Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots

Patriot Groups throughout the Maricopa and North Pinal County area.

Get rid of tax-exempt status for all non-profit groups involved in politics

I personally think they should get rid of the tax-exempt status for all groups involved with political issues so we don't have to give tax-exempt status to some and not others.  Why should the IRS get bogged down in trying to find out if a group is spending 49 percent of its time on politics and 51 percent on "social welfare," or vice versa?  To me, if you're engaging in politics -- liberal, moderate or conservative -- than you don't deserve non-profit status.  After all, didn't Dick Armey sell his tea party association for something like $8 million? That's a lot of "non-profit" money.

But don't get me wrong.  If the IRS is targeting groups whose policies differ from the president that's an abuse of power and should warrant a special prosecutor to find out who ordered it.  I heard on Dennis Prager's show that the former head of the IRS (appointed by Bush) visited the White House 159 times during Obama's time in office, while he only went once when Bush was in office. It begs the question of whether it was part of his job or he was using the White House as a second home.

Brent Fine

Chandler

Views: 147

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hello, Brent Fine,

I'm the brave one. The IRS was bogged down, will always be bogged down and it has nothing to do with us. It has to do with their SIZE! Now, with the looming Obamacare fiasco, they have grown even more. .

That IRS director you talk about is two different men.

One man visited Bush a handful of times, Shulman who just testified visited Obama TOO MANY TIMES. Not the same guy and why does his  appointment matter anyway?

According to Dennis Prager, it was Shulman in both cases.  Shulman was a Bush appointee.  The interim director, who has been fired, was only in that position since mid-2012

I don't know about the IRS' size, but it's waste of resources for employees to figure out which group is eligible for non-profit status when you're talking about a very difficult measurement of a group;s political activities.  Go back to way the law was originally written (before it was changed with the words "primarily involved in").  401(c)4 was written for social welfare organizations, not political ones.

You are a numbers cruncher.  I get it.

First Dick Army’s “FreedomWorks” could hardly be called a tea party based on their amnesty - open borders bent. Just goes to show how out of the gate the cronies diluted the TP message, aims and goals.

Many…. I mean a lot of non-profit’s are abused or should we say set up with the intent to enrich its principals: the organization cannot show a profit as they must disperse all funds collected or earned – gee we’ll just pay the principals more to zero the profit line.

While we are at it why don't we free religious groups as well from their tax exempt (501c3) status? Is this religious 501c3 status a tax exempt status or simply the selling of their souls to the devil by way of hush money? Do you think the silencing of clergy on politics from the pulpit for 30 pieces of silver has anything to do with our moral decline in society that is following the lead of our politicians?  

Douglas Shulman’s 157 visits: well it has been said that Obama is bi-sexual. Did you happen to catch Shulman’s testimony in front of Congress, his deportment to me looks a little subservient with female tendencies. Perhaps we should check out if he was visiting the White House during the evening of September 11, 2012 (Benghazi) which would explain why Obama was tied-up and unavailable to be commander and chief – or maybe he was playing commander and chief.   

I've never heard anyone accuse Obama of being bi-sexual. 

But I can't figure why anyone, outside of staff who worked there, would be visiting the WH 150 times in 3 1/2 yrs of the Obama Administration.  He was replaced in mid-2012.  Did anyone at the committee hearings ask him why he needed to go there that many times?  One guess I have is that Shulman did want to use the e-mail system or a phone (for fear the line was bugged).

In a very flippant manner in the Congressional Hearing Shulman did say he went to the WH to maybe roll Easter Eggs, Obama does have big ears. Seriously, I know the internet is actively being swept but several have come forward about Obama’s propensity for back door intrusions, even at Trinity United Church of Christ aka The Honorable Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright’s church.   

According to Wikipedia In August 2009 Shulman persuaded Switzerland to turn over the identities of 4,450 Americans with secret UBS bank accounts.[19] UBS paid a $780 million fine. From 2009 to 2011, the IRS collected $4.4 billion from 33,000 people who had offshore accounts. He said it was an "amount we never thought we'd reach. If we catch people before they come in voluntarily, it's going to be a much worse outcome for the taxpayer."

Just why should non-profits be taxed? Why do you accept the premise that the government should get a piece of every transaction in society; especially those in which they do not make any productive input or any input at all? They are simply mafia agents in such instances demanding their protection money. All such activities should be exempt without question as it is "free" speech. Remember, donations to 501c4's are not deductible...therefore, that money has already been taxed as income by the donor.

If Dick Armey received an income when working for a non-profit he would have been required to pay income tax...if he had any part in the sale...depending on how he structured it...then capital gains would be involved. Just because an entity is non-profit, doesn't mean taxes don't exist at various levels.

"Just why should non-profits be taxed?"

For the simple reason if they are engaging in politics, they are trying to influence laws (including tax law) that affect everyone.  A church shouldn't be able to hide behind a non-profit status if it's primary or majority of activities are political.  Why should they and their donors (who can now remain anonymous under 501(c)4) be able to influence policies (on issues such as abortion, public education, religion, taxes) when they may be receiving millions of dollars in donations that aren't even reportable to the public.  Yes, people may be paying income taxes on their earnings, but having non-profit status also allows the donor to receive tax deductions.  I consider these so-called non-profits no different that corporations who try to influence laws that benefit the corporations and its officers.   We've seen how that  has influenced our trade agreements and led to tax shelters all over the world, as well as export of many U.S. jobs. 

Thank you for your reasoned argument to support tea party groups, Mr. Rossiter. This administration turned legal applications for 501c4's into a dragnet.  Recent news item...According to the Sheriff in San Miguel County, Colorado, if an IRS agent is caught within the boundaries of his county without permission, the sheriff will arrest them for trespassing!  You are both good MEN!
 Chris Rossiter said:

Just why should non-profits be taxed? Why do you accept the premise that the government should get a piece of every transaction in society; especially those in which they do not make any productive input or any input at all? They are simply mafia agents in such instances demanding their protection money. All such activities should be exempt without question as it is "free" speech. Remember, donations to 501c4's are not deductible...therefore, that money has already been taxed as income by the donor.

If Dick Armey received an income when working for a non-profit he would have been required to pay income tax...if he had any part in the sale...depending on how he structured it...then capital gains would be involved. Just because an entity is non-profit, doesn't mean taxes don't exist at various levels.

Non-profit is a government vehicle and you want it to be electric, solar or wind powered in my opinion!
 
Alan Twain said:

"Just why should non-profits be taxed?"

For the simple reason if they are engaging in politics, they are trying to influence laws (including tax law) that affect everyone.  A church shouldn't be able to hide behind a non-profit status if it's primary or majority of activities are political.  Why should they and their donors (who can now remain anonymous under 501(c)4) be able to influence policies (on issues such as abortion, public education, religion, taxes) when they may be receiving millions of dollars in donations that aren't even reportable to the public.  Yes, people may be paying income taxes on their earnings, but having non-profit status also allows the donor to receive tax deductions.  I consider these so-called non-profits no different that corporations who try to influence laws that benefit the corporations and its officers.   We've seen how that  has influenced our trade agreements and led to tax shelters all over the world, as well as export of many U.S. jobs. 

Thanks Angie

Alan, donors to 501c4's cannot claim a deduction...therefore that money has been taxed.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2020   Created by Kelly Townsend.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service