~* Make America Great Depression Again -- Official Thread of Corona Virus infected markets *~

[PaladinSolo]

16 minutes ago, Zaku3 said:

I do think the Churches might need it though. RC Churches rely on donations and the collection plates. You can't hold service at this point and time. Plus they do have secretaries and such. 

 

I'd hate for my local Church to close down. Been going on/off since it was tied to my elementary school. 

If they pay taxes sure.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

If they pay taxes sure.

You can only qualify for PPP loans on wages paid, which churches do pay payroll taxes on.

[rc0101]

1 hour ago, Zaku3 said:

I do think the Churches might need it though. RC Churches rely on donations and the collection plates. You can't hold service at this point and time. Plus they do have secretaries and such. 

 

I'd hate for my local Church to close down. Been going on/off since it was tied to my elementary school. 

I am thinking the Catholic Church has a little cash on the side. I don't know how they "share" that money though.

 

I was talking more in general on businesses anyway. We had a few apply who made comments that they were doing just fine but it was free money so they would take it.  They did have to certify and are at risk of fraud if they are audited but I doubt it comes to that since they were under the dollar threshold. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 hour ago, CitizenVectron said:

12,000 Catholic churches applied for PPP loans, and 9,000 got them.

You do realize that churches have employees, especially those that have parochial schools attached to them.

[Chairslinger]

45 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You can only qualify for PPP loans on wages paid, which churches do pay payroll taxes on.

 

32 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

You do realize that churches have employees, especially those that have parochial schools attached to them.

 

 

They also want religious exemptions for birth control for employees, and to be able to discriminate based on homosexuality, religion, and if a woman sleeps with people they don't approve of.

 

If you want your fucking janitor to sign a purity pledge, you shouldn't be able to come back and cash in on government bailouts. You shouldn't be able to be a religious institution only for the benefits and not the liability.

[Jason]

42 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

You do realize that churches have employees, especially those that have parochial schools attached to them.

 

You do realize that Catholic churches employee undocumented aliens, right?

[Guest]

Just now, Chairslinger said:

 

 

 

They also want religious exemptions for birth control for employees, and to be able to discriminate based on homosexuality, religion, and if a woman sleeps with people they don't approve of.

 

If you want your fucking janitor to sign a purity pledge, you shouldn't be able to come back and cash in on government bailouts. You shouldn't be able to be a religious institution only for the benefits and not the liability.

PPP isn’t a benefit for the church, it’s a benefit for employees so they can stay employed even if their employer can’t afford to pay them.

[Jason]

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

PPP isn’t a benefit for the church, it’s a benefit for employees so they can stay employed even if their employer can’t afford to pay them.

Their employer doesn’t pay into the taxes funding the PPP. They’re “tax exempt”. 

[Jason]

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Their employer doesn’t pay into the taxes funding the PPP. They’re “tax exempt”. 

 

Incorrect. Church W2 employees and the church itself pay taxes on W2 wages. That is how PPP loan amounts and eligibility are determined.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

31 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

They also want religious exemptions for birth control for employees, and to be able to discriminate based on homosexuality, religion, and if a woman sleeps with people they don't approve of.

 

If you want your fucking janitor to sign a purity pledge, you shouldn't be able to come back and cash in on government bailouts. You shouldn't be able to be a religious institution only for the benefits and not the liability.

The granting of PPP funds is based on payroll taxes that are paid by the church - they are not based on any of the tax-exempt benefits that are granted by the 501(c)(3) status.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

16 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Incorrect. Church W2 employees and the church itself pay taxes on W2 wages. That is how PPP loan amounts and eligibility are determined.

Plus who gives a fuck about the employer, especially if you're concerned about people being able to have jobs to return to

[Chairslinger]

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

PPP isn’t a benefit for the church, it’s a benefit for employees so they can stay employed even if their employer can’t afford to pay them.

 

The church demands excemptions which makes their workforce an extension of their religion. So in treating this private workforce the same as any other in one case the religion sees it as persecution, but in the case of the PPP if we treat it any differently than any other private workforce than it's also persecution.

