Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?
Lokarin posted...
Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?
Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.
minervo posted...
Lokarin posted...
Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?
Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.
Right, the step of taking that money and actually using it to end world hunger instead of putting it in a government coffer is an important one
Lokarin posted...
minervo posted...
Lokarin posted...
Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?
Pretty sure it's a little more complicated than that.
Right, the step of taking that money and actually using it to end world hunger instead of putting it in a government coffer is an important one
The biggest irony being that churches were only exempt from taxes in the first place because they were non-profit and put a lot back into the community.
Do you think people on welfare are a "burden" to the world and should be left to fend for themselves?
so pastors and the like even have to pay taxes
Did you know you can end world hunger, like, for everyone... by removing church tax exemptions?
Nope. I mean just because some claimants are officially unemployed that doesn't mean they are not working. Some do voluntary work for example.
Also if welfare wasn't a thing chances are these folk who are actually employed will still pay the same amount of tax as the cash would go elsewhere.
Yes, some are only "officially unemployed" -- meaning that theywork off-book, report no income, and claim benefits for having no official income.
Either way, the societal benefit would be greater because you'd have more people paying into the system (instead of taking from it)
wish they put more focus on programs to get people on welfare stable jobs that they could survive off of.
mooreandrew58 posted...
wish they put more focus on programs to get people on welfare stable jobs that they could survive off of.
Again I'm not sure what they offer over in the USA but in the UK we have different programs such as college programs that help folk use computers, work experience programs and so on for those out of work and claiming job seekers allowance. The problem with that is companies abuse the system. I mean why would they pay for labour that they could get for free under the false premise of "they might be a full time job at the end of it" when clearly there isn't and never would be. I've participated in a few myself and the only good thing I can say about them is at least I met a handful of good people through them.
Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.
Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.
streamofthesky posted...
Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.
Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.
if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.
mooreandrew58 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.
Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.
if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.
He was a great leader and my biggest historical role model. He did a lot of good. If he was the first to exempt religions from taxes, that is certainly one of his biggest flaws. I really doubt he was the first to do so, though. Medieval kings and nobility relied on dumb, ignorant god-fearing masses to remain that way to keep the status quo, they always were tight with the dominant Christian church (except the one instance they weren't cause the king wanted a divorce, so...he just forcibly designed a new dominant Christian church to be tight with)
I was meaning something more along the lines of you get your welfare but if the government finds some work for you to do that you are capable of doing, they call you up and tell you when to show up, and you better do it if you dont want to lose that welfare (unless you can provide a damn good reason as to why not). even if its only temporary jobs that come in here and there.
mooreandrew58 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.
Also, fat fuck works for the biggest moocher in the country, Christianity, enjoying its "tax exempt" status, while attacking actual poor people for needing hand outs. Fuck him. It's way past the point where religions should've lost tax exempt status.
if this video I watched is true. blame Ghenghis Khan. apparently he was the first leader to exempt churches from taxes. also he exempted the poor. he wasn't totally a evil bastard.
He was a great leader and my biggest historical role model.
mooreandrew58 posted...
I was meaning something more along the lines of you get your welfare but if the government finds some work for you to do that you are capable of doing, they call you up and tell you when to show up, and you better do it if you dont want to lose that welfare (unless you can provide a damn good reason as to why not). even if its only temporary jobs that come in here and there.
Yeah we have that shit. Basically free labour for a month - six depending what they put you on. I mean sure we get benefits while we work there but the ideal situation is to find full time, paid employment and working somewhere for free for six months(at max) would make that harder. Plus we could get benefits without doing that so eh. I wouldn't mind if these places had positions open and just wanted a "trial period" from you to see if you're right for the job or not but that's not the case in most cases.
My dad actually works at this place voluntary and although the disabled folk and himself get benefits the boss of the place throws a little cash their way. From his prospective he's paying a lot less for the labour he's getting so I don't blame him. From a outside point of view it seems he's taking advantage, even more so of those with mental disabilities. He's never bothered offering any of them full time employment. Not even my dad who not only does his job but also helps look after his work mates who have disabilities. His basically a supervisor but only getting 70 odd a week from the dole office. When in reality he should be paid a supervises wage.
video I watched claimed he was the first. unless i'm mistaken and they only meant the first to exempt the poor. Khan was a ruthless bastard and a major dick in a lot of ways, but he was nice to his own people for the most part.
the only thing I remember him doing evil to his own people though, was those who set up his burial site was ordered to be killed afterwards then those that killed them where ordered to be killed, to make sure no one knew where he was buried.
