Taxing of Church

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It is one of the results, you already admitted that. It changes what is and isn’t preached from the pulpit.[/quote]

Stop avoiding the question. You compared the tax exemption of churches to tax exemptions given to purchasers of low-pollution cars. Well, we know why we do it for low-pollution cars - we want to create incentives for consumers to but a low-pollution car instead of a different one.

What I want to know from you, pursuant to your own example - what incentives are we creating via the tax exemption for churches? What, specifically, are we trying to get churches to do that they would not ordinarily do without the tax exemption?

I don’t care about “results” - those can be the result of unintended consequences, or other policy directives (i.e., preventing fraud). I want to know what we are tryting to get churches to do with this tax exemption.

I’ll wait patiently.[/quote]

Keep moving the goal posts. The tax exemption power granted the government is altering what churches are free to preach pursuant to their religion. You’ve admitted this. The hell difference does it make if that’s what they intended. It is a power the government has that is altering the practice and free exercise of religion.

Besides, what is fraud with respect to religion? If a person really believed he need to buy hookers to achieve a higher state of mind, who are you to say that’s fraud? Are you interchanging fraud with “religion you don’t like”? Are certain Hindu sects fraudulent religions? Why is it the governments job to decide what’s a “real” religion and not?

[honest_lifter]

There seems there is this on-going comparision of tax credits for low emissions cars and tax exemption status of churches. Am I understanding this correctly? I don’t believe people get tax exemptions for certain cars, just credits.

If that is the case, the comparison between the two is non-existent.

What I am curious about is, is this removal of tax exempt status going to change the way the Catholic Church does business? (And other churches as well, if this spreads)

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
There seems there is this on-going comparision of tax credits for low emissions cars and tax exemption status of churches. Am I understanding this correctly? I don’t believe people get tax exemptions for certain cars, just credits.

If that is the case, the comparison between the two is non-existent.

What I am curious about is, is this removal of tax exempt status going to change the way the Catholic Church does business? (And other churches as well, if this spreads)[/quote]

The nature of a comparison is that it is imperfect. If it were perfect it would be useless. It was only used as an illustration that lifting a tax can be as controlling as raising one. It is only the difference between pushing an pulling. They net much the same result.

But how are tax exemptions and tax credits logically different? And why does it matter to the example?

[honest_lifter]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
There seems there is this on-going comparision of tax credits for low emissions cars and tax exemption status of churches. Am I understanding this correctly? I don’t believe people get tax exemptions for certain cars, just credits.

If that is the case, the comparison between the two is non-existent.

What I am curious about is, is this removal of tax exempt status going to change the way the Catholic Church does business? (And other churches as well, if this spreads)[/quote]

The nature of a comparison is that it is imperfect. If it were perfect it would be useless. It was only used as an illustration that lifting a tax can be as controlling as raising one. It is only the difference between pushing an pulling. They net much the same result.

But how are tax exemptions and tax credits logically different? And why does it matter to the example?[/quote]

After thinking about it more, I can see what you were getting at. And you are right, exemptions and credits can act in similar ways.

I guess I don’t see how adding a tax to churches is going to influence the church’s activities the same (or even similar) way that a credit is going to affect a car purchase. How will the church change?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Keep moving the goal posts. [/quote]

It’s your comparison, chief.

The tax exemption power granted the government is altering what churches are free to preach pursuant to their religion. You’ve admitted this. The hell difference does it make if that’s what they intended. It is a power the government has that is altering the practice and free exercise of religion.

You said the government’s use of the tax exemption is to “control” - well, what exactly is the government doing to “control” churches intentionally with this tax exemption?

It’s your comparison. I just want to know what behavior is the government trying to get the churches to engage in by tangling these tax exemptions in front of them (and threatening to take them away if they don’t comply)? Do you have an answer?

I know the government will take away the tax exemption if churches start politicking, but I don’t believe the purpose of the tax exemption is to silence the political speech of churches…but, do you? Is that the purpose of the tax exemption?

Besides, what is fraud with respect to religion? If a person really believed he need to buy hookers to achieve a higher state of mind, who are you to say that’s fraud? Are you interchanging fraud with “religion you don’t like”? Are certain Hindu sects fraudulent religions? Why is it the governments job to decide what’s a “real” religion and not?

