Ending tax-exemption: why not?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Our country is bankrupt or on the verge. Who has money? The churches defiantly have there share, and once they invest the money in property or other solid assets shouldn’t that be taxed?


What about politics? They get tax free donations, do they not? Or the organizations that take donations for one thing or another are there salaries that get paid to them from the donations, are those taxable?


Just think of all the trillions or dollars we could collect in taxes from all these tax-exemption. But instead of reeling in and not allow so many tax exempt organizations. We are granting more and more tax exempt status to them. I don’t get it do you?

Or companies that receive federal dollars period. Once they start receiving funds they never stop. The blatantly brake the law and we give them a slap on the wrist. Should it not be that once you are caught with your hands in the cookie jar as it were should you not permanently lose your federal funding and tax free status?

I don’t get do you?
Can’t we petition the governments and say hey instead of raising our taxes take back the money you gave away under false pretences or just start taking away all tax exemptions. And just bring in a fair flat tax to all?

It seems my solution to the national debt is a lot better than anything they have come up with so far. What you think?




posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
At the risk of looking like a "Christian Hater" (which I am not), I'd say that ending tax-exemption for religions would be the best start. That's all religions.

Every day I see news of one religious group or another looking to get the laws changed on any number of fronts. If they want to play politics, they can pay taxes.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


i agree with you 100 percent.

thank you for your post and if you like the thread please dont forget to star and flag.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I say get rid of taxes all together, and make gov't as small as possible. National defense, and making sure we don't have any infringement upon our rights is the only thing gov't is supposed to do. Read the declaration of independence.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by drmeola
 


While there are some churches that do get a lot of money, there are many, many more churches that are just getting by, even without paying taxes. Forcing them to pay taxes would be devastating and they'd most likely have to shut their doors, which for many would be a sad day. Many people prefer the smaller churches because of the more family like and true spirituality that can be found there.

The one exception that I would say though is that the instant politics are preached from the pulpit, a church should lose it's tax-exempt status because the purpose of tax-exempt is that your a non-political entity. And when I say "preaching politcs from the pulpit", I mean when a church officially throws support behind a candidate or starts giving money to support an issue or things of that nature; not when a pastor gives a sermon and mentions what the Bible says about abortion. The difference is vast and I think that most would understand the difference between officially supporting a candidate/giving money to a political referendum and saying what a religious text says about an issue with out any hint of politicalness at all.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
You can end tax exemption and bring in more money but that's just emboldening the idiots who bankrupted us in the first place.

A better solution would be to do away with taxation altogether. Let the government run on donations. If you like what it's doing donate. If not don't.

You'll see it shrink back to manageable and efficient levels in no time.

You can't cure a crackhead by giving him more crack.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by kingoftheworld
 


www.archives.gov...

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: from our declaration, it does allow for taxes just not without our consent.

I am all for the smaller of government, and I am all for our declaration. Our declaration has a ton of ammo in it for us to gather and over through the current government. But the people either refuse to act, unorganized or just to scared to evoke there rite to do so.

Thank you for your post.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


I congratulate you for a well spoken and explained post. I agree with you, not all should suffer for the few.

Now lets say that would be the case as you have suggested, how would that be enforced?
Would that mean some sort of oversight committee and if so how would they get paid.

Like I said I agree with you, and I am just giving you a look into just one problem that would bring about.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Good point,

But what about on the local level, and our military?

Should the police force and courts that are in place to enforce our laws be of volunteers?

Money brought in should go for the paying down of the national debt. As in the so called tarp money that has been repaid from companies who have received bailout money. This is the law, and our law makers are trying to re-spend it as quick as they get back in. this is a law braking that we could enforce by the world court outlined in the declaration to have them removed from office.



Just food for thought. And I thank you for your post.


[edit on 7-12-2009 by drmeola]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Good Lord people, when has giving Washington more money ever fixed anything? All personal income tax should be abolished along with 85% of all other taxes. Do any of you realize that a corporation pays taxes only on profit, yet your labor is taxed from the first dollar? Your labor has no cost to you (says your government). Your time (to them) is worth nothing. Before 1916 nobody paid personal income taxes. The reason is, is that our constitution does not allow for it. Our government has grown HUGE and dangerous. Our country is dire straights, and is set up for immenent bankruptcy. And I see people here wanting to give them more money. No wonder we a so screwed.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
In America, we don't tax religion because they teach ''Do not kill''. So we let them teach peace and pacify the public. However, the public pays taxes for a better war machine. See? You can have both ways! The public civilizes themselves with religion and the working tax payers buy a better war machine. You can be peaceful and deadly at once! This is part of the secret that allows us to remain on top economically and militarily. Plus Sarah Palinly.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Reply to post by drmeola
 


In another thread about taxes I go on to say there are people all over the country who by virtue of their lifestyle and geographic location resulting in effective solitude they have no police force or fire departments or military needs yet these people are forced a gunpoint to pay into the pot.

