myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 280, 281, 282 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LHDR



Joined: 22 Jun 2007
Posts: 106

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
LHDR wrote:
Useful article, thanks for posting. And a shame that these organizations successfully claim to be charitable and receive tax breaks.

They do not claim to be charitable. A little research might broaden your understanding.

This interests me. Here is what the "thinkprogress.org" report says:
"The study, published Friday in the journal Climatic Change, analyzed the income of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups, and industry associations, funded by 140 different foundations, that work to oppose action on climate change."
and
"The 91 groups include trade associations, think tanks, and advocacy organizations. The vast majority of the groups — 78 percent — were registered as charitable organizations and enjoyed considerable tax breaks."

And the Climate Change article says:
"Tax deductible charitable educational organizations (501 C3) have about $250 million in annual income ..."
and
"Based on the IRS legal classification, the vast majority—65 % (59/91) of CCCM organizations are classified as 501 C3 organizations, ...".

I certainly don't enjoy this kind of legal tax stuff, but my naive reading is that 59 out of 91 groups identified here are classified as "charitable" and "tax-deductible", and that those groups work with $250 million per year.
And like I said, tax-deduction for pushing a political agenda seems wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1518

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler said:
Quote:
Regarding approving the Keystone XL pipeline versus sending it via pipeline or rail to the west coast and shipping the product to China, many forget that the oil companies anticipate sending a percentage of the refined product to countries like China anyway.

Good point, but don't forget that if the US doesn't refine the Canadian oil, then it will be shipped to China so shipping crude or gas is petty much a wash assuming the US doesn't keep any of the gas. It then comes down to who refines with less pollution.

LHDR,

Don't forget that tax exempt status also goes to "non-profits", not just charitable organizations. From Wikipedia
Quote:
The most common type of tax-exempt nonprofit organization falls under category 501(c)(3), whereby a nonprofit organization is exempt from federal income tax if its activities have the following purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals.


Why political organizations fall under this category, I don't know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2814

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
Good point, but don't forget that if the US doesn't refine the Canadian oil, then it will be shipped to China so shipping crude or gas is petty much a wash assuming the US doesn't keep any of the gas. It then comes down to who refines with less pollution.

It's more complex than that. If the pipeline is built, heavy crude will be transferred via that pipe to US refineries. Current estimates are that about 10% of the refined products will be shipped to other markets. If the crude is sold to China it will be transferred to rail cars (and maybe a pipe in the future), shipped overland to the West Coast of Canada, transferred to vessels, shipped thousands of miles to China, offloaded at Chinese ports and then transferred to refineries. The opportunities for a spill are greatly increased. But wait! There's more! The US refineries capable of handling the heavy crude will have to purchase it from Venezuela, Mexico, and the Middle East. Those purchases will follow a comparable route to the one described above. So, we send heavy crude out of North America, and ship heavy crude into North America. Great plan Sierra Club.

Those who are interested in learning more may wish to follow this link.
http://keystone-xl.com/facts/myths-facts/

techno900 wrote:
Why political organizations fall under this category, I don't know.

Contributions to nonprofits engaged in political activities are not tax deductible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3521

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno,
That is the reason the IRS went after all those liberal and Tea groups with names like Tea Party who do not deserve non profit status. The Teas denied being political in any way and were faux outraged.
They KEPT their non profit status. At the beginning the Koch Bros. used their corporate legal dept. to file papers faking this and it worked.
The Teas were angry that they were even investigated in their shiny castles high above us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5966

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Contributions to nonprofits engaged in political activities are not tax deductible."


"Political activities". I'm guessing that's according to your definition of political activities?

It's well know that secret money is be funneled through questionable non-profits for a myriad of purposes that affect elections, government policy and business. Hell, the Citizen's United decision allows corporations to be people. Free speech? Hardly, it's a smoke and mirrors game to affect political outcomes. Even the left can use the game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2814

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
"Contributions to nonprofits engaged in political activities are not tax deductible."

"Political activities". I'm guessing that's according to your definition of political activities?

If you would like to learn something rather than make silly statements read the attached. The law defines what is and isn't deductible. Most of the nonprofits involved in the recent furor over IRS scrutiny were 501(c)4 entities. Contributions to 501(c)4 entities are almost always not deductible. The IRS admitted wrongdoing. That is not in dispute.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Donations-to-Section-501%28c%29%284%29-Organizations
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3521

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

After the arrogant "would like to learn something "remark, Gybe uses the keyword in obfuscation "Most"
The translation into Reality talk is "Some of the entities were 501c .the others were not. The IRS is free to investigate anything they want"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3521

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The groups in question like Tea Party Patriots are wholly political organizations. That is not in dispute.
Those who are outraged that both Republican and Dem staffers in the IRS noticed this obvious fact are making silly partisan statements that fool no one at all.

Our school was denied non profit status at about the same time. I wish we were the Teas so we could be outraged that the IRS examined our application
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2814

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess the news never reached Belize............ALL the entities investigated by the IRS were 501(c).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5966

PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe, do you expect me to buy into a weasel's game? What I've said isn't wrong, and you know it. By the way, I never mentioned the IRS and the recent controversy over tea party organizations . My point was the Citizens United decision has allowed monied interests, some of which are questionable non-profits, to invest in efforts to affect the outcome of elections, government policy and business.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 280, 281, 282 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 281 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group