Because society will obviously pass general laws that people would routinely challenge as violating their religion, and lines have to be drawn somewhere. People who want tax exemptions will claim that their business is a church, and in our society, there is a difference between a church and a business, and we do our best to define the difference when drafting the tax code.

The state will have to define what a church is for purposes of laws, and it always has. Nothing new here.

Under your theoretical approach, there isn’t a single law - forget taxes, any law - that couldn’t be challenged on someone’s religious ground. What if some bozo said his religion doesn’t permit him to stop at traffic lights?

In short, whether you are aware of it or not, we’ve opted to keep church and state reasonably separate, and we have had a policy of tax exemptions for churches for a long time as part of that separation. Used to be, states actually taxed people to raise money to support a particular state-sanctioned church. We decided that was a bad idea.

The function of keeping certain restrictions on the behavior of churches in order to keep the tax exemption is not a function of “control” - it is a function of making sure the tax exemption isn’t abused by entities that want to blur lines and seek tax shelters.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Keep moving the goal posts. [/quote]

It’s your comparison, chief.

The tax exemption power granted the government is altering what churches are free to preach pursuant to their religion. You’ve admitted this. The hell difference does it make if that’s what they intended. It is a power the government has that is altering the practice and free exercise of religion.

You said the government’s use of the tax exemption is to “control” - well, what exactly is the government doing to “control” churches intentionally with this tax exemption?

[/quote]
So, they can control churches if it’s unintentional huh? So the birth control requirement is okay, because forcing Catholics to betray their beliefs was not the intention.

If I install a valve on a pipe, I add a node of control, even if the valve is currently open. Control is the ability to alter not the fruition.

It’s your comparison. I just want to know what behavior is the government trying to get the churches to engage in by tangling these tax exemptions in front of them (and threatening to take them away if they don’t comply)? Do you have an answer?

my comparison illustrated a simple point you are the one making more than what it was and extending it in ways it was never meant to be used.

I know the government will take away the tax exemption if churches start politicking, but I don’t believe the purpose of the tax exemption is to silence the political speech of churches…but, do you? Is that the purpose of the tax exemption?

Why does intent of the law matter? see above.

Besides, what is fraud with respect to religion? If a person really believed he need to buy hookers to achieve a higher state of mind, who are you to say that’s fraud? Are you interchanging fraud with “religion you don’t like”? Are certain Hindu sects fraudulent religions? Why is it the governments job to decide what’s a “real” religion and not?

Because society will obviously pass general laws that people would routinely challenge as violating their religion, and lines have to be drawn somewhere. People who want tax exemptions will claim that their business is a church, and in our society, there is a difference between a church and a business, and we do our best to define the difference when drafting the tax code.

Which supports my argument of not giving special treatment to anyone. You know there is a growing population of both atheists and Muslims who consider Christianity a fraud right? What happens when you’re the minority?

The state will have to define what a church is for purposes of laws, and it always has. Nothing new here.

Under your theoretical approach, there isn’t a single law - forget taxes, any law - that couldn’t be challenged on someone’s religious ground. What if some bozo said his religion doesn’t permit him to stop at traffic lights?

Your rights end where other people’s begin. Your right to religion doesn’t override other people’s right to life. This happens anyway.

In short, whether you are aware of it or not, we’ve opted to keep church and state reasonably separate, and we have had a policy of tax exemptions for churches for a long time as part of that separation. Used to be, states actually taxed people to raise money to support a particular state-sanctioned church. We decided that was a bad idea.

But they aren’t separate. They are now just tied by a different means.

[quote]

The function of keeping certain restrictions on the behavior of churches in order to keep the tax exemption is not a function of “control” - it is a function of making sure the tax exemption isn’t abused by entities that want to blur lines and seek tax shelters.[/quote]

I’ve clearly shown and explained how you are dead wrong, but I’m sure you’ll continue believing this until something like excluding Islamic teachings from Sunday school loses your tax status.

[honest_lifter]

DoubleDuece, I see what you are saying. You are saying that if they want to KEEP their tax exemption status they will have to meet certain requirements, and then government can control what those requirements are, therefore they control the actions of the religion? If that is what you are saying, that makes sense.

Do you think that the religions will cater to the requirements of the government in order to keep their tax exempt status? Or do you think they will stick to their guns and just start paying taxes?

[Sloth]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’ve clearly shown and explained how you are dead wrong, but I’m sure you’ll continue believing this until something like excluding Islamic teachings from Sunday school loses your tax status.[/quote]

Sooo, lose your tax status now, flounder and struggle to provide your services, perhaps even shut the doors…or relent, and take tax deductions for implementing government ‘solutions,’ social goals, etc.

[Sloth]

Give up the status, and in ten years churches will be fully under employment and discrimination laws.

[honest_lifter]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’ve clearly shown and explained how you are dead wrong, but I’m sure you’ll continue believing this until something like excluding Islamic teachings from Sunday school loses your tax status.[/quote]

Sooo, lose your tax status now, flounder and struggle to provide your services, perhaps even shut the doors…or relent, and take tax deductions for implementing government ‘solutions,’ social goals, etc.

[/quote]

Are you saying this with the assumption of taxing donations as well?

[LaPointe]

tax the church straight to HELL!!!

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, they can control churches if it’s unintentional huh? So the birth control requirement is okay, because forcing Catholics to betray their beliefs was not the intention.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? And no, you don’t “unintentionally” control things.

Why won’t you just answer the question?

Why does intent of the law matter? see above.

Is this a serious question? Of course it matters. The intent of a tax exemption for pollution-free cars is to get more consumers to buy these cars for environmental reasons.

So, what is the intent of a tax exemption for churches? Will you ever answer the question?

Which supports my argument of not giving special treatment to anyone. You know there is a growing population of both atheists and Muslims who consider Christianity a fraud right? What happens when you’re the minority?

Um, you live under the general laws passed like everyone else, the same as it has been since the birth of the republic?

I’ve clearly shown and explained how you are dead wrong, but I’m sure you’ll continue believing this until something like excluding Islamic teachings from Sunday school loses your tax status.

You haven’t shown or explained a damn thing. The only thing you’e shown is that you can (or won’t answer) a direct question based on a comparison you made. Instead of delcaring victory, just answer the question.

[bigflamer]

[quote]LaPointe wrote:
tax the church straight to HELL!!![/quote]

You’re goddamn right we should!! (in Jack Nicholson voice)

[bigflamer]

[i]"I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land…it is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property…In 1850, the church properties in the U.S. which paid no taxes, municipal or state, amounted to about $83 million.

In 1860, the amount had doubled; in 1875, it is about $1 billion. By 1900, without check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion…so vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its portion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes…I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."

-Ulysses S. Grant [/i]

Some interesting reading here: http://taxthechurches.org/index.html

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, they can control churches if it’s unintentional huh? So the birth control requirement is okay, because forcing Catholics to betray their beliefs was not the intention.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? And no, you don’t “unintentionally” control things.

Why won’t you just answer the question?

Why does intent of the law matter? see above.

Is this a serious question? Of course it matters. The intent of a tax exemption for pollution-free cars is to get more consumers to buy these cars for environmental reasons.

So, what is the intent of a tax exemption for churches? Will you ever answer the question?

Which supports my argument of not giving special treatment to anyone. You know there is a growing population of both atheists and Muslims who consider Christianity a fraud right? What happens when you’re the minority?

Um, you live under the general laws passed like everyone else, the same as it has been since the birth of the republic?

I’ve clearly shown and explained how you are dead wrong, but I’m sure you’ll continue believing this until something like excluding Islamic teachings from Sunday school loses your tax status.

You haven’t shown or explained a damn thing. The only thing you’e shown is that you can (or won’t answer) a direct question based on a comparison you made. Instead of delcaring victory, just answer the question.[/quote]

Okay, ignore all my points. An open valve is still a valve.

They are controlling political speech in churches currently. BUT it could be used to control many things. I have answered your question many times.

But AGAIN if intent matters, can they restrict the church accidentally?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

Italy Plans to Tax the Church on Commercial Property (Published 2012)

Is this fair or no?

“The change - once it is formally drafted and approved by Parliament - could result in revenues of $650 million to $2.6 billion annually, according to municipal government associations. It could also set an example for other European countries that are struggling with debt - notably Greece and Spain - and where there is growing popular resentment over tax breaks for the church.”[/quote]

I don’t get it. Why isn’t this fair? [/quote]

Most Churches are non-profits. Oh, and they also are the largest charities.