Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Slik

  • Rank
    Rune Member
  • Birthday 01/26/1993

Recent Profile Visitors

9,134 profile views
  1. Slik


    Believe me, I tried to console myself by researching it and trying to find a logical, rational explanation. I came up with a few theories, but I still think about that day and it has been 6 years now.
  2. Slik

    Brexit - in or out?

    So one of the most important votes I'll probably ever witness is coming up soon, whether or not Britain should remain in the EU. I'm particularly interested in opinions of those who are not living in the UK.
  3. Slik


    I am a firm believer of logic, but I am left without answers after once witnessing a 9 year old girl who was "possessed" throw her 6 ft 2 father across the room in front of my very eyes. I still cannot explain that experience, and it is a fundamental reason why I keep an open mind when considering things.
  4. And how does one determine who should be taxed extra, and who should receive these donations? This argument is pretty far off the topic of the debate, but genuinely curious. If we have learnt anything from the Panama Papers, it is that it is extraordinarily easy to hide our true wealth. If what you propose ever came to surface, the vast majority of people would exploit this and it would fail miserably.
  5. A cheaper solution to a DDoS attack is using a reverse proxy. Do some research, will be well worth it.
  6. Fair enough, just a misunderstanding. When I was discussing different taxes, I specifically meant taxes for different purposes. A tax for a set purpose can be handled in multiple ways, this isn't the same as a different tax though. You are however, being taxed differently. For example, if we have Tax Code A for income tax and Tax Code B for inheritance tax we can see this more clearly. Tax Code A can be utilized for the generic purpose of collecting taxes from a person's earnings. However, if they have investments and other sources of income, the same Tax Code A is utilized in a different way now to collect taxes on incomes from shares for instance. Even though we are using different functions for the Tax Code A, it is still categorized under the same segment. Now a different type of tax would be Tax Code B which focuses on money you are gaining from inheritance. This isn't the same as Tax Code A because you haven't earned that money, it came to you by other means. Either way, we are debating semantics at this point, we both agree on a re purposing of taxable conditions.
  7. Slik


    Your perception around the morality of suicide is skewed by your limited insight in life. How could you possibly compare nothing to "the shittiest situation" when there is absolutely no consistency in what that means for each individual. The depths of lows people have experienced in life will always be different. For example one person might feel that the death of their father, their role model, was their lowest point in life. However, how does that compare to a person who was orphaned at a young age and has had to struggle far more just to survive. Also, just because a person isn't religious, doesn't mean they don't believe in a concept of life after death (energy preservation, existence in a different dimension etc). As a matter of fact, a person can choose not follow any religion and still believe in God and the generic concept of life after death. You make a bold statement, 'People should always hold hope and faith in their life...'. Now if a child was abducted at a young age and kept as a slave that was repeatedly raped daily, having known no education or ordinary life, who are you to tell them they should have hope. For them, in their eyes, death may be a blessing opposed to life. The nothingness you discuss may be the hope you are requesting they have in life.
  8. Matty

    Hahaha fucking hell, it's been a long time

  9. [quote name='Arix']Disagreed. Religion is not special anymore. I don't think it should be a scapegoat for "advantages" over other companies. Perhaps there should be a different kind of tax. Tax is a broad term and there are alot of possibilities with it. I however do not know enough about it to form a 'good' way of raising taxes on a company.[/QUOTE] Sorry for the late reply, I don't think it is a matter of a different kind of tax, but instead a matter of what and when to tax. For example, profits from investments should be taxed depending on the scale of the organisation in question. This allows small organisations to thrive, while taxing those organisations which are clearly capable of paying taxes and thriving.
  10. [quote name='sprxtes']i tihnk they should just b/c of religion[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate?
  11. [quote name='Arix']Are you not showing, with this example that it would not harm them as they raise the price of their product?[/QUOTE] That example shows that them paying taxes prevents them from either being viable operations and/or goes against their motives and intentions, that being providing something as cheaply to the consumer as possible. They will be taxed across all their operations, which means they will be paying tax directly or indirectly without necessarily making any money. That effectively means that they may have to become a scalable business to meet the cost demands of operating, otherwise they can't function. Don't forget that businesses don't pay taxes on losses, which in the case of a non-profit being taxed would probably being very frequent.
  12. [quote name='Arix']Hmm I suppose you're right there. However, a non-profit organisation earns money like all the others do. They just don't earn it with the intent of making profit. They earn it to make up for costs, just like charities do. As such, tax would be just another cost and I don't think it would harm them.[/QUOTE] Taxing non-profits would absolutely harm their ability to remain operational/non-profit. Let me explain it with an example, think of two medium-sized organisations. One of them operates to make a profit while the other is a non-profit. Both of them are selling a product that costs them $5 to make. The for profit business will have to work out their costs and price the product to make money on top, so their price could range anywhere from $15-20+. While the non-profit business will also work out their costs and say, okay we need to make $7.50 per product to give it as cheap as possible and still be able to stay in business. The key difference here is that by taxing the non-profit they are no longer able to offer their product for $7.50, but now instead must charge $10. They are not running their business for personal gain, but instead are what is known as a social enterprise. By that we mean they are offering a service to society out of goodwill and not greed. Taxing this business affects the very people who it is supposed to support, which would be unpopular across the board. An important consideration for you in this debate will be to separate businesses from religious organisations, even though some basically operate as businesses.
  13. [quote name='Arix']No. Simply stated, what makes them different from other companies or organisations? 'Holy' doesn't exist nor should it matter in business. If such rules would remain, then I'm starting a business and I will create a new religion to avoid taxes.[/QUOTE] Well for a start they are non-profit organisations, their tax-exemptions are on par with charities (whom also avoid taxes). Most businesses are for profit and therefore taxable, that is the difference. If you were to create a religion for tax relief, you certainly wouldn't be the first.
  14. So to clarify, by holy places we are discussing places of worship/religious organisations (Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.). Many holy places are extremely well financed (e.g. donations, investments etc.), and are exempt from tax on such incomes. What this enables is an opportunity for corruption in holy places to benefit from the tax-exemption. An example of abuse on this scale is the case of Scientology, an organisation with funds in the billions for what is essentially not a religion, but instead a cult that is able to exploit this flaw. Consider holy places that are making investments in shares/bonds/property. These are acquired through donations, yet their earning potential can continue to bring money for a long time. Now should this income also remain tax-exempt? How is the system protected against abuse? Where do we draw the line? On the other side of the argument we have small religious places that are non-profit and are only financially viable due to being tax-exempt and the generous donations of the public. If holy places and organisations are taxed across the board what are the implications across the scale? What about the smaller holy places and organisations that will be critically affected? While on the other end of the spectrum the larger religious organisations can very easily become capable of contributing to society by paying taxes, they will always be contrasted by the smaller religious organisations that are not so fortunate. An acknowledgement we should make is that there is a clear need for distinction between what scale of holy places/organisations should be tax-exempt and to what extent do we consider them to be large and financially sufficient to pay taxes on their incomes. What incomes should be taxes and which shouldn't? This makes it important to distinguish the differences between donations and investments. What are your views?
  15. Slik

    GEEZ whats goin on