Prop 8 movie premiering at Sundance next week

[woot]

Based on opinion polling you may be right. Still, it may take a long time for public opinion to shift enough to enable so many statutes and state constitutional amendments (30 of them) to be reversed. I'm not so sure that shift will occur; time will tell. A Supreme Court decision could do it in one fell swoop, of course, but if we think Roe v. Wade created problems with court-mandated change, just wait 'till the Court re-defines marriage by a 5-4 decision.

What's missing from your analysis is the "and so. . . ." What should the church do if its position on a firmly-held core belief does become out of sync with popular opinion? The only analogous precedent is polygamy, and I certainly hope things don't get to that point.

You're forgetting blacks and the priesthood.

I guarantee that public opinion will continue to shift. This generation's attitude toward homosexuals will be seen much the same way we view the last generation's attitude toward non-whites.

[Viking]

I'm going to assume she donated it to a non-profit organization. I wonder if you are going to include that donation on your schedule A this year.

And why would you want to double tax something. A persons earnings have already been taxed once and now you want to tax donations? Makes no sense.

And for the record, I'm okay with the Red Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, etc. being tax exempt.

You make a donation, you get a tax deduction.

Help me understand the double taxation.

[Moliere]

You make a donation, you get a tax deduction.

Help me understand the double taxation.

You just said that you think no organization should be tax exempt. Would that also apply to the "no on 8" organizations?

On double taxation, you've already been taxed at the individual level when you earn the money. Now you turn around and donate that money to a charity and you get no benefit in return and now you want that charity to be taxed on that donation as well?

[CardiacCoug]

I guarantee that public opinion will continue to shift. This generation's attitude toward homosexuals will be seen much the same way we view the last generation's attitude toward non-whites.

This is true. It's only a matter of time. Truth and justice will prevail.

[Viking]

You just said that you think no organization should be tax exempt. Would that also apply to the "no on 8" organizations?

On double taxation, you've already been taxed at the individual level when you earn the money. Now you turn around and donate that money to a charity and you get no benefit in return and now you want that charity to be taxed on that donation as well?

No, you receive a tax deduction for the donation if it's to a qualified organization. Not double taxation. In fact, normally, the way taxation works is that if someone gets the deduction, the recipient pays the tax (e.g., a company pays employees and deducts the expense; the employee has to pay tax on the income).

So, I'm not sure how you think double taxation works with a qualified charity, but please explain.

[All-American]

No, you receive a tax deduction for the donation if it's to a qualified organization. Not double taxation. In fact, normally, the way taxation works is that if someone gets the deduction, the recipient pays the tax (e.g., a company pays employees and deducts the expense; the employee has to pay tax on the income).

So, I'm not sure how you think double taxation works with a qualified charity, but please explain.

Normal circumstances: a transaction occurs in which you render a service and receive $1 pay. The payment on that transaction is taxed. With what remains of that $1, you engage in another transaction, receiving a good or service in return for your money. Two exchanges, two taxes.

Double taxation: speaking hypothetically, a law exists which taxes donations to charity. A transaction occurs in which you render a service and receive $1 pay. The payment on that transaction is taxed. You give what remains of that $1 to a charitable organization, receiving no consideration in exchange for that donation. One transaction, one exchange, two taxes. Double taxation.

By the way, this isn't quite the same thing as what most attorneys would understand the concept of "double taxation" to entail.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Based on opinion polling you may be right. Still, it may take a long time for public opinion to shift enough to enable so many statutes (14 of those) and state constitutional amendments (30 of those) to be reversed. I'm not as sure as you are that such a public opinion shift will actually occur; time will tell. A Supreme Court decision could do it in one fell swoop, of course, but if we think Roe v. Wade created problems with court-mandated change, just wait 'till the Court re-defines marriage by a 5-4 decision.

What's missing from your analysis is the "and so. . . ." What should the church do if its position on a firmly-held core belief does become out of sync with popular opinion? The only analogous precedent is polygamy, and I certainly hope things don't get to that point.

Take a look at the polling results based on age. Younger people are overwhelmingly supportive of gay rights.

[Moliere]

Normal circumstances: a transaction occurs in which you render a service and receive $1 pay. The payment on that transaction is taxed. With what remains of that $1, you engage in another transaction, receiving a good or service in return for your money. Two exchanges, two taxes.

Double taxation: speaking hypothetically, a law exists which taxes donations to charity. A transaction occurs in which you render a service and receive $1 pay. The payment on that transaction is taxed. You give what remains of that $1 to a charitable organization, receiving no consideration in exchange for that donation. One transaction, one exchange, two taxes. Double taxation.

By the way, this isn't quite the same thing as what most attorneys would understand the concept of "double taxation" to entail.

This is the biggest piece. The fact you get no consideration in exchange for your donation results in double taxation.

I'm not sure what All-American means about the attorneys stuff at the end of his post since I'm not an attorney. I'm just a simple CPA that looks more at consideration, boot, and value in terms of the tax code.

[Moliere]

FTR, I probably won't see this movie. Not because I don't want to but probably because I doubt it ever opens in Texas. I know the tide is turning for Prop 8 in California and probably in many other places, but it is not turning so fast in the south. There is little to no buzz about Mormons and prop 8 down here and even the little bit that I hear is in favor of prop 8. Will that change, maybe but it will take much longer than in the more liberal states.

I guess Evangelicals and Mormons have something in common after all. I'm not saying that is a good thing, but at least I don't have to cower in fear as I go to church on Sunday.

[All-American]

This is the biggest piece. The fact you get no consideration in exchange for your donation results in double taxation.

I'm not sure what All-American means about the attorneys stuff at the end of his post since I'm not an attorney. I'm just a simple CPA that looks more at consideration, boot, and value in terms of the tax code.

I probably spoke too soon-- just a 1L, after all-- but from what I understand, "double taxation" is a term which is especially understood to refer to corporate taxes (taxes money the corporation makes and then taxing the money employees of corporations make). I don't know the extent to which it is a term of art exclusively applicable to corporate taxation or a general term, but I am fairly confident that the present company won't care much either way.

[Hallelujah]

I tend to agree with you, most LDS supporters of Prop 8 probably dont' have a real idea of how deeply this affects gay people. However, I doubt that the movie is "fact-based."

What additional 'rights' would a gay couple get under the banner of marriage vs. a civil union?

So would God be a supporter of Prop 8? Just your wild guess. Unless of course you speak with him.

[Hallelujah]

FTR, I probably won't see this movie. Not because I don't want to but probably because I doubt it ever opens in Texas. I know the tide is turning for Prop 8 in California and probably in many other places, but it is not turning so fast in the south. There is little to no buzz about Mormons and prop 8 down here and even the little bit that I hear is in favor of prop 8. Will that change, maybe but it will take much longer than in the more liberal states.

I guess Evangelicals and Mormons have something in common after all. I'm not saying that is a good thing, but at least I don't have to cower in fear as I go to church on Sunday.

Liberal states like Maine?

[Hallelujah]

It just comes from ignorance of how political many other congregations are. Far, far more political than we are for better or worse. The civil rights movement, for example, had churches at the heart of it as did abolition. Lots of preachers tell their parishioners who to vote for, for example.

I think you can disagree with the church on the merits, or even wish that we would not become involved, but the tax exemption argument just misunderstands the role of churches in politics.

How often did you see the Clintons and Obamas in black churches giving political speeches?

[Hallelujah]

To the contrary, it is understood that precisely due to the heritage of religious influence over politics that the tax exempt status is unlikely to be called into question. The spirit of the law, if not actual letter, is routinely violated. But the facts, while interesting, are likely irrelevant.

The tax, however, has been paid in the court of public opinion. It was a poor choice.

Public opinion is AGAINST what the Church stands for?

[Hallelujah]

This is true. It's only a matter of time. Truth and justice will prevail.

Truth = 1st Presidency are bigoted and they made the Proclamation up....for what purpose?