Bill Maher on taxing churches
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-04-2016, 03:02 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
In the 70's I incorporated as a church to avoid paying income tax. We had weekly meetings and all. I filed my income tax accordingly, and it was legal. After a few years of that I went ahead and dropped since I wasn't making that much money any more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-04-2016, 03:06 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(18-04-2016 04:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-04-2016 03:01 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  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.

Are there any buildings used exclusively for the feeding of the hungry? Don't they at least have AA meetings in them at nonmealtime?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DerFish's post
20-04-2016, 06:32 AM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(19-04-2016 02:48 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(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.

If I remember correctly, tax exemptions for churches existed when the states were still colonies. Everyone had to pay taxes to the Crown, but churches were exempt. It was a tradition that has carried on since.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
20-04-2016, 07:51 AM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(20-04-2016 06:32 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  If I remember correctly, tax exemptions for churches existed when the states were still colonies. Everyone had to pay taxes to the Crown, but churches were exempt. It was a tradition that has carried on since.

At Australia's first Commonwealth census in 1911—after Federation—98% of the population recorded themselves as "Christian". That in itself probably goes a long way to explaining why the churches were tax exempt in those days—when religion effectively ruled society (rather than the then fledgling government). Even into the 1960s here the church enforced government legislation that banned shops and businesses from opening or trading on a Sunday.

Thankfully Christianity is on the way out in Australia, with only 61.1% of respondents identifying as "Christian" in our 2011 census. National Church Life Survey (NCLS) data shows that over the last four decades the proportion of Australians attending church at least once per month has more than halved from 36% (1972) to 15% currently.

I guess this could mean that pretty soon, it'll be immaterial as to whether we tax the churches or not, as they won't have any income to tax LOL.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
21-04-2016, 01:52 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(20-04-2016 06:32 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(19-04-2016 02:48 PM)SYZ Wrote:  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If I remember correctly, tax exemptions for churches existed when the states were still colonies. Everyone had to pay taxes to the Crown, but churches were exempt. It was a tradition that has carried on since.

It also had to do with community functions because churches often served as community centers for a lot of small settlements and towns. So the churches served more than just the religious, they served the community as a whole. But we don't need churches as community centers anymore.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
21-04-2016, 05:18 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
[Image: b804cd60992026d84ad4627f3c21481b.jpg]

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
28-04-2016, 11:51 AM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
(16-04-2016 07:24 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  I'm going to have to disagree Maher. Too many churches already are trying to hook their talons into the backs of government. Don't give them a good excuse to sink the beak in as well.

However, I am in favor of classifying churches as pyramid schemes, and treating them accordingly.

Quote:A pyramid scheme is a business model that
recruits members via a promise of payments or
services for enrolling others into the scheme,
rather than supplying investments or sale of
products or services.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme

They are already sinking every available appendage into the government. If it weren't, religion would never come up when people are running for office. If the churches were taxed, it would be about time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 01:23 PM
RE: Bill Maher on taxing churches
Blame this guy.

[Image: 768px-Rome-Capitole-StatueConstantin.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: