Philosophy Now Forum

There is no profit here.



Let them rot.

Turn them away!

Bob Evenson.

Nice use of photography to guilt trip.

Kudos.


If Joe is offended by poverty and woe, then Joe should muster his resources, align with those of like-mind, and render assistance.

Joe ought to avoid laying claim (by way of stick or proxy) to what is mine. My resources are mine to discharge, not his. My compassion is directed by me, not him.


I don't know enough about nonprofits to condemn or praise them. I can only say: not a one ought to get a dime of taxpayer money.

Planned Parenthood? Sell them baby parts...make some dough...stay out of my pocket.

henry quirk wrote:Nice use of photography to guilt trip.

Kudos.


If Joe is offended by poverty and woe, then Joe should muster his resources, align with those of like-mind, and render assistance.

Joe ought to avoid laying claim (by way of stick or proxy) to what is mine. My resources are mine to discharge, not his. My compassion is directed by me, not him.


I don't know enough about nonprofits to condemn or praise them. I can only say: not a one ought to get a dime of taxpayer money.

Planned Parenthood? Sell them baby parts...make some dough...stay out of my pocket.

Surely that's the whole point of not-for-profit organisations, they are tax exempt.
So why would I give charity money to a profit making organisation, where it will be taxed and creamed off?

The biggest non-profit organisation in my country is the government, Bob. Should I stop paying my taxes?

Bob. As usual your strident extremism masks a legitimate point. As a taxpayer I reserve the right to insist that my tax dollars are not wasted on scoundrels more interested in keeping their snouts in the public trough than achieving anything for the common weal. For instance religious institutions in my country are tax exempt solely because they are religious institutions. Only a small fraction of the revenue of these institutions is ever committed to what we might term "charitable works" and in my view it is only this fraction which should merit the tax exempt status. I don't see why my hard-earned dosh should be used to keep men in new frocks.

Obvious Leo wrote:The biggest non-profit organisation in my country is the government, Bob. Should I stop paying my taxes?

The government is the exception that proves the rule. However, under AEP theory, the only proper function of government is social integration. Government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. Under AEP theory, the government is merely an overseer having no employees or payroll. Its only source of transfer funds is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

bobevenson wrote: property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

By this I presume you mean that the value of a "property" is defined as whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. We have more in common than you think, Bob, because I'm happy to go along with that, but isn't that the way things are already done?

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:The biggest non-profit organisation in my country is the government, Bob. Should I stop paying my taxes?

The government is the exception that proves the rule. However, under AEP theory, the only proper function of government is social integration. Government should not own, operate, support or promote anything. Under AEP theory, the government is merely an overseer having no employees or payroll. Its only source of transfer funds is a single tax on property, property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

What do you mean by "social integration"?

Hobbes,

I got no beef with the tax exempt status. Hell, I want that sweet deal for myself. No, I object only to taxpayer support of organizations that, with re-jiggering, can support themselves.

henry quirk wrote:No, I object only to taxpayer support of organizations that, with re-jiggering, can support themselves.

Perhaps an example might serve to illustrate your point. Did you have a specific organisation in mind?

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: property being defined as anything with intrinsic market value.

By this I presume you mean that the value of a "property" is defined as whatever somebody is willing to pay for it. We have more in common than you think, Bob, because I'm happy to go along with that, but isn't that the way things are already done?

The intrinsic value of property is the range of wholesale value it would sell for in the marketplace. The only thing comparable today are real estate taxes, but there are a zillion other kinds of taxes, with income tax and sales tax being two of the primary ones. Under the AEP, all property is taxed, including buildings, plants, equipment, etc. And there are no exemptions. Churches, hospitals, universities, orphanages, everything is taxable. The underlying theory is that the function of government is to see that people and property are protected, and the value of property represents the ultimate source of funding this responsibility.