homeless by the thousands.

Where? Your unbiased source and link please.

You ever been homeless? If not, you don't know shite. They're often harassed by Republican Nazi jerkoffs.

Sooooo....I have to murder somebody before I can pass judgement on a murderer? BULLSHIT!!!!!

More loony justification for abusing the weak least fortunate among us. You don't know anything about what poor homeless folks go through. It's bad enough they struggle every day to survive, but they also have to deal with you Republican Nazis harassing and abusing them at every turn. Time for y'all to drop the 'Good American/Good Christian' shtick. Jesus is not proud of you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's about preventing people from doing harm to other people. That's controlling people for the good of others, not for their own good.

Controlling them for their own good assumes that they're too stupid to make good decisions for themselves and need a nanny state to take care of them. Ultimately, why do you think ANYONE has/ should have the authority to make those decisions for other people?

Well surely controlling them for the good of others assumes they're too stupid to realize that someone doesn't want to be murdered and that they need the nanny state to tell them not to murder, or some religion to tell them.

The problem we have here is that we're not talking about telling people what they can and can't do. We're simply stating that healthy things have less tax on them than things that are not so healthy so that people can make a choice. You know, I could murder or I could not murder... hmm... well I might go to prison or be executed if I murder, so I'm not going to do it. I could buy a snickers or I could buy a salad, both are okay, however the snickers is cheaper, I'll take that as I don't have much money, oh, wait, the salad is now cheaper, maybe i'll go for that.

Tax policy as social engineering.

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

so just because it's used it's alright with you?

And it's not abut what you want. People have the right to choose what they want and what anyone wants is none of your of the government's business

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying it exists already and you're probably fine with it being used in certain ways, you just don't realize that it is being used like that.

Yes, people have the right to choose what they want. At no point have I said people couldn't choose what they want.

This is about accepting the fact that the US has a major weight problem, and a major problem with sugar all over the place, and taxing things higher which cause problems. I understand that you have a problem with this, and I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of this. If I can't convince you of something when I have all the facts pointing to my argument and you have no facts, how am I going to convince you that sometimes you have to do the right thing?

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

 

[Skull Pilot]

11 million people got jobs under Obama
Three times the number that got jobs under BOTH Bush's

Sure didn't accomplish very much considering the MILLIONS of people who have dropped out of the workforce. Please don't throw up that debunked Progressive talking point regarding the baby boomers retiring. You are "forgetting" that millions come into the workforce as they reach 16 and millions enter our country by way of legal and illegal immigration.

Civilian labor force in the United States from 1990 to 2016 (in millions)

December 2008 154.29 Million

December 2016 159.19 Million

U.S. labor force 1990-2016 | Timeline


US Population by Year

July 1, 2009 306.77 Million

Mar 1, 2017 323.42 Million

US Population by Year

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Can we talk about stay at home moms, the handicapped and students now?

only the mentally or physically handicapped are due government assistance. Students are students by choice. moms are moms by choice.

And families would be able to survive on one income, and have stay-at-home moms, if the government weren't so intent on picking everyone's pockets to give money away.

Don't even get me started on the government's encouraging of the proliferation of single mothers.

One of the seemingly defining qualities of conservatives is that they misidentify 'the enemy' about 90% of the time. We didn't evolve into a society where two breadwinners are the norm because of government. It's because of the constant pressure that corporations put on increasing profitability.

no it's because people wanted more shit
bigger houses, 3 cars, central AC, computers smart phones 5 TVs expensive vacations every year etc etc

 

[JoeNormal]

Sure didn't accomplish very much considering the MILLIONS of people who have dropped out of the workforce. Please don't throw up that debunked Progressive talking point regarding the baby boomers retiring. You are "forgetting" that millions come into the workforce as they reach 16 and millions enter our country by way of legal and illegal immigration.

Civilian labor force in the United States from 1990 to 2016 (in millions)

December 2008 154.29 Million

December 2016 159.19 Million

U.S. labor force 1990-2016 | Timeline


US Population by Year

July 1, 2009 306.77 Million

Mar 1, 2017 323.42 Million

US Population by Year

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Can we talk about stay at home moms, the handicapped and students now?

only the mentally or physically handicapped are due government assistance. Students are students by choice. moms are moms by choice.

And families would be able to survive on one income, and have stay-at-home moms, if the government weren't so intent on picking everyone's pockets to give money away.

Don't even get me started on the government's encouraging of the proliferation of single mothers.

One of the seemingly defining qualities of conservatives is that they misidentify 'the enemy' about 90% of the time. We didn't evolve into a society where two breadwinners are the norm because of government. It's because of the constant pressure that corporations put on increasing profitability.

no it's because people wanted more shit
bigger houses, 3 cars, central AC, computers smart phones 5 TVs expensive vacations every year etc etc

There's some truth to that but it's not because the government dictated it. Corporate advertising has been planting the seeds for this for decades now and they've created an environment where people feel like losers if they don't play along. In addition, over that time period American cities have sprawled to the point where mass transit is impractical and vehicles for every member of the family are near necessities.

 

[Skull Pilot]

40 million baby boomers retiring kind of kills your theory

Can we talk about stay at home moms, the handicapped and students now?

only the mentally or physically handicapped are due government assistance. Students are students by choice. moms are moms by choice.

And families would be able to survive on one income, and have stay-at-home moms, if the government weren't so intent on picking everyone's pockets to give money away.

Don't even get me started on the government's encouraging of the proliferation of single mothers.

One of the seemingly defining qualities of conservatives is that they misidentify 'the enemy' about 90% of the time. We didn't evolve into a society where two breadwinners are the norm because of government. It's because of the constant pressure that corporations put on increasing profitability.

no it's because people wanted more shit
bigger houses, 3 cars, central AC, computers smart phones 5 TVs expensive vacations every year etc etc

There's some truth to that but it's not because the government dictated it. Corporate advertising has been planting the seeds for this for decades now and they've created an environment where people feel like losers if they don't play along. In addition, over that time period American cities have sprawled to the point where mass transit is impractical and vehicles for every member of the family are near necessities.

sorry but still the responsibility of the person swiping their credit card.
if you can't watch a commercial without running out to buy shit you can't afford then it's your own fault and no one else's

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who knew you are the accountant for all the churches in your area. Obviously you know nothing about how churches work and the many, many ways they help in their communities.

And obviously you don't know the ways in which some churches influence politics which undermines their value in whatever good they might do.

Really? And what are these ways, and how do they coincide with the IRS regulations limiting such activity if one wishes to retain a tax-exempt status?

I hope you realize that organizations with armies of accountants and lawyers can get away with a lot of things that you and I can't. The organization in question stretches the limits of what they consider the non-profit aspects of their operation. They also have investments that even they can't consider tax exempt so they reluctantly pay taxes on them.

I hope you realize that assuming someone is "getting away with something" simply because you believe they CAN get away with something is utterly meaningless.

Once again, I have no idea which church you are specifically talking about, so I cannot address it. Therefore, we will not be conducting any sort of debate on their activities based on assuming that your assertions about them are correct.

Finally, I have no intention of condemning any organization for being "reluctant" to pay taxes. I consider eagerness to give money to the government to be a sign of mental illness.

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church [Mormon] and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people.

I am not a member of the Mormon faith but do frequently attend meetings and classes with them. You state they are wonderful people, which they are and they have strong family units. The leaders in each of their churches are volunteers and are paid nothing. They have full-time day jobs and choose to serve the church. Their youth commit to two years as missionaries in every part of the world subsisting on the generosity of other Mormon's in that area. That begins when they are eighteen. If their assignment is to be in a foreign country, they are taught that language.

How is that a bad thing and what business is it of yours what they do with their money?

For one thing, because those of us outside of the church have to make up the tax money that evaporates thanks to deductions for huge families and the tax exempt contributions to the church. For another, we are treated as second class citizens in our home state because of the crappy influence of the church in political affairs.

Okay, again, we need to address this "tax money evaporates" assertion you keep throwing around. You really need to come to grips with the fact that people's income belongs to THEM, not to the government. To say that "tax money evaporates" when people aren't compelled to give it to the government to spend is to imply that the government has an implicit right to ALL of your money, and what you keep is what they are generously allotting you.

As for "deductions for huge familes", tell me something: do you claim deductions for your offspring, or did you when they were young enough? Why or why not?

Do you claim deductions for charitable contributions you make on your taxes? Or do you feel that that is "evaporating tax money" and burdening other people by doing so?

In regards to your continued hatred of living in a place where you are outnumbered by Mormons, I will say it again: Move. I've been to Utah, and I feel pretty safe in saying that the Mormons are not holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to live there.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And when did Jesus put you in charge of making those calls for him????

Y'all 'Good American'/Good Christian' Republicans really should go back and read Jesus' teachings again. You clearly didn't get it. Till you get right with Jesus again, you're just gonna be frauds playing the role of the 'Good American/Good Christian.'

For most of my childhood, I was raised in an all Catholic school. I was even an alter boy.

Jesus never taught that government should forcefully take from people to give to anybody. Jesus taught that you should give of yourself through your own free will. According to Jesus, charity is an individual thing--not a government thing. Jesus didn't get along with the government very well back in his time.

Taking a persons property against their will is called theft, and theft is in God's top ten no-no's in life. Stealing property from people is just wrong no matter what you use the seized property for.

Seriously, go back and read Jesus' teachings again. You've lost your way. You've allowed hate & greed to consume you. You let the Devil in.

I suggest you do the same. In fact, when you do go back to reread it, show me the part where Jesus stated government should confiscate wealth forcefully from people to give to the poor.

I'll be waiting right here.

Yup, just lock em in cages or let em die. Y'all sure are some 'Good Christians.'

Could you refresh my memory on which church you received your ordination through, Reverend Dschrute?

Because if you don't have one, I categorically reject your assumption that you are in any way qualified to lecture me on what is and is not a "good Christian".

 

[Cecilie1200]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting fucking EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well surely controlling them for the good of others assumes they're too stupid to realize that someone doesn't want to be murdered and that they need the nanny state to tell them not to murder, or some religion to tell them.

The problem we have here is that we're not talking about telling people what they can and can't do. We're simply stating that healthy things have less tax on them than things that are not so healthy so that people can make a choice. You know, I could murder or I could not murder... hmm... well I might go to prison or be executed if I murder, so I'm not going to do it. I could buy a snickers or I could buy a salad, both are okay, however the snickers is cheaper, I'll take that as I don't have much money, oh, wait, the salad is now cheaper, maybe i'll go for that.

Tax policy as social engineering.

Already exists....

The question is why shouldn't you have social engineering, the right use it, the left use it, you probably even support it when it engineers what you want.

so just because it's used it's alright with you?

And it's not abut what you want. People have the right to choose what they want and what anyone wants is none of your of the government's business

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying it exists already and you're probably fine with it being used in certain ways, you just don't realize that it is being used like that.

Yes, people have the right to choose what they want. At no point have I said people couldn't choose what they want.

This is about accepting the fact that the US has a major weight problem, and a major problem with sugar all over the place, and taxing things higher which cause problems. I understand that you have a problem with this, and I doubt I'm ever going to convince you of this. If I can't convince you of something when I have all the facts pointing to my argument and you have no facts, how am I going to convince you that sometimes you have to do the right thing?

I am in no way fine with taxes being used in social engineering experiments.

So called sin taxes should all be abolished. Cigarettes and alcohol should only be subject to sales taxes like any other product

no one should be taxed because they choose to eat the food they want to eat or drink what they want to drink or smoke what they want to smoke

And if you noticed I never disagreed with you on the fact that eating tons of sugar is not a good choice. I would never smoke either but it's none of my business if people do just like it's none of my business what other people choose to eat and it's none of yours and it certainly is none of the government's

It's a vicious cycle. Leftists want to financially support and care for every dimwit in America who makes bad decisions, and to do that, they insist on taxing the bad decisions. The idea of simply letting people make bad decisions themselves and deal with the consequences themselves never seems to occur to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow. This thread is still going? Guys, it's already been answered. Post #38.

A prime example of why I advocate a "Dictionaries for Democrats" program.

Learn the difference between "answer" and "hate-filled rant".

the word 'answer' is not in their vocabulary. instead they recite talking points. The dems are conjoined at the hips

I know. Believe me, I know.

 

[jc456]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting fucking EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

and the liberals followed them and preaching at them and trying to take them out They will always infest and invade. they are evil people.

 

[JoeNormal]

And obviously you don't know the ways in which some churches influence politics which undermines their value in whatever good they might do.

Really? And what are these ways, and how do they coincide with the IRS regulations limiting such activity if one wishes to retain a tax-exempt status?

I hope you realize that organizations with armies of accountants and lawyers can get away with a lot of things that you and I can't. The organization in question stretches the limits of what they consider the non-profit aspects of their operation. They also have investments that even they can't consider tax exempt so they reluctantly pay taxes on them.

I hope you realize that assuming someone is "getting away with something" simply because you believe they CAN get away with something is utterly meaningless.

