The Yearly Cost of Religious Tax Exemptions in the United States: $71,000,000,000
350 replies, posted
[QUOTE=F T;36363474]I know what im talking about, but I don't think you understand my reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE]
Please tell me the reasoning for giving a shitload of money to a man who protects child rapists and tells people in sub-saharan africa that condoms cause aids.
Do explain.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
If the Pope is your political leader, you need to invest some time into finding another leader. Regardless of how much of a "leader" you think he is, that makes him neither charitable nor tax-exempt. The President pays his fucking taxes.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363488]Please tell me the reasoning for giving a shitload of money to a man who protects child rapists and tells people in sub-saharan africa that condoms cause aids.
Do explain.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
If the Pope is your political leader, you need to invest some time into finding another leader.[/QUOTE]
Well those child rapists are sacred men of god, and those africans are unholy.
Clearly.
[QUOTE=F T;36363045]Well, this "old man" just happens to be the Holy Pope. I cannot understand why you would say he misguides people when all does is bring us closer to world peace.
And besides, that is made with the Vatican's money, not american churches.[/QUOTE]
What about those times he said condoms cause AIDS?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363488]Please tell me the reasoning for giving a shitload of money to a man who protects child rapists and tells people in sub-saharan africa that condoms cause aids.
Do explain.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
If the Pope is your political leader, you need to invest some time into finding another leader. Regardless of how much of a "leader" you think he is, that makes him neither charitable nor tax-exempt. The President pays his fucking taxes.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I understand and agree with you on the fact that we do need to pay taxes, but allow me to explain why I think the Pope should be exempt:
The Pope is the head of our church. Everything we do goes through him. Technically, he is our "president" of sorts. If it weren't for the Pope, our church would crumble.
[QUOTE=F T;36363582]Hey, I understand and agree with you on the fact that we do need to pay taxes, but allow me to explain why I think the Pope should be exempt:
The Pope is the head of our church. Everything we do goes through him. Technically, he is our "president" of sorts. If it weren't for the Pope, our church would crumble.[/QUOTE]
For the third time:
Presidents pay taxes.
If you think the man would let his whole scam crumble if he is forced to act like a productive member of society, maybe you shouldn't let him be in charge. The way you put it, he sounds less like a leader and more like an extortionist. "Let me do whatever the fuck I want or this whole thing comes down."
Find a better leader. One who pays taxes.
I could use some of that money.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363596]For the third time:
Presidents pay taxes.
If you think the man would let his whole scam crumble if he is forced to act like a productive member of society, maybe you shouldn't let him be in charge. The way you put it, he sounds less like a leader and more like an extortionist. "Let me do whatever the fuck I want or this whole thing comes down."
Find a better leader. One who pays taxes.[/QUOTE]
And who should the Pope pay taxes to? If he pays money to somebody, he pays it to himself cause there is nobody else above him.
[QUOTE=F T;36363652]And who should the Pope pay taxes to? If he pays money to somebody, he pays it to himself cause there is nobody else above him.[/QUOTE]
Uh
That's not how taxes work. The U.S. president pays taxes. Do you think that the taxes he pays go directly to him? I don't know much about the Vatican, but I figure that there are some civil services that the money could go to.
[QUOTE=F T;36363652]And who should the Pope pay taxes to? If he pays money to somebody, he pays it to himself cause there is nobody else above him.[/QUOTE]
Uhhhhh, if all tax money goes directly to the fucking Pope, you've got some pretty big problems with how you're running things. Aside from, you know, being a fucking theocracy and all.
It doesn't go to "himself." Taxes go toward a greater pool of resources for an entire state. When the U.S. President pays taxes, he isn't paying "himself." He's investing in the nation as a whole. He doesn't sign a check to himself and then buy a golden fucking throne. That money goes toward things like infrastructure, investments and maintenance.
[IMG]http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/vol_32/4/cragun-table-1.png[/IMG]
*goes to the police* some guy just stole all of my money!!
-how much money was it?
probably a lot!!!
Also FYI the Vatican gets its money from churches around the world, property transactions (of things they fucking stole during their historical conquests) and funding from multiple nations around the world.
The Vatican also plays the stock market. Do you know of any charities that have $312,000,000 in stocks and bonds (circa 1994)? Because that doesn't really sound like how a charitable organization conducts itself!
[QUOTE=redBadger;36354671]I guess you guys are forgetting that the amount of charitable works all churches do well makes up for this.
But I forgot, its religion, lets condemn it.[/QUOTE]
Charitable works:
[IMG]http://www.visitingdc.com/images/national-cathedral-picture.jpg[/IMG]
Yes religions do charitable deeds, but they also pay their priests, build new churches, and send missionaries around the world.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36363744]Yes religions do charitable deeds, but they also pay their priests, build new churches, and send missionaries around the world.[/QUOTE]
Religions simply aren't charities. They spend the vast majority of their money perpetuating themselves and expanding, and a tiny sliver on charitable deeds. Their modus operandi is exactly the same as a growing corporation. "Get more people, get more money." Hell, the fact that their primary goal is to convert other people is the very antithesis of charity, and is eerily corporate.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36363744]Charitable works:
[IMG]http://www.visitingdc.com/images/national-cathedral-picture.jpg[/IMG]
Yes religions do charitable deeds, but they also pay their priests, build new churches, and send missionaries around the world.[/QUOTE]
hurrr let's not pay these people who work full-time for our establishment?
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363765]hurrr let's not pay these people who work full-time for our establishment?[/QUOTE]
Nobody's saying they can't pay their employees.
But they aren't charities and they aren't tax-exempt when perpetuating their own existence is their primary goal. A charitable organization pays the needy first and themselves second. A church does the exact opposite.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363765]hurrr let's not pay these people who work full-time for our establishment?[/QUOTE]
What? If they want to claim they're a non profit charity, then they should abide by the rules of non profit charities.
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36363784]What? If they want to claim they're a non profit charity, then they should abide by the rules of non profit charities.[/QUOTE]
They don't claim they're a charity. they claim they are a religion lol
[editline]16th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363777]Nobody's saying they can't pay their employees.
A charitable organization pays the needy first and themselves second. A church does the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]
That is so fucking wrong especially considering every story on "corrupted" charities which put a lot of their funding into their own pockets
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363790]That is so fucking wrong especially considering every story on "corrupted" charities which put a lot of their funding into their own pockets[/QUOTE]
You do realize those charities lose their tax-exempt status extremely rapidly, right?
Do you seriously think that the government [I]doesn't[/I] want to take their money? That the IRS is going to turn a blind eye to that kind of shit? Have you ever [I]been[/I] audited?
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363790]They don't claim they're a charity. they claim they are a religion lol[/QUOTE]
Then as per the First Amendment they deserve no special treatment as non-profit organizations and they must pay taxes.
You don't get it. The only reason churches are tax exempt is because there are special exceptions in the tax code which give them the same privileges as charities. If you admit they aren't charitable, you admit they should be paying taxes.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363790]They don't claim they're a charity. they claim they are a religion lol
[/QUOTE]
But that's their only reasoning to get tax exemptions.
[editline]16th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363813]Have you ever [I]been[/I] audited?[/QUOTE]
Considering he's around twelve years old...
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36363819]But that's their only reasoning to get tax exemptions.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, you retard, the idea behind religious tax exemption is that taxing religion would create a relationship between religion and government and thus destroy the idea of separation of church and state
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363848]Actually, you retard, the idea behind religious tax exemption is that taxing religion would create a relationship between religion and government and thus destroy the idea of separation of church and state[/QUOTE]
Uhh, no it isn't.
If that were the case the government couldn't tax priests. (And they do.)
The separation of church and state implies that policy cannot be of a religious nature. Taxation of religious organizations would be a completely fiscal matter, just as taxation of everything else in the country. Religion doesn't factor into the equation. They're making money. They pay taxes. Full-stop.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363868]Uhh, no it isn't.
If that were the case the government couldn't tax priests. (And they do.)[/QUOTE]
Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363848]Actually, you retard, the idea behind religious tax exemption is that taxing religion would create a relationship between religion and government and thus destroy the idea of separation of church and state[/QUOTE]
religious groups in the US get too involved in politics, so it would make sense that they would have to pay up in taxes for their involvement
also, you could stop being condescending
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363868]Uhh, no it isn't.
If that were the case the government couldn't tax priests. (And they do.)[/QUOTE]
Yes it would, as I stated in my first post in this thread : Churches give up their influence in government to get a tax exempt status.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363872]Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York[/QUOTE]
Uhh that case's precedence was that tax-exemption was constitutional, not that taxation was unconstitutional.
Next time, don't just reference the first case that comes up in Google.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363889]Uhh that case's precedence was that tax-exemption was constitutional, not that taxation was unconstitutional.
Next time, don't just reference the first case that comes up in Google.[/QUOTE]
You obviously don't know how Supreme Court rulings work, do you
[QUOTE=F T;36363884]Yes it would, as I stated in my first post in this thread : Churches give up their influence in government to get a tax exempt status.[/QUOTE]
No they don't. Who the fuck told you that?
Churches are barred from political influence regardless of whether or not they pay taxes.
Once again: Taxation is a purely fiscal transaction. The government would tax mosques, cathedrals, and those little Scientology buildings, too. Religion would not enter the equation. If they make profit, they get taxed. End of god damn story.
[QUOTE=F T;36363884]Yes it would, as I stated in my first post in this thread : Churches give up their influence in government to get a tax exempt status.[/QUOTE]
Because churches have no influence in government.
[QUOTE=The EpicNinja;36363897]You obviously don't know how Supreme Court rulings work, do you[/QUOTE]
please explain what the supreme court does and how precedence works.
because when i was in law school, the first thing i learned was that just because one thing is precedent does not mean its inverse is as well. The only thing that ruling decided is that it's constitutional to give religious organizations tax exempt status, NOT that it would be unconstitutional to tax them.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=zakedodead;36363904]Because churches have no influence in government.[/QUOTE]
especially not when they donate to political action committees and hold non-profit lobbying and advocacy groups, FUCK NO who told you that?
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
In fact, the precedence set by Walz v. Tax Commission would SUPPORT the taxation of churches, as its reasoning is that so long as a standard is applied for ALL religious organizations indiscriminately, then it does not violate the Establishment Clause.
You do realize we impose law upon religious organizations even when it conflicts with their beliefs, right? If they want to sacrifice a newborn to the blood god, their religious freedom does not override the law. If they want to make a profit, their religious freedom does not override the law.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36363908]please explain what the supreme court does and how precedence works.
because when i was in law school, the first thing i learned was that just because one thing is precedent does not mean its inverse is as well. The only thing that ruling decided is that it's constitutional to give religious organizations tax exempt status, NOT that it would be unconstitutional to tax them.[/QUOTE]
Well one important part of the decision (paraphrased by Oyez.org) goes a little like
The Court noted that "benevolent neutrality" toward churches and religions was "deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life."
which basically means "To do otherwise would go against the fabric of our Constitution."
[editline]16th June 2012[/editline]
The text from the actual decision:
[QUOTE]The general principle deducible from the First Amendment and all that has been said by the Court is this: that we will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion. Short of those expressly proscribed governmental acts, there is room for play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality which will permit religious exercise to exist without sponsorship and without interference.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty clearly against religious taxation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.