|
Author
|
Topic: Should there be a law against public institutions that lie for money?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: Is fraud not illegal in your location?
Since fraud is already illegal, what changes are you proposing? Edited by ringo, : Punchuation.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: Enforcement to end this type of abuse.
You asked if there should be a law. There is. If the law is not being enforced, what do you propose SPECIFICALLY to change that situation? And why do you call the Children's Wish Foundation crooks?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: I also think that religions should not receive any tax breaks of any kind and that their adherents should not be able to use what they give as tax deductions.
That's a different issue. Churches (hypothetically) use some of their donations for feeding the hungry, etc., which is a justifiable social benefit.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: I was not going to cherry pick that list. You can pull the one out of 50 if you like though.
It isn't 1 out of 50. Did you read your own list? You've got cancer funds, firefighters' funds, police funds, veterans funds, missing children's funds, etc. Why are you calling them crooks?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: That does not forgive there overall abuse of the public purse that you and I underwrite.
You haven't demonstrated any abuse yet.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: Funding for the following. African witches and Jesus... Jesus Camp 1of 3... Death to Gays.
You're moving the goalposts. Demonstrate that cancer research is "abuse".
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: It should be obvious to you. Because of the % spent on direct cash aid.
Nothing obvious about it. Ever hear of overhead? Are you suggesting that there should be a law against fundraisers paying their phone bill?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: I am suggesting that those listed here in this link are abusing the system when only a very small % ends up where they say their donations ends up.
So, what's your solution? We already have laws against fraud. What specific changes do you propose?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: If the laws are that badly written that those corporations and religions can get away with their lies and their fleeing of the public then they should be scrapped for a new law.
I asked you to be specific. Since YOU are the one who deems the current law inadequate, you need to propose specific improvements.
Greatest I am writes: Otherwise, the government should be clear as to what it deems moral or not in terms of value for $ for the givers and force the companies to put up if they can or get out of the lying business if they cannot.
Since when is the government in the business of guaranteeing value for $?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: "Since when is the government in the business of guaranteeing value for $?" Since the time that they decided to be the ones to control the tax exemptions.
Tax exemptions have nothing to do with value for $. Charities are tax exempt because taxes would be just another drain on the money getting to the needy.
Greatest I am writes: What governments need do is set a minimum return to the charity or disallow the tax break.
They've done that. The minimum is > 0. If you get nothing in return for your $, that's fraud. But if you get something, it's buyer beware.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 50 by jar, posted 07-27-2015 12:36 PM | | ringo has seen this message but not replied | | | Message 52 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 11:14 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: Do you think 0% to be a moral %...
I said greater than 0%. Where do you draw the line? How do you calculate what percentage is moral and what is not?
Greatest I am writes: ... reason enough for you and I to have to pay the tax burden that that charity is putting into it's own pocket?
You're talking to the wrong socialist. I think out tax dollars should be doing most of what the charities are doing.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: I agree. That way our funds are not supporting fat cats and their Cadillacs and pleasure cruisers.
Then why aren't you proposing that the government do the work of charities instead of making more rules to regulate them?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: Some of the charities work well and bringing others to that standard of excellence is better than throwing out the baby with the bath water.
So we're back to square one: What specifically are you proposing? We already have laws against fraud and what these charities are doing is not deemed as fraud. So what changes do you propose?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Greatest I am writes: ... we need a new definition for fraud based on morality because the list I gave shows clearly that what we presently accept and do prosecute is not moral.
On the contrary, the definition of fraud IS based on what WE as a society consider moral (or at least enforceable). If YOU don't consider it moral, boo hoo.
|
™ Version 4.2
