How about Prop 9.5.....

[cliffordu]

"Any church or religious group that attempts legislation through Propositions or collected donations of over (X number dollars) Shall lose their tax-exempt status for the length of the campaign."

[billyoc]

1. Prop 666

[cliffordu]

3. Better yet!!!

:rofl:



Tax-exempt haters shore do create a lot of mischief, don't they???

[Ozma]

2. How about losing tax exemption FOREVER in California?

That will send those wingnuts back to Utah.

I also think we should have a proposition that they cannot come within 300 miles of an Ocean except in Alaska. Keep them out of all coastal states where they can screw with our freedoms.

[cliffordu]

4. Yep -

[Chan790]

5. Pointless...

there is already a substantial amount of law pertaining to religious organizations and the amounts and type of donations and advocacy they are allowed to undertake. Such a proposal would be 100% redundant and still nearly impossible to enforce. The problem is enforcement. These cases are expensive, very difficult to prove and have as a result a notoriously low rate of success. Thus they are not pursued...and churches know this. Further, any sort of bundling effort makes this harder to enforce. $1M from the church attracts more attention and is easier to prove the violation than $100 each from 10,000 individual members.

The IRS will pursue these cases only if you can hand them a case on a silver platter. Bring a tape recorder and record explicit calls from the pulpit on multiple occasions for donations or calling for a specific result (Vote McCain! Yes on 8! Donate money to defeat the godless Kay Hagen! etc.). Oh...you'll also have to get someone who is considered to be a member in standing of the parish to agree to testify to authenticate the tapes and collaborate your testimony. Even then, first offense is often a slap on the wrist...the second offense permanently revokes exempt status, results in fines and/or jail time. In that case, the members just start a new church...same as the old church but with new churchiness (by which I mean a brand-new exemption.)

[cliffordu]

6. Uh....perhaps I am calling for a change to the law....

Which is pointless enough for you to write that much drivel explaining what most already know.

Thanks for your input, though.

[Chan790]

7. Enforcement, not useless laws.

It doesn't matter what you write into the law...you can't fix this problem with propositions...it's an enforcement issue, not a law issue. You want to fix this issue, give better tools and funding to create a task-force to the IRS to pursue these claims rather than writing new laws that won't be enforced either.

If did already knew this...you wouldn't have proposed it.

[cliffordu]

8. I'd be prepared to admit you are right:

"If did already knew this...you wouldn't have proposed it."

If I knew what the fuck you meant.

Putz

[Chan790]

9. One...No need to resort to name calling.

Two:

You said (and I'm directly quoting you here) "explaining what most already know."

I said...(and here I am paraphrasing) if you already knew that the problem wasn't the law (which is complete and fine as is) but the enforcement, you wouldn't have proposed yet more laws that won't be enforced.

I then proposed an alternate solution (based on my experience working as a development professional, coincidentally)...more funding for enforcement and the creation of an IRS task-force tasked with enforcement of violations of tax-exemption and by NPOs and churches.

You then called me a "putz".

I think that is an accurate summary of our discussion to this point.

Have a Nice Day! :)

[cliffordu]

10. Buh Bye!!

:hurts: