Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on or
about Mon, 25 Jan 2010 19:22:33 -0800 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:


Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.

Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?

I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.

If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
of the year.

There's the tax write off, and there are alms. Shoot, I don't
even keep track of the "spare change" I hand out. "Let's get some
lunch, I'm buying."
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:27:38 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:42:58 -0600, the infamous Ignoramus29432
scrawled the following:

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

So, you guys donated to Haiti. Did you also donate to New Orleans at
Katrinatime? Whatever happened to donations to U.S. disasters? Our
citizens still need local charity, guys.

No..I didnt donate to New Orleans. I did however donate up the coast
east a bit.

Those who were so damned stupid to be stuck in NO..should have died
there. Called survival of the fittest.

A friend of my dad is a property owner on the Gulf coast in Florida..and
I sent him $200 to help out in local emergencies. As I understand
it..he used it for gasoline for a community generator that took care of
the power needs of about 150 people for about a week.

I had more money in those days.

Gunner


---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in message
...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
of the year.

I see.

Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)

The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping by
Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting any
receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is outright
impossible, but it is not believable.

At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to be
true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.

i

"Ignoramus22882" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in message
...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS
standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year
to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
of the year.

I see.

Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)

The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping by
Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting any
receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is outright
impossible, but it is not believable.

At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to be
true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.

i

Yeah, I gathered what you meant. "I see" said it very eloquently. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ignoramus22882" wrote in
message ...
On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in
message ...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS
standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last
year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is
exactly that. Not something the government needs to give back to
me at the end of the year.

I see.

Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)

The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping
by Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting
any receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is
outright impossible, but it is not believable.

At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to
be true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.

i

Yeah, I gathered what you meant. "I see" said it very eloquently. d8-)

What's a little amusing is that Gunner thinks he didn't need to file on
$18K.
He owes the SE tax, about $1,500.00, on every dollar and the filing
requirement kicks in at the same time - dollar one.
I think, THINK mind you, that income in excess of $600 requires a filing but
I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is that filing isn't conditioned on owing the IRS or the
FTB and anything over $1,200.00 requires a 1099 even if payment is made "in
kind". Otherwise, whoever paid him owes his tax.

Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a hospital or
anyone else.
He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to pursue
their claim outside of the court proceedings.
Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him his
house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have been
going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California will
forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I actually
collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d. So
was his mortgage lender.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ignoramus22882" wrote in
message ...
On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in
message ...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS
standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last
year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is
exactly that. Not something the government needs to give back to
me at the end of the year.

I see.

Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)

The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping
by Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting
any receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is
outright impossible, but it is not believable.

At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to
be true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.

i

Yeah, I gathered what you meant. "I see" said it very eloquently. d8-)

What's a little amusing is that Gunner thinks he didn't need to file on
$18K.
He owes the SE tax, about $1,500.00, on every dollar and the filing
requirement kicks in at the same time - dollar one.

I saw that, but he may be right. Filing singly, the maximum is $9,350. If
he's filing jointly, it is $18,700; married filing separately, it's $3,650.
Less than that and you don't *have* to file. But I think he'd make out
better if he filed; I don't know the rules on EITC.

I think, THINK mind you, that income in excess of $600 requires a filing
but
I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is that filing isn't conditioned on owing the IRS or the
FTB and anything over $1,200.00 requires a 1099 even if payment is made
"in
kind". Otherwise, whoever paid him owes his tax.

That is, if his clients file 1099s. g


Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a hospital
or
anyone else.
He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to pursue
their claim outside of the court proceedings.
Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him
his
house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have been
going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California will
forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I
actually
collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d.
So
was his mortgage lender.

More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ignoramus22882" wrote in
message ...
On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in
message ...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
What's a little amusing is that Gunner thinks he didn't need to file
on $18K.
He owes the SE tax, about $1,500.00, on every dollar and the filing
requirement kicks in at the same time - dollar one.

I saw that, but he may be right. Filing singly, the maximum is
$9,350. If he's filing jointly, it is $18,700; married filing
separately, it's $3,650. Less than that and you don't *have* to file.
But I think he'd make out better if he filed; I don't know the rules
on EITC.

Nor do I but I know what the State of California requires.


I think, THINK mind you, that income in excess of $600 requires a
filing but
I'm not sure.
What I am sure of is that filing isn't conditioned on owing the IRS
or the FTB and anything over $1,200.00 requires a 1099 even if
payment is made "in
kind". Otherwise, whoever paid him owes his tax.

That is, if his clients file 1099s. g

California is a son of a bitch about this stuff Ed.
They do payroll audits on a regular basis and the auditors get a bonus for
what they collect.
They also do sales tax audits periodically.
At the end of the audit you just write a check if ther number is
reasonable - meaning affordable.
I've only heard about people that have put up a real battle. Every single
person I know, myself included, has just written that check and grumbled.



Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had
he'd know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from
a hospital or
anyone else.
He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to
pursue their claim outside of the court proceedings.
Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost
him his
house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have
been going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and
California will forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in
a heartbeat. I actually
collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever
P.O.'d. So
was his mortgage lender.

More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.

The guy needs a clean break before it's to late. F'ing around isn't the way
to get that result.
He'll first have to admit his problem.
Then he can go through the system and come out cleaned up. At that point,
he'll be employable, at least in some meanial job.
There are a dozen decent paying jobs right in Taft that he can't even apply
for now. He'd have to pass a credit check for any of them and be elgible for
a low level security clearance for a couple. He can do neither of those
things today. He isn't even bondable.

--
John R. Carroll

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:45:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...

Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a hospital
or
anyone else.
He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to pursue
their claim outside of the court proceedings.
Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him
his
house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have been
going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California will
forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I
actually
collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d.
So
was his mortgage lender.

More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.

LOL Have you forgotten that he claims to have sold "all" his guns
and machinery to his father? Yet he's always talking about selling
stuff to cover this or that emergency. The only question is if he's
defrauding his father snorf, or his creditors. BTW, I'm with John, I
don't believe gummer has or will file for bankruptcy. That would
require that he intends to give his creditors *something*. No way he's
going to give them a nickel unless they somehow force the issue, which
is gonna' be tough with somebody who's been successfully dodging bills
for his entire adult life.

Wayne

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:06:29 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


The guy needs a clean break before it's to late. F'ing around isn't the way
to get that result.
He'll first have to admit his problem.
Then he can go through the system and come out cleaned up. At that point,
he'll be employable, at least in some meanial job.
There are a dozen decent paying jobs right in Taft that he can't even apply
for now. He'd have to pass a credit check for any of them and be elgible for
a low level security clearance for a couple. He can do neither of those
things today. He isn't even bondable.

All good points. But I doubt that he wants to work at all, much less
full time. He's dedicated to subsistence living. If either he or his
wife can get on disability (assuming she isn't already) like his kid ,
he'll have more time for posting than he does now.

Anecdote: a guy I know needed a job desperately, but wasn't looking.
When I tried to help out with the search, his friend told me that the
guy felt deprived because everyone in his circle were getting checks
of one sort or another, and that was his goal as well. He refused to
accept that the others were qualified (on paper anyway) for their
checks, but he wasn't. The deadbeat world can be a strange place.

Wayne

Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd hate to create a
false impression.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?

hate to create a false impression.

What impression were you hoping to create Wes?

I'll tell you , and anyone viewing this,something that you can do to create
an impression.
Send these guys socks, talcum powder and beef jerkey.


4th LAR Bn, H&S Company
Unit 40650
fpo ap 96427-0650
Khan Neshin


--
John R. Carroll

On Jan 27, 1:22*am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


John R. Carroll

I know one family that tithes. Does that count as a cite?

Dan

wrote:
On Jan 27, 1:22 am, "John R. Carroll" wrote:

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


John R. Carroll

I know one family that tithes. Does that count as a cite?

I know one as well
My own.
We tithe on the basis of our biblical teaching, ie. first fruits.
The ten percent thing is a bunch of evangelical bull****.
Jimmy Swaggert is a ten percenter.
So is Crouch.
What's ten percent of the cheap assed jets they fly?
I mean come on, real men fly Falcon's or Challengers, not Lear's.


--
John R. Carroll

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:45:58 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
om...

Gunner said he begun BK proceedings. I doubt that because if he had he'd
know all of this and he aslo wouldn't be looking at bills from a
hospital
or
anyone else.
He'd have listed them all as creditors and that would be that. In
California, it would be illegal for a named creditor to continue to
pursue
their claim outside of the court proceedings.
Failing to list ALL of your income, assets, and creditors will cost him
his
house. It's a bad idea for him to continue any fraud that might have
been
going on in front of the court. In fact, it's a felony and California
will
forfiet his homestead act rights and protections in a heartbeat. I
actually
collected $27,000.00 from a guy this way once and boy as he ever P.O.'d.
So
was his mortgage lender.

More likely than fraud is repression and avoidance.

LOL Have you forgotten that he claims to have sold "all" his guns
and machinery to his father? Yet he's always talking about selling
stuff to cover this or that emergency. The only question is if he's
defrauding his father snorf, or his creditors. BTW, I'm with John, I
don't believe gummer has or will file for bankruptcy. That would
require that he intends to give his creditors *something*. No way he's
going to give them a nickel unless they somehow force the issue, which
is gonna' be tough with somebody who's been successfully dodging bills
for his entire adult life.

Wayne

You have to be alert for an occasional glimmer of truth in much of what
Gunner writes. Sometimes he slips and tells it like it is.

Most of the handloading info probably is on the mark.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd hate
to create a
false impression.

Wes

What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says 10%.

Steve

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd hate
to create a
false impression.

Wes

What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says 10%.

My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?

---
"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster."
Kevin Vranes, climate scientist, University of Colorado
talking about global warming hysteria, January, 2007.

On Jan 27, 12:43Â*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. Â*Confirmation, anyone?


If that's true, then they're totally misusing the word. From
Dictionary.com:

Word History: A tithe is a tenth, etymologically speaking; in fact,
tithe is the old ordinal numeral in English. Sound changes in the
prehistory of English are responsible for its looking so different
from the word ten. Tithe goes back to a prehistoric West Germanic form
*tehuntha-, formed from the cardinal numeral *tehun, "ten," and the
same ordinal suffix that survives in Modern English as -th. The n
disappeared before the th in the West Germanic dialect area that gave
rise to English, and eventually yielded the Old English form tēothe,
"tenth," still not too different from the cardinal numeral tīen. But
over time, as the former became tithe and the latter ten, and as tithe
developed the specialized meaning "a tenth part paid as a tax," it
grew harder to perceive a relationship between the two. The result was
that speakers of English created a new word for the ordinal, tenth,
built with the cardinal numeral ten on the pattern of the other
regularly-formed ordinal numerals like sixth or seventh.

Ignoramus29432 wrote in
:

On 2010-01-26, Eregon wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote in
:

Obama and his wife donated $15,000 to help the victims of Haiti
earthquake.

Yah - leftover DNC-supplied "Presidential Campaign Fund" donations
from US Taxpayers who checked the "Yes" boxes on their 1040s.

Never forget that leftover campaign donations are considered as an
IRA by the Infernal Revenue scumsuckers.

What do you mean, considered as an IRA? I do not understand.

i


An Individual Retirement Account.

All funds remaining in a candidate's Campaign Fund - once the final bills
are paid - are considered to be just waiting for the next campaign.

The candidate - by declaring the amount as income on his/her/its tax
return - can withdraw and spend as much or as little as desired.

IOW, for all practical purposes, Campaign Fund = IRA for politicians.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:55:02 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You have to be alert for an occasional glimmer of truth in much of what
Gunner writes. Sometimes he slips and tells it like it is.

Most of the handloading info probably is on the mark.

"Probably" isn't worth much to me when it comes to Usenet posters.
Once I know that someone is BSing on a subject I know something about,
how am I supposed to tell if they're doing the same on other subjects?
If I need a consensus on those, I can get it quicker without having a
question mark alongside the BSer's contribution. On the other hand it
doesn't matter if I disagree with posters on some things, so long as
they don't lose their credibility by BSing during the process.

Wayne

On Jan 27, 12:26*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...





On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. *I am not in that group, I'd
hate
to create a
false impression.

Wes

What group is that? *The group that believes in the Bible. *Bible says
10%.

My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. *Confirmation, anyone?

