If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   So, we're not taxing churches because...why now?   (npr.org) divider line 216
    More: Asinine, Christian Coalition, Gary Bauer, Richard Land, Moral Majority, James Dobson, churches, Southern Baptist Convention, presidential candidate  
•       •       •

7390 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jan 2012 at 1:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



216 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-13 02:39:31 PM

Chimperror2: CPennypacker: Chimperror2: Wadded Beef: If religious types want government out of religion maybe religious types should keep their influences directly out of government.

Ummm, why? The 1st amendment restricts government activities, not religious ones. Only the most scariest of statists could twist it into keeping religion out of politics.

If they want to play in politics let them pay the admission price just like everyone else

There is an admission price? Priests and preachers pay income tax like everyone else. What admission price do you speak of? I can say anything I want without fear of a special penalty from the IRS.


The preacher's aren't advocating for their own personal agendas. They are parroting religious agendas. Those organizations do not pay taxes.
 
2012-01-13 02:39:37 PM

halfof33: That the power to tax involves the power to destroy [is] not to be denied.

John Marshall.

That is why subby.


that's exactly why the idea is so popular among farkers.
 
2012-01-13 02:40:12 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: gimmegimme: The CHURCH pays no tax.

Huh. Must have missed that portion in my training where churches were exempt from paying payroll taxes. Or UBIT.


It's your assertion that churches pay the same amount and same kinds of tax as every other business?
 
2012-01-13 02:41:50 PM

CPennypacker: Those organizations do not pay taxes.


Payroll
Sales (in some jurisdictions)
Property (in some jurisdictions)
UBIT
 
2012-01-13 02:43:19 PM

gimmegimme: The_Six_Fingered_Man: gimmegimme: The CHURCH pays no tax.

Huh. Must have missed that portion in my training where churches were exempt from paying payroll taxes. Or UBIT.

It's your assertion that churches pay the same amount and same kinds of tax as every other business?


Other than income, and payroll on ministers, yes.

But your assertion was that the church pays no taxes. Which I have already shown to be patently false.
 
2012-01-13 02:46:53 PM
img862.imageshack.us

We don' need no stinking Jesus candidate!
 
2012-01-13 02:47:06 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man:

I'd say that churches ARE like porn. They get you all riled up, and then when they've drained you, they have no more use for you. They make you believe that what you are seeing/hearing is absolutely true when it's all staged theater.


Really? My church said that there are starving people in africa that need food, clothing and shelter so we got a bunch of people from the church (doctors, nurses, construction people, compassionate people), gave tax-exempt dollars and then we went there and built a well and gave them mosquito netting to prevent the spread of disease and also brought food.

next, there was an earthquake in Haiti so we gave more tax-exempt money to the church, got a bunch of people from the church, went to Haiti and rebuilt a hospital while the doctors and nurses treated the injured and sick.

And then some liberal, narrow minded farktard said those people in Haiti and Africa should get a third less than what was raised because they think the congregation shouldn't have an opinion on gay marriage. Nice. Moron.
 
2012-01-13 02:49:05 PM
I'm trying not to lose myself out on this paper search/
Grandma's always asking when she will see me in church

I just say "I love you" 'cause I don't want to be a liar/
and i could never give her a reason that satisfies her

'Cause it would pointless to try to make her understand/
that I can talk to GOD without the use of a middle man

And it would be pointless to try to make me understand/
why the preacher man needs a vehicle worth one hundred grand

See, I would tithe if I just knew where my money went/
Is that REALLY what GOD wants to do with my ten percent?

These pulpit profiteers prayin' on ni**as fears/
Jesus wept. Do you use our money to wipe his tears?

Grandma I'm not saying that none of the preachers care/
but they're all mortals why do I need them to hear my prayer?

I know I haven't been in one hundred Sundays/
but, grandma I swear I'm the Godly man that you raised.


A verse in a song I wrote about being misunderstood. Its about my grandmother thinking that I'm headed down the wrong path because I'm not into the church. But it's also about my problems with organized religion.
 
2012-01-13 02:53:49 PM

gimmegimme: Cataholic: Seeing as how they are non-profits, there would be very little to tax.

Good point. Here's a picture of the headquarters of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who occupy a small office space in an undesirable building in Madison, Wisconsin.

[www.visitingdc.com image 640x415]


Wow! Madison sure has changed since I was there last weekend!

/Skyscrapers and everythang!
 
2012-01-13 02:53:52 PM
How about the Separation of church and state?

The church paying taxes means the state will, naturally, take an interest in the well being of those religions. The more members they have, the more the government collects. It would behoove the bureaucrats to see that you pick a sect and start paying your fair share.
Being an atheist means you are a tax evader.
 
2012-01-13 02:54:41 PM

physt: Cataholic: Seeing as how they are non-profits, there would be very little to tax.

BULLshiat
[i202.photobucket.com image 413x310]


The hat looks pretty old...I'd say it's been fully depreciated by now.
 
2012-01-13 02:56:34 PM

miss diminutive: Raharu: The Entire point of the Separation of Church and state is to make sure the state does not support any 1 religion/church over another, So we should tax all Churches/religions equally.

Even the religion I just made up 5 minutes ago?

/you get oreos instead if communion wafers


Why not?

Why is a religion made up by a bunch of dudes 2000 years ago any better than yours?

I mean other than the fact that they give you a cookie AND wine?
 
2012-01-13 02:59:05 PM

Chimperror2: And then some liberal, narrow minded farktard said those people in Haiti and Africa should get a third less than what was raised because they think the congregation shouldn't have an opinion on gay marriage.


Or, as evidenced in this article, Tax payer money is going to faith based groups so they can proselytize to vulnerable earthquake victims in order to get them to convert to their special brand of Christianity. You know, how Jesus would have wanted it.
 
2012-01-13 03:04:28 PM
CPennypacker: Chimperror2: CPennypacker: Chimperror2: Wadded Beef: If religious types want government out of religion maybe religious types should keep their influences directly out of government.

Ummm, why? The 1st amendment restricts government activities, not religious ones. Only the most scariest of statists could twist it into keeping religion out of politics.

If they want to play in politics let them pay the admission price just like everyone else

There is an admission price? Priests and preachers pay income tax like everyone else. What admission price do you speak of? I can say anything I want without fear of a special penalty from the IRS.


The preacher's aren't advocating for their own personal agendas. They are parroting religious agendas. Those organizations do not pay taxes.

WTF does that even mean?

A person gets up and makes a speech. To other people.

Most farktards missed the foundation of Citizens United. It is not "Corporations are people." It is corporations are collections of people and the individual rights of people are not thrown under the bus when they come together and assemble in any form whether it's a church, a corporation, a union or a clown convention called "Occupy: ". The content of their collective and individual speech cannot be the basis of a determination of taxation or any other government action. It's the foundation of the First Amendment for free speech, religion and assembly.
 
2012-01-13 03:05:58 PM
All the same.

Sharia law is bad!

Jesus law is good!
 
2012-01-13 03:08:42 PM
Taxes on churches would interfere with free practice of religion as your ability to practice would be limited by your ability to pay the taxes. It would be as illegal as poll tax.

A tax on firearms and ammo should be illegal for the same reason as it is a government obstacle to your right own a firearm.

For all you reproductive rights types would you support an abortion tax?

If marriage is right as some believe then there should be no fee for a license to get married as your ability to get married is restrained by your ability to pay the government imposed fee

Should churches stay out of politics? Tricky questions as I am sure nobody here objected to the role Churches and religious leaders played the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Rights are not without downsides and church involvement in politics is one of the downsides we might have to accept for religious freedom.



imgs.sfgate.com

newsimg.bbc.co.uk
 
2012-01-13 03:11:37 PM

hasty ambush: Taxes on churches would interfere with free practice of religion as your ability to practice would be limited by your ability to pay the taxes. It would be as illegal as poll tax.

A tax on firearms and ammo should be illegal for the same reason as it is a government obstacle to your right own a firearm.

For all you reproductive rights types would you support an abortion tax?

If marriage is right as some believe then there should be no fee for a license to get married as your ability to get married is restrained by your ability to pay the government imposed fee


Just because they're rights doesn't mean the government has to provide them for you.

Also, I don't see how an individual's exercise of religion is in any way connected to whether or not they've paid their taxes.
 
2012-01-13 03:33:19 PM

hasty ambush: Should churches stay out of politics? Tricky questions as I am sure nobody here objected to the role Churches and religious leaders played the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Rights are not without downsides and church involvement in politics is one of the downsides we might have to accept for religious freedom.


MLK might have been motivated in part by his religion, but did he push that religion on everyone else? Did he demand that everyone follow his brand of Christianity? Did his main agenda (civil rights) require that one be religious?
 
2012-01-13 03:42:35 PM

IrateShadow: Why does scientology use a cross and not a DC-8? I don't see how that fits into their mythos at all.


I'd be happy to tell you, but first I need about $30,000.
 
2012-01-13 03:43:54 PM
FTFA: Others say the Texas gathering may be less than meets the eye in another way: These so-called elites just don't wield the power they used to.

Thank you, God!
 
2012-01-13 03:57:26 PM

heinekenftw: First of all, Jesus would never run for office. And even if he did, he'd be far from what these Republicans think he'd be. He would not be like them, he'd be a socialist. He would, if he was in an office of power, do what he could do to spread love and compassion and he would condemn the rich and greedy corporations, the powerful, and the corrupt.

I don't get where they find this gun-totin' tax-hatin,' homophobic, fetus lovin' Jesus.


What makes you think that?

He implored people to give of their own free will instead of using coercive power to take from someone else - which is what socialism does.

This command goes for everyone as rich as Bill Gates all the way down to the bum on the street.

(We'll leave aside the informative power of prices and the market for now.)
 
2012-01-13 04:07:54 PM

heinekenftw: hasty ambush: Should churches stay out of politics? Tricky questions as I am sure nobody here objected to the role Churches and religious leaders played the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Rights are not without downsides and church involvement in politics is one of the downsides we might have to accept for religious freedom.

MLK might have been motivated in part by his religion, but did he push that religion on everyone else? Did he demand that everyone follow his brand of Christianity? Did his main agenda (civil rights) require that one be religious?


Umm, I thought the complaint was that religious leaders were using the pulpit to express political ideas. MLK did exactly that. For good reason too. And his church should not have been punished with taxes more so than other churches for him doing so.

The issue isn't with taxing all churches. The issue is the punitive taxation of certain churches that espouse a political viewpoint from the pulpit. The farktards that want to revoke their 501(c)(3) status because of the content of speech are scary people.

Taxing all churches without regard to speech or ideology would be much more defensible than taxing just the ones whose speech is political (or more correctly, speech that farktards disagree with.). Authoritarians that want to sit in judgement of churches should be embarrassed by what they espouse.
 
2012-01-13 04:11:00 PM

Chimperror2: heinekenftw: hasty ambush: Should churches stay out of politics? Tricky questions as I am sure nobody here objected to the role Churches and religious leaders played the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Rights are not without downsides and church involvement in politics is one of the downsides we might have to accept for religious freedom.

MLK might have been motivated in part by his religion, but did he push that religion on everyone else? Did he demand that everyone follow his brand of Christianity? Did his main agenda (civil rights) require that one be religious?

Umm, I thought the complaint was that religious leaders were using the pulpit to express political ideas. MLK did exactly that. For good reason too. And his church should not have been punished with taxes more so than other churches for him doing so.

The issue isn't with taxing all churches. The issue is the punitive taxation of certain churches that espouse a political viewpoint from the pulpit. The farktards that want to revoke their 501(c)(3) status because of the content of speech are scary people.

Taxing all churches without regard to speech or ideology would be much more defensible than taxing just the ones whose speech is political (or more correctly, speech that farktards disagree with.). Authoritarians that want to sit in judgement of churches should be embarrassed by what they espouse.


Oh, they should certainly tax all churches. Clearly giving them tax free status isn't keeping them from getting involved in politics, so why deal with all the lost revenue?
 
2012-01-13 04:15:50 PM

colon_pow: halfof33: That the power to tax involves the power to destroy [is] not to be denied.

John Marshall.

That is why subby.

that's exactly why the idea is so popular among farkers.


We've tried education, but you lot are damned resistant to facts and reality.
 
2012-01-13 04:18:24 PM

Chimperror2: heinekenftw: hasty ambush: Should churches stay out of politics? Tricky questions as I am sure nobody here objected to the role Churches and religious leaders played the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Rights are not without downsides and church involvement in politics is one of the downsides we might have to accept for religious freedom.

MLK might have been motivated in part by his religion, but did he push that religion on everyone else? Did he demand that everyone follow his brand of Christianity? Did his main agenda (civil rights) require that one be religious?

Umm, I thought the complaint was that religious leaders were using the pulpit to express political ideas. MLK did exactly that. For good reason too. And his church should not have been punished with taxes more so than other churches for him doing so.

The issue isn't with taxing all churches. The issue is the punitive taxation of certain churches that espouse a political viewpoint from the pulpit. The farktards that want to revoke their 501(c)(3) status because of the content of speech are scary people.

Taxing all churches without regard to speech or ideology would be much more defensible than taxing just the ones whose speech is political (or more correctly, speech that farktards disagree with.). Authoritarians that want to sit in judgement of churches should be embarrassed by what they espouse.


It's sad that you can't make your point without slinging insults. Only intellectually weak arguments need crutches like "farktard."

MLK preaching for African-Americans to be treated equally is not the farking same as saying "Vote for John Smith or you will make BabyJeezus cry."

Where do you draw the line? Is it OK for a pastor to tell his congregation that they must vote for Perry or risk eternal damnation? If not, why not?
 
2012-01-13 04:20:42 PM

CPennypacker:
Oh, they should certainly tax all churches. Clearly giving them tax free status isn't keeping them from getting involved in politics, so why deal with all the lost revenue?


Liberals should run on that platform. It sounds good in Union halls too.
 
2012-01-13 04:32:50 PM

halfof33: That the power to tax involves the power to destroy [is] not to be denied.

John Marshall.

That is why subby.


You left off part of the quote.

"...because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

He was only saying that there was a limit to taxation, not that taxation in itself was bad.

Try again, quote miner.
 
2012-01-13 04:38:04 PM
Because every time I come out in favor of it, I get reminded it's somehow "wrong" to do.

Fark: by Fark liberals I usually agree with.

I could give a rip about the Fark Independents™ who make the bullsh*t argument that we'd then have to tax other non-profits.

We don't.
 
2012-01-13 04:44:51 PM

whidbey: Because every time I come out in favor of it, I get reminded it's somehow "wrong" to do.

Fark: by Fark liberals I usually agree with.

I could give a rip about the Fark Independents™ who make the bullsh*t argument that we'd then have to tax other non-profits.

We don't.


We could try fundamentally restructuring our tax code and get rid of the income tax altogether (making this whole debate moot), but then we wouldn't be able to wage class warfare against each other.
 
2012-01-13 04:46:46 PM
I think we don't tax churches on the same general principle as giving the benefit of the reasonable doubt to accused criminals. It's better to let a hundred pyramid schemes bent on the destruction of freedom and democracy walk free than to shut down one legitimate forum for like-minded followers to discuss their religious beliefs peacefully, or something like that.
 
2012-01-13 04:48:47 PM

gimmegimme: Chimperror2: CPennypacker: Chimperror2: Wadded Beef: If religious types want government out of religion maybe religious types should keep their influences directly out of government.

Ummm, why? The 1st amendment restricts government activities, not religious ones. Only the most scariest of statists could twist it into keeping religion out of politics.

If they want to play in politics let them pay the admission price just like everyone else

There is an admission price? Priests and preachers pay income tax like everyone else. What admission price do you speak of? I can say anything I want without fear of a special penalty from the IRS.

You've never heard of a pew fee or a tithe? The CHURCH pays no tax. Clergy pay income tax. Two different things.


Uh no. Clergy salary is exempt from income tax and social security. Anything else they do ( like selling books) is taxed as income but their income from the church is tax free.
 
2012-01-13 04:48:52 PM
the government cannot offer a benefit in exchange for giving up a constitutional right unless there is a substantial nexus between benefit conferred and the right that has been prohibited. this is of course a fairly important right.
and the governemnt must adhere even if the government has no duty, in the first place, to provide the benefit it is offering, of course.
these threads allow you to see clearly who are liberals, and who are authoritarians wrapped in progressive clothing looking to justify any ridiculous prohibition on free speech as long as it shuts up who they want shut up.
 
2012-01-13 04:58:32 PM

rufus-t-firefly: halfof33: That the power to tax involves the power to destroy [is] not to be denied.

John Marshall.

That is why subby.

You left off part of the quote.

"...because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

He was only saying that there was a limit to taxation, not that taxation in itself was bad.

Try again, quote miner.


Uh, you are completely wrong. Here is the entire paragraph:

That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.

Who is quote mining, champ?
 
