what if it's accompanied by a cut in personal income tax?
Thats one crazy if. But I don't want the churches funding my nations tax system. Then I'd owe them something. And if you think that churches are religious now.....................
Thats one crazy if. But I don't want the churches funding my nations tax system. Then I'd owe them something. And if you think that churches are religious now.....................
if i think that churches are religious now.... what? they'll be more religious? they'll add more jesus to the curriculum?
i say we let profitable institutions fund the tax system, rather than individual citizens from their income.
some of the dioceses themselves are wealthy. wealthy enough to pay $600 million settlements. I'm also sure there are poor, small congregations, that would be unable to afford to pay taxes.
the fair way would perhaps be to have a minimum income level where no taxes are paid, and then step up the level of tax to be paid in conjunction with how wealthy the curch is.
i also think that any business that earns enough money to pay employees should have to pay taxes.
but if you come up with a good alternative to finance the government, i'm open.
Ummm...how about charging for services? A little bird told me that some organizations offer services that people pay for, and they even do that willingly! I know, it sounds crazy.
Ummm...how about charging for services? A little bird told me that some organizations offer services that people pay for, and they even do that willingly! I know, it sounds crazy.
what's the point of a government at all then? you can just have private businesses do everything and charge for the services. instead of police, we'll just have rent-a-cops patrolling cities and protecting only those who can afford to pay their salary.
what's the point of a government at all then? you can just have private businesses do everything and charge for the services. instead of police, we'll just have rent-a-cops patrolling cities and protecting only those who can afford to pay their salary.
Ok. And "those who can afford to pay their salary" would be 99% of the population. The per-person annual cost of police services is beween $100-$500, depending on where you live.
Ok. And "those who can afford to pay their salary" would be 99% of the population. The per-person annual cost of police services is beween $100-$500, depending on where you live.
and i guarantee you that 94% of the population won't pay by betting on the assumption that others will. i know i won't cos i don't like cops. i'll just buy a gun and shoot anyone coming into my house. my own personal police force for a one time fee of $500. and i won't pay for courts either so that there is no one to try me. i'll use the money i save for a big bribe if i ever get dragged to court for it.
why should they? they are non profit organizations right? they arent looking for a bigger bottom line. at least what I see, the church spends any money received on improving the church and property for the community and people its there for.
why should they? they are non profit organizations right? they arent looking for a bigger bottom line. at least what I see, the church spends any money received on improving the church and property for the community and people its there for.
...
Churches are businesses. Look at those ministries currently under investigation. And the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA. That Multi-million dollar venture that sells tickets for entry... and to their 'Glory of Christmas' show.
It's no different than a Broadway production at the Tiffany theater.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Ok. And "those who can afford to pay their salary" would be 99% of the population. The per-person annual cost of police services is beween $100-$500, depending on where you live.
around 15% of the US population live below the poverty line, and they can't even afford basics such as food and housing. even though a great deal of those people are the working poor. so according to you these people wouldn't be allowed any police protection?
oh yeah, in your libertarian utopian soceity the poor or disabled or anyone unable to work are supposed to just fuck off and die, right?
...
Churches are businesses. Look at those ministries currently under investigation. And the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA. That Multi-million dollar venture that sells tickets for entry... and to their 'Glory of Christmas' show.
It's no different than a Broadway production at the Tiffany theater.
I guess I should plead ignorance to this. I have only been to the small churches in my neighborhoods who depend on donations to survive and most of the time struggle to break even. and they were very public about their records. showing they spend the money on improvements or savings for a new church.
but there are these huge christian churches who take in millions.
I guess I should plead ignorance to this. I have only been to the small churches in my neighborhoods who depend on donations to survive and most of the time struggle to break even. and they were very public about their records. showing they spend the money on improvements or savings for a new church.
but there are these huge christian churches who take in millions.
...
That's the bad thing about the whole Tax-Exempt status of churches.
Think about scientology. That is a church. and you basically pay money to find answers... of course, they are not 'fees'... they are 'donations'.
Churches should be taxed... and possibly given deductions for the charity work they do...
example:
Church takes in money... taxed.
Church uses money to run a soup kitchen for homeless people... deduction.
Church uses money for travertine floors in the church elder's beach front home... not deductable.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
around 15% of the US population live below the poverty line, and they can't even afford basics such as food and housing. even though a great deal of those people are the working poor. so according to you these people wouldn't be allowed any police protection?
"Allowed"? They'd be allowed whatever police protection they could procure or whatever police protection they could obtain from others who were willing to help them. What you mean to say is that they wouldn't be "allowed" to use others to obtain their own services unless those others were willing to help.
Your entire statement here is both disengenuous and silly. Roughly 15% of the US population does live "below the poverty line", yet the vast majority of them could easily afford police services. To suggest that those 15% "can't even afford basics such as food and housing" is absolutely silly when nearly half of them own a home, two-thirds own a car, and nearly all will spend more in sales taxes alone this year than the competitive cost of the services they need most.
But no, keep on fighting your "war on poverty" at the state level, and let me know how that works out. God knows the first 50 years of that war are a dismal failure. I'm sure you're due for a turnaround at any moment.
oh yeah, in your libertarian utopian soceity the poor or disabled or anyone unable to work are supposed to just fuck off and die, right?
"Allowed"? They'd be allowed whatever police protection they could procure or whatever police protection they could obtain from others who were willing to help them. What you mean to say is that they wouldn't be "allowed" to use others to obtain their own services unless those others were willing to help.
Your entire statement here is both disengenuous and silly. Roughly 15% of the US population does live "below the poverty line", yet the vast majority of them could easily afford police services. To suggest that those 15% "can't even afford basics such as food and housing" is absolutely silly when nearly half of them own a home, two-thirds own a car, and nearly all will spend more in sales taxes alone this year than the competitive cost of the services they need most.
But no, keep on fighting your "war on poverty" at the state level, and let me know how that works out. God knows the first 50 years of that war are a dismal failure. I'm sure you're due for a turnaround at any moment.
:rolleyes:
where are you getting that half of the people that live below poverty level own a home?
what if they cannot afford it.....oh but of course in your lalaland everyone can.
what if they can't procure police protection themselves? you didn't explain how anyone could do such a thing...
and what if no one is willing to help those that cannot pay for police and/or fire protection?
...
That's the bad thing about the whole Tax-Exempt status of churches.
Think about scientology. That is a church. and you basically pay money to find answers... of course, they are not 'fees'... they are 'donations'.
Churches should be taxed... and possibly given deductions for the charity work they do...
example:
Church takes in money... taxed.
Church uses money to run a soup kitchen for homeless people... deduction.
Church uses money for travertine floors in the church elder's beach front home... not deductable.
i thought that we were all for separation of church and state. I mean we don't want the church to play a part in politics; so why should the churches have to give to the politics. If you tax a lot of churches; you'd send a good many of them onto hard times and close up a good amount of churches. Some churches can barely serve their members, let alone serve communities. Look through a phone book sometime. Sure every town has a few real big churches, but there are a lot more 50-100 member churches out there that are just skirting by. By taxing them, you may be taxing them right out of existence. And it could be construed that the gov't is only interested in keeping big churches open, so they can get the money, and they will close the small churches; thereby endorsing a religion (at least endorsing churches that are big and they can profit from). Most churches aren't being investigate for the possible corruption; the ones that are should be happy to have their books audited b/c if they are acting as their mission says they should...there shouldn't be a worry. Benny Hinn is notoriously bad with his clarity of records. If churches are endorsing a politician, not nec a view, then they should be taxed and not allowed tax exempt status.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
where are you getting that half of the people that live below poverty level own a home?
"Forty-one percent of the poor actually own their own homes, typically a three-bedroom house with one-and-one-half baths. It is in good repair, and has a garage or carport, and a porch or patio. The median value of these homes is $65,000, which is 70 percent of the median value of all American homes."
i thought that we were all for separation of church and state. I mean we don't want the church to play a part in politics; so why should the churches have to give to the politics. If you tax a lot of churches; you'd send a good many of them onto hard times and close up a good amount of churches. Some churches can barely serve their members, let alone serve communities. Look through a phone book sometime. Sure every town has a few real big churches, but there are a lot more 50-100 member churches out there that are just skirting by. By taxing them, you may be taxing them right out of existence. And it could be construed that the gov't is only interested in keeping big churches open, so they can get the money, and they will close the small churches; thereby endorsing a religion (at least endorsing churches that are big and they can profit from). Most churches aren't being investigate for the possible corruption; the ones that are should have the rights to have their books audited. Benny Hinn is notoriously bad with his clarity of records. If churches are endorsing a politician, not nec a view, then they should be taxed and not allowed tax exempt status.
...
If the Church didn't want 'Ten Commandments' in the Public Courthouses... then, fine... keep them Tax-exempt. If fuckers quit quoting the Bible when trying to pass legislation that affects me... fine, no taxes.
But, as it is... they want that shit... they should pay... just like any other business.
And those small churches you speak of... why would they close? why do they need to turn a profit? Need to pave the parking lot at the church... raise the money... write it off. Need to have a new jacuzzi built in the Priest's home... no... you can't write that shit off. Since when does a church need to make money?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
...
If the Church didn't want 'Ten Commandments' in the Public Courthouses... then, fine... keep them Tax-exempt. If fuckers quit quoting the Bible when trying to pass legislation that affects me... fine, no taxes.
But, as it is... they want that shit... they should pay... just like any other business.
And those small churches you speak of... why would they close? why do they need to turn a profit? Need to pave the parking lot at the church... raise the money... write it off. Need to have a new jacuzzi built in the Priest's home... no... you can't write that shit off. Since when does a church need to make money?
some of them are operating fairly close as it is w/o having to pay taxes. Add taxes (esp if it's a tax on the gross income) of some sort on to it and they'll have even more bills. The churches do raise money (offering) to pay for upkeep, services for members (books, resources etc...); pay pastor(s), secretaries, support staff, support missions work, save for times when membership declines, pay for upgrading facilities (computers, screens, musical instruments etc...), pay the bills (power, water), offer trips, offer to help offset expenses for others. An unwritten rule that some churches go by is to assume 1000.00 in giving for every person in attendance. So if a church has 60-100 members that is 60K - 100K for them to take in and disperse to all of the above (based on the churches discretion). I agree with you that if a church is putting extravagent things in, then questions should be raised. I know of one megachurch pastor who capped his salary at 67K. This is a man who has over 17K people that attend per week. So not everyone is really abusing the system. There are organizations out there that do abuse the system and they should be punished, but you're talking about 1% of the churches / organizations that are really doing that.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
some of them are operating fairly close as it is w/o having to pay taxes. Add taxes (esp if it's a tax on the gross income) of some sort on to it and they'll have even more bills. The churches do raise money (offering) to pay for upkeep, services for members (books, resources etc...); pay pastor(s), secretaries, support staff, support missions work, save for times when membership declines, pay for upgrading facilities (computers, screens, musical instruments etc...), pay the bills (power, water), offer trips, offer to help offset expenses for others. An unwritten rule that some churches go by is to assume 1000.00 in giving for every person in attendance. So if a church has 60-100 members that is 60K - 100K for them to take in and disperse to all of the above (based on the churches discretion). I agree with you that if a church is putting extravagent things in, then questions should be raised. I know of one megachurch pastor who capped his salary at 67K. This is a man who has over 17K people that attend per week. So not everyone is really abusing the system. There are organizations out there that do abuse the system and they should be punished, but you're talking about 1% of the churches / organizations that are really doing that.
...
No...
They would have to come clean at the end of the year to avoid the tax bill. It would not be taken up front like our typical payroll deduction.
Case:
Church collects money... uses money to purchase pots and paper plates and paper towels and sets up an Easter Dinner for homeless people. at the end of the year... church writes off the pots and paper plates and paper towels.
Church tries to write off the 2007 Mercedes 500 the minister's wife uses to drive to 'Charity events'... not so much.
Church buys an 11 passenger Van to drive the Choir around... van and maintenance written off... gasoline... not so much.
as for the folks how pass out the food and sing in the choir... they are not paid employees... neither is the minister or the church secretary or the church accountant (although the accounting fees are deductible if spent as an expenditure).
Following the Lord should be a calling... not a vocation. Jesus' teachings should fill the minister's soul... not bank account. No one should go into the clergy to make money. The church should break even... at best.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Then the 6% who do would be wise not to service the other 94%.
exactly... only those with the funds to pay for police would get service. there is something called unemployment. as you so ably noted, not everyone has a job or a right to one. so those who fall on misfortune should be left at the mercy of criminals eh? cos they didn't pay their share of policing.
"Forty-one percent of the poor actually own their own homes, typically a three-bedroom house with one-and-one-half baths. It is in good repair, and has a garage or carport, and a porch or patio. The median value of these homes is $65,000, which is 70 percent of the median value of all American homes."
Then they use charity. Or they pool their resources. Or they strike until their employers provide it.
Then they don't get it. It's no different than any other product or service someone wants from someone else.
The irony here is that you're defending the current police monopoly that notoriously underserves the poor.
hahaha....nothing like quoting and linking an article about how those living in poverty have it so great than one that was written for the National Review. the snobby conservatives at the National Review would never, ever be biased against the poor now would they? :rolleyes:
not that I was at all defending the police but currently the police probably underserve most all commmunites. also I'm guessing that if someone was being attacked in a poor neighborhood they would much prefer "some" police response rather than "none at all." again according to you if they can't afford to pay for police protection then "none at all" is all they deserve.
I take it that you also think that if a poor family's house is burning down and they can't afford to pay the local fire department that the family, and their house should burn to the ground.
heaven forbid that they got laid off or had some huge expense that they had to cover that left them unable to pay for police or fire protection. does that mean if something happened where YOU couldn't pay and someone breaks into your home and attacks you, then sets your house on fire, that everyone can just come watch and laugh at your plight while you, your family and your house burn? I mean after all YOU couldn't pay for the police and the fire department for any help. :rolleyes:
Comments
Thats one crazy if. But I don't want the churches funding my nations tax system. Then I'd owe them something. And if you think that churches are religious now.....................
www.myspace.com/jensvad
if i think that churches are religious now.... what? they'll be more religious? they'll add more jesus to the curriculum?
i say we let profitable institutions fund the tax system, rather than individual citizens from their income.
the fair way would perhaps be to have a minimum income level where no taxes are paid, and then step up the level of tax to be paid in conjunction with how wealthy the curch is.
i also think that any business that earns enough money to pay employees should have to pay taxes.
I'll go one better:
Eliminate the unconstitutional and borderline evil income tax and then we can talk.
6/30/98 Minneapolis, 10/8/00 East Troy (Brrrr!), 6/16/03 St. Paul, 6/27/06 St. Paul
i don't think it's unconstitutional, but if you come up with a good alternative to finance the government, i'm open.
Ummm...how about charging for services? A little bird told me that some organizations offer services that people pay for, and they even do that willingly! I know, it sounds crazy.
what's the point of a government at all then? you can just have private businesses do everything and charge for the services. instead of police, we'll just have rent-a-cops patrolling cities and protecting only those who can afford to pay their salary.
Ok. And "those who can afford to pay their salary" would be 99% of the population. The per-person annual cost of police services is beween $100-$500, depending on where you live.
and i guarantee you that 94% of the population won't pay by betting on the assumption that others will. i know i won't cos i don't like cops. i'll just buy a gun and shoot anyone coming into my house. my own personal police force for a one time fee of $500. and i won't pay for courts either so that there is no one to try me. i'll use the money i save for a big bribe if i ever get dragged to court for it.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
Then the 6% who do would be wise not to service the other 94%.
Incidentally, do you believe that if you removed your public indecency laws that 94% of Americans would run around naked all day?
Of course you'd shell out $150 / year for police.
You can do that now. Why don't you?
Just because you don't pay for courts doesn't mean you can't be tried by one.
That works much better in a system without competition, so you might try doing that now.
Churches are businesses. Look at those ministries currently under investigation. And the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, CA. That Multi-million dollar venture that sells tickets for entry... and to their 'Glory of Christmas' show.
It's no different than a Broadway production at the Tiffany theater.
Hail, Hail!!!
around 15% of the US population live below the poverty line, and they can't even afford basics such as food and housing. even though a great deal of those people are the working poor. so according to you these people wouldn't be allowed any police protection?
oh yeah, in your libertarian utopian soceity the poor or disabled or anyone unable to work are supposed to just fuck off and die, right?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I guess I should plead ignorance to this. I have only been to the small churches in my neighborhoods who depend on donations to survive and most of the time struggle to break even. and they were very public about their records. showing they spend the money on improvements or savings for a new church.
but there are these huge christian churches who take in millions.
That's the bad thing about the whole Tax-Exempt status of churches.
Think about scientology. That is a church. and you basically pay money to find answers... of course, they are not 'fees'... they are 'donations'.
Churches should be taxed... and possibly given deductions for the charity work they do...
example:
Church takes in money... taxed.
Church uses money to run a soup kitchen for homeless people... deduction.
Church uses money for travertine floors in the church elder's beach front home... not deductable.
Hail, Hail!!!
"Allowed"? They'd be allowed whatever police protection they could procure or whatever police protection they could obtain from others who were willing to help them. What you mean to say is that they wouldn't be "allowed" to use others to obtain their own services unless those others were willing to help.
Your entire statement here is both disengenuous and silly. Roughly 15% of the US population does live "below the poverty line", yet the vast majority of them could easily afford police services. To suggest that those 15% "can't even afford basics such as food and housing" is absolutely silly when nearly half of them own a home, two-thirds own a car, and nearly all will spend more in sales taxes alone this year than the competitive cost of the services they need most.
But no, keep on fighting your "war on poverty" at the state level, and let me know how that works out. God knows the first 50 years of that war are a dismal failure. I'm sure you're due for a turnaround at any moment.
:rolleyes:
where are you getting that half of the people that live below poverty level own a home?
what if they cannot afford it.....oh but of course in your lalaland everyone can.
what if they can't procure police protection themselves? you didn't explain how anyone could do such a thing...
and what if no one is willing to help those that cannot pay for police and/or fire protection?
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
i thought that we were all for separation of church and state. I mean we don't want the church to play a part in politics; so why should the churches have to give to the politics. If you tax a lot of churches; you'd send a good many of them onto hard times and close up a good amount of churches. Some churches can barely serve their members, let alone serve communities. Look through a phone book sometime. Sure every town has a few real big churches, but there are a lot more 50-100 member churches out there that are just skirting by. By taxing them, you may be taxing them right out of existence. And it could be construed that the gov't is only interested in keeping big churches open, so they can get the money, and they will close the small churches; thereby endorsing a religion (at least endorsing churches that are big and they can profit from). Most churches aren't being investigate for the possible corruption; the ones that are should be happy to have their books audited b/c if they are acting as their mission says they should...there shouldn't be a worry. Benny Hinn is notoriously bad with his clarity of records. If churches are endorsing a politician, not nec a view, then they should be taxed and not allowed tax exempt status.
"Forty-one percent of the poor actually own their own homes, typically a three-bedroom house with one-and-one-half baths. It is in good repair, and has a garage or carport, and a porch or patio. The median value of these homes is $65,000, which is 70 percent of the median value of all American homes."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_51/ai_56220678
Then they use charity. Or they pool their resources. Or they strike until their employers provide it.
Then they don't get it. It's no different than any other product or service someone wants from someone else.
The irony here is that you're defending the current police monopoly that notoriously underserves the poor.
If the Church didn't want 'Ten Commandments' in the Public Courthouses... then, fine... keep them Tax-exempt. If fuckers quit quoting the Bible when trying to pass legislation that affects me... fine, no taxes.
But, as it is... they want that shit... they should pay... just like any other business.
And those small churches you speak of... why would they close? why do they need to turn a profit? Need to pave the parking lot at the church... raise the money... write it off. Need to have a new jacuzzi built in the Priest's home... no... you can't write that shit off. Since when does a church need to make money?
Hail, Hail!!!
some of them are operating fairly close as it is w/o having to pay taxes. Add taxes (esp if it's a tax on the gross income) of some sort on to it and they'll have even more bills. The churches do raise money (offering) to pay for upkeep, services for members (books, resources etc...); pay pastor(s), secretaries, support staff, support missions work, save for times when membership declines, pay for upgrading facilities (computers, screens, musical instruments etc...), pay the bills (power, water), offer trips, offer to help offset expenses for others. An unwritten rule that some churches go by is to assume 1000.00 in giving for every person in attendance. So if a church has 60-100 members that is 60K - 100K for them to take in and disperse to all of the above (based on the churches discretion). I agree with you that if a church is putting extravagent things in, then questions should be raised. I know of one megachurch pastor who capped his salary at 67K. This is a man who has over 17K people that attend per week. So not everyone is really abusing the system. There are organizations out there that do abuse the system and they should be punished, but you're talking about 1% of the churches / organizations that are really doing that.
yes, especially any church on television
Stop by:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=14678777351&ref=mf
No...
They would have to come clean at the end of the year to avoid the tax bill. It would not be taken up front like our typical payroll deduction.
Case:
Church collects money... uses money to purchase pots and paper plates and paper towels and sets up an Easter Dinner for homeless people. at the end of the year... church writes off the pots and paper plates and paper towels.
Church tries to write off the 2007 Mercedes 500 the minister's wife uses to drive to 'Charity events'... not so much.
Church buys an 11 passenger Van to drive the Choir around... van and maintenance written off... gasoline... not so much.
as for the folks how pass out the food and sing in the choir... they are not paid employees... neither is the minister or the church secretary or the church accountant (although the accounting fees are deductible if spent as an expenditure).
Following the Lord should be a calling... not a vocation. Jesus' teachings should fill the minister's soul... not bank account. No one should go into the clergy to make money. The church should break even... at best.
Hail, Hail!!!
exactly... only those with the funds to pay for police would get service. there is something called unemployment. as you so ably noted, not everyone has a job or a right to one. so those who fall on misfortune should be left at the mercy of criminals eh? cos they didn't pay their share of policing.
i think more would. but running around naked is not the same as charging for police.
nope. i've never had need of police. i never see them do anything but hand out parking tickets. so why would i pay for that?
cos i don't need to. i've got cops for now. and i can't afford a gun.
i does if not enough people pay for them to exist.
huh?
hahaha....nothing like quoting and linking an article about how those living in poverty have it so great than one that was written for the National Review. the snobby conservatives at the National Review would never, ever be biased against the poor now would they? :rolleyes:
not that I was at all defending the police but currently the police probably underserve most all commmunites. also I'm guessing that if someone was being attacked in a poor neighborhood they would much prefer "some" police response rather than "none at all." again according to you if they can't afford to pay for police protection then "none at all" is all they deserve.
I take it that you also think that if a poor family's house is burning down and they can't afford to pay the local fire department that the family, and their house should burn to the ground.
heaven forbid that they got laid off or had some huge expense that they had to cover that left them unable to pay for police or fire protection. does that mean if something happened where YOU couldn't pay and someone breaks into your home and attacks you, then sets your house on fire, that everyone can just come watch and laugh at your plight while you, your family and your house burn? I mean after all YOU couldn't pay for the police and the fire department for any help. :rolleyes:
angels share laughter
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
halszka123@op.pl