I can only answer as an EX Mormon. *The Mormon church wants members to tithe
10%. *Ones who cannot are asked to perform duties instead. *At the end of
the year, you and your bishop have a tithing settlement where you are either
asked to come up with the shortage or given a hearty back pat for any given
in excess. *None is ever refunded. *Having a clean tithing history is a
REQUIREMENT for entering certain parts of a temple, temple ceremonies, and
positions of leadership in the church, even including janitor staff, which
is a well paid life time job with benefits.

There is an old boy system in the church similar to the Masons. *Many of the
Mormon men ARE Masons. *Lots of local business decisions are made by this
cadre. *And afterward, church members are encouraged to patronize members
businesses, and severely chastised for patronizing non member businesses. *A
member in need is often sent by the bishop to a local Mormon businessman for
a job, or a car, or whatever. *A vig from the business is also expected for
the opportunity to get the seal of approval, and the ongoing business
support.

In some cases, it may go up to 40%, but when you basically have a monopoly
on a good or service in a community, guaranteed continued success, and
dependable profits, 60% can still leave you a good net, and the 40% is a
good write off.

So, having a cement rock hard status and position in the community financial
area, being a king of kings, and being a social pillar is worth giving away
some of the money channeled to you through religious means.

HTH

Steve

Sounds like "Big Love" is a documentary. What a twisted world.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:55:02 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You have to be alert for an occasional glimmer of truth in much of what
Gunner writes. Sometimes he slips and tells it like it is.

Most of the handloading info probably is on the mark.

"Probably" isn't worth much to me when it comes to Usenet posters.
Once I know that someone is BSing on a subject I know something about,
how am I supposed to tell if they're doing the same on other subjects?
If I need a consensus on those, I can get it quicker without having a
question mark alongside the BSer's contribution. On the other hand it
doesn't matter if I disagree with posters on some things, so long as
they don't lose their credibility by BSing during the process.

Wayne

I'll agree on the latter part. As for the former part, you're right, which
is why I take everything that some posters say with a grain of salt. I know
just enough about handloading to know where Gunner is on that stuff. I
disagree with him about using Dacron fluff to fill cartridges for light
target loads, for example, because I've done it and I get a melted mess in
the throat. I use kapok. So do many other people. But many others agree with
Gunner on it. Its viability probably varies with the gun and the load.

In any case, he isn't b.s.'ing about that stuff. He has two modes of
discussion and you have to be alert to which one is in use. Anything
political, assume b.s. and you'll be right 80% of the time. The same goes
for Constitutional history, but that's just a result of a hop-scotch,
self-selected self-education -- like Retief and Strabo.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd
hate
to create a
false impression.

Wes

What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says
10%.

My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?


I can only answer as an EX Mormon. The Mormon church wants members to tithe
10%. Ones who cannot are asked to perform duties instead. At the end of
the year, you and your bishop have a tithing settlement where you are either
asked to come up with the shortage or given a hearty back pat for any given
in excess. None is ever refunded. Having a clean tithing history is a
REQUIREMENT for entering certain parts of a temple, temple ceremonies, and
positions of leadership in the church, even including janitor staff, which
is a well paid life time job with benefits.

There is an old boy system in the church similar to the Masons. Many of the
Mormon men ARE Masons. Lots of local business decisions are made by this
cadre. And afterward, church members are encouraged to patronize members
businesses, and severely chastised for patronizing non member businesses. A
member in need is often sent by the bishop to a local Mormon businessman for
a job, or a car, or whatever. A vig from the business is also expected for
the opportunity to get the seal of approval, and the ongoing business
support.

In some cases, it may go up to 40%, but when you basically have a monopoly
on a good or service in a community, guaranteed continued success, and
dependable profits, 60% can still leave you a good net, and the 40% is a
good write off.

So, having a cement rock hard status and position in the community financial
area, being a king of kings, and being a social pillar is worth giving away
some of the money channeled to you through religious means.

HTH

Steve

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


It appears that the word is descended from old English and German words
meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.

Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now, since
originally, it would probably have represented the person's entire tax burden.

I'd like to be taxed at ten percent of my income :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"

wrote:

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


It appears that the word is descended from old English and German words
meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.

Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now,
since
originally, it would probably have represented the person's entire tax
burden.

I'd like to be taxed at ten percent of my income :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

An essential point is being missed here, which is that contributing directly
to the welfare of people in need, as Iggy did, has little or no connection
to supporting ministries. In many, perhaps most, US churches the
contributions go first to supporting the church or the ministry. Some,
particularly conservative (mainline) Protestant churches and Catholic
churches, have established charities and they budget a percentage to them
regardless of actual contributions made to the church. Many others do not.

Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.

You can't enter someone else's head and determine their motivations for
contributing to one versus the other, but their functions clearly are
distinct. Whether one considers a contribution to a church to be equivalent
to charity for people who are suffering the effects of a natural disaster is
up to their own conscience; in some cases, it's a matter of declared church
policies.

--
Ed Huntress

Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


It appears that the word is descended from old English and German
words meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.

Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now,
since originally, it would probably have represented the person's
entire tax burden.

There is a big discussion of this in Larry Osbourn's last book.


I'd like to be taxed at ten percent of my income :-)

I hear THAT!!!

--
John R. Carroll

Mark Rand wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


It appears that the word is descended from old English and German
words meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.

Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now,
since originally, it would probably have represented the person's
entire tax burden.

Ten Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe by Larry W. Osborne (Paperback -
April 14, 2009)




--
John R. Carroll

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:12:48 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:55:02 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


You have to be alert for an occasional glimmer of truth in much of what
Gunner writes. Sometimes he slips and tells it like it is.

Most of the handloading info probably is on the mark.

"Probably" isn't worth much to me when it comes to Usenet posters.
Once I know that someone is BSing on a subject I know something about,
how am I supposed to tell if they're doing the same on other subjects?
If I need a consensus on those, I can get it quicker without having a
question mark alongside the BSer's contribution. On the other hand it
doesn't matter if I disagree with posters on some things, so long as
they don't lose their credibility by BSing during the process.

Wayne

I'll agree on the latter part. As for the former part, you're right, which
is why I take everything that some posters say with a grain of salt. I know
just enough about handloading to know where Gunner is on that stuff. I
disagree with him about using Dacron fluff to fill cartridges for light
target loads, for example, because I've done it and I get a melted mess in
the throat. I use kapok. So do many other people. But many others agree with
Gunner on it. Its viability probably varies with the gun and the load.

In any case, he isn't b.s.'ing about that stuff. He has two modes of
discussion and you have to be alert to which one is in use. Anything
political, assume b.s. and you'll be right 80% of the time. The same goes
for Constitutional history, but that's just a result of a hop-scotch,
self-selected self-education -- like Retief and Strabo.

Gummer refers to his 56X126' lot as "acreage", warns that it's mined
(against nosey bill collectors presumably), and claims to have a 1000'
range in his backyard. Obviously lying comes as easily to him as
breathing, and I don't expect the first to stop until the second does.
Maybe not even then, since he's exactly the kind of guy who might
leave instructions to inscribe a whopper on his tombstone. So I
wouldn't waste a second weighing the validity of his opinion on guns
or anything else for that matter. I remember him claiming to be an
active hunter, yet curiously unaware of the very common knowledge of
declining mule deer populations in the west. By then I'd figured out
that his tales of being a cowboy, cop, indian, and biker etc. (every
one of the village people snorf) were most likely all wild
exaggerations based on little more than a whiff of experience and lots
of ass time reading. Now he has to one-up himself with ever more
ridiculous stuff like the 2' centipede and the well-stocked
electronics shop. I've asked several times for readers to nominate a
bigger BS artist, with no takers so far. And little wonder. There
can't be many who've boasted of nearly unlimited skill, work ethic,
and brokitis, all in the same post!

Wayne

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:00:38 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.


Curiously, on this side of the pond, Tax exemption for charities works so that
the charity recovers the tax, not the donor. The donor normally has to tick a
box if using a form or website to state that they are a tax payer and want the
charity to be able to reclaim the tax.

Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:00:38 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the
church
or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches,
and
contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.


Curiously, on this side of the pond, Tax exemption for charities works so
that
the charity recovers the tax, not the donor. The donor normally has to
tick a
box if using a form or website to state that they are a tax payer and want
the
charity to be able to reclaim the tax.

Mark Rand
RTFM

Without getting into the details of our vastly different tax structures, all
I can offer about ours is that it doesn't tax church organizations --
although it does tax their paid employees -- and that it allows an income
tax deduction to individuals who make charitable contributions.

