Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 1:51 PM
28 online now:
Diomedes, Faith, JonF, Meddle, PaulK, ringo, Stile (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,200 Year: 5,237/19,786 Month: 1,359/873 Week: 255/460 Day: 7/64 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
Author Topic:   Should there be a law against public institutions that lie for money?
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 46 of 59 (765323)
07-27-2015 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
07-27-2015 11:52 AM


ringo

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.

If the law is deemed to be good then enforcement should be the rule of the day.

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.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 07-27-2015 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 07-27-2015 12:02 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 47 of 59 (765325)
07-27-2015 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Greatest I am
07-27-2015 11:58 AM


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 $?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Greatest I am, posted 07-27-2015 11:58 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Greatest I am, posted 07-27-2015 12:09 PM ringo has responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 48 of 59 (765326)
07-27-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by ringo
07-27-2015 12:02 PM


ringo

"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.

What governments need do is set a minimum return to the charity or disallow the tax break.

To do less is complicity in fraud as far as I am concerned.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 07-27-2015 12:02 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 07-27-2015 12:32 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 49 of 59 (765331)
07-27-2015 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Greatest I am
07-27-2015 12:09 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Greatest I am, posted 07-27-2015 12:09 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 07-27-2015 12:36 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 52 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 11:14 AM ringo has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 50 of 59 (765332)
07-27-2015 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
07-27-2015 12:32 PM


Actually, the whole thread is silly and does not address the issue. There has been no evidence presented of anyone lying, no evidence of any fraud, removing tax exemptions from charities would have no effects on any of the examples given and so as usual, GIAs stuff is just another example of ignorance of the issues.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 07-27-2015 12:32 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 59 (765343)
07-27-2015 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Greatest I am
07-26-2015 8:22 PM


As to your first amendment. If it was well written in the first place, no amendments would have been required.

Yet another in a line of inane arguments. Plonk.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Greatest I am, posted 07-26-2015 8:22 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 52 of 59 (765375)
07-28-2015 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by ringo
07-27-2015 12:32 PM


ringo

Do you think 0% to be a moral % and reason enough for you and I to have to pay the tax burden that that charity is putting into it's own pocket?

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ringo, posted 07-27-2015 12:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 07-28-2015 11:46 AM Greatest I am has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 53 of 59 (765380)
07-28-2015 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Greatest I am
07-28-2015 11:14 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 11:14 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 1:19 PM ringo has responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 54 of 59 (765391)
07-28-2015 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ringo
07-28-2015 11:46 AM


ringo

I agree. That way our funds are not supporting fat cats and their Cadillacs and pleasure cruisers.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 07-28-2015 11:46 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 07-28-2015 1:22 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 55 of 59 (765393)
07-28-2015 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Greatest I am
07-28-2015 1:19 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 1:19 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 3:29 PM ringo has responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 56 of 59 (765400)
07-28-2015 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
07-28-2015 1:22 PM


ringo

Many reasons but the main one is cross border NGO's are better accepted all ove4r the world than GO's.

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.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 07-28-2015 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 07-29-2015 3:06 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 57 of 59 (765453)
07-29-2015 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Greatest I am
07-28-2015 3:29 PM


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Greatest I am, posted 07-28-2015 3:29 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Greatest I am, posted 07-30-2015 1:15 PM ringo has responded

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 491 days)
Posts: 1423
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 58 of 59 (765524)
07-30-2015 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
07-29-2015 3:06 PM


ringo

If any legal part of government and it's legal staff is looking at those numbers and do not see fraud, then 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.

I do not know how the laws of various countries are written but this present situation is pure corruption from MPOV.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 07-29-2015 3:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 07-30-2015 1:21 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 16362
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 59 of 59 (765525)
07-30-2015 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Greatest I am
07-30-2015 1:15 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Greatest I am, posted 07-30-2015 1:15 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019