Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Can I get an answer please?
Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?
- Thread starter Cancel8
- Start date
Can I get an answer please?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
If that would have occured, you would have suffered damage to your jaw and tongue.
You really must do better, if you want to try your hand at insults.
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
If that would have occured, you would have suffered damage to your jaw and tongue.
You really must do better, if you want to try your hand at insults.
he he he, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your bed clothes
sigh - just because we disagree does not mean either of is bad
Good Luck
New member
Define "equally". Same percentage of donations, or use a progressive rate like everyone else is under? Do we tax buildings according to their "market" value, square footage, or some complex combination of both?
How do we treat those poor churches, barely able to pay their heat bills (they do exist, you know). Do we tax them out of existence? Let them congregate in someone's home, I believe you have previously advocated. Hmmm, and suddenly we have a tax policy that allows some churches to exist, and others, not-so-much. OOPS.
or do we give them a break, like we do other poor. Now our policy is preferring one church over another, based on their fiscal health. OOPS.
And what about other not-for-profits? Going to tax MDA, taking away their ability to provide wheelchairs, specialized crutches, and research grants equal in value to the taxes they pay? Or are you fine singling out just religions, thus violating the Constitution in several places? OOPS.
Good Luck
New member
So, now NOT taxing someone is EVIL? :lmao: Your arguments grow more pathetic as you grow more desperate in defending a submoronic idea.
Churches can elect not to be organized as tax exempt organizations and pay taxes if they wish under current law. So your question isn't a very good one.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Right, and individual members of churches can contribute to political campaigns. None of that has anything to do with my question. When you begin taxing Churches, you will have to provide said churches with representation in government. You guys want to take their tax money, but when they wish to exercise the rights that tax money entitles them to, you will scream and holler "wall of separation" ...but the wall is gone, you accepted tax money from them, and you will have to give them political representation in return. Are you going to be okay with that? Yes or no?
This is seriously something you need to think long and hard about, before you continue spewing your idiocy about taxing churches. If you tax them, you will have to grant them the same representation and political voice in government, as you give everyone else. And being that Churches would likely be the largest contributor to the tax base, they would have considerably more clout than dozens of half-assed liberal special interests. Like I said, I am sure you guys could garner tremendous support from the religious, if this is going to be the case... which it would constitutionally have to be.
That's fucking stupid. Non-tax exempt organizations can engage in partisan political activities. That's all that churches would be entitled to if they elected to be non-tax exempt organizations, the right to engage in partisan political activities. If they want to go that route, they are free to do so right now and I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Not really a tough question there, Dix.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You're right, they can certainly ELECT to do that, and some do... that's how Pat Robertson was able to run for President. We're not talking about whether churches want to participate in politics.... are we? Nope... we're not! We are talking about the prospects of forcibly taxing churches, who would otherwise prefer to remain non-taxable entities. If you mandated the tax, and the church had to pay it, you can bet your rosary they will be looking to gain as much benefit from that as possible, and this means political activism. You'll have united groups of Christian Churches, demanding repeal of abortion, DADT, and anything else they feel is inappropriate, and they will have the treasury of the church to back them up. You'll have candidates entirely funded by the Baptists or Catholics, and beholden to them. What's more, the SCOTUS will rule, since they are a tax paying entity, they are fully entitled to such representation, and you wouldn't be able to prevent that. Currently, you can simply threaten to take their tax exempt status, if they initiated such an effort politically.
You can pretend that this couldn't or wouldn't happen if you like, but it certainly would happen. You offer no rational explanation for why it wouldn't or couldn't.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Some people were concerned that when Kennedy was elected, that the Catholic church would have an influence on his decisions; but can you imagine the outcry if someone was elected as President, that the Pope had endorsed to those of the faith!!
Good Luck
New member
Only if you've been listening to your amp set at 11 for so long you forget that there is an enormous difference between voluntarily giving money to government, and doing so involuntarily.
