Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

[queequeger]

... I realize that saying it's 'unconstitutional' right after saying that the principle was never placed in the constitution makes me look like a tool...

/me looks for that damned edit button.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by queequeger

Also, because they have no ‘product’ (other than than smug look on the face of clergy when I tell them of MY religious choice) per se, the logistics are near impossible whil maintaining that separation. Do we tax them like an individual or a business?

A business, of course. Why would you treat a church as an individual? xoxoxoBruce made the same weird connection.

How do we decide which of their income is deductible? What about tax write offs? Do we enforce minimum wage for the priests?

As with any other organization. We already have ways to determine all that stuff.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

... I realize that saying it's 'unconstitutional' right after saying that the principle was never placed in the constitution makes me look like a tool...

/me looks for that damned edit button.

Unconstitutional refers to amendments as well. When the "penmen" wrote the constitution, they were figuring out a way to construct a better form of government. Once written, they had to sell it to the people. As written, the people couldn't see any advantage for themselves, that they would be better off or not be persecuted for various and sundry reasons as they had under other governments. The Bill of Rights was written as part of the Constitution, to assuage those fears, a primary one separation of church and state, before the people accepted it.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Providing service is common, and the provider is almost always taxed. For instance, a doctor provides a service, and pays taxes. Why should a church be different?

Because the doctor takes home your required money and buys a new Rolex for himself. The church legally can only take your voluntarily given money and do more church-y things with it. You don't want churches to be encouraged to run as for-profit businesses; it would make things so much worse.

Churches do, in fact, have retreats, counseling and services that they require fees for, some of the quite expensive. None of which they are taxed on.

[queequeger]

Why would you treat it as an business? At what point does the church have to start charging their congregation in order to pay their taxes?

The problem with that, Monkey, is that we give tax breaks for businesses for things like supplies, different percentages for profits, etc. How can we decide which parts of their moneys are worth taxing and which are not? Does money donated by congregation to build a new steeple count? Well, there have been cases where a community 'bands together' to help a local business owner rebuild after a fire, and we wouldnt tax that, right? Is it a flat tax, in which case the major religions would have undeniable advantage over 'start up' religions? Or is it based on how much money is donated? Maybe churches wouldn't stoop to a mandatory fee, but then maybe they make richer patrons pay more... maybe they make newcomers pay more...

Anything that the government does that has any effect on which religion it's populace chooses (i.e. whichever church isn't charging to cover their taxes), or worse yet over the survival of a religion period is danger territory. We simply can't afford to give the government any say over our churches, whether directly or indirectly through money.

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Providing service is common, and the provider is almost always taxed. For instance, a doctor provides a service, and pays taxes. Why should a church be different?

I would think that the main reason is most of the money donated to charities which include churches, comes from people who've already been taxed on their income, therefor, to tax it again would simply be wrong.

I guess when you get right down to it, if I give money to a church, I would then expect it to be used for the benefit of my community not the government, because I already give the government money in the form of taxes.

On top of that, churches are supposed to be non-profit organizations and if you don't make a profit as a business you don't pay tax anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point in my opinion.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by yesman065

kept wonderin what they were sayin bout you huh?

no...if you browse while not logged in, you still see them, and also when people quote. It's a useless feature. I was just pissed .....and pissed at that time. I shouldn't have called him a coffin dodger. that was not cool.

[yesman065]

Ohh you're a cock and sneaky! very nice

*scribblin notes*

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I would think that the main reason is most of the money donated to charities which include churches, comes from people who've already been taxed on their income, therefor, to tax it again would simply be wrong.

Ain't that the truth. And doesn't that make sales tax/property tax also double taxation as we already pay income tax albeit low... just a thought.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I guess when you get right down to it, if I give money to a church, I would then expect it to be used for the benefit of my community not the government, because I already give the government money in the form of taxes.

Why do you differentiate between the community and the government? I think if you sit down and think about everything our government does with our money you'll see that line blur a lot. Roads, hospitals, community centers, schools, police force, libraries, emergency services, public transit, a military to protect it all, and countless other things I can't think of right now.

All these are things that we couldn't possibly have created as a people had we had a much smaller government that was less localized. Concentration of the money that people contribute to the community (if you think about taxes, church donations, and other things of that nature, they're all personal contributions to a greater organization, willing or not) makes these large scale public works possible. If you ask me, all these services are far more important to my community than any church potlucks that might come out of the collection dish.

[Aliantha]

Well the reason I differentiate is because i already gave the government money for those things when I paid my taxes. The government is then using those funds for the improvement of my community - very broadly speaking of course.

I see churches as offering emergency aid to those who've 'fallen on hard times' to use a cliche. Supposedly, this is why people put money in the plate. of course, this is not a perfect world and this isn't always the outcome. I'd probably elect not to have my taxes spent on weapons to kill people with if I had a choice, but unfortunately that's not how it works. If you live in a community, you have to take the good with the bad sometimes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

queequeger, those things you named are funded by money from different governments, federal, state and local.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

queequeger, those things you named are funded by money from different governments, federal, state and local.

Yup. I don't see that that makes a difference to my argument. Maybe I don't understand your point?

I see churches as offering emergency aid to those who've 'fallen on hard times' to use a cliche.

Aha! If we did things my preferred method (i.e. northern european model of social capitalism) the government could fill that role and we'd not have to worry about the people helping the needy trying to convert for their religion. I for one don't think I should have to hear a sermon about the ills of sin to have some soup at a kitchen.

[Aliantha]

i agree with you on that one (about the sermons etc). Unfortunately there aren't too many non-religious charities that can offer these types of aid on a large scale.

Ideally, no one should need these services anyway, but we know the world has a long way to go before we reach that point.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Money given to the state and federal government comes back with strings, if at all, to the community. Rarely is it distributed evenly or fairly, so it makes a big difference which taxes you're talking about. You can't blur that line too much.