It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gerald Celente: "Tax all religious & non-profit organisations to pay off the US budget deficit"

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   


From "28:53" onwards - a very interesting and thoughtful perspective from Gerald once again! Worth listening to the whole video as well.

I like the idea of giving tax breaks to the people who donate, rather than the charities themselves who often keep 95% of the donations for themselves to fund their lavish lifestyles.

Charities & religions seem to have as many loopholes as the banks to get their free or cheap rides. The question is will the 20% crowd wake-up and ferment an intellectual revolution?... sooner rather than later!




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
Gerald Celente is not only the man, but is directly responsible for me hearing his voice in my head saying "The White Shoe Boys!" every time I read an NWO article.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I 100% support this idea. I really wish they would do this and have a fair tax also at the same time.

We could fix things so easy if we had real leaders that would allow good ideas to actually be in place.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
That's the most awesome thing I've ever heard him say.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


He talks about how big corporations are too big, but then says to tax ALL religious organizations? Why ALL if it's just the big ones that cause the problem?

What he's saying may sound logical, but we have to look at what would actually happen if we did this. We would get the opposite results of what we want and I think he knows this. This looks like reverse psychology to me to control us and to play right into the big guy's hand again. Let me explain why.

If a big corporation is worse for society just because it's too big and has too much power compared a small corporation then our logic is that too big is too powerful.

Therefore by that logic we must assume the same for religious and charitable organizations. Too big equals too powerful.

People get upset with the big religious organizations because they don't do anything but take your money and that's why they're so big. So tax em ALL right? Tax em ALL? Let's think about what would happen.

There's a lot of charitable organizations that aren't that big. In fact there's a lot of SMALL organizations and a few BIG organizations with all the power. The big ones are big because they don't do anything.

The small organizations are usually the ones that actually HELP people. That's part of the reason they're small. They actually use the money to do good and therefore a LOT of small charitable organizations and religious organizations are just about on their LAST DIME with the economy the way it is. Some of them don't know how they're going to make it through the day. Food banks are almost empty everywhere you go and many say there's just too many people showing up. This goes on and on, lots of SMALL organizations that are actually trying to HELP people don't know what they're going to do.

So what happens if we TAX ALL religious and charitable organizations? SOME OF THEM GO BROKE AND GET SHUT DOWN! Some of the small ones, it'll be the straw that broke the camels back. It'll just be too much and they'll finally break and have to close down.

Who WON'T HAVE TO CLOSE DOWN? THE BIG ONES! The Big ones have FAT pockets and a few more taxes won't be a problem. Sure it's a nice way to make a quick buck in the form of tax revenue, but in the end who will still be here? ALL THE BIG organizations will STILL be here! Lots of the small ones will SHUT DOWN!

After that happens then what happens the next time you want to donate money? Who are you going to give it to? Well, they'll be a lot less small charitable organizations, but the few big ones will still be here. A few taxes for them isn't a problem. They're not worried about how to make it through the month.

So, mathematically it's more likely that people will donate even MORE money to BIG religious organizations while the small ones get shut down because they can't pay their TAXES! The big ones get even MORE powerful and it allows the big ones to push the little guys out of the game!

This guy here is trying to trick us into implementing policies that would shut down smaller helpful organizations while funneling more money to big guys! Who's side is he really on?

After all what did he say in the video? They're everywhere! They're everywhere! Yeah they're everywhere and normal people you'd think would want charitable organizations everywhere! Everyone EXCEPT THE BIG GUYS. The big guys don't want to have to compete with all those small ones that are EVERYWHERE!

This is common in almost every industry. A new type of organization comes out and gets big, and then once it does uses its power to influence people and the government to pass new regulations so other people have a harder time doing the same thing so they don't have to compete with anyone. Just like liquor license. Why does a bar need a liquor license? Cause the bars that are here don't want to compete with too many bars! Once you get big, start pushing the little guys out.

The big organizations got all big, and now that they're big someone in power is saying whoa. Anyone can start one of these things and compete for our dollars. We got to do something to keep the little guy out! And Gerald Celente is very very smart about these economic matters. He would of had to have thought of this. Somebody at the top has said, hey we gotta keep these little guys out, let's get this guy on the radio or something and convince the people of the same thing somehow!

But you have to ask. What would be the problem with having a charitable organization EVERYWHERE! Isn't that a good thing? To be able to get help everywhere! Isn't that what we SHOULD be doing? Why is someone trying to convince us to help LESS people? Doesn't make any sense.



edit on 13-9-2010 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:22 AM
link   
What about all the workers who are involved in the running and maintenance of religious and non-profit organizations? What will happen when they get fired?


edit on 13-9-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


you sure are a sharpy. id have to agree with everything you said.

i think gerelde also knows what you said, which leads to the next question why is he saying it?.

i always somewhat revered the man, but i must say this horrible idea has me wondering.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
What about all the workers who are involved in the running and maintenance of religious and non-profit organizations? What will happen when they get fired?


edit on 13-9-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



They wouldn't be fired, they are still making money and need employee's to staff their business. There is no reason to give tax breaks to people who con other people out of their money. This goes for wall street and the church.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Tax them and they'll just hire less people. A tax simply steals from the pockets of the private and gives to the pocket of the government. The private side could have spent the money within the economy, but a tax just gives the money to an inefficient bureaucracy. Government spending is always less or equal to the efficiency of private spending.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by john124
I like the idea of giving tax breaks to the people who donate, rather than the charities themselves who often keep 95% of the donations for themselves to fund their lavish lifestyles.