Zeus posted...
Either way, the societal benefit would be greater because you'd have more people paying into the system (instead of taking from it)
You do know making people not receive welfare doesn't automatically generate jobs for everyone right? Part of the reason so many folk are out of work is due to the lack of jobs not out of choice. All I see is this making more people homeless if it happened and it becoming even harder to find work as every fucker under the sun would be applying for even the low end jobs just to get some kind of money. All in all it's a terrible idea.
well i'd be more in line with here is your welfare pay for when you ain't working but when they find you a job you get paid the going rate for that type of work.
That said, if somebody legitimately can't find work, they should be laboring for the government for their wages during that time and/or be subject to mandatory job training.
then logically you should be against ALL immigrants and not want anybody new in the country because that has the same effect.
mooreandrew58 posted...
video I watched claimed he was the first. unless i'm mistaken and they only meant the first to exempt the poor. Khan was a ruthless bastard and a major dick in a lot of ways, but he was nice to his own people for the most part.
the only thing I remember him doing evil to his own people though, was those who set up his burial site was ordered to be killed afterwards then those that killed them where ordered to be killed, to make sure no one knew where he was buried.
First to exempt the poor makes more sense...
He was a conqueror, in a time where a lot of leaders were brutal. Not sugarcoating it, but don't view him through modern sensibilities, either. He would be merciless to those who betrayed him or wronged him, but to those who surrendered and his own people, he was one of the best leaders you could've hoped for in that time period. Religious freedom, women having way more rights than anywhere in Europe, developed their written language and the first "pony express" to send mail over thousands of miles, plus made the Silk Road so safe to traverse that trade could flourish. Among other things.
But murder his peaceful trade envoys and steal their goods...twice? Yeah, you done fucked up.
It's worth noting that Genghis Khan was the first to truly use psychological warfare as a major part of his strategy. He *wanted* grossly embellished stories of the Mongols' destruction to spread. That'd scare people more and make them more likely to surrender without fighting. The supposed numbers of deaths his army caused to the cities of the Khwarazmian Empire are pretty clearly inflated heavily. The victims obviously want to exaggerate it, but unlike other victors, the Mongols themselves were fine with being portrayed as more vicious than reality.
For his funeral procession killing themselves afterward to keep the location secret, I'm pretty sure the ones who performed it volunteered to do so and knew what was required of them. Genghis Khan wouldn't have wanted people not committed to the task to be entrusted to it, and he certainly couldn't force them not to waiver from it from beyond the grave.
Absolutely need to drastically cut back welfare spending. There's literally no point at which we stop handing out welfare and that's horrifying beyond belief. You can literally make it your life's mission to be as much of a drain on society as possible, going so far as to publicly state such and you still won't be cut off. It's fucking insanity.
Isn't railing against the poor receiving welfare like...the exact opposite of Christian doctrine? Like, I know Christian institutions are massive hypocrites all the time, but that's pretty brazen even for them.
The ones who abuse the system are a burden. Which Im going to guess is most people who are on it.
Zeus posted...
That said, if somebody legitimately can't find work, they should be laboring for the government for their wages during that time and/or be subject to mandatory job training.
If companies can create positions for free labour then they can create positions for paid labour in my book. Not only that but if they do take on the free labour these folk will still be claiming unemployment so it's pointless in the eyes of the "tax payers".
If companies can create positions for free labour then they can create positions for paid labour in my book.
Not sure how things work in the UK, but in the US the government is not a company. I'm also not sure how you mistook it for one.
This is literally one of the most nonsensical phrases I think I've ever heard. "If you can get something for free, you can afford to pay for it." What the actual fuck.
The ones who abuse the system are a burden. Which Im going to guess is most people who are on it.