 

I get the argument here, that average employees shouldn't be punished because of the religious pratices of their employer. I have some sympathy for that argument, but I wonder if you would be so quick to support the handout if a church refused to hire any black people on religious grounds and this poor, downtrodden work force was a self selected group of white people knowingly working for a discriminary employer.

 

I mean, don't worry, SCOTUS would surely side with you on this. Just like they did in Trinity Lutheran. And the death of the already rarely enforced Johnson Amendment turned them into tax free political action groups. This is just one more step in validating the fact that laws don't apply to churches, and there will be no counter balancing force for that reality as there has been in the past.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I will admit that in this particular instance, I literally don't give a damn

[PaladinSolo]

No point in even discussing this, everything is going to be Awesome!

 

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

The church demands excemptions which makes their workforce an extension of their religion. So in treating this private workforce the same as any other in one case the religion sees it as persecution, but in the case of the PPP if we treat it any differently than any other private workforce than it's also persecution.

The government isn’t treating employers different because the goal is to keep employees paid. It isn’t the churches demanding anything. The government has a vested interest in keeping people employed instead of further flooding the unemployment system.

 

I don’t think PPP is good policy as written, and especially not as implemented, but this particular thing is not an issue at all.

It is really no different than if you tried to make the equally faulty argument that people who work at discriminatory businesses should be disallowed unemployment benefits that their employer has been paying in to on their behalf.

[Iculus]

41 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

Target extended ours to the end of May. I dont expect it to expand much beyond that, if at all. Retailers don't really give a shit about the hazards of the job. They were just making a shit load of money, and it was an easy PR move.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Besides, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not allow religious organizations to make employment decisions on the basis of race, sex, or national origin—even where religiously motivated.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is really no different than if you tried to make the equally faulty argument that people who work at discriminatory businesses should be disallowed unemployment benefits that their employer has been paying in to on their behalf.

And we're done here!

[Chairslinger]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The government isn’t treating employers different because the goal is to keep employees paid.

 

Yeah, that's my point, this employee work force is not being treated any differently for this law, unlike all the other laws they just get to ignore. Again, they get they get all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

 

 

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

It isn’t the churches demanding anything.

 

 

 

It is my understanding that businesses must apply for the PPP. So to get this, the churches must have applied for it, yes? I use the word demand because if/when anyone challenges these loans it will surely turn into a demand and claims of religious persecution for the funds not to be allocated to them.

 

 

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It is really no different than if you tried to make the equally faulty argument that people who work at discriminatory businesses should be disallowed unemployment benefits that their employer has been paying in to on their behalf.

 

 

No, no, it is not the same as that. Because that discrimination has not been codified into law. Those companies have not went to court and had SCOTUS validate the fact that they don't have to hire African American accountants because they believe they are inherently unintelligent. Obviously in your example the employees should not be denied benefits, but they also weren't working for the company knowing they were built on discrimination. The discrimination would not have been an excepted fact with no legal recourse. That company wouldn't have those exceptions specifically applied to them because they claim the rule demands they must be treated differently than other employers.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Besides, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not allow religious organizations to make employment decisions on the basis of race, sex, or national origin—even where religiously motivated.

 

 

You don't think the current SCOTUS would overrule this when/if it is brought before them? Christian adoption agencies are already denying applicants up to and including things like that they're Jewish.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

And we're done here!

 

 

Yeah, sympathetic plaintiffs are how you sometimes wind up with shitty laws. Poor little Trinity Lutheran just wanted to be treated like everyone else and have a shot at public funding like everyone else to build the poor little kiddies a playground. Now we have a law on the books that says churches are able to get public funds just like anyone else.....except they don't pay taxes like everyone else. And they don't have to follow laws like everyone else.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Again, the "benefits" under the PPP are derived from the legally-paid payroll taxes of the applicant.  This is where the discussion of this particular situation begins and ends for me.