2012-01-13 05:03:30 PM
I'll play. We only enforce prohibitions against tax exempt organizations from advocating political positions when they aren't churches. Why? Because Jesus.
 
2012-01-13 05:03:38 PM

Hydra: e could try fundamentally restructuring our tax code and get rid of the income tax altogether


Um, no.
 
2012-01-13 05:06:24 PM
Cataholic: Seeing as how they are non-profits, there would be very little to tax.

We're not just talking about taxes on profits.

Also anything they spend on political advocacy sure as hell should be taxable income. I'm looking at you, Mormom church that spent millions to keep gay people from getting married in CA...
 
2012-01-13 05:09:05 PM
TFA
"He said, 'We don't need a Jesus candidate. We need an economic candidate,' " Santorum recalled later, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. "And my answer to that was, 'We always need a Jesus candidate, right?' "

No, we don't, you prick. Some of us like our freedom of religion. Theocrats need not apply.
 
2012-01-13 05:12:32 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: A Dark Evil Omen: And then you have the Church of the Subgenius, which has occasionally been under IRS investigation for paying their taxes and refusing to accept tax-exempt status.

[Citation]? You have to apply for tax exempt status. It is not something foisted upon you by the IRS.


It's sort of a half-joke, like most things about the Subgenii. There was an IRS investigation because of their policy of open ordination. The concern was that they were trying to engage in tax fraud as a non-tax exempt organization claiming to be a church, handing out ordinations so that people could set up bogus tax shelters, like the Universal Life Church. Turned out, obviously, they weren't. Basically what it boiled down to is that claiming to be a church and then dutifully paying their taxes got them a hairy eyeball. I can only find an oblique reference here (new window) but I'll keep looking.
 
2012-01-13 05:21:06 PM

rufus-t-firefly: halfof33: That the power to tax involves the power to destroy [is] not to be denied.

John Marshall.

That is why subby.

You left off part of the quote.

"...because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."

He was only saying that there was a limit to taxation, not that taxation in itself was bad.

Try again, quote miner.


there is a limit, beyond which, you are destroyed.
 
2012-01-13 05:30:23 PM

rtaylor92: I don't really think we should be taxing their "income" but definitely make them fork over something for the prime real estate they're sitting on.


Well if the churches moved in AFTER it was prime real estate, they DID have to pay fair market to get that property, and whoever sold it paid taxes on the sale at that time. However, in many cases, the property was purchased (or donated) as city centers were being established.
 
2012-01-13 05:34:42 PM
"And yet, Land says: "Before we marry the guy next door, don't you think we ought to have a fling with a tall dark stranger and see if he can support us in the manner to which we'd like to be accustomed? And if he can't, we can always marry the steady beau who lives next door."

... unless you get pregnant from your fling with the tall dark stranger, in which case you are being "punished" for your fling. Then you have to carry the baby to term and raise it with the tall dark stranger, and hope he changes into the person you wanted him to be, but even if he doesn't you have to stick with him for the sake of the child even if he doesn't change his ways and even cheats on you with the Rich 99%er who lives next door (as further punishment for your fling).

/this is what fundies really believe
 
2012-01-13 05:43:25 PM

Commissar_Murphy: gimmegimme: Chimperror2: CPennypacker: Chimperror2: Wadded Beef: If religious types want government out of religion maybe religious types should keep their influences directly out of government.

Ummm, why? The 1st amendment restricts government activities, not religious ones. Only the most scariest of statists could twist it into keeping religion out of politics.

If they want to play in politics let them pay the admission price just like everyone else

There is an admission price? Priests and preachers pay income tax like everyone else. What admission price do you speak of? I can say anything I want without fear of a special penalty from the IRS.

You've never heard of a pew fee or a tithe? The CHURCH pays no tax. Clergy pay income tax. Two different things.

Uh no. Clergy salary is exempt from income tax and social security. Anything else they do ( like selling books) is taxed as income but their income from the church is tax free.


Are you serious? Clergy income is subject to self employment taxes. Which, wouldn't you know, is an income tax.

For income tax purposes, a licensed, commissioned, or ordained minister is generally treated as a common law employee of his or her church, denomination, or sect. There are, however, some exceptions such as traveling evangelists who may be treated as independent contractors. If you are a minister performing ministerial services, you are taxed on wages, offerings, and fees you receive for performing marriages, baptisms, funerals, etc.