It's a battle in which one side wants to be left alone to live in peace and another side wants to force and end to that way of life and assimilate those individuals into the collective pot.

A simple opt out system would end the battle. But since those on the side of forced assimilation hav all the prisons and guns and soldiers ( paid for in part by the victims of the scam) that side would never offer the opportunity to opt out. A shred of independence would spread like a weed and colapse the system they've built on extortion and power.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire
 


Ever hear the expression give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

The people are rising up, and as they continue to step all over the constitution and this bail out money pay back is a big one.
That the courts can no longer deny there obvious braking of the law and can be put out of office that is my ultimate goal and will work towards that end.

Thank you for your post please forgive me if I miss a reply to someone.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Cabaret Voltaire
 


I followed your logic right up to the end, the Sarah Palinly comment:
But that’s probably because I know very little about her.


Good post thank you.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Many people prefer the smaller churches because of the more family like and true spirituality that can be found there


Forgive my pedantic nature, but true spirituality should come from within, not without. A building is not the basis of faith.

A building is a taxable entity, regardless of what is, or isn't said in there. You cannot pick and choose just because one pastor prays for Obama dead, and another just hates abortionists! Who is going to police that?

Religion is an intangible. My beliefs are just as valid as yours.

Will somebody be sending me a check for my contributions to the tax base to keep these buildings tax-free? (I think I once read that it worked out to be about $900 per household, per year. I could be wrong). The point is that the tax-payer is supporting an intangible. Or am I eligible for tax exemption too because I have a belief and I have property? All amounts to the same thing in my books.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yes I would be one of those whom just want to live out my life in peace, work my land, grow my crops and hunt for the protein I put on the table.

And yes I agree it “would spread like a weed” and many states have been trying for years to separate from the union. Texas, Maryland and most of the southern states feel the same way. I am not sure how they keep getting blocked from doing so that is something I will have to do more research on.

Great post, thank you.

I have been writing out a plan of a two nation system one of the south and one of the north but not as it was during the civil war.
The simple example of my book is, two presidents one shared military so war between the two could not be declared. And all military actions have to be agreed upon by both presidents and there elected reps before any military action could take place. It is greatly more detailed and I am still working on the book I hope to one day have it ready for publication, and I am always looking for more input from all sides.

But both sides, will have to abide by the original Constitution there will be no changing it as they always try and sometimes do.

What is your opinion on that?



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
You can end tax exemption and bring in more money but that's just emboldening the idiots who bankrupted us in the first place.

A better solution would be to do away with taxation altogether. Let the government run on donations. If you like what it's doing donate. If not don't.

You'll see it shrink back to manageable and efficient levels in no time.

You can't cure a crackhead by giving him more crack.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



As much as I agree with you, I don't think we could pay for enough people to police this system, do you? Just think how much the oil companies (just for an example, of course) would "donate", for a little extra consideration.
Come to think of it, that's what's already happening. Maybe we should pay more, just to clean that mess up... so to speak.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Badgered1
 


Good post

To take a passage from the Holy Bible, though not sure exactly which one it is.
“When ever two or more are gathered I will be there” Jesus

so there for no building should be designated as a non taxable structure.
Since clearly worship can be held any place.


Is this the logic you were referring to in your post?

Thank you and may I add that this has been one of the best threads I have ever been involved with, everyone is using clear thought and are getting there point of view across without any conflict.

Lets keep up the good debate and discussions.

Sorry all but I must call it a night, but I promise to get back to all your post tomorrow.
Until then have a good evening.
And thank you all again for a great start to this thread.



[edit on 7-12-2009 by drmeola]

[edit on 7-12-2009 by drmeola]



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   
This is another dead issue.

When politicians are running a country on pure debt beyond the GDP and expanding their expenditures even further , the small tax revenues you are talking about are a joke.

Hey,
We're 12 trillion in the hole and getting deeper. Lets take the last few hundred million that churches have in an apparent effort to alleviate the tax burden. Then we can build a dog park for a senior staffers poodle or put an airport where it will get traffic of six people a day.

Oh, wait, I know. Let's put an anti missile installation in Switzerland to protect their chocolate from the Iranian nukes that will soon be raining down because of the minaret ban.

What's next on our list?

I know! How about a value added tax on Girl Scout cookies?

Good idea! There's a rest stop outside of Decatur that needs heated toilet seats.



posted on Dec, 7 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Reply to post by drmeola
 


I don't believe a split as clear as North and South or East and West would function very well. Problems are sure to rise during what would be a massive reloaction project for many.

Think of the people who live in upstate New Yirk who are essentially ruled by the elites of NYC. Or the farmers of Pennsylvania who are ruled by the urban dependent in Philly and Pittsburg.

I can't pretend to know how what the country should do with itself. I only know what I want for myself and for my family.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join