 

Everything else is a perfectly valid legal, moral, and ethical issue that does not fall under this particular umbrella.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

No, no, it is not the same as that. Because that discrimination has not been codified into law. Those companies have not went to court and had SCOTUS validate the fact that they don't have to hire African American accountants because they believe they are inherently unintelligent. Obviously in your example the employees should not be denied benefits, but they also weren't working for the company knowing they were built on discrimination. The discrimination would not have been an excepted fact with no legal recourse. That company wouldn't have those exceptions specifically applied to them because they claim the rule demands they must be treated differently than other employers.

I don’t think you understand, I’ll try and make it more clear.

 

If a church that has discriminatory hiring practices pays into the unemployment insurance pool, their employees are entitled to UEBs. Under your stated position those employees shouldn’t get UEBs because they work for an employer that discriminates in hiring. 
 

To borrow an idea previously posted, if you don’t want church employees to capture the benefits of PPP or UEBs, stop taxing their wages.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Personally, if I had my way, there would be no such thing as tax exempt status for anything.

 

Not for churches

Not for educational institutions

Not for charities, foundations, etc.

 

And there would be no deduction for charitable contributions either.  In that way, I would ensure that any charity given would be from a place of genuine altruism rather than having some degree of economic benefit.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

6 hours ago, Chris- said:

Question for the smart people, because my understanding of the national debt is elementary:

 

Realistically, what are the risks of it growing? Inflation is obvious, but when you have a massive deflationary event like mass unemployment, that seems mitigated. But my rote understanding of it is that only foreign-held debt is bad (which is not the majority of it), and that as long as there is domestic appetite for Treasury securities (which there almost always will be), you can more or less refinance the debt indefinitely. 

 

As long as the United States can (a) continue printing its own currency and (b) maintain that currency as the world's reserve currency, then in reality the risks of it growing are somewhat mitigated.  The main threat would be the "crowding out" of private investment due to the need to service the debt interest payments, but that's a loooooooooong way down the line.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Personally, if I had my way, there would be no such thing as tax exempt status for anything.

 

Not for churches

Not for educational institutions

Not for charities, foundations, etc.

 

And there would be no deduction for charitable contributions either.  In that way, I would ensure that any charity given would be from a place of genuine altruism rather than having some degree of economic benefit.

 

Ha, genuine altruistic behavior only really applies to normal people. The sociopathic billionaires, however, who set up foundations are all for PR, money laundering, and tax free wealth hoarding.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Ha, genuine altruistic behavior only really applies to normal people. The sociopathic billionaires, however, who set up foundations are all for PR, money laundering, and tax free wealth hoarding.

Exactly - this is intended to inflict pain on them too!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Exactly - this is intended to inflict pain on them too!

It just always makes me laugh when people say there are good billionaires (bill gates as the oft touted example) without looking into these people any deeper than a surface PR laden analysis

[Chairslinger]

50 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I don’t think you understand, I’ll try and make it more clear.

 

If a church that has discriminatory hiring practices pays into the unemployment insurance pool, their employees are entitled to UEBs. Under your stated position those employees shouldn’t get UEBs because they work for an employer that discriminates in hiring. 
 

To borrow an idea previously posted, if you don’t want church employees to capture the benefits of PPP or UEBs, stop taxing their wages.

 

 

Yes, but UEB is paid into specifically for that purpose. The PPP is something new, ostensibly created from a general pool of tax revenue which I have paid into, you have paid into, my private employer has paid into, but a church has not.

 

And look, I disagree with you even on ancillary church employees, but looking into the PPP more I certainly have larger gripes.

 

Why are pastors being paid with this money? Why is church rent and utilities being paid with this money? Why were clauses added to the PPP to specifically exempt them from discriminatory practices? When you look at the big picture, why are these small business loans going to what is basically one big business with 1 billion clients worldwide?

