quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Why does the feeling of the giver matter when determining Tax Status, if one gives money and claims they didn't "feel" right does the tax status change in this scenario.

What If someone gives labor, should the church take the Party of the Government in charges expected labor rate, multiply it by the time given, extract the "feelyness" of the giver and apply a tax burden, Labor has value, value must be taxed. What if the person giving labor hurt their back, and doesn't "Feel" good about it, no taxes.

What if my wife attends the church and I play golf, or go shooting, sleep in, she wants us to give money, and I'm ambivalent about it.. who's feeling do we use, hers creates taxable situation, does mine avoid it, should we divide the gift 50/50 and the church only pay's tax on half...

Again, if you don't like me using the words "good feelings", tell me what you would prefer that says the same and I'll make the substition. I'm not trying to be a smartass about this, I just use the words I know as they apply to me.

As regards the economic point of view I'm discussing, I'll go back to the example of a session with a psychiatrist. If you pay for an hour of the doctor's time, what did you actually receive for your money? Why is the same not true for a donation to a church/charity? You get the same thing from both.

As far as labor goes, yes - that's how it works in the secular world. Labor is traded for the equivalent goods or services and that trade is reported on the tax return.

As for your example of you and your wife, from the tax standpoint the money given by either of you would be taxable from the economic point of view I am trying to discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

As regards the economic point of view I'm discussing, I'll go back to the example of a session with a psychiatrist. If you pay for an hour of the doctor's time, what did you actually receive for your money? Why is the same not true for a donation to a church/charity? You get the same thing from both.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think at this point you're just effing with us. Of course I know that you're sincere, which makes this all the more a head scratcher for me. The fact that you can't differentiate between a service or good paid for and a donation or time volunteered to a church or charity is perfectly confounding to me.

No, I'm not playing games. The discussion is academic - I have no power to change or have an impact on anyone's life here so there's no reason for anyone to be upset about anything I say.

Balze - you refer to knowing the difference between a paid for service and a donation. The point I'm making is that they are the same thing, they just have different nomenclature.

I'll ask the question again, when you (in the general sense) make a donation do you receive a positive feeling and a belief that your money will do something you wish it to?

Sure it's an intangible benefit, but a benefit received nonetheless. It's an emotion & belief, i.e. benefit, you would not have if you had not given the donation. It doesn't matter how much or how little joy or positivity you have after making a donation, that you received any at all is a benefit to you.

If you have no emotion or belief that you are helping make a difference whatsoever, why would you give? The answer is you wouldn't,

Like I said, I'm not pulling anyone's chain and I've made it clear where I stand on the moral side of not taxing churches and charities.

If churches are taxed, their accounting practices with corrupt further than they already are. All churches ? No. But the really big ones, most definitely. Lot's of crooks in big religion.

I believe church's shouldnt be taxed; at least the non mega churches.

I do feel good about giving to my church since I see the benefits. Sometimes people cant afford home heating oil and they will pay for it. I see the kids having fun playing in the basketball league our church runs.
I see the results of missions trips and the good they do.
So yes it is a positive feeling.

Any extra money the church saves from paying taxes is better than in the hands of our greedy government.

I am so against this.

The best way to get rid of a religion is tax it out of existence.

Don't like the religion, values its building at 10 million, can't pay we take the building.

Move, tax the next building, take that one until they are run out of town.


NOPE not in favor of giving the Government the power to tax religion.

Not fair, will not happen, you have more faith in politicians than I do.

Long, long, long overdue.

Tax them immediately and for forever more.

^^^If you think this country is in trouble now, take money and transfer it from people that do good to an already obese and wasteful government and watch it accelerate.

Even my former atheistic self knew all the good churches do for society.

You think it’s going to spread the tax burden?
You are mistaken.

While I see what I would consider abuses, providing more to the thieves in office isn’t the solution.

I vote no.... we do have a constitution of sorts still.

Read Thomas Paine and you will understand why....

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
^^^If you think this country is in trouble now, take money and transfer it from people that do good to an already obese and wasteful government and watch it accelerate.

I could do better than Government does, too, but that's not the point and not how it should work.

Pay the damn taxes like everyone else is expected to. We should seek fewer special exceptions.

The Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world with untold gobs upon gobs of literal treasure in addition to metric fucktons of property worldwide. Same as the Mormons and so on.

No excuse, really, just an advantageous exception that they're clinging to like they're special.

Are some animals more equal than others...? No, not even close.

Nobody's trying to tax the rural tent revivals out of existence, FFS. These are enormous institutions...

The lost annual Property Taxes alone are enormous. Maybe build a few fewer fancy gymnasiums and a few fewer stained glass windows and a few fewer fancy robes and pay the fucking taxes.

So, why do churches have exemptions?

What is the tax code currently used for? To generate income for the government? C'mon man, if that was the case the tax code would be one or two lines. The purpose of taxes in the US is to modify behavior in the direction the government wants or to punish those it disagrees with. Electric vehicles, ethanol, exemptions for children, home ownership, the list goes on and on.

If churches could be taxed it would no time before churches doing certain things the government likes would get a tax break. You know it would be used to punish 'conservative' churches. The government cannot be trusted - I can't believe there are those in this forum who have not learned that.

Also, the Supreme Court has upheld exemptions and warned against doing away with them saying that taxing churches would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:
^^^If you think this country is in trouble now, take money and transfer it from people that do good to an already obese and wasteful government and watch it accelerate.

I could do better than Government does, too, but that's not the point and not how it should work.

Pay the damn taxes like everyone else is expected to. We should seek fewer special exceptions.

The Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world with untold gobs upon gobs of literal treasure in addition to metric fucktons of property worldwide. Same as the Mormons and so on.

No excuse, really, just an advantageous exception that they're clinging to like they're special.

Are some animals more equal than others...? No, not even close.

Nobody's trying to tax the rural tent revivals out of existence, FFS. These are enormous institutions...

The lost annual Property Taxes alone are enormous. Maybe build a few fewer fancy gymnasiums and a few fewer stained glass windows and a few fewer fancy robes and pay the fucking taxes.

Right along with The Salvation Army, Wounded Warriors and the like right? Where do YOU draw the line?

Tax them all, equally, of course.

(or none, it's not like I enjoy paying taxes myself, but...)

The exceptions needed to end many years ago.

And the idea that they can't afford it is absurd.

Understand, while I've always been an atheist I grew up going to church(es), one grandfather of mine was a Baptist preacher, even, and I've seen loads from the inside out, Decon uncles, Aunts in the Chior, and I went to VBS in various gyms and churches as a kid, and been to dozens of weddings and such in almost every form of modern church that exists now.

They'll be fine, and you all know it.

Not collecting Taxes from them also makes millions upon millions of non believers have to offset the lost revenue. All of which definitely needs to stop, now.

You guys don't like having to fund liberal programs, do you? I know none of you like it when your money has to pay for things you don't agree with. It's wrong.

Make it stop. Treat them like any other business.

Some of these fucks have jets and stadiums. Last year my cousin was paid to build $20k worth of stage props for one play one southern church was putting on.

Anyway. We all know where each other stand...

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Make it stop. Treat them like any other business.

If only we could get rid of that pesky bill of rights.

quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

If a church doesn’t pay its taxes, will the government then use the law to seize its assets? Would the tax law that justifies the seizure constitute a law that “prohibits the free exercise”? Seizure of church property is not without precedent. The Federal government seized many of the Mormon’s assets in the 19th century over polygamy, that being an illegal act. Indeed, identifying an illegal act is in itself subjecting an organization to a law. Are you suggesting that the first amendment also be set aside for the purposes of taxation? It does say that Congress shall make no law, but that is clearly not absolute.

As I’ve already discussed in this thread, the power to tax is the power to destroy. If you are willing to disregard the clear wording of the First Amendment, it’s difficult to make the argument that the Second Amendment’s wording is equally unambiguous.

I think those who reflexively call for the taxing of religion need to consider that it undermines a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and doing so to such a fundamental right as religious freedom greatly weakens all the rights in that document.

Gadfry I should know better than to jump in on a thread like this, but it's a compelling topic for me.
I'd love it if we could all just live and let live without any religions at all. But we can't, and I think we all agree on that. So, what to do?

If the concern is taxing money again that comes from people already taxed, isn't tithing considered a valid write off? That being the case, I don't see why churches can't pay at least 10% like they expect their parishioners to. I realize this points in the direction of a flat tax, but I'm just using a number that is already expected for one party in a common transaction but not the other.

Of course it would be up to the government to use it responsibly, so again, what to do?

I thing a lot of people want churches to pay taxes because they hate the church.
Not me, but in an ideal world they should.
We are not in an ideal world but they still should pay something as IMO should everyone including the lowest earners.
Everyone should contribute, something.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:.. (snipped for brevity. it's all meaningful)

Everyone should contribute, something.

Would you include all charitable organizations under this?

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:
If the concern is taxing money again that comes from people already taxed, isn't tithing considered a valid write off? That being the case, I don't see why churches can't pay at least 10% like they expect their parishioners to. I realize this points in the direction of a flat tax, but I'm just using a number that is already expected for one party in a common transaction but not the other.

Of course it would be up to the government to use it responsibly, so again, what to do?

That's not the concern.

The concern is that the government taxing churches would violate the Free Establishment and Exercise clause in the constitution, as stated by the Supreme Court in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York

In addition, we know that the tax code is not being used to generate revenue, it's being used to reward or punish groups based on behaviors the government wants to see.

I think most would agree that it would be carried over to churches, just as it has in every other area of the tax code. The government would reward and punish via tax breaks and exemptions. Perform same sex marriages? You get a tax break...etc, etc, etc.

Anyone who supports the 2nd amendment should strongly oppose violating the 1st.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:.. (snipped for brevity. it's all meaningful)

Everyone should contribute, something.

Would you include all charitable organizations under this?

yes