captain_stan

Your statement is 100% absolute. I'll let the other readers decide how much truth is in mine.

Not so sure that is always true. I hear quite a bit of bragging about who has the biggest expense account. Bets on who has expensed the most expensive bottle of wine, or most martinis at lunch. I could go on and on. Then I'm not buying stock in such a badly managed company. As a US taxpayer, I'm required to buy stock in the US government. My point is that the consequences (employee termination) are much more direct in the private sector and investment in this kind of madness is optional. And further, private sector expense accounts are paid for by a profitable, competative busines until another leaner, meaner business becomes more competetative with smaller expense accounts. OTOH, the government enjoys a monopoly that forbids such competetition and simply mandates the taxpayers into more funding. And no, I don't feel any better about this kind of abuse just on the promise that someone other than me will suffer the next big tax increase. Edit: extra line spacing added to keep text within page boundary. Mods can try to fix this any time now...

Sorry, but no data to contribute. But FWIW, I think any such data would be more influenced by economic and demographic factors than by the effeciency of any specific learning method. People who are motivated to become skydivers are usually successful in the method that best fits into their schedule and budget.

When this type of thing happens in the private sector, people lose thier jobs over it. But in a beauracy, many of the folks who decide to spend our money this way are too far down the command chain for the voters to fire them. Some think of this as stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

I'm truly sorry you lost your sister. Having not yet lost an immediate family member, I can't fully know how hard that must be. You're a big girl, and an accomplished skydiver no less. Some posts point out how we each sort through our priorities and some of the compromises we have to make, but ultimately only you are qualified to decide if your husband's behavior is acceptable.

Unless, of course, you're willing to consider the USPA as an authority. Some valid reasons have been aired as to why it's a bad idea for a coach to take harness grips, but the USPA doesn't officially prohibit this. Everything prohibited by the USPA is enumerated in the BSRs--all you have to do is read these and note the absence of any such rule. The reason you can't find it is because it's not there. The fact that half of the survey responses are flat-out incorrect is testemant that most skydivers and many instructors never read the BSRs. I've held a USPA instructional rating since 1994 and a CCD during that time, conducting a number of certification courses. I distinctly remember a time when BSRs did indeed prohibited non-AFF-qualified persons from harness-holds on students, but this was ammended and removed some years ago. The AFF community has been bitching about it ever since.

Is that supposed to give you credibility? Actually it's more like the battered spouse who has tried to no avail in asking a partner to stop the abuse. And therein lies the problem--business as usual. Each of the two parties assumes the arrogant posture that they are the only rational choice and the electorate will have to give up our values and try to pick the lesser of two evils. That's some sales pitch you have.

Not even a close analogy. When I donate to my local gun club, unlike the church, the contributions and dues are not tax-exempt, and yet there is no constitutional conflict. Is the Fed taxing my right to bear arms? No, they're taxing the income I choose to spend on a private club. How is a church any different?

Finally, a good understanding and explanation of the economic reality. And unlike a charity, these folks can expect to get some return on their tax-free contributions with membership and benefits from their private club, unlike donating to a charity that helps only other people. Church = Red Cross? My ass!

You're right, so far you're the only person that brought it up... Actually you did in your previous post #23, on which I was commenting. No I didn't... Your post #23, Opie: "I'm no fan of these prosperity gospel mega churches either, but I'm not so sure taxing them is such a wise idea," sure sounds like you're commenting on the idea of a church tax. I'm still waitin' for you to quote where I had brought this up in an earlier post. If we're down to the "no I didn't--yes you did," then I'm done here. Last word is yours unless you've read all my other posts and want to discuss.

You're right, so far you're the only person that brought it up... Actually you did in your previous post #23, on which I was commenting. If only I thought it was that important. Perhaps you'd like to learn how to read and find a hillbilly bass-fishing forum so you could leave the skydivers alone. (nice avatar, Opie)

Still not sure how "God Damn America!" benefits the community. (you are refuting my post aren't you?) OK, I'll help you out. It's the Dem/Rep shell game of tax-and-deduct or tax-and-credit. Lower the income tax for one group (churchies) and keep taxing everyone else the same. The catch? Only the churchies get that deduction. I call that a backhanded subsidy because the government will have to make up for the loss of this revenue, like increasing tax in some other way or letting the debt increase. But that's why I'm not a Dem or Repub. You can call me whatever you like--It won't affect my credibility with others--might even help. If you still don't understand, go back and read my other posts. You've already worn me down with determination, if not intellect. I'm not gonna get into one of your rant wars. My answer to your next reply is the paragraph above.

There are two separate questions here (1) To start taxing a church? (2) To continue to reward church donors with a lower income tax? As to #1, a church can qualify as a not-for-profit organzation anywy (just like USPA) and enjoy freedom from tax on any profit they generate. So this is a non-issue. I haven't heard anyone in this thread propose a special "church tax!"

I quit worrying about politics and religion a long time ago. Most people will believe that which makes them feel good, and I don't expect to influence them (you). But for the others with an open mind, I offer another point of view to ponder. They aren't, as you showed above Salary is taxable--everything else is not. Ask youself if the orator in question can not enjoy the benefit of everyting from the platform on which he stands, to the roof over his head, to the meals he eats, to the car he drives being provided by tax-free funds. How you gonna pretend to be a conservative when you support this kind of government subsidy? You've just defined the difference between a Republican and a conservative.

A church is a perfect tax haven. An "employee" of the church doesn't have to accept a salary, but can enjoy a very comfortable tax-free lifestyle including car, travel, home, food, entertainment, etc, which are indeed benefits, but are not taxable. Of course a corporation or trust can evade tax in similar way, but unlike the church, they will at least pay tax on the money going in.

What we're really talkin' about isn't a matter of the church itself being taxed, but a lower rate of income tax for those individuals who support it. And in other words a higher rate of income tax for those of us who exercise our freedom from religion. Bull - find a charity and donate to it, and you can deduct the donation just like they do. Bull? The difference is that a charity is reqired by law to prove they are actually helping people in some tangible way. Religion doesn't have to meet that test. BTW, I do donate to charity because I like to help people. Edit to add: I don't consider paying someone to stand up and shout "God Damn America!" to be helping anyone. But when our government gives people a financial incentive to participate in a religion, this is gonna be one of the results for which the rest of us are paying.

What we're really talkin' about isn't a matter of the church itself being taxed anyway, but rather a lower rate of income tax for those individuals who support it. And in other words a higher rate of income tax for those of us who exercise our freedom from religion.

Not-profits are treated different than churches. Money dontated to a non-profit is subject to income tax unless it qualifies as a "charity." Churches need not meet that requirement. In my state, real property owned by a non-profit is subject to property tax unless the public has access to it and can use it in some way that is beneficial to the public. But IIRC, churches do not pay property tax here. Is there any reason for a publicly owned building to pay a public tax? Isn't that just a wash?

The IRS doesn't require tax-exempt religions to help anybody--only tax-exempt charities have to do that. Amen (pun intended)

These solvents won't work on all stains. On something like a soft-drink spill, a water-based solution will be more affective yet still inert.

F111 or ZP? I'd be more worried about increasing the permeability of uncoated fabric by distressing it with too much agitation or brushing. And any use of detergent warrants adequate dillution and thorough rinsing.

NO, it's all about "showing the police we can do what we want." Does that sound like respect? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjdhEvosC3I

I'd be willing to take that risk!

Lighten-up Doug. You make a good point in broad terms, but your rhetoric sounds bigoted. Just because candidates preach the evils of cutting senior benefits doesn't mean that they truly represent us. Polilticans who want the senior vote will promise the continuation of entitlements whether we approve or not. With two years remaining before I can draw SS benefits, a lifetime of making payroll contributions, and a long voting record as a fiscal conservative, I'd still vote for a candidate who promised to slash this and other programs. Hey--now I'm back on-topic with the OP! I'll let other seniors speak for themselves. Any of you wanna throw-down here?

I'm not convinced that you are able to disregard what "others should give up." If you are really willing to give those up even if others do not, you are welcome to make voluntary donations to your government anytime, but I'm guessing that you'll only agree to that if your political will is forced upon other taxpayers. Would I be correct then in believing that your generosity is conditional on "what others should give up?" I don't have a problem with that. But if so, then how are you any different than those "selfish" folks who want their government to reduce spending before they agree that it can confiscate more of their assets? How then is your "side of this debate" any different? BTW, Your proposals to increase tax revenue seem reasonable enough to me, but I dont' think they'll make much of a dent in our defecit unless we reduce spending.