Should Churches pay Taxes?

1234579

Comments

  • deadnothingbetter
    deadnothingbetter Posts: 2,202
    Jeanie wrote:
    I take no issue with churches being tax exempt where they are providing services for the community and doing charitable work that benefits the community. When, by them not paying tax they are able to build great edifices, intefere or use their money to participate in the political process, or any other situation where by not paying tax they are able to "profit" by being a church, then I think they should pay tax. And as I've said earlier this also applies to some charitable organizations as far as I'm concerned.

    And I know nothing of your constitution or tithes dead. Here in Australia there are LARGE churches who are profiting simply by being churches. It's all back there in the thread. :)
    ok, i see. i agree, if churches are just slacking and up to know good getting involved in politics and influencing society in that way i'll bid for taxes to be enforced on churches.... particularly mega churches. i agree completey.
    This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i like your INPUT on the last paragraph and i see you are saying and i understand.. maybe instead of going to the source of the problem, stop people from joining them..and you hint that religion is phasing out slowly but surely... the reason i mention taxing the shit out of a church that displays anger and violence to other religions in the name of their god is because ive always been against unnecessary war and killing.

    I think we're getting closer here. But "anger and violence" is not the solution to anger and violence. If you want to end anger and violence, stop contributing to them.
    I dont think the answer is to continue to leave this idea alone...the proof is out there that religions are the problem... can you agree to that?

    No, I don't agree. The religions are users of the problem. The state (which will be your taxing body) is a user of the problem. Numerous organizations and corporations are users of the problem.

    To be quite frank: the problem is you, and people like you: people who believe they have the right to force others at the point of a gun to adhere to their standards. The irony is that they do this in the name of "peace" or "love".

    Think about this for a second: you're proposing giving power to the state to take away power from religious groups in America. Now, let me ask you a question: in your lifetime, which group (the state, or the church) has been responsible for more warmaking?
    I think leaving them alone is the worst thing to do..and now that we are in Iraq...its just another example... these ideas have to end. and i think by making htese organizations pay taxes and surrender their royalties (that have been given to them) its a step in the right direction

    You're going to bring Iraq, a war started by the institution you're about to give more money and more power to, into this???

    A "step in the right direction" away from war would be a step towards peace. You're not taking a step towards peace by recommending new violence.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I think we're getting closer here. But "anger and violence" is not the solution to anger and violence. If you want to end anger and violence, stop contributing to them.



    No, I don't agree. The religions are users of the problem. The state (which will be your taxing body) is a user of the problem. Numerous organizations and corporations are users of the problem.

    To be quite frank: the problem is you, and people like you: people who believe they have the right to force others at the point of a gun to adhere to their standards. The irony is that they do this in the name of "peace" or "love".

    Think about this for a second: you're proposing giving power to the state to take away power from religious groups in America. Now, let me ask you a question: in your lifetime, which group (the state, or the church) has been responsible for more warmaking?



    You're going to bring Iraq, a war started by the institution you're about to give more money and more power to, into this???

    A "step in the right direction" away from war would be a step towards peace. You're not taking a step towards peace by recommending new violence.


    i think you read something wrong..theres nothing violent about taxing an organization who has a hand in violence and war. and there is nothing violent about getting these religions together...the religious heads..which in alot of cases are the speakers or leaders for ones country...get them together and force them to converse and force them to take steps of peace...im not talking about holding a gun to their head.,..im talking about taking the power we have allowed them to abuse for so long away...taking their power away by making them take these steps... NO MORE USING YOUR RELIGION AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR... and taxing the ones who use this tactic is a step in the right direction..not once have i used violence or held a gun to anyones head...im not sure where you are getting this from?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Again, people need to realize that the only noticeable increase in tax revenue that would come from taxing churches would be on the local level via property tax. The handful of big churches that operate with significant profits would make little impact on overall income/corporate tax revenues.

    Now, to your last point. Society is not "forced" to underwrite church activities due to a lack of taxation on churches. That's very specious logic and is akin to suggesting that you're "forced" to pay $50,000 for a BMW since demand for BMWs isn't universal. Society is the one who has instituted these programs and services that they pay for. A church exemption does not "force" you to cover the church -- nothing forces you to have those programs and services in the first place.

    yes, but ideally taxes go to support programs voted into existence by representatives and reflecting the will of the people. government doesn't vote churches into existence. it is a stretch, but my point was only that taxing churches is not tithing and is the opposite of tithing. i just don't see why churches get special preferential treatment. yoga centers aimed at spiritual well-being don't get tax exemption. why should churches?
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i think you read something wrong..theres nothing violent about taxing an organization who has a hand in violence and war. and there is nothing violent about getting these religions together...the religious heads..which in alot of cases are the speakers or leaders for ones country...get them together and force them to converse and force them to take steps of peace...im not talking about holding a gun to their head.,..im talking about taking the power we have allowed them to abuse for so long away...taking their power away by making them take these steps... NO MORE USING YOUR RELIGION AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR... and taxing the ones who use this tactic is a step in the right direction..not once have i used violence or held a gun to anyones head...im not sure where you are getting this from?

    i'll save you a lot of time. ffg thinks all taxation is akin to violent armed robbery. that taxes are only collected by force and violence and the threat that if you don't pay them, men with guns will take you to prison.

    also, i think it would be a stretch to call the iraq war a religious one. a lot of support came from christian evangelicals, but it is more imperial than religious. the empire has just managed to manipulate the religion to sell the war.
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    soulsinging wrote:
    i'll save you a lot of time. ffg thinks all taxation is akin to violent armed robbery. that taxes are only collected by force and violence and the threat that if you don't pay them, men with guns will take you to prison.

    also, i think it would be a stretch to call the iraq war a religious one. a lot of support came from christian evangelicals, but it is more imperial than religious. the empire has just managed to manipulate the religion to sell the war.


    you are right...im not calling a religious war...but Bush continues to work God into his speeches when talking about Iraq... thats what i was driving for
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    macgyver06 wrote:
    you are right...im not calling a religious war...but Bush continues to work God into his speeches when talking about Iraq... thats what i was driving for

    yeah, but bush being a religious nut doesn't make the iraq war a war started by religion. it was started by the state.

    there is more irony here. how come when bush mentions jesus a lot, a clearly secular war suddenly becomes the result of evil religion? but when hundreds of suicide bombers and jihadists practice terrorism and explicitly cite religion as their reason, it is clearly not about religion, it is just frustration at international secular politics?
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    soulsinging wrote:
    yeah, but bush being a religious nut doesn't make the iraq war a war started by religion. it was started by the state.

    there is more irony here. how come when bush mentions jesus a lot, a clearly secular war suddenly becomes the result of evil religion? but when hundreds of suicide bombers and jihadists practice terrorism and explicitly cite religion as their reason, it is clearly not about religion, it is just frustration at international secular politics?


    so if the iraqis bent over and accepted christianity and our republic ways (give us what we want or look what has happened) this would still of happened?



    tis' religion
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    macgyver06 wrote:
    so if the iraqis bent over and accepted christianity and our republic ways (give us what we want or look what has happened) this would still of happened?

    tis' religion

    you make the mistake of assuming that christianity and our republic ways go hand in hand.

    if they were capitalist, no, this would not have happened. we'd be dealing with iraq the same way we deal with saudi arabia... 2 nations with the same religion that we have NOT invaded.

    if they were christian, yes, it still would have happened. we needed a scapegoat, saddam was a bad dude and looked enough like the terrorists to sell it.

    tis not religion. tis money and politics. religion is just a useful smokescreen.

    if america were an islamic country that didn't meddle in other people's economies, do you think osama bin laden would still be flying planes into our buildings and calling us the great satan?
  • The Severed Hand
    The Severed Hand Posts: 214
    Of Course They should
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    yes, but ideally taxes go to support programs voted into existence by representatives and reflecting the will of the people. government doesn't vote churches into existence.

    Certainly, but this doesn't address the point. Society is not paying for church exemption from taxation. Society is paying for the programs they've chosen. Churches are not "forcing" the public to pay anything.
    it is a stretch, but my point was only that taxing churches is not tithing and is the opposite of tithing. i just don't see why churches get special preferential treatment. yoga centers aimed at spiritual well-being don't get tax exemption. why should churches?

    I largely agree. I don't think churches should get special treatment. If there's going to be taxation on organizations, there should be church taxation. But the motivations I'm hearing here have little to do with equal treatment. They have to do with spite and anger. Furthermore, the subjective concepts involved with taxation allow for some strong counterarguments surrounding the general public good that churches do and, from that, whether it's really wise or fair to further tax them.
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I largely agree. I don't think churches should get special treatment. If there's going to be taxation on organizations, there should be church taxation. But the motivations I'm hearing here have little to do with equal treatment. They have to do with spite and anger. Furthermore, the subjective concepts involved with taxation allow for some strong counterarguments surrounding the general public good that churches do and, from that, whether it's really wise or fair to further tax them.

    since when have spite and anger been insufficient reasons for the us to do something? *cough*freedom fries* cough* ;)
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    i think you read something wrong..theres nothing violent about taxing an organization who has a hand in violence and war. and there is nothing violent about getting these religions together...the religious heads..which in alot of cases are the speakers or leaders for ones country...get them together and force them to converse and force them to take steps of peace...im not talking about holding a gun to their head.,..im talking about taking the power we have allowed them to abuse for so long away...taking their power away by making them take these steps... NO MORE USING YOUR RELIGION AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR... and taxing the ones who use this tactic is a step in the right direction..not once have i used violence or held a gun to anyones head...im not sure where you are getting this from?

    There's everything violent about it. How are you going to tax them -- by asking them nicely or enforcing tax laws with guns? How are you going to "get them together" -- by asking them nicely or enforcing zoning laws with guns?

    If you actually thought "there's nothing violent" about it, you wouldn't need the state to get involved. But the entire reason you want the state to get involved is because you know the state can operate using violence where other organizations cannot.

    You're completely dodging the important question I asked -- which is currently the bigger warmaker -- the state or the church? This is why I find your argument so disengenuous. You're proposing to make one warmaker more powerful at the cost of another warmaker, which makes me wonder how much this actually has to do with warmaking....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    since when have spite and anger been insufficient reasons for the us to do something? *cough*freedom fries* cough* ;)

    Hehe...spite and anger are common reasons for doing things! But you know the little regard I hold for precedent as a moral basis......
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    farfromglorified wrote:
    There's everything violent about it. How are you going to tax them -- by asking them nicely or enforcing tax laws with guns? How are you going to "get them together" -- by asking them nicely or enforcing zoning laws with guns?

    If you actually thought "there's nothing violent" about it, you wouldn't need the state to get involved. But the entire reason you want the state to get involved is because you know the state can operate using violence where other organizations cannot.

    You're completely dodging the important question I asked -- which is currently the bigger warmaker -- the state or the church? This is why I find your argument so disengenuous. You're proposing to make one warmaker more powerful at the cost of another warmaker, which makes me wonder how much this actually has to do with warmaking....


    you are misinformed. have you heard bush speak..have you read his speeches...if you think the church and religion isnt running things you are living in a world of make believe
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    macgyver06 wrote:
    you are misinformed. have you heard bush speak..have you read his speeches...if you think the church and religion isnt running things you are living in a world of make believe

    Sigh...

    Oh yes, I'm sure church and religion is running things. We have abortion, divorce, usury, legal vice, active wars that the chuch opposes and a billion guns in the hands of a secular state, but goddamn it they don't have to pay any taxes so they must be pulling the strings!!!
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    macgyver06 wrote:
    you are misinformed. have you heard bush speak..have you read his speeches...if you think the church and religion isnt running things you are living in a world of make believe

    but im sure the koran and religion are not running things in iran, saudi arabia, afghan, and al-quaeda. that is SOLELY politically driven, right?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    soulsinging wrote:
    but im sure the koran and religion are not running things in iran, saudi arabia, afghan, and al-quaeda. that is SOLELY politically driven, right?

    Hey, maybe we could tax al-qaeda. And what about those freeloaders in Gitmo??? And there's this weird Buddhist medidation center down the street from my house that I swear is planning for some kind of groundwar. Fuckers....
  • bgivens33
    bgivens33 Posts: 290
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Sigh...

    Oh yes, I'm sure church and religion is running things. We have abortion, divorce, usury, legal vice, active wars that the chuch opposes and a billion guns in the hands of a secular state, but goddamn it they don't have to pay any taxes so they must be pulling the strings!!!

    :):)
  • soulsinging
    soulsinging Posts: 13,202
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Hey, maybe we could tax al-qaeda. And what about those freeloaders in Gitmo??? And there's this weird Buddhist medidation center down the street from my house that I swear is planning for some kind of groundwar. Fuckers....

    hehehe, all this talk of wars on terror and national defense and iraq and the whole time all we needed to wipe fundamentalist islam off the map was a few taxes :)

Categories