Maher Opposes Charitable Tax Deductions to Mormon Church and the Arts But Supports NPR Funding
HBO's Bill Maher took a lot of heat last week for calling Mormonism a cult that isn't a charity because it doesn't give to poor people.
Defending himself on Friday's Real Time, the host explained why he believes contributions to the Mormon Church and such things as the symphony and the ballet shouldn't be tax deductible but ignored that he supports federal funding of NPR (partial video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):
During his final New Rule, Maher once again went after the Mormon Church saying it wasn't a charity.
He then referred to the heat he got from last Friday's show for saying "Mitt Romney's charitable giving doesn't count because it all goes to his cult."
"I'm sorry," joked Maher. "I meant to say his ridiculous church."
It was further obvious this was no apology when Maher said, "I personally define a cult as any religion with fewer followers than Snooki has on Twitter."
Actually, there are currently 14 million practicing Mormons worldwide. Snooki only has 4.9 million Twitter followers.
As we've documented for years, facts are never important to this idiot.
From there, Maher continued his anti-Mormon rant complaining that they're secretive - "like Fight Club."
"In any event, it doesn't matter, and I'm very sorry if I called your horses--t bulls--t."
Which lead to the real stupidity.
"When Mitt Romney gets a deduction for giving to charity, the rest of us taxpayers have to cover the loss. Charitable deductions reduce the public coffers by about $60 billion a year."
$60 billion? Nah.
According to Subsidy Scope, an initiative of the Pew Charitable Trusts, the government "lost" about $47 billion in 2008.
With the downturn in the economy, charitable giving has significantly declined in recent years. A study done by New York University School of Law last spring estimated tax revenues lost to charitable deductions were only $37 billion in 2010.
Once again, facts are just irrelevant to this idiot who from there continued bashing Romney's faith.
"The way it works when you're a Mormon is you give ten percent of your income to your local coven or whatever it's called. They send it to Salt Lake City where it's counted by goblins and guarded by dragons."
Amazing.
He continued, "If Mitt Romney gave ten percent of his income to the Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders, I would be the first to say, 'Good robot.' But he gives it to the Mormon Church."
So therein lies the rub: folks should only get tax deductions if they give to charities Maher believes in.
Minutes into this disgusting rant, he did admit the Mormon Church does some good things.
"But that's not their main concern which is, like any business, growing the business, opening branches, selling more product, putting a--es in tabernacles...Real charities only care about the charity."
From there, Maher showed a picture of the Mormon Temple in San Diego. "Someone has to explain to me why Mitt Romney gets a tax writeoff for giving money to the people who already own this."
The stupidity on display here was staggering. Religions need facilities for their members to pray and congregate at. This has been the case for centuries. Without them, they have no members.
Is Maher's contention that all religions should have their tax exempt status revoked because they use some of their money to build - ahem - churches?
But Maher wasn't done, for he next showed a picture of Disney Hall where the Los Angeles Symphony performs.
"Lots of people give money to symphonies," he complained, "and they get tax deductions for that. But they shouldn't...because unlike food and water, access to Mozart is not a basic human necessity."
So should that be what defines a charity under our tax code? Providing a basic human necessity? Then shouldn't the federal government immediately stop subsidizing anything not specifically related to such things?
If so, Maher must have forgotten an article he wrote last year for The Hollywood Reporter titled "Bill Maher States His Case for Continued Federal Funding of NPR": "NPR also only gets a few percent of its funding from the federal government, but if that keeps it in places where it wouldn't otherwise be, I think that's money well spent, considering the trillions we spend on bullshit."
So it's fine for tax dollars to go to NPR which has absolutely nothing to do with providing basic human necessities, but the Mormon Church which does shouldn't be considered a charity under the tax code because it doesn't spend all of its money that way.
Let's see the idiot talk his way out of this hypocrisy next week.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Maher's a moron. His
Submitted by clancie on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:49pm.
Maher's a moron. His ignorance and stupidity is only surpassed by his bigotry.
Tax exemption for churches &
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 12:50pm.
Tax exemption for churches & tax deductions donating to religious causes is something that the left always sensationalizes, but excluding groups only because they're religious would be discriminatory. Liberal leaning groups like feminist groups and race groups also get the same exemptions and deductions if they do community work rather than political work. Marxist groups can get the same benefits if they do community work. Either it shows a kind of ignorance about how our system works or a bigotry against religion.
And there it is...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:31pm.
"When Mitt Romney gets a deduction for giving to charity, the rest of us taxpayers have to cover the loss. Charitable deductions reduce the public coffers by about $60 billion a year."
And there it is, the "public coffer" complaint. As if the "public" is OWED a fixed percentage of someone's income and someone like Romney is "cheating" the "public coffer" out of its share of his income because he only paid, say, 5 million dollars instead of 5 million 300 hundred thousand.
Maher acts as if their is some kind of fix amount that the "public coffer" is "owed" by everyone and that if one person doesn't pay the fully "owed" amount, someone else has to pay more. But that's not even close to the truth. We pay a variable amount, individually, based upon earnings, not a set percentage of the whole. NO ONE is "covering" someone else's tax deductions, EVER. That's not how the tax system works. It's NEVER worked that way! Its not like the federal budget is this year's tax bill to the American people.
Marher, Let's compare YOUR total tax payments year by year against Romeny's and let us know how much YOU "cheated" out of the "public coffer!" I want to see how many of YOUR deductions the rest of us are supposedly "covering." What do you say, up to the task?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Maher and his ilk think every
Submitted by MrSnuggles on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 4:02pm.
Maher and his ilk think every penny flowing through the economy belongs to the feds and whatever income people enjoy is at the kindness of the government. So when Romney gives money to his church, the government is "paying" for that tax deduction.
It would do no good to point
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:27pm.
It would do no good to point out to a troll like Mahar that people don't LIVE in the Temples or meeting houses in the Church. I attend these buildings, and there are no luxury offices, suites or living quarters in any of them. They're houses of worship. Church leaders don't tool around wearing sunglasses and driving fancy limousines like Mahar does. What might he have said about what it took to build the Temple of Solomon?
Such things are not new. In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Alma had to put the smack down on an anti-Christ named Korihor, who thought the same thing. "Thou knowest that we do not glut ourselves upon the labors of this people; for behold I have labored ...with mine own hands for my support, notwithstanding my many travels round about the land to declare the word of God unto my people.
...And now, if we do not receive anything for our labors in the church, what doth it profit us to labor in the church save it were to declare the truth, that we may have rejoicings in the joy of our brethren? Then why sayest thou that we preach unto this people to get gain, when thou, of thyself, knowest that we receive no gain?"
It's common knowledge that leaders in the church don't get paid. Mahar knows this, but he chooses to ignore it in order to trick his ignorant audience. He wouldn't get ratings and controversy if he said 'The church isn't corrupt and the leaders don't have their hands in the till'. His show has no use for truth.
NS
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:37pm.
I hereby bequeath you my phrase "galactically stupid". Because you're going to need it for this guy in the coming weeks and months.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Birth control is also not a basic human necessity.
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 1:43pm.
And I'd like to hear Maher discuss Scientology, you know, that "religion" of so many celebrities that really is cult like and secretive.
Bill Who?
Submitted by JJoujan on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 2:53pm.
I know it is the job of Newsbusters to follow media bias in all its forms, but could you ignore Maher for a while? His audience isn't that big so he must be very happy when this blog reports faithfully, week after week, on his latest depraved rants. I actually had never heard of him before I started reading NB blogs, and having gotten to know all about him now, I consider him no more than a dung beetle - icky when confronted by it, but pretty much out of sight out of mind. He's not like regular media who must be exposed for what they are in order to stop their lying to the people. He does a dandy job of exposing himself.
That's a fair point. What
Submitted by Slyrr on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 4:29pm.
That's a fair point. What exactly ARE his ratings compared to other networks? What's his audience statistics and total viewership?
If HBO says Mahar is 'the biggest hit on HBO', and HBO is on the bottom of the dung heap (though maybe above Current TV), then it's not saying much, is it?
EXTREMELY Fair Point
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 1:34am.
If I understand the concept of NB, it is to "expose" liberal bias in the media... That would seem to me to presuppose that the media person, network, organization, whatever tries to hide, distort or avoid acknowledging liberal bias...
BM makes no attempt to hide his biases... So, how about we simply note that BM does not qualify for our attention and move on? If Newsbusters simply dropped watching BM, his viewership would drop from 4 to 2 and then maybe HBO would get the message and kick his butt off the air...
I think NB pays way too much attention to what this idiot spews
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 05/05/2012 - 5:17pm.
He's irrelevent.
SuperPac
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 7:30pm.
When Maher gives $1 Million Dollars to Obama through a SuperPac, he is relevent. He is fair game.
Of Course Maher supports NPR Funding over Churches
Submitted by djwolf12 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 12:22pm.
Church funding is Voluntary. NPR Funding is enforced by the Government against the will of the taxpayers. I suppose we need to investigate whether or not Jeremiah Wright's church of hate received "public funding" since 2009. Under this out of control Government, I wouldn't put it past them for doing so.
Two can play the game
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 4:01pm.
From there, Maher showed a picture of the Mormon Temple in San Diego. "Someone has to explain to me why Mitt Romney gets a tax writeoff for giving money to the people who already own this."
OK. Then someone has to explain to me why tax dollars go to people who already own THIS.
Why Should I Care?
Submitted by allouchsit on Sun, 05/06/2012 - 7:25pm.
Can anyone give me one good reason why I -- or anyone else -- should care what Bill Maher thinks about Mitt Romney's charitable giving? Who for Pete's sake is Bill Maher? He tells unfunny jokes and lies -- and that's considered a living? and we should care that he has an opinion? I just don't get it. Why does Newbusters give him a forum?