This wasn't intended to be an issue, only to point out that our tax system
handles church contributions and charity contributions in a similar way. The
point was intended to balance the point that there can be a big difference
in how the money is spent. To be a legit charity, some percentage (I forget
how much) actually has to go toward charitable causes, the definition of
which can be someone else's bone, if they want something to chew on.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-01-27, Ed Huntress wrote:
An essential point is being missed here, which is that contributing directly
to the welfare of people in need, as Iggy did, has little or no connection
to supporting ministries. In many, perhaps most, US churches the
contributions go first to supporting the church or the ministry. Some,
particularly conservative (mainline) Protestant churches and Catholic
churches, have established charities and they budget a percentage to them
regardless of actual contributions made to the church. Many others do not.

Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.

You practically stole a point that I was going to make, though I would
not have stated it as well.

A charitable society, like Red Cross, exists for the purposes of
providing material help to people in need.

A church exists as a mutual society of members of the church, and
contributions to churches go towards paying the pastors and
maintaining this social organization.

In other words, Red Cross passes the money through, and the church
consumes money.

While donations to both churches and charitable societies are tax
deductible, they do not perform the same social function.

So, saying that Mr. Conservative is better than Mr. Liberal, because
Mr. Conservative contributed $30 towards his church, and Mr. Liberal
contributed only $23 towards Red Cross, is disingenious. These
contributions are of different nature.

In this example, Mr Liberal does not enjoy the benefit of paying for a
building to enjoy meeting like minded people on Sundays.

The above is not really saying that contributing to Red Cross is "better"
than to a church, only that they serve the a different function.

You can't enter someone else's head and determine their motivations
for contributing to one versus the other, but their functions
clearly are distinct. Whether one considers a contribution to a
church to be equivalent to charity for people who are suffering the
effects of a natural disaster is up to their own conscience; in some
cases, it's a matter of declared church policies.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:26:30 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?

Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
not impressed.

I know for a fact that they gave a similar amount to another charity just
a short while earlier. Look, you may disagree with their politics, but
they are decent, upstanding people.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:26:23 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd
hate
to create a
false impression.

Wes

What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says
10%.

My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?


I can only answer as an EX Mormon. The Mormon church wants members to tithe
10%. Ones who cannot are asked to perform duties instead. At the end of
the year, you and your bishop have a tithing settlement where you are either
asked to come up with the shortage or given a hearty back pat for any given
in excess. None is ever refunded. Having a clean tithing history is a
REQUIREMENT for entering certain parts of a temple, temple ceremonies, and
positions of leadership in the church, even including janitor staff, which
is a well paid life time job with benefits.

There is an old boy system in the church similar to the Masons. Many of the
Mormon men ARE Masons. Lots of local business decisions are made by this
cadre. And afterward, church members are encouraged to patronize members
businesses, and severely chastised for patronizing non member businesses. A
member in need is often sent by the bishop to a local Mormon businessman for
a job, or a car, or whatever. A vig from the business is also expected for
the opportunity to get the seal of approval, and the ongoing business
support.

In some cases, it may go up to 40%, but when you basically have a monopoly
on a good or service in a community, guaranteed continued success, and
dependable profits, 60% can still leave you a good net, and the 40% is a
good write off.

So, having a cement rock hard status and position in the community financial
area, being a king of kings, and being a social pillar is worth giving away
some of the money channeled to you through religious means.

HTH

Thanks, Steve. It sounds just like politics, doesn't it?
sigh

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:40:11 +0000, the infamous Mark Rand
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:22:12 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can.

Do they now.
Got a cite for that?


It appears that the word is descended from old English and German words
meaning "one tenth". do a Google search for tithe etymology.

Whether people donate that exact proportion may be less relevant now, since
originally, it would probably have represented the person's entire tax burden.

I'd like to be taxed at ten percent of my income :-)

From your mouth to God's ear, Mark. The Brit PTBs will now add an
additional 10% tax to everything in your own personal life--with your
_blessing_.

(you forgot to say "only".


--
It is in his pleasure that a man really lives; it is from
his leisure that he constructs the true fabric of self.
-- Agnes Repplier

"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:26:30 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?

Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
not impressed.

