Taxing the Churches
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2013, 02:03 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
(06-08-2013 03:30 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  The biggest problem I see is that most income for churches (at least for the catholic ones) is based on donations. Therefore there is no tax associated with it. In the same way my parents aren't taxed when they give me money.
Oh yeah? Try dying. You want to leave your assets to someone, it gets taxed beyond belief.

(06-08-2013 03:30 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Also many churches do use their hall for charitable uses such as "out of the cold". And that would probably just direct collection money away from charities to the government. In Toronto most collections go to share life where 97% of the money goes to help 71000 people. (At least according to their flyer).
What, you mean donated food (free) handed out by volunteers (free)?

But fine, then let them hire a bunch of accountants to get that in the books. Then they can also publish those records as an act of transparancy and people can see where the lion's share of the money really goes.


Because 90% of the money goes here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21...05565.html

To establish this (ignore the dutch translations)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qpsmz-fKZJA#at=11

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 04:33 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
(01-08-2013 07:48 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(01-08-2013 02:21 AM)Likos02 Wrote:  I saw a Bill O'reilly interview where he told his guest that it was unconstitutional to tax churches.

That's because it currently is.

The blunt truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 04:37 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
I would like to see all churches taxed. If they can't survive taxation, then tough shit for them.

But it's not likely to happen, unfortunately.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 07:20 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
(07-08-2013 01:48 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(06-08-2013 10:29 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Actually, that is not quite true. The Supreme Court upheld tax exemptions in a 1970 case out of NY. The essence of the ruling was that because the exemptions were granted to all churches they were not a government establishment of religion...which sort of misses the point. Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York,

There is no constitutional right to a tax exemption. Non-profit groups apply under Sec. 501 C 3 of the Internal Revenue Code and this summer's dust up with the Sec 501 c 4 applications of the various tea bagger groups is similar except they are not supposed to engage in political activity...which is exactly what they wanted to do.

Churches which engage in politics to the point of endorsing candidates are supposed to lose their tax exempt status. That said, I spent 33 years with the IRS and never heard of them going after any sort of established church. About the most I can remember is a bunch of shitheads who called themselves the Order of St. Matthew and called their homes "churches" getting busted. I'd have loved to see some archbishop led away in handcuffs.

The SCOTUS decision was made on the grounds that government is not to hold any power over religious institutions, which I already established.

I think the point is that it is not explicitly in the Constitution, but is an interpretation.
It could change.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 07:41 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
I'm coming late to this dicussion, but here are my thoughts (from the point of view of US law where corporations are relatively "free"):

First of all, I think the churches are right that taxing churches as churches violates religious freedom / freedom of association.

Rather, churches should be taxed at the same rates and in whatever manner other lawful money making corporations are taxed. Corporate income taxes, real estate taxes, etc. But no special deal or penalty for being churches.

Likewise there should be no restriction on their political activity that do not apply to corporations generally under current law.

And of course they should be subject to the same consumer fraud statutes. Cool

Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is a very important science.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 08:38 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
(07-08-2013 07:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  I think the point is that it is not explicitly in the Constitution, but is an interpretation.
It could change.

The constitution does not explicitly say a lot of things. Drinking Beverage

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 08:42 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
I don't know if I agree with taxing churches, but I do agree that if a church involves itself in politics then it ceasees to be a church and instead becomes a political organization and should be taxed. That's the bit that really pisses me off.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
07-08-2013, 06:46 PM
RE: Taxing the Churches
@ Caveman

Quote:
Quote:TarzanSmith Wrote:
The biggest problem I see is that most income for churches (at least for the catholic ones) is based on donations. Therefore there is no tax associated with it. In the same way my parents aren't taxed when they give me money.
Oh yeah? Try dying. You want to leave your assets to someone, it gets taxed beyond belief.

Contrary to the belief of many politicians, One stupid tax does not justify another. A big part of the problem is that most of the donations are cash so there is no paper trail. Even though it is a church the people involved are still human so there will be alot of dishonesty.

Quote:
Quote:TarzanSmith Wrote:
Also many churches do use their hall for charitable uses such as "out of the cold". And that would probably just direct collection money away from charities to the government. In Toronto most collections go to share life where 97% of the money goes to help 71000 people. (At least according to their flyer).
What, you mean donated food (free) handed out by volunteers (free)?

Out of the cold involves churches using their halls as sleeping areas. And sharelife has a plethora of services that it offers to the city of Toronto.
Here is the breakdown. http://www.sharelife.org/Public/Page/Fil...-corr.pdf.

Quote:Because 90% of the money goes here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21...05565.html

In this article most of these are not churches but lobbying groups with religious affiliations whom I'm sure are supported through private citizens as well as churches. And the US conference of bishops spent approximately 20% of their spending on "policy activity expenses". The USCB is not the charitable arm of the church. It's role is specifically to deal with administration and politics. Also the largest lobby in the study is not so much religious but political. It appears to be more of a pro Israel group then a pro Jewish group.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2013, 08:05 PM
RE: Taxing the Churches
Quote:The SCOTUS decision was made on the grounds that government is not to hold any power over religious institutions, which I already established.

That is not exactly true, either. The mormons were required to give up polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah. You cannot have a religion which sacrifices virgins to a volcano god...although apparently you can have one which sodomizes children.

The whole thing is a muddle because the point that the court missed in 1970 was that giving any church a tax exemption is forcing atheists to underwrite that churches activities.

As Jefferson said: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2013, 02:40 AM
RE: Taxing the Churches
(07-08-2013 08:05 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  That is not exactly true, either. The mormons were required to give up polygamy in order to gain statehood for Utah. You cannot have a religion which sacrifices virgins to a volcano god...although apparently you can have one which sodomizes children.

<snip>

No, it is precisely why they made the ruling. It is true. Whether or not it is a consistent conclusion is debatable.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: