Will Raising Taxes on the Rich....

inlet13 · July 2012

...Solve the $ Problem in Government?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC5Gkox-1QY&feature=player_embedded

riotgrl · July 2012

First, I suppose there are people who believe the only way to fix the deficit is to ONLY increase the taxes on the wealthy. However, I've always felt that many Americans don't really believe that but instead believe that the tax code allows loopholes (charitable donations, for example) that allow people (and yes I am aware that this includes all groups that pay taxes) to reduce their taxable income. Wouldn't a better answer be to fix the tax code? I don't know if the answer is a flat tax but closing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code so that we each pay our fair share seems equitable.

Second, I think most Americans believe that paying your fair amount of taxes is only one piece of the puzzle. I would consider myself fairly liberal in a lot of ways but I would also suggest that reducing spending is a must. But this is where the second point gets lost because Dems and Reps refuse to compromise on those reductions. It's too bad that partisan politics seems to negate any willingness on the part of Dems, Reps, libertarians, or any other group to move towards a more permanent fix.

gimmesometruth27 · July 2012

riotgrl wrote:

First, I suppose there are people who believe the only way to fix the deficit is to ONLY increase the taxes on the wealthy. However, I've always felt that many Americans don't really believe that but instead believe that the tax code allows loopholes (charitable donations, for example) that allow people (and yes I am aware that this includes all groups that pay taxes) to reduce their taxable income. Wouldn't a better answer be to fix the tax code? I don't know if the answer is a flat tax but closing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code so that we each pay our fair share seems equitable.

Second, I think most Americans believe that paying your fair amount of taxes is only one piece of the puzzle. I would consider myself fairly liberal in a lot of ways but I would also suggest that reducing spending is a must. But this is where the second point gets lost because Dems and Reps refuse to compromise on those reductions. It's too bad that partisan politics seems to negate any willingness on the part of Dems, Reps, libertarians, or any other group to move towards a more permanent fix.

dems have agreed to cuts. they have agreed to cut everything that they support. the republicans are trying to renege the agreed upon automatic cuts in defense that were triggered with the inability to compromise on either the budget or the debt limit, i forget which. the dems have agreed to cut way more than they should have and have been too willing to compromise with the republicans who will not give a single mm. i agree that a balanced approach of tax cuts and revenue increases is better than just across the board cuts.

inlet13 · July 2012

riotgrl wrote:

First, I suppose there are people who believe the only way to fix the deficit is to ONLY increase the taxes on the wealthy.

I'd say there are a large amount of people who only want to raise taxes on the wealthy to "solve" this problem, I don't think it's quite as small of a group as you do.

riotgrl wrote:

However, I've always felt that many Americans don't really believe that but instead believe that the tax code allows loopholes (charitable donations, for example) that allow people (and yes I am aware that this includes all groups that pay taxes) to reduce their taxable income. Wouldn't a better answer be to fix the tax code? I don't know if the answer is a flat tax but closing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code so that we each pay our fair share seems equitable.

I think a simplified tax code would be smart, yes.

riotgrl wrote:

Second, I think most Americans believe that paying your fair amount of taxes is only one piece of the puzzle.

My definition of fair and yours are probably not the same. Fair is subjective. Sorry - I just can't stand the use of that word when it comes to this because people say that Bob paying more than Joe as a percent of his wealth is "fair" because he makes more. I say - umm, no.. it's not fair. A flat tax is really the only "fair" tax because everyone pays the same %. Bob still pays more than Joe, but he pays an equal %.

riotgrl wrote:

I would consider myself fairly liberal in a lot of ways but I would also suggest that reducing spending is a must.

Agreed, but once again, I don't think our take on the issue of reducing spending is as heavy a majority as you may.

riotgrl wrote:

But this is where the second point gets lost because Dems and Reps refuse to compromise on those reductions. It's too bad that partisan politics seems to negate any willingness on the part of Dems, Reps, libertarians, or any other group to move towards a more permanent fix.

Personally, I don't think there is a willingness to cut spending at all - or something would have been done about it. To me - it's a charade. Every single time this problem erupts, and it will be front page material again very soon, each side says the other is not compromising. Compromise doesn't mean one side gets there way. In fact, I don't even see a need for "compromise". If both sides can agree that we need to cut spending (we know they won't agree on taxes) then do it - cut it. Cut it all within x %, every department, every single item. But, this is the problem... we'll then hear this term "fair" again creep up. Some people will say it's unfair to reduce every single federal government budget by the exact same %. It's the same exact argument used against flat tax. Their definition of fair needs to be the one put forth - otherwise it's not fair. The whole thing is nauseating.

mikepegg44 · July 2012

can we define cuts?

most of what we call cuts are actually simply a decrease in the amount of spending increase. Hypothetical spending Example...instead of a 25% increase in defense spending over 10 years it is 22%. That is what is considered a cut in today's political universe.

call me when someone legitimately means spend less this year than last. no one cares to cut spending. Neither side is cutting anything. Any tax increase they do make will be off set by inflation over the next 10 years anyway

riotgrl · July 2012

inlet13 wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

First, I suppose there are people who believe the only way to fix the deficit is to ONLY increase the taxes on the wealthy.

I'd say there are a large amount of people who only want to raise taxes on the wealthy to "solve" this problem, I don't think it's quite as small of a group as you do.

riotgrl wrote:

However, I've always felt that many Americans don't really believe that but instead believe that the tax code allows loopholes (charitable donations, for example) that allow people (and yes I am aware that this includes all groups that pay taxes) to reduce their taxable income. Wouldn't a better answer be to fix the tax code? I don't know if the answer is a flat tax but closing the loopholes and simplifying the tax code so that we each pay our fair share seems equitable.

I think a simplified tax code would be smart, yes.

riotgrl wrote:

Second, I think most Americans believe that paying your fair amount of taxes is only one piece of the puzzle.

inlet13 wrote:

My definition of fair and yours are probably not the same. Fair is subjective. Sorry - I just can't stand the use of that word when it comes to this because people say that Bob paying more than Joe as a percent of his wealth is "fair" because he makes more. I say - umm, no.. it's not fair. A flat tax is really the only "fair" tax because everyone pays the same %. Bob still pays more than Joe, but he pays an equal %.

You are making a fair amount of assumptions about me based on what? I think it is fair to pay your taxes? FIne, I'll play your game. Let's assume a flat tax of 10%. Do you agree to no loopholes - at all? Not even for those "people" called corporations? Would that be fair? And how is a flat tax the fairest? Can you define why that would be so? How about no personal income tax at all and instead just a sales tax? Is that the fairest alternative instead of income tax? Based on your purely economic arguemtns that you espouse on this forum and the fact that you have said on many occasions that you are a Ron Paul supporter, I will assume that you are one who will interpret the COnstituion in its strictest sense. Doesn't that make the income tax unconstitutuional? So we should get rid of it algother right? So, no federal tax only state tax right? What amount is fair for a state tax?

riotgrl wrote:

I would consider myself fairly liberal in a lot of ways but I would also suggest that reducing spending is a must.

Agreed, but once again, I don't think our take on the issue of reducing spending is as heavy a majority as you may.

riotgrl wrote:

But this is where the second point gets lost because Dems and Reps refuse to compromise on those reductions. It's too bad that partisan politics seems to negate any willingness on the part of Dems, Reps, libertarians, or any other group to move towards a more permanent fix.

[quote=inlet13"[Personally, I don't think there is a willingness to cut spending at all - or something would have been done about it. To me - it's a charade. Every single time this problem erupts, and it will be front page material again very soon, each side says the other is not compromising. Compromise doesn't mean one side gets there way. In fact, I don't even see a need for "compromise". If both sides can agree that we need to cut spending (we know they won't agree on taxes) then do it - cut it. Cut it all within x %, every department, every single item. But, this is the problem... we'll then hear this term "fair" again creep up. Some people will say it's unfair to reduce every single federal government budget by the exact same %. It's the same exact argument used against flat tax. Their definition of fair needs to be the one put forth - otherwise it's not fair. The whole thing is nauseating.

[/quote]

Again, you assume you know what I mean by compromise. Why is an across the board spending cut the best alternative? For example, I am well versed in food law, more so than other areas, so I'll use an example I feel more comfortable with discussing. Why do we need an FDA, a USDA, the CDC, National Marine Fisheries, the EPA, and I could go on and on. Why not modernize and organize these groups into one group? We could create smaller federal agencies that all have food safety as a priority instead of as one branch of a larger subgroup that may not even think food regulation is its main goal. Combine spending and you could create cuts - of course you also cut jobs but I say hit the administration positions as they are the most costly.

Now, what about defense? That is usually a big no-no for Republicans. I actually agree with Paul on some points on defense spending. Why do we still need bases in Germany? Oh yeah, because we are fighting a war on terrorism. Close them all and we can allocate that money to the soldiers!

Your arguments are as invalid as the people you say are the very problem because you believe your POV is the best and the one that is correct so you don't see that their might be another way. You don't seem very willing to compromise at all. Instead it seems as if we are supposed to accept your vision as the absolute best without any discussion or compromise. I am willing to compromise and by that I don't mean that you accept my version of the future as sacrosanct.

riotgrl · July 2012

And for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to get the quotes to work right on this stupid forum. Hopefully, you can figure out who said what in my previous post. If anybody wants to send me a tutorial, feel free, apparently I am a forum, computer idiot :fp:

inlet13 · July 2012

riotgrl wrote:

You are making a fair amount of assumptions about me based on what?

I’m not making any assumptions at all. Not sure why you’re getting offended and defensive - honestly. I basically meant that no two people have the exact same definition of "fair" for all possible circumstances. Not me and you, not you and someone else. It has nothing to do with you personally.

riotgrl wrote:

I think it is fair to pay your taxes? FIne, I'll play your game. Let's assume a flat tax of 10%. Do you agree to no loopholes - at all?

Yes, I’d prefer no loopholes.

riotgrl wrote:

Not even for those "people" called corporations? Would that be fair?

Yes, I see no reason to absolutely support corporations having loopholes in “corporate taxes”. Do you honestly think anyone is truly for loopholes? That said, corp are taxed at 35% though (which is the highest in the industrialized world). I think loopholes will continue to exist in corporate and income taxes until they are taxed at a competitive rate. That’s just my guess though.

riotgrl wrote:

And how is a flat tax the fairest? Can you define why that would be so?

Sure, it’s my opinion that it’s the “fairest” of income taxes, but my point all along is that I know others disagree. That’s why I gasped when you brought up the dreaded word – "fair" - I can't stand when comrade Obama says it either. I think a flat tax would be the fairest of all income taxes because it’s like everyone paying X amount of their income. If Bob makes $100,000, he pays 10% or $10,000. If Joe makes $40,000, he pays 10% or $4,000. Bob still pays more. To me – it seems fair that way, but once again, I am aware that the term fair is subjective in this day and age.

riotgrl wrote:

How about no personal income tax at all and instead just a sales tax? Is that the fairest alternative instead of income tax?

I’m ok with this too.

riotgrl wrote:

Based on your purely economic arguemtns that you espouse on this forum and the fact that you have said on many occasions that you are a Ron Paul supporter, I will assume that you are one who will interpret the COnstituion in its strictest sense. Doesn't that make the income tax unconstitutuional?

I don’t think the income tax was a good thing. My proof is our current discussion.

riotgrl wrote:

So we should get rid of it algother right? So, no federal tax only state tax right? What amount is fair for a state tax?

I’d say flat tax would still be fair at the state level or at the federal level, but I’m aware that my definition of fair may not be equivalent with yours. I’ve said that over and over.

riotgrl wrote:

Again, you assume you know what I mean by compromise. Why is an across the board spending cut the best alternative?

