[Bloodshot]

Wasn't sure where else to put this, but

new or classic color scheme for the flak cannon?

new


classic

[Fox]

Do you believe copyright infringement is akin to stealing? if you ever sung happy birthday in public, or in legal terms where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered, congratilations, because you just infringed copyright laws. Now you are just one step away from robbing a bank.

[Person of Color]

Definitely the classic color scheme.

[Jimmy]

I love infringing copyright.

[Lunick]

[Jeff]

I feel kind of out of date when I still use an alarm clock to wake up. A lot of people use their cell phones as them.

[Kyanos]

[Fox]

[Fox]

[Lunick]

[Fox]

[Lunick]

[Mark]

 Fox, on 21 May 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

Sounds good in theory, but in the real world that extra money would go into the general fund and be used as an excuse to grow government even larger and more wasteful. Or the government would yet again revise the eligibilty requirements to ensnare even more of the middle class with handouts and that money will have accomplished nothing towards shrinking welfare costs. Giving them more to spend is wrong,wrong,wrong. ( in my opinion )

[Forge]

most run of the mill protestant chuches i've bothered to associate with use their funds for building maintenance, cost of living for the church leader (i've never seen one with higher standards of living than the average member), and the rest gets used to do things like feed & buy clothes for homeless, food bank for the poor & elderly, etc.
can't speak for catholics and mormons or any other scientology cult

[Person of Color]

 Fox, on 21 May 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:

>Financial data
>Source: Cracked.com

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Exactly how would one get a church to pay tax? It's not as if they're a for-profit business. If churches had to pay tax, there wouldn't be any churches.

[Forge]

 Protected by Viper, on 22 May 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

>Financial data
>Source: Cracked.com

not to mention 76 billion dollars of taxes collected off of 83.5 billion dollars. that's about 91 cents on every dollar.
suck ass to be in that bracket

[Fox]

The 83.5 billions are the taxes the would have to pay, and 76 millions is how much the food stamp would cost.

 Comrade Major, on 22 May 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Exactly how would one get a church to pay tax? It's not as if they're a for-profit business. If churches had to pay tax, there wouldn't be any churches.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Church_tax

 Protected by Viper, on 22 May 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

>Financial data
>Source: Cracked.com

Instead of criticizing the infographic because of a watermark, it would be better if you actually questioned the data. Which, by the way, some sources states to be 82.5 billion.

More brains and less animated gifs, please.

[Lunick]

 Fox, on 22 May 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

More brains and less animated gifs, please.

Viper =

[Fox]

Infographics are supposed to be easy to understand. If anything, being on cracked.com means that even the low-minded should be able to get it.

[Forge]

 Fox, on 22 May 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

Infographics are supposed to be easy to understand. If anything, being on cracked.com means that even the low-minded should be able to get it.

yea, but his pic is funnier


in direct reference to your anti-religion dogma picture

Summary: The graphic is based on a significantly flawed article from the Council for Secular Humanism

It seems to be the case that the infographic is based on the report "How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States"., by the Council for Secular Humanism. The figures seem to agree, so it's reasonable to assume that the source of the graphic is the report. To assess the reliability of the graphic, we therefore have to assess the reliability of the report.

The first thing that needs to be noted is that this report is not from a neutral source. The Council for Secular Humanism exists to promote secular humanism, which largely defines itself by the absence of religion, and Free Inquiry is not a peer-reviewed journal. This does not mean we reject it, of course - it means that we should apply a skeptical analysis to the report, which the rest of this answer will do.
Claims

These are the principal claims made by the report as to subsidies to churches:

Federal Income Tax Subsidy - $35.3billion
State Income Tax Subsidy $6.billion
Property Tax Subsidy $26.2 billion
Investment Tax Subsidy $41 million
Parsonage Subsidy $1.2 billion
Faith Based Initiatives Subsidy $2.2 billion
Total $71 billion

The report seems to imply that these tax breaks are special to churches. In fact only one is (the parsonage allowance). The rest are available to other non-profits, whether they are religious or not, and whether they do any charitable work or not.
For example, fee paying private prep schools get the same exemptions as a church, even if their sole purpose is to provide expensive education to the rich, who pay a large fee in return. It is likely that most churches could register for tax exemption under 501c, even if ‘religion’ were removed as one of the criteria. Community theatres and fraternal organisations (e.g. Moose Lodges and college fraternities) do this all the time. Secular humanist organizations are registered for tax-exempt status. The American Humanist Assosiation specifically has tax exemption in the religious category. Even the Council for Secular Humanism itself is tax exempt.

http://skeptics.stac...d-that-generate

Did read. back to you sweetie.

[Fox]

 Forge, on 22 May 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

These are the principal claims made by the report as to subsidies to churches:

Federal Income Tax Subsidy - $35.3billion
State Income Tax Subsidy $6.billion
Property Tax Subsidy $26.2 billion
Investment Tax Subsidy $41 million
Parsonage Subsidy $1.2 billion
Faith Based Initiatives Subsidy $2.2 billion
Total $71 billion

For the sake of it, this piece is missing: "The charitable deduction for all groups cost about $39 billion this year, according to the CBO, and given that 32 percent of those donations are to religious groups, getting rid of it just for them would raise about $12.5 billion. Add that in and you get a religious subsidy of about $83.5 billion."

 Forge, on 22 May 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

The report seems to imply that these tax breaks are special to churches. In fact only one is (the parsonage allowance). The rest are available to other non-profits, whether they are religious or not, and whether they do any charitable work or not.

How does that proves the infographic is wrong? Because "Faith Based Initiatives" is avaiable to organizations that are not religious doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

 Forge, on 22 May 2014 - 08:34 PM, said:

Secular humanist organizations are registered for tax-exempt status. The American Humanist Assosiation specifically has tax exemption in the religious category. Even the Council for Secular Humanism itself is tax exempt.

That's a tu quoque fallacy. Since we have not been discussing secular humanism, it only serves to confirm the data.

[Mark]

Clear up a minor point for me. In that list of subsidies, is that actual taxpayer money being paid out from the government to the churches or is that how much the churches are allowed to keep of their own money through tax exemptions? If its the latter as I suspect, the word subsidy should be changed.

[Fox]

It's both.

[Micky C]

fuuuucckk going down the stairs was like a good duke nukem level. gameplay 9/10

[Kyanos]

 Mark., on 23 May 2014 - 04:00 AM, said:

Clear up a minor point for me. In that list of subsidies, is that actual taxpayer money being paid out from the government to the churches or is that how much the churches are allowed to keep of their own money through tax exemptions? If its the latter as I suspect, the word subsidy should be changed.

 Fox, on 23 May 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

It's both.

That money just pays for campaigns, right? State & Church can't ever truly BE separate.

They barely even appear separate.

[Forge]

 Fox, on 23 May 2014 - 03:15 AM, said:

How does that proves the infographic is wrong? Because "Faith Based Initiatives" is avaiable to organizations that are not religious doesn't mean it's not bullshit.

because those "numbers" are a fallacy. Your "infograph" is implying that every penny of those tax exemptions are purely for churches/faith based organizations, when clearly they're not.

the "information" is gleaned from a report by a biased source to make church/faith organizations look bad.

personally i could care less if religious and non-profit organizations pay taxes or not. My only opinion is if one has to pay, then they all should have to pay.

[Tea Monster]

The founding father's were secular and proud of it. All this 'In god we trust' malarkey started in the 1860s.

[Fox]

 Forge, on 23 May 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

"numbers"

 Forge, on 23 May 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

"infograph"

 Forge, on 23 May 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

"information"

I don't think quotes work like that.

 Forge, on 23 May 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

because those "numbers" are a fallacy. Your "infograph" is implying that every penny of those tax exemptions are purely for churches/faith based organizations, when clearly they're not.

It's not implying that. In fact it do points out that 85.3 billions are all tax exemptions and subsidies.

Even if you believe that other organizations not paying taxes change something, that's just your opinion.

 Forge, on 23 May 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

the "information" is gleaned from a report by a biased source

First of all, if you are so worried about the source, you shouldn't be copy & pasting comments from Internet user. Or at least pointed to the original source, instead of someone inaccurately paraphrasing it.

Besides, your point is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what the personal believes of one of the researchers is. What consists of a unbiased source for you, a christian, an agnostic?

The numbers seems to be real as far I have looked into it.

 Forge, on 23 May 2014 - 09:12 AM, said:

to make church/faith organizations look bad.

Does not paying taxes make them look bad?

[Mark]

A quicker way to generate that amount of money is...

a politician must take 10 dollars of their own money and put it into a fund every time he / she says " It is my number one priority" or "I will not rest until this problem is solved" or "I wake up every morning thinking about XXXXX or "I'm forming a committee to look into that" or "now is the time for action"