 

Even some religious authors I found discussing the PPP questioned this last aspect. It's another case of where it is hard to separate the public and private funding. And that's exactly the way the church wants it, purposefully muddying the water. The Catholic church isn't a mom and pop operation and the PPP funds are finite. I tried to contain myself to only legal objections(and I think those do apply here) but there are pretty clear moral ones on this point, as well. If they are so concerned about these poor employees, why not pay them with the massive war chest of non-taxed money they have built up? Oh, I guess it's like money for rape victims......it's all tied up in graveyard funds or paying lobbyists to push statute of limitation laws on child molestation....for some reason

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Yes, but UEB is paid into specifically for that purpose. The PPP is something new, ostensibly created from a general pool of tax revenue which I have paid into, you have paid into, my private employer has paid into, but a church has not.

Churches pay taxes, particularly payroll taxes. They primarily do not pay property and sales taxes, which don’t fund the federal government. Their W2 employees pay income taxes as well.

 

The funds in PPP can be used for a few other purposes specifically because the businesses would otherwise be cutting back further to be able to cover those expenses. A church is no different.

[Chairslinger]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Churches pay taxes, particularly payroll taxes. They primarily do not pay property and sales taxes, which don’t fund the federal government. Their W2 employees pay income taxes as well.

 

The funds in PPP can be used for a few other purposes specifically because the businesses would otherwise be cutting back further to be able to cover those expenses. A church is no different.

 

 

See, I feel like those who may be sitting on the sidelines reading this thread should stop and appreciate this sentence. I understand I look like the big bad atheist denying the menial workers benefits just because they happen to work for a church.....but this is the flip side of the coin for what happens when churches take yet another slice we all get without being asked to participate in the same set of rules and obligations we do.

Much like how states have instituted trap laws where they can effectively outlaw abortions with the barest pretense of some kind of safety law, what churches have been doing is tearing down the wall of separation by intertwining themselves with the private sector. Then they get to pick al a carte whether laws apply to them or not. When it comes to paying taxes, they are a church. When it comes to getting benefits, they are an employer.

 

But, specifically to this argument SB is making, you take the argument made in Triinity Lutheran, which is almost quaint at this point only a few years later. The playground they were pursuing public funding for wasn't a church. Even if it was basically a daycare for the church. It was ruled that was enough of a separation. Where this ultimately leads, and is honestly not that much different than what SB is already making and the PPP is already doing, is that any pretense of a private sector purpose will justify giving funds directly to a church.

 

Simply put, we'll pay tens of thousands of dollars to a church that pays no taxes. We'll pay thousands of dollars to a pastor that gets tax exemptions on his home while paying no taxes. We'll pay the utilities to keep the church open.....so long as one ostensibly private sector employee that the church can fire for being gay is employed. It's stunning to see that the brash, ridiculous claims that a guy like Ken Ham made not a decade ago about how his Ark Park could be both a church and a private business while treating the private employees like church employees is not only accepted now, but that we've blown way past even that. Now a church itself is the private business....when it suits their needs.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

Simply put, we'll pay tens of thousands of dollars to a church that pays no taxes.

OMG, churches pay taxes. I don’t know how many more ways I can explain that to you 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Churches don't pay taxes the same way 47% of Americans don't: they actually do just not on income

[Guest]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Churches don't pay taxes the same way 47% of Americans don't: they actually do just not on income

My businesses also don’t pay federal income tax. S-Corp designation and such. We do pay state franchise taxes though, which is basically a state income tax once you gross over 1.2 million a year.

[ThreePi]

6 hours ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

Personally, if I had my way, there would be no such thing as tax exempt status for anything.

 

Not for churches

Not for educational institutions

Not for charities, foundations, etc.

 

And there would be no deduction for charitable contributions either.  In that way, I would ensure that any charity given would be from a place of genuine altruism rather than having some degree of economic benefit.

 

 

The thing I would like most about this is putting an end to those awful grocery store/fast food restaurant donation schemes where you donate a dollar to the store, and they bundle up all those donations and send them off to some charity while they take a tax break out of it.