I know for a fact that they gave a similar amount to another charity just
a short while earlier. Look, you may disagree with their politics, but
they are decent, upstanding people.

I wouldn't say that lying people who hang out with terrorists are decent,
upstanding people.

Steve

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:26:23 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:21:43 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It seems that on average, Americans donate 2 percent (which is very
generous).

Those that tithe, give 10 % if they can. I am not in that group, I'd
hate
to create a
false impression.

Wes

What group is that? The group that believes in the Bible. Bible says
10%.

My neighbor (often known to be wrong) says that the Mormon church asks
for a 40% tithe. Confirmation, anyone?


I can only answer as an EX Mormon. The Mormon church wants members to
tithe
10%. Ones who cannot are asked to perform duties instead. At the end of
the year, you and your bishop have a tithing settlement where you are
either
asked to come up with the shortage or given a hearty back pat for any
given
in excess. None is ever refunded. Having a clean tithing history is a
REQUIREMENT for entering certain parts of a temple, temple ceremonies, and
positions of leadership in the church, even including janitor staff, which
is a well paid life time job with benefits.

There is an old boy system in the church similar to the Masons. Many of
the
Mormon men ARE Masons. Lots of local business decisions are made by this
cadre. And afterward, church members are encouraged to patronize members
businesses, and severely chastised for patronizing non member businesses.
A
member in need is often sent by the bishop to a local Mormon businessman
for
a job, or a car, or whatever. A vig from the business is also expected
for
the opportunity to get the seal of approval, and the ongoing business
support.

In some cases, it may go up to 40%, but when you basically have a monopoly
on a good or service in a community, guaranteed continued success, and
dependable profits, 60% can still leave you a good net, and the 40% is a
good write off.

So, having a cement rock hard status and position in the community
financial
area, being a king of kings, and being a social pillar is worth giving
away
some of the money channeled to you through religious means.

HTH

Thanks, Steve. It sounds just like politics, doesn't it?
sigh

--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?

Slightly different tax structure, but yes, very similar.

Steve

Ignoramus27891 wrote:

On 2010-01-27, Ed Huntress wrote:
An essential point is being missed here, which is that contributing directly
to the welfare of people in need, as Iggy did, has little or no connection
to supporting ministries. In many, perhaps most, US churches the
contributions go first to supporting the church or the ministry. Some,
particularly conservative (mainline) Protestant churches and Catholic
churches, have established charities and they budget a percentage to them
regardless of actual contributions made to the church. Many others do not.

Because most churches are tax-exempt in the US, contributions to the church
or ministry also is tax-exempt. So contributions to registered churches, and
contributions to registered charities, are handled the same from a tax
standpoint. But the churches don't have to make any contributions on their
part to charity to maintain their tax status. They can keep it all for
running their own organizations. Tax-exempt charities cannot.

You practically stole a point that I was going to make, though I would
not have stated it as well.

A charitable society, like Red Cross, exists for the purposes of
providing material help to people in need.


They exist to collect donations.


A church exists as a mutual society of members of the church, and
contributions to churches go towards paying the pastors and
maintaining this social organization.


And no other group has to pay for their overhead? So much for your
math skills.


In other words, Red Cross passes the money through, and the church
consumes money.


So, the Red Cross doesn't pay utility bills, taxes, wages or anything
else? What a moron.

Also, the Red Cross is always begging for money. Does every church in
Chicago call you several times each year and pressure you for money?
Even if you tell them you can't pay your own bills? They had the nerve
to insist i could give them at least $25 a month when I had zero income.

Does the Red Cross have local offices all over town where they help
people pay their bills, run food banks, give away clothes or help
stranded motorists with gasoline and hotel scripts to get them back on
the road? Arrange medicine for those who can't afford it? The Red Cross
only shows up when the TV news cameras are rolling while local churches
help their neighbors every day, till their money runs out each month. I
know of some that almost lost their church buildings because they
extended too much help, after Katrina.


While donations to both churches and charitable societies are tax
deductible, they do not perform the same social function.

So, saying that Mr. Conservative is better than Mr. Liberal, because
Mr. Conservative contributed $30 towards his church, and Mr. Liberal
contributed only $23 towards Red Cross, is disingenious. These
contributions are of different nature.


You're right. Red Cross takes a bigger chunk of the money as
overhead. Just like Children's Fund and other so called Charities that
pay their director millions of dollars a year.


In this example, Mr Liberal does not enjoy the benefit of paying for a
building to enjoy meeting like minded people on Sundays.


yawn. Red Cross owns and leases buildings all over the world. How
many local Red Cross offices run soup kitchens, or training to help
people get a job?


The above is not really saying that contributing to Red Cross is "better"
than to a church, only that they serve the a different function.


Red Cross is a business. Nothing more.


You can't enter someone else's head and determine their motivations
for contributing to one versus the other, but their functions
clearly are distinct. Whether one considers a contribution to a
church to be equivalent to charity for people who are suffering the
effects of a natural disaster is up to their own conscience; in some
cases, it's a matter of declared church policies.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:14:06 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:26:30 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?

Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
not impressed.

I know for a fact that they gave a similar amount to another charity just
a short while earlier. Look, you may disagree with their politics, but
they are decent, upstanding people.

I wouldn't say that lying people who hang out with terrorists are decent,
upstanding people.

You forgot the bigotry angle, the raised by corrupt Chicago
gangsters/politicians angle, and a few more.

--
It is in his pleasure that a man really lives; it is from
his leisure that he constructs the true fabric of self.
-- Agnes Repplier

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:14:06 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
scrawled the following:


"Przemek Klosowski" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 14:26:30 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

That much? Gee...I wonder what their clothing bill was last month?

Considering they net about $3 million a year between them..Im very very
not impressed.

I know for a fact that they gave a similar amount to another charity
just
a short while earlier. Look, you may disagree with their politics, but
they are decent, upstanding people.

I wouldn't say that lying people who hang out with terrorists are decent,
upstanding people.

You forgot the bigotry angle, the raised by corrupt Chicago
gangsters/politicians angle, and a few more.


No, I haven't.

Steve

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:08:37 -0600, Ignoramus22882
wrote:

On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in message
...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
of the year.

I see.

Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)

The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping by
Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting any
receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is outright
impossible, but it is not believable.

At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to be
true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.

i

Why should I have gotten a receipt? What good would it do me?

When I file my taxes on the $18k total I made last year...or the unknown
amount I make this year..probably close to the same...$100 wont do ****.

Im a bit disappointed in you however. Seems you kicked in what...$25
wasnt it? And I know you made a hell of a lot more than $18k last year.

You do realize dont you..that its the lower class and low middle class
that give the most in donations in total, dont you?

Why? Because we of all people know how far $100 can be stretched if one
is careful.

Gunner


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On 2010-02-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:08:37 -0600, Ignoramus22882
wrote:

On 2010-01-26, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in message
...
Geen..so I spent $100 and I made $18k last year gross.
Will you kiss my feet for my generosity?
I would like to see the official receipt that conforms to IRS standards.
If you can produce one, I will publicly thank you for your
generosity.

I donated $50 and I do have a receipt.

I never bother getting a receipt. I didnt make enough money last year to
even bother filing. And I figure a donation out of pocket is exactly
that. Not something the government needs to give back to me at the end
of the year.

I see.

Iggy, you roll your eyes very quietly. d8-)

The story about Gunner, who recently said he had no money, stopping by
Red Cross and giving them a $100 cash donation, and not getting any
receipt, does not sound believable. Does not mean that it is outright
impossible, but it is not believable.

At this point, being a true agnostic, I do not believe the story to be
true, but I am not certain that it is false, either.

i

Why should I have gotten a receipt? What good would it do me?

It could prove that you made the donation.

When I file my taxes on the $18k total I made last year...or the unknown
amount I make this year..probably close to the same...$100 wont do ****.

I thought that you mentioned that you would not file

Im a bit disappointed in you however. Seems you kicked in what...$25
wasnt it? And I know you made a hell of a lot more than $18k last year.

The amount is $50. But I can prove that I donated $50.

Whereas, in your case, we have to believe, knowing that that you do
not have any money, that you stopped by some collection point and
contributed $100 and did not get any receipt. I am not saying that you
did not do it. I am saying that I cannot believe this, given all I know.

I tremendously respect your metalworking opinions, but I have a
bull**** alarm, and sometimes it flashes a signal that I should not
simply believe something just because someone says so.

i