Dixie is absolutely correct that by taxing churches the government would have zero say in what they say about political issues, or how they say it, or where, or under what circumstances. Violating their 501.c status is the club government has to hold over the heads of religious organizations to limit (some say ineffectively) their direct involvement in politics.
501.c's cannot engage in use of PACs AND enjoy tax exempt status - but remove that by taxing 501.c's and they CAN engage in the use of PACs, as well as direct advertising, making specific statements about the candidacy of specific candidates, etc. etc. etc.
Do you REALLY want that to happen?
Good Luck
New member
Imagine the PAC that could be put together and funded by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - especially if they had Vatican backing (which they would or they wouldn't do it!)Some people were concerned that when Kennedy was elected, that the Catholic church would have an influence on his decisions; but can you imagine the outcry if someone was elected as President, that the Pope had endorsed to those of the faith!!
Gee, maybe it would be worth the extra offering to offset taxes.....
(Not really)
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
it already does and the government does squat about it
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
if religious institutions want to become political then let them as long as they pay their taxes
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nope, not so. Churches are tax exempt, and prohibited from contributing to political campaigns, etc. If a church or non-taxed religious organization, or any non-profit, contributes to a political candidate, 527 or PAC, they will lose their 501(c) tax exempt status.
You and other pinheads talk like you want to change that. I am sure the Catholic Church is eager to get this done, they will surely throw their support behind your efforts to give them unfettered political power.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Okay... but keep in mind, Christian religious organizations (if taxed) would be the single largest tax contributing group, larger than any union, larger than any political action committee, larger than any corporation or private donor. You're not concerned with that amount of money influencing politics?
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
if they could agree on what to lobby for
you have the protestants and the catholics - buddahists, muslims and various minor sects - they are hardly homogeneous and i doubt that a candidate from one sect would be necessarily acceptable to another - at least on the national level - local politics would be another thing, but they would still have to operate within the constitution
Still no evidence that the word "free" in the Establishment Clause provides religious organizations a constitutional exemption from taxation?
If such was the case, why would there need to be a 501 (c) (3) designation?
"Tax exemptions of different types were common in the Colonial period. After the Revolution and the ratification of the Bill of Rights, most states retained these exemptions. State and local governments continue to exempt churches from local taxation. In 1913 the federal government embraced this trend by exempting churches and other religious organizations from federal taxation in the modern federal tax code.
Under the federal scheme, all nonprofits that abide by certain regulations are exempt from federal taxes. Donations made to such groups are likewise tax-deductible for the donor. Churches and religious organizations receive these and some other benefits. For example, churches are not required to file tax returns or apply for tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service automatically considers churches exempt (though many churches file anyway in an effort to assuage concerns of donors.)
Courts hear lawsuits on issues spanning from the constitutional validity of tax exemption to complaints over the loss of tax-exempt status to what counts as a church for tax purposes.
The leading Supreme Court decision on this issue is Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York (1970), in which Frederick Walz, a taxpayer, sued to prevent New York City from giving religious groups an exemption from taxes on property that was used exclusively for religious purposes. His argument was that the exemption provided a material financial benefit to religious organizations, and that such a provision was not permitted under the First Amendment's establishment clause.
The Court responded that, though the establishment clause prohibits government from sponsoring, funding or actively involving itself in religious activities, it is allowed to operate with “a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.” The question that must be asked when the possibility of “establishment of religion” arises, the Court said, is “whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or to have the effect of doing so.”
The Walz Court determined that where religious organizations were not the only groups exempted from taxation — even non-religious organizations that pursued “charitable, benevolent, hospital, infirmary, educational, scientific, literary, library, patriotic, historical, or cemetery purposes” were also exempted — the mere fact that religious groups did benefit from such a scheme did not demonstrate any governmental preference for religion.
The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if a legislature should decide to grant tax exemptions, the constitutionality of the system of exemptions at issue in Walz could not establish a presumption of constitutionality for any system that benefited religious organizations.
Indeed, when the Court was called upon in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989) to consider a statute granting a tax exemption specifically to religious periodicals, it determined (in a 6-3 plurality decision) that, although governments may grant exemptions to religious organizations as part of a broader classification (such as “nonprofit organizations”), groups could not be singled out for benefit solely because of their religious nature..."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=tax_exemptions
If such was the case, why would there need to be a 501 (c) (3) designation?
"Tax exemptions of different types were common in the Colonial period. After the Revolution and the ratification of the Bill of Rights, most states retained these exemptions. State and local governments continue to exempt churches from local taxation. In 1913 the federal government embraced this trend by exempting churches and other religious organizations from federal taxation in the modern federal tax code.
Under the federal scheme, all nonprofits that abide by certain regulations are exempt from federal taxes. Donations made to such groups are likewise tax-deductible for the donor. Churches and religious organizations receive these and some other benefits. For example, churches are not required to file tax returns or apply for tax-exempt status. The Internal Revenue Service automatically considers churches exempt (though many churches file anyway in an effort to assuage concerns of donors.)
Courts hear lawsuits on issues spanning from the constitutional validity of tax exemption to complaints over the loss of tax-exempt status to what counts as a church for tax purposes.
The leading Supreme Court decision on this issue is Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York (1970), in which Frederick Walz, a taxpayer, sued to prevent New York City from giving religious groups an exemption from taxes on property that was used exclusively for religious purposes. His argument was that the exemption provided a material financial benefit to religious organizations, and that such a provision was not permitted under the First Amendment's establishment clause.
The Court responded that, though the establishment clause prohibits government from sponsoring, funding or actively involving itself in religious activities, it is allowed to operate with “a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.” The question that must be asked when the possibility of “establishment of religion” arises, the Court said, is “whether particular acts in question are intended to establish or interfere with religious beliefs and practices or to have the effect of doing so.”
The Walz Court determined that where religious organizations were not the only groups exempted from taxation — even non-religious organizations that pursued “charitable, benevolent, hospital, infirmary, educational, scientific, literary, library, patriotic, historical, or cemetery purposes” were also exempted — the mere fact that religious groups did benefit from such a scheme did not demonstrate any governmental preference for religion.
The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if a legislature should decide to grant tax exemptions, the constitutionality of the system of exemptions at issue in Walz could not establish a presumption of constitutionality for any system that benefited religious organizations.
Indeed, when the Court was called upon in Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (1989) to consider a statute granting a tax exemption specifically to religious periodicals, it determined (in a 6-3 plurality decision) that, although governments may grant exemptions to religious organizations as part of a broader classification (such as “nonprofit organizations”), groups could not be singled out for benefit solely because of their religious nature..."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/topic.aspx?topic=tax_exemptions
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh, I think you'd find god-fearing people would have lots of common issues, they just wouldn't coincide with liberal social initiatives. The Constitution is what we're discussing here, of course they would have to adhere to it, but that means you have to accept their role in political discourse, and your proverbial "wall of separation" between church and state, would be gone forever. When they start legislating moral issues, when the Baptist-backed president starts appointing Baptists to the Supreme Court... you will start screaming about it, but it will be too late, you've paved the way by taxing them, thus, giving them enormous political power they don't enjoy at the present time.
You see, in your warped little pinhead minds, you believe you can "tax" (i.e. STEAL) their money and wealth, and fund whatever birdbrain liberal program you have your hearts set on, and that will be that... but in reality, you simply can't tax them without representation, you would have to give them an equal political voice, and that might get a little problematic for anti-religious liberals. Yeah, you could raise a lot in taxes, but you would also have to deal with enormous political clout and influence from the largest tax contributing group out there... no way to avoid that.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
LMFAO.. No, still no evidence that you are retarded and ignorant, no one seems to have bothered with a study to determine that, we just accept it as a fact. Oh, and it's the entire phrase "prohibit the free exercise thereof" not just the word "free." If it is taxed, it is no longer a free exercise, you have prohibited that with a tax on the exercise. I don't know how much simpler this could be, or how much clearer it can be made for you. If you are too retarded to understand it and comprehend basic English, I doubt I can post anything to help you with that.