Jump to content


Photo

Ken Ham Doing What Obama Has Not Been Able To


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 25 January 2016 - 11:04 PM

Yeah!



#62 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 26 January 2016 - 11:22 AM

"Ken Ham Doing What Obama Has Not Been Able To"
 
But it's strictly not the job of POTUS to do so. People have been able to look after themselves without Presidents or Politicians for Millenia. 

I think it are probably even out. Think about all the Christians that have subsidized the teaching of the religion of evolution in our classrooms.

 ... The odd thing is that this is justified with the "Separation of Church and State", while the same argument is used against something suspected of being based on some Christian philosophy. Of course they won't tell you that modern science is actually a derivative of (medieval) Christian Philosophy. 
  

Let's be for real. You really wouldn't expect a Jewish organization to hire members of the KKK now would you?

Generally not, but sometimes they do:
http://www.larouchep...lan_and_naz.pdf

For some strange reason almost exclusively organizations of (mostly) heterosexual, Christian, White, Males are expected to have to hire anybody and are shun, when they don't hire someone to different from themselves. Apparently the argument is that they have some "unfair" advantage in the societies they've created and still maintain. 

 

Anyway, I guess to expect some optimum performance, contractors also got to have some heart in the whole thing. Except for the commodities of course, which will come from some corporation dealing in them. 



#63 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 27 January 2016 - 11:16 AM

 

Update.

 

Quote

...

A federal judge ruled Monday that Kentucky officials violated the ark builders' First Amendment protections by blocking it from the sales tax tourism incentive that could have been worth up to $18 million.

...

U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove ruled the state's Tourism Cabinet cannot exclude the ark attraction from the incentive based on its "religious purpose and message."

...

 

LINK

 

We'll see if Kentucky officials appeal it. Probably not since, according to the article, the current governor Matt Bevin supports the tax incentives for the project.

I am surprised that the judge ruled for profit business is allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.

 

You are probably right that Kentucky will not appeal the decision.  It is possible that once the park opens, a private citizen will initiate an appeal.  (I don't think they would have legal standing before the park opens.)



#64 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 January 2016 - 11:37 PM

There is some new information on the tax rebates for Ark Encounter that I don't think any of us were aware of:

 

According to Newsweek:

"In order to incentivize building there, Williamstown declared the ark site and the surrounding 1.25 miles a tax increment financing (TIF) district, which is a fancy way of saying that over the next 30 years, 75 percent of sales and real estate taxes generated within the area will go back to fund Ark Encounter. There’s also an employment tax for workers in the district, ....  as part of the TIF agreement, employees working within the TIF district will be subject to a 2 percent employment tax on gross wages for the next 30 years. In other words, $2 out of every $100 earned by people working at or around the park will go directly to paying off the attraction."

 

So employees of non-AE businesses will be taxed to help pay for the park.



#65 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 23 July 2017 - 03:40 PM

As I'm sure we all know, the Ark Encounter opened last July and just celebrated its first anniversary in operation.

 

There has been some recent news....

 

While attendance numbers have not been released, it has been sufficient to stress the resources of local government.  The population of Williamsburg Ky is just over 5,000.  Such small towns don't have a lot of resources to spare.  In order to offset the impact of the Ark Encounter on local emergency services, Williamsburg enacted a $0.50 per ticket "safety tax."

 

According to Cincinnati.com, Ken Ham " transferred the property June 28 to a nonprofit entity, Crosswater Canyon, for $10. Crosswater Canyon is a nonprofit subsidiary of Answers in Genesis." 

 

In other words, he sold it to himself and changed it from a "for profit" to a "non-profit."  The article goes on to point out this could also exempt Ark Encounter from property and other taxes as well.

 

The state of Kentucky has responded by revoking the sales tax rebate that Ham expected to net him $18 million.  This is based on the agreement having been made with the for profit Ark Encounter, not the non-profit Crosswater Canyon.

 

Are we looking to another round in court?



#66 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 24 July 2017 - 12:19 AM

Wow, its unbelievable what these guys can get away with.



#67 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 24 July 2017 - 05:19 AM

Yep! Turn about is fair play. lol Look at taxpayers paying for teaching the religion of
evolution in public classrooms.



#68 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 24 July 2017 - 01:24 PM

 

 

Piasan: In other words, he sold it to himself and changed it from a "for profit" to a "non-profit."  The article goes on to point out this could also exempt Ark Encounter from property and other taxes as well.

 

The state of Kentucky has responded by revoking the sales tax rebate that Ham expected to net him $18 million.  This is based on the agreement having been made with the for profit Ark Encounter, not the non-profit Crosswater Canyon.

 

Yes but the point is, if it is non-profit then why would it be taxed anyway? To say someone does this, to turn something non-profit to save tax, doesn't mean they are getting money, if it is non-profit.

 

It seems to me you are saying that we should be cynical and assume his motive to turn it to non-profit is so he can somehow get money. if it is non-profit, and he isn't taxed that means they don't get income to they aren't taxed, doesn't it?

 

Obviously I may have missed something, because I don't know all of the rules and don't follow that sort of thing and what they mean but it seems to me the reason something isn't taxed is because it makes no profit. If I worked in a charity shop and didn't get paid as it was voluntary work, how would I make money if they didn't tax me?



#69 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 721 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 24 July 2017 - 02:08 PM

Yes but the point is, if it is non-profit then why would it be taxed anyway? To say someone does this, to turn something non-profit to save tax, doesn't mean they are getting money, if it is non-profit.
 
It seems to me you are saying that we should be cynical and assume his motive to turn it to non-profit is so he can somehow get money. if it is non-profit, and he isn't taxed that means they don't get income to they aren't taxed, doesn't it?
 
Obviously I may have missed something, because I don't know all of the rules and don't follow that sort of thing and what they mean but it seems to me the reason something isn't taxed is because it makes no profit. If I worked in a charity shop and didn't get paid as it was voluntary work, how would I make money if they didn't tax me?

Non-profit doesn't mean no income. Non-profits can and do make money. The thing that makes them non-profit is that they aren't founded with the purpose of doing that and paying out the excess to shareholders or members.

As a for-profit, they would have been liable for property taxes on the land, but would be getting a rebate from the state on a lot of that. The worry is that they're going to try to claim a non-profit exemption from property taxes, which would be a huge blow to the local government and school system.

The response was Kentucky taking away the sales tax rebate they were going to get as part of that deal. Technically that's not their money, they just collect the sales tax to be passed on to the state government, but the deal was that they could keep some portion of it instead.

It seems like a weird move unless the whole project is expected to lose money even with all the tax incentives.

#70 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 July 2017 - 04:32 PM

 

 

Piasan: In other words, he sold it to himself and changed it from a "for profit" to a "non-profit."  The article goes on to point out this could also exempt Ark Encounter from property and other taxes as well.

 

The state of Kentucky has responded by revoking the sales tax rebate that Ham expected to net him $18 million.  This is based on the agreement having been made with the for profit Ark Encounter, not the non-profit Crosswater Canyon.

 

Yes but the point is, if it is non-profit then why would it be taxed anyway? To say someone does this, to turn something non-profit to save tax, doesn't mean they are getting money, if it is non-profit.

 

It seems to me you are saying that we should be cynical and assume his motive to turn it to non-profit is so he can somehow get money. if it is non-profit, and he isn't taxed that means they don't get income to they aren't taxed, doesn't it?

 

Obviously I may have missed something, because I don't know all of the rules and don't follow that sort of thing and what they mean but it seems to me the reason something isn't taxed is because it makes no profit. If I worked in a charity shop and didn't get paid as it was voluntary work, how would I make money if they didn't tax me?

Popoi has already covered some of this.

 

Non-profit entities often own for-profit businesses.  Any profit from the business is then turned over to the non-profit for furtherance of the non-profit's objectives.

 

For example, years ago one of the major (for profit) grocery chains in the western US (Safeway) was owned by the (non-profit) Catholic Church.  Safeway would conduct their business just like any other business.  They obeyed the same tax and discrimination laws as any other business.  Profits remaining after that would then be transferred to the Catholic Church which is tax exempt as a religious organization.

 

Ham's AE (for profit business) and AIG (non-profit religious ministry) is a similar situation.

 

For years, Ham has sold Ark Encounter to local governments as a for-profit business in order to get all kinds of tax breaks.  Reduced property taxes (for 30 years) and a portion of sales taxes collected were part of the deal.  Part of the appeal to local government was a claim that hundreds of jobs would be made available to local residents on a non-discrimination basis.  (The discrimination was a concern because AIG will hire only "Bible believing Christians")

 

Based on those promises, AE applied for, and was granted a 25% rebate on sales taxes collected to a percentage of the money invested.  That percentage would amount to about $18 million.  Then AE hired staff and included an affirmation of the AIG Statement of Faith as a requirement of employment.  This caused Kentucky to revoke the sales tax rebate based on religious discrimination that would not be allowed by a for-profit business.  This led to a court battle (won by AIG) who declared AE is a religious ministry and exempt from the religious discrimination laws.  AIG won and the tax rebate was restored.

 

Fast forward to the present....

As explained above, the city enacted a $0.50 tax on all attendance ticket sales to supplement local public safety operations such as police and fire protection.  Notice, this tax was not only on AE.  Even a local movie theater or a circus passing through town would be taxed.  Of course, with AE selling thousands of tickets a day it's obvious they would be paying almost all of that particular tax.

 

Now, it may just be pure coincidence, but the transfer of ownership of AE to Crosswater Canyon may be a pure coincidence.  At a minimum it represents a massive breach of faith with the local governments.  However, based on past actions it's more than a little suspicious.



#71 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 July 2017 - 11:33 AM

Update.
 
Quote

...
A federal judge ruled Monday that Kentucky officials violated the ark builders' First Amendment protections by blocking it from the sales tax tourism incentive that could have been worth up to $18 million.
...
U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove ruled the state's Tourism Cabinet cannot exclude the ark attraction from the incentive based on its "religious purpose and message."
...

LINK
 
We'll see if Kentucky officials appeal it. Probably not since, according to the article, the current governor Matt Bevin supports the tax incentives for the project.
I am surprised that the judge ruled for profit business is allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.
 
You are probably right that Kentucky will not appeal the decision.  It is possible that once the park opens, a private citizen will initiate an appeal.  (I don't think they would have legal standing before the park opens.)

Update.
 
Quote

...
A federal judge ruled Monday that Kentucky officials violated the ark builders' First Amendment protections by blocking it from the sales tax tourism incentive that could have been worth up to $18 million.
...
U.S. District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove ruled the state's Tourism Cabinet cannot exclude the ark attraction from the incentive based on its "religious purpose and message."
...

LINK
 
We'll see if Kentucky officials appeal it. Probably not since, according to the article, the current governor Matt Bevin supports the tax incentives for the project.
I am surprised that the judge ruled for profit business is allowed to discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs.
 
You are probably right that Kentucky will not appeal the decision.  It is possible that once the park opens, a private citizen will initiate an appeal.  (I don't think they would have legal standing before the park opens.)


"Physics is much more a problem for Genesis literalism than evolution could ever be."


Lenin coined a phrase for people who supported his cause of the Communist revolution while knowing full well that they were going to be the FIRST ones to face the firing squad .... He called them "Useful Idiots",, Atheists know full well why Darwinian Evolution was made popular and why it must be protected at all cost IN SPITE OF the monsterous amount of Evidence AGAINST IT ..



Atheists are Laughing at you while Christians Mourn for you and the
damage you are doing to Gods kingdom becasue of your arrogance that
you somehow know more than God does about HIS Creation...

How about the Garden of Eden ? God described it in detail in his word. What do YOU have to say about it? Should we believe God? Or you?
When did God decide to put eternal souls in Apes? When did he decide that they were "Man", created in his own image? When they were still climbing trees, eating maggots and throwing fecal matter at each other?
Or sometime later? Your myth mocks God in order to praise Darwin.. I would be very careful with this Satanic worldview that you defend so vigorously if I were you..

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” G. Richard Bozarth,

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing." “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist,


"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).

#72 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,067 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 July 2017 - 12:05 PM

 

 

Popoi: Non-profit doesn't mean no income. Non-profits can and do make money

 

Yes I spoke loosely, income isn't the same thing as profit, but charities for example that get income don't profit in any meaningful way.

 

So I don't see why a non-taxing of a non-profit business means they are getting money.

 

For example Revelation programming in the Uk were investigated, a Christian creationist broadcaster, they show their figures monthly. They don't profit like a business does just because of income, because they income pays for the costs of running the station, and mostly they run on volunteers. The "profit" sometimes is plus or minus meaning sometimes they don't get enough money by income/charity for there to necessarily be any real, "profit".

 

Piasan's original claim was that AIG/Ham would not be taxed as if to imply this would leave AIG with surplus money, but if a business gets a certain turnover, and their "profit" is insignificant so it is "non-profit", then that means if they don't get taxed that doesn't give them any extra money. 

 

After all that is the reason they are obviously not taxed, because the turnover from income is just the excess.

 

What are you guys implying - that non-profit means profit on a big scale? Okay - prove it. Prove Ham is profiting. 

 

(By the way the Christian Revelation programming were not investigated for doing anything wrong, there was a complaint by G*y people about the station based on information the G*y people couldn't have known such as their claims they were making big bucks. In fact the investigation shown the G*y people were inventing information, and were really complaining because they are G*y, and hate Christianity tv channels.)

 

Now I hear Piasan complaining. Big deal - provide the proof, accusations aren't sufficient, all you've done is throw some figures around, that doesn't mean those figures are going in Ham's back pocket. The catholics are stinking rich evolutionists, that wipe their backsides with gold leaf. :P



#73 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:59 PM

This has been a really fast moving story.
 
Apparently Ham has changed his mind.
 
and
 
Ham's comments can be found at:
 
 
The brief summary of events....
Ark Encounter was drawing 4,000-8,000 visitors per day to a city of only 4,000 (per the Forbes article).
This caused a lot of additional work for city emergency services .... police, fire, medical.
The city imposed a $0.50 tax on attendance tickets.  This would include local theaters or a circus passing thru town.  Obviously AE was going to pay essentially all  of the tax.
The tax was expected to raise about $715,000 per year.
Ham asked for a cap at $500,000 (according to Ham at the AIG website).
The city refused to budge.
Ham transferred AE to a non-profit.  This could not only exempt AE from the ticket tax but such things as property taxes as well.
Kentucky stepped in and cancelled AE's sales tax rebate (worth an estimated $18 million).
Ham has transferred AE back to the original ownership.
 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users