151 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

Nah, I'd go Thorium, and dump the entire scientific research budget into fusion research. Having fusion as a power source will mean you win over everyone for a while.

Also, the churches are breaking tax laws... so I'd come down on them hard. That'll solve some money issues

[Phate]

Also, the churches are breaking tax laws... so I'd come down on them hard. That'll solve some money issues

This.

[Redezra]

Please see the video I posted on Magnasanti to see what's in store

Jorost will fix some of that, so it won't be *that* bad... I think.

[Manoka]

Churches really don't have that much taxable money.

Also fusion isn't really possible, you'd need something like graphene which could absorb heat extremely quickly, which making 3 foot thick graphene container walls is more or less a pipe dream at the moment; you can slow down the rate of reaction in fusion, but then you lose energy since the magnetic containment fields energy costs are just the same and you lose energy and whatnot. If it gets too hot and too powerful it will destroy your container walls. Making more than you put into it will take something that can transfer heat quickly, like diamond, or graphene, which can do it like twice as well but resists nuetron degradation very well. In other words your material construction has to be through the roof as well, in addition to something to initiate fusion; fundamental problems include getting enough photons on one spot to initiate enough fusion molecules to be self sustaining.


Also where will we get the deuterium?

By the time we're done boiling all that water, or even desalinating it, we'll lost enormous amounts of energy.


Also Thorium has more power, not pound for pound, since it's insanely denser, but it has more power.

It also would be cheaper. And price is significant. If say, carbon fiber was 3 times cheaper which, the bulk of it's cost is electricity and energy, it would be as much as steel. This means your average car could be stronger than steel yet 3-5 times lighter weight (not all the car is steel, but it's over 5 times lighter weight in terms of density), meaning your average 20 mpg car could be 60 mpg. Not only does this save money, but it saves over all fuel consumption, which puts us below the threshold of foreign oil imports and extends to life our our current fuel reserves. If you switched over to electric, you'd have triple the range and 3 times the battery and engine life due to less stress.


But, then when using batteries, why not use Lithium titanate? Lasts 20 times longer than lithium ion and can be recharged in 10 minutes. But it's expensive.

Where's it primary cost? Electricity, and precision control of evaporative chemicals. Remove that, we can all have top grade batteries that won't wear out in 3 life time's in a carbon fiber car for like 10,000 bucks. Since electricity it already cheaper, this compounds cost of living issues, reducing to almost nothing, for buses and public transportation possibly, as well.


It also is safer for the environment and doesn't burn well.

Win-win.

Edited by Manoka, 11 November 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The Roman Catholic church has over $3,000 billion in assets worldwide. Churches have plenty of taxable income.

[PrinceVegeta]

How about, we just destroy the Earth?

Huh? Huuhhh? Sounds like a nice idea.

[Redezra]

I'm sorry Manoka, but fusion is very well within our reach. We'll have it by the end of the century.

[Manoka]

End of the century isn't the same as tomorrow

Also whether or not we can initiate fusion is not the question, it's whether or not we can realistically extract energy, for a low price.

[Manoka]

The Catholic church has been around for like a thousand years, when we look at taxable income in the U.S., from trades and whatnot, it's not really that big of a deal.

3 trillion you say?


The U.S. spend 3.6 every year and makes 2.3

This of course assuming we can spend idk, gold on things even assuming we absorbed it all.

Edited by Manoka, 11 November 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[Redezra]

1. Easy. We have this thing called technological progress.

2. Meh, Church is an easy, fat, target. And you'd pay less tax :3

[Manoka]

Like I'm saying, it's going to take 20 years before this is possible, let alone profitable.

Thorium is the way to go.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Churches should pay property taxes like any other entity. If they want to apply for nonprofit status that's fine. Most of them would get it (tax exempt status) through their charitable works anyway. But they should not automatically get it simply by virtue of being a religion. As far as I'm concerned, the separation of church and state is fine, so long as we remember it's the separation of church and state.

As far as power sources go, I am confident that something will take the place of oil, and perhaps sooner than we think. That's the thing with what's just around the corner -- you never know when that corner is coming. I am confident that if I die at a ripe old age (assuming I die at all, but that's a separate conversation) it will not be in a world powered by oil.

[Manoka]

I don't really care, I mean it's not that much money and the tax exemptions are relatively minor.

Wouldn't bother me; we could even give some tax exemptions for non-profit organizations as well, would be sweet.