Did you watch the video at the top of the thread? The reason is - we “NEED” to cut spending, any spending. Across the board spending cuts seems “fair” to me. I mean, once again, that way you’re treating everyone or departments the same and to me this would get around, D gets this, R gets this nonsense that never gets anywhere. But, that said, I already said, I’m very very aware this won’t happen because “fair” is subjective. My definition- thinking fair is across the board spending cuts - is not yours.... clearly you don't agree or you wouldn't be arguing with me.

riotgrl wrote:

For example, I am well versed in food law, more so than other areas, so I'll use an example I feel more comfortable with discussing. Why do we need an FDA, a USDA, the CDC, National Marine Fisheries, the EPA, and I could go on and on. Why not modernize and organize these groups into one group? We could create smaller federal agencies that all have food safety as a priority instead of as one branch of a larger subgroup that may not even think food regulation is its main goal. Combine spending and you could create cuts - of course you also cut jobs but I say hit the administration positions as they are the most costly.

I’m fine with this approach too, but I don’t see it happening.

riotgrl wrote:

Now, what about defense? That is usually a big no-no for Republicans. I actually agree with Paul on some points on defense spending. Why do we still need bases in Germany? Oh yeah, because we are fighting a war on terrorism. Close them all and we can allocate that money to the soldiers!

Also fine with this.

riotgrl wrote:

Your arguments are as invalid as the people you say are the very problem because you believe your POV is the best and the one that is correct so you don't see that their might be another way.

Ironically, that’s kinda my point - except broaden it to "everyone". I don’t really think you really read my comments. You said we need to cut spending. I said I agree. I say we should do it across the board (not cause that’s what I would do if I was dictator of America), but because I think that’s the most practical to actually happen. In my opinion, my point of view is flexible – let me show how. The issue is we’ve given government a credit card and they keep blowing it up. The way to stop this is to cut spending – we agree on that or you said you did. How to get there, we may have different preferences… but, I’ll say this – you propose to cut “ANYTHING”… and I’d probably support it. Government just spends too much, so any cut helps.

riotgrl wrote:

You don't seem very willing to compromise at all. Instead it seems as if we are supposed to accept your vision as the absolute best without any discussion or compromise. I am willing to compromise and by that I don't mean that you accept my version of the future as sacrosanct.

Once again, I’m not quite sure why you’re going into attack mode, but you can re-read what I’ve written. I am willing for you to choose any approach to cutting spending – and most likely I’d be a supporter. I think that’s pretty flexible and a nice compromise, actually because you can choose anything - anything at all. But, maybe that’s me. Maybe the term “compromise” is now up for debate. Ha ha.

BinauralJam · July 2012

worth a try

brianlux · July 2012

Can't hurt, that's for sure. Is that the solution? Probably not. Will it happen. No need to answer that one.

know1 · July 2012

Why give more money to a government that has proven itself to be totally incapable of managing itself? I say let the government get it's house in order - like a citizen would have to - and then we can talk about giving it more money.

riotgrl · July 2012

inlet13 wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

You are making a fair amount of assumptions about me based on what?

I’m not making any assumptions at all. Not sure why you’re getting offended and defensive - honestly. I basically meant that no two people have the exact same definition of "fair" for all possible circumstances. Not me and you, not you and someone else. It has nothing to do with you personally.

riotgrl wrote:

I think it is fair to pay your taxes? FIne, I'll play your game. Let's assume a flat tax of 10%. Do you agree to no loopholes - at all?

Yes, I’d prefer no loopholes.

riotgrl wrote:

Not even for those "people" called corporations? Would that be fair?

Yes, I see no reason to absolutely support corporations having loopholes in “corporate taxes”. Do you honestly think anyone is truly for loopholes? That said, corp are taxed at 35% though (which is the highest in the industrialized world). I think loopholes will continue to exist in corporate and income taxes until they are taxed at a competitive rate. That’s just my guess though.

riotgrl wrote:

And how is a flat tax the fairest? Can you define why that would be so?

Sure, it’s my opinion that it’s the “fairest” of income taxes, but my point all along is that I know others disagree. That’s why I gasped when you brought up the dreaded word – "fair" - I can't stand when comrade Obama says it either. I think a flat tax would be the fairest of all income taxes because it’s like everyone paying X amount of their income. If Bob makes $100,000, he pays 10% or $10,000. If Joe makes $40,000, he pays 10% or $4,000. Bob still pays more. To me – it seems fair that way, but once again, I am aware that the term fair is subjective in this day and age.

riotgrl wrote:

How about no personal income tax at all and instead just a sales tax? Is that the fairest alternative instead of income tax?

I’m ok with this too.

riotgrl wrote:

Based on your purely economic arguemtns that you espouse on this forum and the fact that you have said on many occasions that you are a Ron Paul supporter, I will assume that you are one who will interpret the COnstituion in its strictest sense. Doesn't that make the income tax unconstitutuional?

I don’t think the income tax was a good thing. My proof is our current discussion.

riotgrl wrote:

So we should get rid of it algother right? So, no federal tax only state tax right? What amount is fair for a state tax?

I’d say flat tax would still be fair at the state level or at the federal level, but I’m aware that my definition of fair may not be equivalent with yours. I’ve said that over and over.

riotgrl wrote:

Again, you assume you know what I mean by compromise. Why is an across the board spending cut the best alternative?

Did you watch the video at the top of the thread? The reason is - we “NEED” to cut spending, any spending. Across the board spending cuts seems “fair” to me. I mean, once again, that way you’re treating everyone or departments the same and to me this would get around, D gets this, R gets this nonsense that never gets anywhere. But, that said, I already said, I’m very very aware this won’t happen because “fair” is subjective. My definition- thinking fair is across the board spending cuts - is not yours.... clearly you don't agree or you wouldn't be arguing with me.

riotgrl wrote:

For example, I am well versed in food law, more so than other areas, so I'll use an example I feel more comfortable with discussing. Why do we need an FDA, a USDA, the CDC, National Marine Fisheries, the EPA, and I could go on and on. Why not modernize and organize these groups into one group? We could create smaller federal agencies that all have food safety as a priority instead of as one branch of a larger subgroup that may not even think food regulation is its main goal. Combine spending and you could create cuts - of course you also cut jobs but I say hit the administration positions as they are the most costly.

I’m fine with this approach too, but I don’t see it happening.

riotgrl wrote:

Now, what about defense? That is usually a big no-no for Republicans. I actually agree with Paul on some points on defense spending. Why do we still need bases in Germany? Oh yeah, because we are fighting a war on terrorism. Close them all and we can allocate that money to the soldiers!

Also fine with this.

riotgrl wrote:

Your arguments are as invalid as the people you say are the very problem because you believe your POV is the best and the one that is correct so you don't see that their might be another way.

Ironically, that’s kinda my point - except broaden it to "everyone". I don’t really think you really read my comments. You said we need to cut spending. I said I agree. I say we should do it across the board (not cause that’s what I would do if I was dictator of America), but because I think that’s the most practical to actually happen. In my opinion, my point of view is flexible – let me show how. The issue is we’ve given government a credit card and they keep blowing it up. The way to stop this is to cut spending – we agree on that or you said you did. How to get there, we may have different preferences… but, I’ll say this – you propose to cut “ANYTHING”… and I’d probably support it. Government just spends too much, so any cut helps.

riotgrl wrote:

You don't seem very willing to compromise at all. Instead it seems as if we are supposed to accept your vision as the absolute best without any discussion or compromise. I am willing to compromise and by that I don't mean that you accept my version of the future as sacrosanct.

Once again, I’m not quite sure why you’re going into attack mode, but you can re-read what I’ve written. I am willing for you to choose any approach to cutting spending – and most likely I’d be a supporter. I think that’s pretty flexible and a nice compromise, actually because you can choose anything - anything at all. But, maybe that’s me. Maybe the term “compromise” is now up for debate. Ha ha.