Once again, I have no idea which church you are specifically talking about, so I cannot address it. Therefore, we will not be conducting any sort of debate on their activities based on assuming that your assertions about them are correct.

Finally, I have no intention of condemning any organization for being "reluctant" to pay taxes. I consider eagerness to give money to the government to be a sign of mental illness.

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

 

[JoeNormal]

Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church [Mormon] and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people.

I am not a member of the Mormon faith but do frequently attend meetings and classes with them. You state they are wonderful people, which they are and they have strong family units. The leaders in each of their churches are volunteers and are paid nothing. They have full-time day jobs and choose to serve the church. Their youth commit to two years as missionaries in every part of the world subsisting on the generosity of other Mormon's in that area. That begins when they are eighteen. If their assignment is to be in a foreign country, they are taught that language.

How is that a bad thing and what business is it of yours what they do with their money?

For one thing, because those of us outside of the church have to make up the tax money that evaporates thanks to deductions for huge families and the tax exempt contributions to the church. For another, we are treated as second class citizens in our home state because of the crappy influence of the church in political affairs.

Okay, again, we need to address this "tax money evaporates" assertion you keep throwing around. You really need to come to grips with the fact that people's income belongs to THEM, not to the government. To say that "tax money evaporates" when people aren't compelled to give it to the government to spend is to imply that the government has an implicit right to ALL of your money, and what you keep is what they are generously allotting you.

As for "deductions for huge familes", tell me something: do you claim deductions for your offspring, or did you when they were young enough? Why or why not?

Do you claim deductions for charitable contributions you make on your taxes? Or do you feel that that is "evaporating tax money" and burdening other people by doing so?

In regards to your continued hatred of living in a place where you are outnumbered by Mormons, I will say it again: Move. I've been to Utah, and I feel pretty safe in saying that the Mormons are not holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to live there.

There's that black and white, right wing thought that I've been waiting for. I can see the value that the government provides from the tax money that I contribute so that means I give them the implicit right to take ALL of my money. Uh, yeah, right.

As for leaving, I did manage to escape for 5 years. I came back when my parents needed some help and in the meantime, life happened and now I'm stuck for a while. Don't worry though, as soon as it's feasible for me to leave, I'll be gone with bells on.

 

[JoeNormal]

One of the seemingly defining qualities of leftists is that they assume they know everything, merely because of their assumed "moral superiority".

We evolved into a society where two breadwinners are essential because leftists have imposed their worldview on everything via the government.

Tax money that evaporates = How dare you selfish bastards think you own your income instead of the government owning it and giving you what it decides you need!

As far as your bitterness regarding the fact that people dare to influence state government contrary to your wishes simply because they outnumber you, I am not aware of any legal restrictions on you picking up and frigging moving to someplace populated by people who agree with you. Try that.

Bwahahaha! You'd make a great 'church lady'.

Maybe you can move somewhere else as well when the odious stench of liberalism creates policies you don't like.

No, I can't, because liberals insist on invading and infesting fucking EVERYWHERE, and take great offense to the idea that people who disagree with them should be allowed to live without their influence. Witness, for example, your insistence on living in Utah and demanding that they change things to suit you, instead of leaving the Mormons alone to do their own thing and going to find like-minded neighbors.

In case you're unaware of the history of your own state, Chuckles, the Mormons followed your advice, and they picked up and moved somewhere away from "the odious stench" of policies they didn't like, and what happened? You frigging leftists FOLLOWED THEM, and then started bitching.

Liberals are everywhere... You could leave the country if you hate that influence so much. Unfortunately for you, just about everywhere worth living is more liberal that the U.S.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Really? And what are these ways, and how do they coincide with the IRS regulations limiting such activity if one wishes to retain a tax-exempt status?

I hope you realize that organizations with armies of accountants and lawyers can get away with a lot of things that you and I can't. The organization in question stretches the limits of what they consider the non-profit aspects of their operation. They also have investments that even they can't consider tax exempt so they reluctantly pay taxes on them.

I hope you realize that assuming someone is "getting away with something" simply because you believe they CAN get away with something is utterly meaningless.

Once again, I have no idea which church you are specifically talking about, so I cannot address it. Therefore, we will not be conducting any sort of debate on their activities based on assuming that your assertions about them are correct.

Finally, I have no intention of condemning any organization for being "reluctant" to pay taxes. I consider eagerness to give money to the government to be a sign of mental illness.

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church [Mormon] and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people.

I am not a member of the Mormon faith but do frequently attend meetings and classes with them. You state they are wonderful people, which they are and they have strong family units. The leaders in each of their churches are volunteers and are paid nothing. They have full-time day jobs and choose to serve the church. Their youth commit to two years as missionaries in every part of the world subsisting on the generosity of other Mormon's in that area. That begins when they are eighteen. If their assignment is to be in a foreign country, they are taught that language.

How is that a bad thing and what business is it of yours what they do with their money?

For one thing, because those of us outside of the church have to make up the tax money that evaporates thanks to deductions for huge families and the tax exempt contributions to the church. For another, we are treated as second class citizens in our home state because of the crappy influence of the church in political affairs.

Okay, again, we need to address this "tax money evaporates" assertion you keep throwing around. You really need to come to grips with the fact that people's income belongs to THEM, not to the government. To say that "tax money evaporates" when people aren't compelled to give it to the government to spend is to imply that the government has an implicit right to ALL of your money, and what you keep is what they are generously allotting you.

As for "deductions for huge familes", tell me something: do you claim deductions for your offspring, or did you when they were young enough? Why or why not?

Do you claim deductions for charitable contributions you make on your taxes? Or do you feel that that is "evaporating tax money" and burdening other people by doing so?

In regards to your continued hatred of living in a place where you are outnumbered by Mormons, I will say it again: Move. I've been to Utah, and I feel pretty safe in saying that the Mormons are not holding you at gunpoint and forcing you to live there.

There's that black and white, right wing thought that I've been waiting for. I can see the value that the government provides from the tax money that I contribute so that means I give them the implicit right to take ALL of my money. Uh, yeah, right.

As for leaving, I did manage to escape for 5 years. I came back when my parents needed some help and in the meantime, life happened and now I'm stuck for a while. Don't worry though, as soon as it's feasible for me to leave, I'll be gone with bells on.

Excuse me, I'M exhibiting "black and white thought"? Hypocrite much?

Is it just that you really don't see your own egregious behavior while nitpicking others, or you simply don't think yours matters because, after all, YOU are right?

 

[JoeNormal]

I hope you realize that organizations with armies of accountants and lawyers can get away with a lot of things that you and I can't. The organization in question stretches the limits of what they consider the non-profit aspects of their operation. They also have investments that even they can't consider tax exempt so they reluctantly pay taxes on them.

I hope you realize that assuming someone is "getting away with something" simply because you believe they CAN get away with something is utterly meaningless.

Once again, I have no idea which church you are specifically talking about, so I cannot address it. Therefore, we will not be conducting any sort of debate on their activities based on assuming that your assertions about them are correct.

Finally, I have no intention of condemning any organization for being "reluctant" to pay taxes. I consider eagerness to give money to the government to be a sign of mental illness.

Alright, I'll dispel the mystery. I'm talking about the LDS church. I always feel a little uneasy referring to it directly because I have friends and family who are members and being critical of it could easily be misinterpreted. I'll offer this disclaimer before proceeding: Some of my closest friends over the years have been members of the church and I can honestly say that they are wonderful people. However there is a faction of their membership that is so super-stinky self-righteous that it would take 100 members doing 100 good things to change my perception of the organization itself. They don't have those numbers so my negative perception persists.

I live at ground zero of the church and see the political moves that they engineer. Living here, it is impossible not to have a fairly intimate knowledge of what they're doing and of the public relations moves they make. I have also on occasion challenged members who I wasn't particularly afraid of offending and they've done nothing to correct any misperceptions I might have had.

The LDS church closely guards their numbers so estimates must be used in most cases. I base the numbers that I have used on a Newsweek article from about 20 years ago that estimated that they collect about 6 billion dollars a year in tithing. No one has ever challenged this figure. From a statement by the church itself, they proudly claimed that they had contributed 150 million dollars to charity over a period of I think 20 years. You do the math. It comes out to about 1%.

Since you seem to know something about accounting for religious institutions, maybe you can tell me if buildings and property are tax exempt. If so, that's where the egregious shortfall lies.

By "LDS church", I assume you mean the entire hierocracy thereof, rather than an individual church, yes?

Okay, let's start with the factual, information-based stuff first.

Buildings and property owned by a church are tax-exempt if their primary purpose is to be used for the tax-exempt activities of the church. Examples would be chapels, activities annexes, church-operated school facilities, parsonages, etc. If the church owns a building that is operated primarily for profitable reasons, then it becomes subject to taxes. Examples of this would be if someone left their house to the church, and the church chose to rent it out. There are, however, exceptions depending on what the rent money is used for (the IRS never misses a chance to make things complicated). If, for example, the house had a mortgage on it and the rents went to cover the mortgage payment, then different rules kick in. Also, if the rent money all goes toward charitable pursuits, there are different tax rules to cover that.

For the record, this no more constitutes an "egregious shortfall" than it does when the Red Cross blood donation facility is tax-exempt. (I use the Red Cross as an example a lot because I worked for them for a while, and can therefore provide a more in-depth, firsthand knowledge of what they do and how, FYI.)

Now, to edge into the more emotional issues you seem to be having.

I'm not surprised that the LDS church keeps their numbers private to the extent that the law allows. Virtually everyone does. Shockingly enough, religious institutions tend to have the same attitude toward financial information that individuals do: beyond a certain point, it's really none of your business. My church also does not publish its balance sheet for public consumption. However, this in no way implies that the information these institutions are required to provide is false, or that they're hiding something.

I can't speak to your Newsweek article, and without a source on the statement you mentioned by the LDS church, I can't really address that directly, either.

What I can tell you is that they appear to be about as straightforward and forthcoming about where they get their money and how they spend it as any other institution, so I can address that.

They are similar to my church in that they encourage the Biblical practice of tithing, ie. giving one-tenth of one's income to the church, and in designating that money primarily for operational concerns: building and maintenance costs, utilities, wages for paid employees, etc. Also in common with my church, they put some of that money toward missionary work, humanitarian aid, funding of certain areas of the universities they own and operate (although I will say I believe they have more of those than my church does). What seems to be unique to them is that they also fund the well-known family history program, and some of their tithe income goes toward that.

The LDS also have something they call "fast offerings", which my own church doesn't do, in which their members are encourage to fast for two meals the first Sunday of every month and donate the money that would have been spend on food for those meals to the church. Presumably, they're fairly diligent about this, because this provides a significant income stream by itself, which is distributed by the local churches to the needy in their own communities.

Back in common with pretty much every mainstream church I know of, they also take offerings and donations separate from these specific ones. That money either goes to specific funds earmarked for a specific, stated purpose - for example, if they hold a special fundraising effort for humanitarian relief for victims of a hurricane - or a general fund used for ongoing charitable efforts. Different churches tend to have different areas of focus, in keeping with the focus of their doctrine and their interests as determined by their members. The LDS church is very big on the concept of self-reliance, and many of their charitable programs have as their stated goal helping people to achieve self-reliance, and appear to include educational efforts as well as simply giving people stuff.

There is something that you need to remember: news articles on how much is spent and how generally skim over the surface of the topic and drastically oversimplify.

I have seen an article that was published in Business Week purporting that LDS charitable contributions equal about .7% of their income annually. Their information was drawn from a Welfare Services Fact Sheet put out by the LDS. The problem, as pointed out by the LDS in response to the story, is that the fact sheet only refers to certain of their humanitarian efforts overseas. It doesn't even touch on their domestic charitable expenditures.

Furthermore, there is a difference between money spent on charity and money donated to charity. The LDS church is different from my own - presumably, at least in part, because they are much, much bigger than mine - in that they not only operate their own charitable organizations and programs, they also partner with non-LDS institutions to provide funding. Therefore, when you talk about the church "giving money to charity", you are most likely talking about money they have given to outside charities, without addressing money spent on their own internal programs.

The LDS church, when it comes right down to it, operates under the same legal restrictions as any other church retaining tax-exempt status: they are required to put the bulk of their annual income toward their non-profit work. This is non-negotiable tax law in the United States, and whatever opinion one may or may not have about Mormons, I think it's safe to say that the IRS is very reliable in the sense that there's no way a church that large and visible would get away with cheating without having tax investigators up their asses with microscopes.

I think the overall message here is that my bias against the LDS church should probably equate to a bias against most churches.

I think it already does, quite frankly. You just don't realize it because you insist on living in a predominantly Mormon state.

Would you care to explain to us why your takeaway from this is that you should hate all churches?

Hate is a pretty strong word. ...But you've made it pretty clear that most of them pull the same shenanigans when it comes to taxes and such. Maybe I misspoke. While I'm not crazy about the tax exempt status of churches, what makes that status particularly loathsome WRT the LDS church is the political influence they exert.