[Redezra]

Actually, all added up, it could be quite a large chunk of cash.

Given, they'll learn quick.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

It's actually a huge amount of money, Manoka. That's kind of the issue. In the city of Boston alone the Catholic Church owns hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of property, much of which is not used for pastoral or charitable purposes, on which they pay no taxes at all. The city could use that money to pay for schools. Just as a for instance.

[Redezra]

Taxy taxy tax :3

[Phate]

Related: http://www.patheos.c...ctive-churches/

We’ve known for a while now that when churches make political statements from the pulpit — like on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” — the IRS hasn’t been pursuing them for violations of their tax-exempt status as they should be.
The reason? Because no one at the IRS is in charge of the issue.

Now, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the IRS (PDF) for not doing their job. (How’s that for payback?)
The IRS may initiate a tax inquiry of a church or religious organization if a highranking IRS official documents in writing the acts and circumstances, including potential violations of the electioneering prohibition, that lead the official to reasonably believe that the Church may have violated the requirements for tax exemption under §501©(3).
In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501©(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501©(3), including during the presidential election year of 2012.
The most jaw-dropping part of FFRF’s lawsuit has to be this:
The preferential tax-exemption that churches and other religious organizations obtain, despite noncompliance with electioneering restrictions, amounts to more than $100,000,000,000 annually in tax-free contributions made to churches and religious organizations in the United States.
If people are giving that much money, tax-free, to churches, we sure as hell better make sure these churches are following the law.
We can’t trust Christians to do the right thing — they need to look to a holy book to get their morals, after all — so the government needs to police them.
Pastors are allowed to endorse any politician they want privately. When they’re in the pulpit, though, they have to give up their church’s tax-exempt status if they want to do the same thing.
So far, churches have been flaunting the fact that they can get away with endorsing candidates without being punished for it, evening sending videos of their politician-endorsing sermons to the IRS.
It’s about time they pay for their crimes.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Related: http://www.patheos.c...ctive-churches/

We’ve known for a while now that when churches make political statements from the pulpit — like on “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” — the IRS hasn’t been pursuing them for violations of their tax-exempt status as they should be.
The reason? Because no one at the IRS is in charge of the issue.

Now, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing the IRS (PDF) for not doing their job. (How’s that for payback?)
The IRS may initiate a tax inquiry of a church or religious organization if a highranking IRS official documents in writing the acts and circumstances, including potential violations of the electioneering prohibition, that lead the official to reasonably believe that the Church may have violated the requirements for tax exemption under §501©(3).
In fact, however, the Internal Revenue Service, under the direction of the Defendant Shulman, has followed and continues to follow a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501©(3) against churches and other religious organizations.
As a result, in recent years, churches and religious organizations have been blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions of §501©(3), including during the presidential election year of 2012.
The most jaw-dropping part of FFRF’s lawsuit has to be this:
The preferential tax-exemption that churches and other religious organizations obtain, despite noncompliance with electioneering restrictions, amounts to more than $100,000,000,000 annually in tax-free contributions made to churches and religious organizations in the United States.
If people are giving that much money, tax-free, to churches, we sure as hell better make sure these churches are following the law.
We can’t trust Christians to do the right thing — they need to look to a holy book to get their morals, after all — so the government needs to police them.
Pastors are allowed to endorse any politician they want privately. When they’re in the pulpit, though, they have to give up their church’s tax-exempt status if they want to do the same thing.
So far, churches have been flaunting the fact that they can get away with endorsing candidates without being punished for it, evening sending videos of their politician-endorsing sermons to the IRS.
It’s about time they pay for their crimes.

I love this idea, but they'll never do it. Siccing the IRS on them would only feed Christians' persecution complex. Better to let them die quietly of irrelevance.

[Haflinger]

Churches should pay property taxes like any other entity.

You mean, except the Queen.

[Manoka]

It's really not, I mean max over the whole U.S. they maybe don't pay 40 billion dollars.

Not that big of a deal really; not to mention most their money is from donations, and lots of organizations are exempt from paying full taxes when that's your only source of income.


As far as stealing all their money goes, that's not really a good idea either.

I mean what, we're going to just start stealing from people as a reasonable degree of income?


Oh hey, dat guy has a lot of money in his account, even after taxes.

LET'S TAKE IT ALL!


Really it stems from not liking Christians.

Although Christians aren't the only religion, of course.

Edited by Manoka, 15 November 2012 - 04:50 PM.