The services you perform in the exercise of your ministry are generally subject to self-employment tax (social security and Medicare taxes). See Publication 517, Social Security and Other Information for Members of the Clergy and Religious Workers, for limited exceptions from self-employment tax.


But what do I know? I only have a few ministerial clients.
 
2012-01-13 05:51:31 PM
What I never understood is freedom of religion and freedom of the press are both covered by the same admendment, why do churches get an automatic pass on taxes while the press doesn't?

Is taxing the New York Times (or Fox News) any more of a imposition on the freedom of the press than taxing the profits of a church?

IMO, churches should get a pass tax wise on some fucntions. If you're feeding the poor, running a free daycare, or opening a medical clinic - good for you, that's tax free. If you're buying a basketball arena to use as a megachurch, buying a new transmitter to air your commercials or buying a Mercedes for your pastor, that's a taxin'.
 
2012-01-13 05:52:51 PM

kevinfra: If you're buying a basketball arena to use as a megachurch, buying a new transmitter to air your commercials or buying a Mercedes for your pastor, that's a taxin'.


Why do you hate the Osteens?

Oh wait. Becasue they are worthy of hate.
 
2012-01-13 06:08:57 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Why do you hate the Osteens?

Oh wait. Becasue they are worthy of hate.


Why? My mom talked my ear off about that guy over the holidays, she seems to think he's the next best thing since Jesus. I had never heard of him before...but I assumed he was just another run of the mill televangelist.
 
2012-01-13 06:12:08 PM

qorkfiend: hasty ambush: Taxes on churches would interfere with free practice of religion as your ability to practice would be limited by your ability to pay the taxes. It would be as illegal as poll tax.

A tax on firearms and ammo should be illegal for the same reason as it is a government obstacle to your right own a firearm.

For all you reproductive rights types would you support an abortion tax?

If marriage is right as some believe then there should be no fee for a license to get married as your ability to get married is restrained by your ability to pay the government imposed fee

Just because they're rights doesn't mean the government has to provide them for you.

Those who think that health care is a right might disagree. No government does not have to provide you with a house of worship, or a gun etc. But they should not impose taxes to interfere with these activities either. Your ability to worship should not be based on your ability to pay the tax associated with it. Again I point to the poll tax.

Also, I don't see how an individual's exercise of religion is in any way connected to whether or not they've paid their taxes.

It is not but the taxing of churches wold make it that way.

 
2012-01-13 06:12:37 PM

cchris_39: The same reason that unions don't pay taxes. They are operated for the benefit of their memebers.


But you can't donate money to a union and get a tax deduction, unlike churches.
 
2012-01-13 06:15:34 PM

Hydra: whidbey: Because every time I come out in favor of it, I get reminded it's somehow "wrong" to do.

Fark: by Fark liberals I usually agree with.

I could give a rip about the Fark Independents™ who make the bullsh*t argument that we'd then have to tax other non-profits.

We don't.

We could try fundamentally restructuring our tax code and get rid of the income tax altogether (making this whole debate moot), but then we wouldn't be able to wage class warfare against each other.


This
 
2012-01-13 06:16:36 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: cchris_39: The same reason that unions don't pay taxes. They are operated for the benefit of their memebers.

But you can't donate money to a union and get a tax deduction, unlike churches.


Union dues are deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the 2% floor.
 
2012-01-13 06:20:49 PM

EnviroDude: Who would you want to show up at the doorstep the next time there is a natural disaster in your neighborhood?

FEMA? You go directly to jail if you don't cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s. If you get too much money, you had better give it back, or else!

In addition, we all know how long it takes for them to get to you. And as long as you don't need ice, they will be there with their cards.

Or

A church? After Katrina, many people from across the US came to the areas impacted to help: with medical, food, rebuilding, clearing lands, and assisting those in needs. Cost to the US taxpayer? zero.

Tax a church and this goes away.


Churches, while nice, are not the first group I'd want to see. The first group would be EMTs and firefighters, paid for with taxes. After the EMTs and firefighters are finished, then probably the Red Cross, which is a religion-neutral organization even if it attracts lots of Baptist, Holiness and Catholic volunteers. (When I worked there, I called it a Unitarian cult because it takes over your life.) If civil disturbance is in the air, then tax-supported police and National Guard would be good. After that would come the people who restore power and clear roads -- usually tax-supported.

Then, send in the churches, mosques, temples and freethinking societies.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report