Bill Maher on taxing churches
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-04-2016, 02:45 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 12:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 12:28 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Property taxes should be paid by all organizations that own land and buildings, after all aren’t they using public infrastructure and services? If there’s a fire are they not expecting the fire department to show up? A break in, will they not call the police? How about for road repairs in front of their property, who pays for that, only their neighbors? Aren’t they taking up space that a non-exempt business would be paying taxes on?

It is conservatively estimated that religious structures in the US have a worth of $600,000,000. A millage rate of 0.018 like I pay would equate to an extra $10,778,000 in revenue so offset the services they so greatly enjoy.

So in essence you believe any non-profit organization that owns property, even when exclusively used for organization purposes should be taxed? Or is it just religious based organization you take issue with here?

A non-profit humanist organization, that owns a building they operates out of should be paying taxes on it?

Or how about an organization that feeds the homeless, should they have to pay taxes on the building they use to feed the poor?

And here I thought I was pretty clear with my opening sentence. Please re-read.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 02:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 12:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So in essence you believe any non-profit organization that owns property, even when exclusively used for organization purposes should be taxed? Or is it just religious based organization you take issue with here?

A non-profit humanist organization, that owns a building they operates out of should be paying taxes on it?

Or how about an organization that feeds the homeless, should they have to pay taxes on the building they use to feed the poor?

I thought I was pretty clear with my opening sentence.

No, if you're going to suggest a new tax policy, that's not discriminatory, you'd have be a bit more explicit. If we're going to push for laws that change how tax exempt organizations are allowed to operate and function, and what aspects of those organizations are to be taxed or not, then you need to be more clearer. Or else your just speaking non-sense. You more or less just expressing your prejudices, rather than something substantive.

Bill Maher in his routine suggest taxing churches, the way we tax tobacco and alcohol, as a deterrent. Or in other words not for the sake of fair taxation, but we want the tax system to be used in such away to erode religion.

At least he's honest about his motivation there, even though it's discriminatory, and would be illegal as a result.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2016, 03:01 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 02:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I thought I was pretty clear with my opening sentence.

No, if you're going to suggest a new tax policy, that's not discriminatory, you'd have be a bit more explicit. If we're going to push for laws that change how tax exempt organizations are allowed to operate and function, and what aspects of those organizations are to be taxed or not, then you need to be more clearer. Or else your just speaking non-sense. You more or less just expressing your prejudices, rather than something substantive.

Bill Maher in his routine suggest taxing churches, the way we tax tobacco and alcohol, as a deterrent. Or in other words not for the sake of fair taxation, but we want the tax system to be used in such away to erode religion.

At least he's honest about his motivation there, even though it's discriminatory, and would be illegal as a result.

Your’re reading comprehension seems to be wanting, I can’t be more clear than this.

Let me try with larger font and bolding. Property taxes should be paid by all organizations that own land and buildings.

All your other points are strawmen or obfuscation in an attempt to paint my stance as only directed at religious organizations.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
18-04-2016, 04:53 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 03:01 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 02:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, if you're going to suggest a new tax policy, that's not discriminatory, you'd have be a bit more explicit. If we're going to push for laws that change how tax exempt organizations are allowed to operate and function, and what aspects of those organizations are to be taxed or not, then you need to be more clearer. Or else your just speaking non-sense. You more or less just expressing your prejudices, rather than something substantive.

Bill Maher in his routine suggest taxing churches, the way we tax tobacco and alcohol, as a deterrent. Or in other words not for the sake of fair taxation, but we want the tax system to be used in such away to erode religion.

At least he's honest about his motivation there, even though it's discriminatory, and would be illegal as a result.

Your’re reading comprehension seems to be wanting, I can’t be more clear than this.

Let me try with larger font and bolding. Property taxes should be paid by all organizations that own land and buildings.

All your other points are strawmen or obfuscation in an attempt to paint my stance as only directed at religious organizations.

Good a non-discrimontory stance, in which even an organization that houses and feeds the homeless has to pay taxes on the building they own and use for these purposes.

You've suggested a policy as persuasive as getting rid of tax exempt status of all non-profit organizations, but at least it's not discriminatory.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-04-2016, 06:50 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(17-04-2016 06:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If churches are being taxed, are we taxing any sort of communal organization as well, are we suggesting that humanist gatherings also be taxed.
Humanist "organisations" (if any exist as such) certainly don't own numerous $20 million buildings that sit empty for six days of every week.

(17-04-2016 06:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What functions does an organization have to serve to qualify for tax-exempt status.
Perhaps you could tell us, instead, why churches enjoy a tax-free status?