Careful what you ask for. I volunteer for a few no-profit charitable entities that provide valuable public and social services. Tax them, they'll go down and the quality of your life will suffer. A more efficient manner is to put controls on fundraising through third parties, and pay some attention to wages paid, if any.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Fortunately I'm in the UK ..... but as a Trustee of a non profit organisation (charity) I say this is one of the dumbest, least thought out, ideas I've ever heard of. It would certainly result in hundreds of small charities run entirely by volunteers - many of which stuggle to raise funds as it is - closing down.

Though I fully support controls of some sort on fund raising and payment of staff in some of the bigger charities - which operate as big companies and maybe should not be accorded the same charitable status as smaller organisation which are run predominanty on a voluntary basis.


edit on 13-9-2010 by Essan because: additiional comment



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Or...
1. Stop the on-going illegal wars that have not and never will protect us from "terrorism".
2. Quit bailing out 'too big to fail'.
3. Tax the wall street and the banksters to reclaim the rewards they received for stealing from us (via housing, markets, etc.)
4. Make it illegal to spend more than the budget allows.
5. Try reducing spending.
6. Implement a flat tax.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by mecheng
 


you just took celente's place in my book.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by mecheng
 


It is much easier to steal from the “proles”, than to do things that make sense. I agree with you one hundred percent. Star for you.



To those saying that those in churches live a life of luxury you are wrong or at least generalizing.

My church makes enough money to pay the pastor, do upkeep on the property and pay its bills, and do things for the kids, as well as help the community. The pastor also works a second job as a school bus driver. No one in my church is living a life of luxury either those working in it or those attending it. Now if you want to talk about non-materialistic luxury sure we have a great church family full of love and friendship. However, material items we fall short on, sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe you can find someone with more to steal from.



Raist



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
Or...
1. Stop the on-going illegal wars that have not and never will protect us from "terrorism".
2. Quit bailing out 'too big to fail'.
3. Tax the wall street and the banksters to reclaim the rewards they received for stealing from us (via housing, markets, etc.)
4. Make it illegal to spend more than the budget allows.
5. Try reducing spending.
6. Implement a flat tax.


Celente does say most of those things as well, but it's vital from what I can see that American's don't allow anyone else to take the place of wall street with too much control over people's lives, such as a religious dictatorship. Taxing religions means less churches and mosques and hopefully people would then become more awakened and less hostile towards other belief systems.


edit on 13-9-2010 by john124 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


There would be fewer SMALL churches and mosques, but big ones that could still afford to pay their taxes would still be around. The Catholic church has more money than anyone. They would still be around and now their mind control would be EVEN STRONGER because there'd be fewer small churches around that may say hey, those guys are wrong about some of that stuff! Not all of us believe that way!

So, we see what this is really about. It's not about paying the budget. There are much better ways to do that. This is just about getting rid of the small churches and supporting the big guys, the ones most likely to try and control the people.

If it's really about getting rid of churches well just go around and burn them down or get ALL churches banned. But why would you want to give more power to big guys and shut down their smaller dissenting opinions? The only one that would want to do that would probably be in support of the big guys through subversion so they could get what they want while pretending they're actually doing the opposite.

It's about giving an even STRONGER voice to the big guys who already have too big of a voice! Their mind control would be even stronger and more unified and people would be even less likely to wake up. There'd be even less people around to argue against them when they tell the people to do something that's wrong.

If it was really about taxes, they would say, just tax the big ones. Just tax the non-profits that make millions a year or billions a year or something like that. When they say tax ALL the churches, what they really mean is shut down the dissenting opinion. Those guys are starting to become a problem. And do you know what would happen once all the small churches disappeared? The big guys would get together and pay off all your congress men to change the law so they didn't have to pay taxes anymore! They'll still get off scot free.

People are waking up! That's the problem, they want to put the people back to sleep by going back to just ONE big voice that tells everyone what to do.

If you want to subvert the message of the church, you don't destroy it. It will become a martyr of sorts and even less people will wake up. What you want to do is build two on every city block all with different opinions. That way they can't control anything cause they can't even figure out what they believe in. They're so confused they can't get anything accomplished. Remember it's divided we fall, not united we fall. People start to say hey, I don't know about all this religious stuff. Even the religious people can't figure it out!

If you allow just the big ones to stick around then you suddenly have all religious people being lead by ONE voice and what happens if that voice is wrong? Doesn't anyone remember the Crusades? That's what happens when there's only one BIG religious voice. A blood bath with the church having ALL the control because there's no one to stand against it again.

Regardless of how many small churches you get rid of, the big guys will ALWAYS be here. They ain't going anywhere because they have too much power to let that happen. Don't let them have enough power to shut down the little guys so they can get all the religious people under the same roof again and go on some bloody crusade again! We already tried that before and it didn't work.

Also, it would shut down a lot of smaller helpful organizations while handing over one big religious voice over to the big guys that like to start holy wars! What we need are lots of small helpful organizations. Not one big one with a lust for blood and war and ruling over other people.


edit on 13-9-2010 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)




edit on 13-9-2010 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join