I agree with most of what you said and while I was not attacking, I was asking for clarification of your comments, which you did in this post. I do not think raising taxes will fix the problem and in fact I believe a flat tax would be a good way to simplify the tax code and make everyone pay their fair share. Fair is a very subjective term and my only issue is that people with a great deal of wealth are able to employ CPA's that can find ways to decrease their tax burden which most regular people can't do (significantly reduce their tax burden, of course, they can get a CPA). That's the issue that I find "unfair." As for compromise, again in actuality I agree with what you are saying. It's not fair to cut spending for groups that are more dependent on the budget than other groups but to be "fair" (although I like your term - practical better) it would be best practice. For example, I taught for a long time at a Title I school where our budget was pretty large and if I needed things like books for my class I could get them without paying out of my own pocket. However, now that I am at a school that is not so poor I can't even get a lightbulb replacement for my projector. The point being that the extra money would be nice but at the end of the day I have learned to make adjustments and still manage to do my job.

usamamasan1 · July 2012

Please see attached video if you want to learn what a second Obama term will look like for your finances. Or, what it will do to the "fat cats" finances. Gross.
Remember what he said: "If you make less than $250,000 your taxes will not increase one dime".................yeah right!!!

Replace Obama!

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-second ... nch-alert/

PJ_Soul · July 2012

I think that taxes should be simple. A set and equal percentage of EVERYONE'S personal income over the poverty line, and perhaps a different percentage of all profits for corporations, with brackets to fall within for profit amounts (and I'm no accountant - what to do with corporations who had a loss, I don't know, but I'm sure something fair could be worked out).

Of course keep charity as a write-off to encourage large donations.

gimmesometruth27 · July 2012

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

PJ_Soul · July 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

Good idea. I can't actually believe that is something that happens now. So wrong.

Jason P · July 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

There are many organizations that you support, such as planned parenthood, which would face the same fate.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ... or something like that.

gimmesometruth27 · July 2012

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

There are many organizations that you support, such as planned parenthood, which would face the same fate.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ... or something like that.

planned parenthood is not tax exempt. it receives funding and is a provider for health care services for those on medicaid, but they are not tax exempt. they pay taxes.

where is _?? she could explain that better than i could.

PJ_Soul · July 2012

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

There are many organizations that you support, such as planned parenthood, which would face the same fate.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ... or something like that.

How is Planned Parenthood the same as a Church that donates to political causes and influences votes?

gimmesometruth27 · July 2012

PJ_Soul wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

Good idea. I can't actually believe that is something that happens now. So wrong.

it happens. not every church does it, but a lot of them do.

i say let them do it legally and pay taxes, instead of doing it illegally and paying nothing.

Jason P · July 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

planned parenthood is not tax exempt. it receives funding and is a provider for health care services for those on medicaid, but they are not tax exempt. they pay taxes.

where is _?? she could explain that better than i could.

OK, OK. No need to bring _ into this.

Let's refocus on the rich and poor.

mikepegg44 · July 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jason P wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations? they endorse candidates and tell people how to vote all the time when it is a clear violation for them to do so. why not tax them, let them campaign for candidates and tell their flocks how to vote, and everyone is happy??

There are many organizations that you support, such as planned parenthood, which would face the same fate.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander ... or something like that.

planned parenthood is not tax exempt. it receives funding and is a provider for health care services for those on medicaid, but they are not tax exempt. they pay taxes.

where is _?? she could explain that better than i could.

Aren't they 501(c) (3)?
I believe that is tax exempt status although I am not positive on all taxes like payroll and others... But i believe churches have the same status

usamamasan1 · July 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations?

if that happened, there are some beautiful churches that would go BK and I would love to purchase the real estate. I would also like to build some strip malls and tract housing on some old cemetaries, but that is still a work in progress.

brianlux · July 2012

usamamasan1 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

why not do away with tax exempt status for churches and religious organizations?

if that happened, there are some beautiful churches that would go BK and I would love to purchase the real estate. I would also like to build some strip malls and tract housing on some old cemetaries, but that is still a work in progress.

Tear up old cemeteries? Over my dead body!

Will Raising Taxes on the Rich....

Comments