(17-04-2016 06:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Should boys and girl clubs, the girl scouts, book clubs, etc... be taxed.....
The buildings that these organisations use are invariably owned by people who do pay land and property taxes. The boys clubs and girl scouts etc don't actually own any buildings themselves, they merely lease or use the buildings gratis.

(17-04-2016 06:28 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do all churches get taxed, or is it only certain churches that would be taxed?
Yes, all churches should be taxed, just like any other nominally profitable business. My local public medical centre pays taxes on its property, why shouldn't the church that's next door to it?

Each and every week in the US, the Catholic Church receives approximately $850 million through donations from individual Catholics. Italy's L'Espresso claims the Vatican is worth $11 billion, and the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples is said to have holdings of $8 billion.

These figures are obscene.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like SYZ's post
18-04-2016, 08:40 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 06:50 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Perhaps you could tell us, instead, why churches enjoy a tax-free status?

I'd like to answer this one!

To quote Full Circle, from earlier:

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The IRS and what qualifies as a 501©(3)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
"Congress has enacted special tax laws that apply to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The unique status they enjoy is that of beloved parasite. It is akin to walking out of the swamp, praising the leeches stuck to your butt.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law;...”

Which is in itself a violation of the Constitution.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Tax-Exempt Status
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501©(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

Now, I ask you, my fellow nonbelievers, how many of the following requirements do churches adhere to? Anyone care to guess?

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:   the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
Building obscenely luxurious temples/churches/etc. and running businesses rules out many, if not all religious organizations.

And I'm fairly sure that building things like a stupid fucking ark in Kentucky doesn't count either.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
Do I even have to quote examples? The vatican? The televangelists? Too many to list.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:   no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
*cough* G.. O.. MOTHERFUCKING P.. *cough*

Among many others...

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Hello, can we say "organized pedophilia"? I knew we could.



So there you have it. Every fucking one. Broken. Rampantly, flagrantly and continuously.

Tax them.

Tax them into bankruptcy.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
18-04-2016, 09:13 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 08:40 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 06:50 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Perhaps you could tell us, instead, why churches enjoy a tax-free status?

I'd like to answer this one!

To quote Full Circle, from earlier:

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  The IRS and what qualifies as a 501©(3)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
"Congress has enacted special tax laws that apply to churches, religious organizations and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The unique status they enjoy is that of beloved parasite. It is akin to walking out of the swamp, praising the leeches stuck to your butt.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Churches and religious organizations are generally exempt from income tax and receive other favorable treatment under the tax law;...”

Which is in itself a violation of the Constitution.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Tax-Exempt Status
Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC Section 501©(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, the organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):

Now, I ask you, my fellow nonbelievers, how many of the following requirements do churches adhere to? Anyone care to guess?

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:   the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purposes;
Building obscenely luxurious temples/churches/etc. and running businesses rules out many, if not all religious organizations.

And I'm fairly sure that building things like a stupid fucking ark in Kentucky doesn't count either.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder;
Do I even have to quote examples? The vatican? The televangelists? Too many to list.

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:   no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation;
the organization may not intervene in political campaigns; and
*cough* G.. O.. MOTHERFUCKING P.. *cough*

Among many others...

(16-04-2016 07:40 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Hello, can we say "organized pedophilia"? I knew we could.



So there you have it. Every fucking one. Broken. Rampantly, flagrantly and continuously.

Tax them.

Tax them into bankruptcy.

Clap Though I prefer the clapping smiley that is wearing the white gloves.

Well said!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
19-04-2016, 06:15 AM
Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 06:50 PM)SYZ Wrote:  Perhaps you could tell us, instead, why churches enjoy a tax-free status?

For the same reason non-profit humanist organizations do, for the same reasons that the atheists equivalent of a Church, the Sunday Assembly is recognized as a non-profit, enjoying the same tax exempt benefits churches do.

Our tax code allows such organizations to be classified as non-profit, allowing them to own tax except properties. You and others here are the ones suggesting our tax codes be changed. But the argument primarily seems to be more huff than substantive, lacking anything even remotely resembling a clear tax policy change.

You can't create a policy exclusively reserved for religious based organizations here, because that's discriminatory and illegal, so whatever policy you'd be suggesting would have implications on non-profits as a whole. It's perhaps why no-one other than polemicist suggest it.

Quote:The buildings that these organisations use are invariably owned by people who do pay land and property taxes. The boys clubs and girl scouts etc don't actually own any buildings themselves, they merely lease or use the buildings gratis.

Uhm, I'm not sure where you getting that information from, the Girl Scouts own a variety of camps and buildings. They recently sold their Ann Arbor building for 1mill to a church, because it was too small for them.

Quote:Each and every week in the US, the Catholic Church receives approximately $850 million through donations from individual Catholics. Italy's L'Espresso claims the Vatican is worth $11 billion, and the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples is said to have holdings of $8 billion.

These figures are obscene.

Most churches don't own billions of dollars worth of property. And a variety of them are independent subsidiaries of larger organization.

Most pastors aren't wealthy megachurch leaders. Most fall into the middle class.

Now if you were suggesting policies like employees of a non-profit should have their income taxed if they make over certain threshold I may even agree with you. But if you're directing the changes to these policies at the church, it's easy to see your more agenda driven, than concerned about a fair tax code.

Quote:My local public medical centre pays taxes on its property, why shouldn't the church that's next door to it?

That's likely because they're not a non-profit, and preferred not to be. My local non-profit clinic doesn't pay taxes on its properties. Nor would a non-profit like planned parenthood that operates a variety of buildings, and gets huge tax benefits, grants etc.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2016, 10:57 AM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(16-04-2016 09:35 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(16-04-2016 08:48 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  those crafty horn blowers! thats just embarassing for everyone. how did they not hear them coming?

Two words...toilet plunger Cool

[Image: wynton250x300.jpg]

Facepalm

OH Dyslexia you strike again!

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(19-04-2016 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  For the same reason non-profit humanist organizations do, for the same reasons that the atheists equivalent of a Church, the Sunday Assembly is recognized as a non-profit, enjoying the same tax exempt benefits churches do.
Not so here in Australia. It's not recognised as a not-for-profit or an incorporation. And no matter how you like to misrepresent the Sunday Assembly, it has nothing at all in common with churches. No temples of worship; no tithing or collection plates; no imaginary god figure; no holy book; no preachers; no nonsensical religious paraphernalia; and most importantly no tax free status.

Quote:Our tax code allows such organizations to be classified as non-profit, allowing them to own tax exempt properties.
I asked why they're classified as tax exempt in comparison to all other non-religious businesses also raking in hundreds of millions of dollar annually. And why exactly are they allowed to own tax exempt properties? It's pointless citing the US's tax code to both these questions—I want your answer.

Quote:But the argument primarily seems to be more huff than substantive, lacking anything even remotely resembling a clear tax policy change.
Not at all. The clear—and simple—change to the tax codes is to make all churches pay their fair share of taxation like all other business entities and individuals. How can you reasonably claim that a church sitting on a $20 million property shouldn't pay property taxes and local government taxes on that property? Your lot have yet to answer that question—answers please.

Quote:You can't create a policy exclusively reserved for religious based organizations here, because that's discriminatory and illegal [...]
Uh... no. The policy of paying taxation applies to all legal for-profit entities; it's silly to even suggest that taxing the churches would be "discriminatory". The Vatican currently keeps gold reserves worth more than $20 million with the US Federal Reserve. All tax free! That in itself is obscene.

—I do thank you for acknowledging that I'm a polemicist though; I'd be falsely modest to deny possessing that particular skill.

Quote:Uhm, I'm not sure where you getting that information from, the Girl Scouts own a variety of camps and buildings. They recently sold their Ann Arbor building for 1 mill to a church, because it was too small for them.
Again, it's a bit difficult to realistically compare the Scouts Associations in Australia with their US counterparts. I would note though that the Memorial Christian Church will pay no property taxes on this building, having previously sold their Tappan Ave property for $1.8 million, and again paid no transfer tax on the transaction.

Quote:Most churches don't own billions of dollars worth of property. And a variety of them are independent subsidiaries of larger organization.
Only the Roman Catholic church. Which has around $20 billion buried in the Vatican bank vaults? One Catholic church here in Australia which was recently largely destroyed by an arson attack (mounted by one of its former paedophile priest's victims) is being rebuilt at a cost of $20 million. What a pity the church instead couldn't build some refuges for battered woman, or some public housing for the homeless living under bridges in cardboard boxes, or even an aged-care home. But no; let's spend the 20 mil on a gaudy temple of worship to an imaginary deity that'll lie empty for 300 days of every year.

Quote:Most pastors aren't wealthy megachurch leaders. Most fall into the middle class.
Sorry; wrong again. Have a look at HERE for an exposé of the Hillsong megachurch and its multimillionaire CEO Brian Houston—who hid the fact that his preacher father Frank was a paedophile, and failed to notify police.

Quote:That's likely because they're not a non-profit, and preferred not to be.
Nope. In Australia most medical clinics are owned and operated by a small consortium of doctors, and who most definitely take big dollars out of the practice.

—In a supposedly enlightened 21st century it's difficult to understand how the church gets away with this sort of moral and ethical fraud that obviates what should rightly be its economic and social responsibility.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: