Why should I subsidize your religion? Tax the Churches!

reply to post by OldDragger


Income taxes DO NOT PAY FOR PUBLIC SERVICES! They go solely to paying interest on the phony debt and still do not cover it so they borrow money from china and others increasing the phoney debt in our name. Look up the Grace Commission Report for proof and stop speaking in ignorance if you can....



[edit on 7-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Taxes are theft.

Right now the government is not stealing from churches.

What the OP is advocating is that the government steal from churches as they do with everyone else.

This is absolutely ridiculous.

RIDICULOUS

We should be demanding the government treat us like churches, not the other way around.


"WAHHHHH WAHHHHH YOU AREN'T STEALING FROM CHURCHES!

I DEMAND YOU LOOT THEM LIKE YOU LOOT ME!

WE ALL MUST BE EQUALLY POOOR!"

This is insane.

The world has gone insane.

I am responding and quoting just because this deserves to be posted again... and again, and again.....!!! I couldn't have said it better! Read it and let is sink in folks.


"WAHHHHH WAHHHHH YOU AREN'T STEALING FROM CHURCHES!

I DEMAND YOU LOOT THEM LIKE YOU LOOT ME!

WE ALL MUST BE EQUALLY POOOR!"

This is insane.

The world has gone insane."

[edit on 7-6-2010 by hawkiye]

Originally posted by OldDragger
One of the last sacred cows is taxing churches? The Constitution is clear on seperation of church and state, so why the UnConsitutional exemption for churches? Please read before you Christians cry unfair!
Believe what ever you want, but why should the public pay for it? The time has come to end this scam.

Tax the Churches

[edit on 7-6-2010 by OldDragger]

" Because it costs you and me billions. We are not talking chump change here. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S. All tax free. "



[edit on 7-6-2010 by OldDragger]

If you are going to "quote" the US Constitution get you facts right...

Separation of Church and State - The Metaphor and the Constitution
"Separation of church and state" is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state's business and the state staying out of the church's business. Because of the very common usage of the "separation of church and state phrase," most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase "wall of separation between the church and the state" was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

However, currently the implied common meaning and the use of the metaphor is strictly for the church staying out of the state's business. The opposite meaning essentially cannot be found in the media, the judiciary, or in public debate and is not any part of the agenda of the ACLU or the judiciary.

This, in conjunction with several other factors, makes the "separation of church and state" metaphor an icon for eliminating anything having to do with Christian theism, the religion of our heritage, in the public arena. One of these factors is the use of the metaphor in place of the actual words of the constitution in discourse and debate. This allows the true meaning of the words in the constitution to be effectively changed to the implied meaning of the metaphor and the effect of the "free exercise" clause to be obviated. Another factor facilitating the icon to censor all forms of Christian theism in the public arena is a complete misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause.

Separation of Church and State - The Establishment Clause in Context
In addition to the "Separation of Church and State" metaphor misrepresenting the words of the establishment clause, the true meaning of the establishment clause is also misrepresented. The "establishment" clause states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." Before these words can be put in context and the true meaning of the clause can be correctly identified, we need to examine the word "religion" and put it in America's historical context at the time the constitution was framed. In addition, we need to examine the previous European historical background of the founders of our country to identify what specifically motivated them to place the "establishment" clause in the constitution.

To accomplish this, we need to add more specificity to the word "religion" to clarify both the American and European historical backgrounds and put the word "religion" in proper context. We need to delineate between doctrinal and denominational religion. We also need to understand that the doctrinal religion being discussed is Christian Theism, which is defined by a belief in the Bible. We know what specific Christian denominational religions are.

Separation of Church and State - Constitution Framers Historical Context
The "Separation of Church and State" metaphor blurs the distinction between a doctrinal religion and a denominational religion. This places the doctrinal religion we have embraced in the same basket as an organized denominational religion with potential to merge with the state. The documentary evidence of the doctrinal Christian religion origin of this nation is voluminous. The Supreme Court thoroughly studied this issue, and in 1892 gave what is known as the Trinity Decision. In that decision the Supreme Court declared, "this is a Christian nation." John Quincy Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was, it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." The founders were definitely Christian for the most part. At least 90 to 95 percentage of them were practicing, Trinitarian Christians. This and the additional supporting evidence below show conclusively that the concern that motivated the framers to include the establishment clause in the constitution was definitely not fear of the doctrinal religion of Christian Theism. It was understood that Christian Theism was the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear, it was something believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, the framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion! Some additional evidences that indicate Christian Theism was the national doctrinal religion are listed below:

Emblazoned over the Speaker of the House in the US Capitol are the words "In God We Trust."
The Supreme Court building built in the 1930's has carvings of Moses and the Ten Commandments.
God is mentioned in stone all over Washington D.C., on its monuments and buildings.
As a nation, we have celebrated Christmas to commemorate the Savior's birth for centuries.
Oaths in courtrooms have invoked God from the beginning.
The founding fathers often quoted the Bible in their writings.
Every president that has given an inaugural address has mentioned God in that speech.
Prayers have been said at the swearing in of each president.
Each president was sworn in on the Bible, saying the words, "So help me God."
Our national anthem mentions God.
The liberty bell has a Bible verse engraved on it.
The original constitution of all 50 states mentions God.
Chaplains have been in the public payroll from the very beginning.
Our nations birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, mentions God four times.
The Bible was used as a textbook in the schools.

reply to post by ccsct203


Bs.
STOP TRYING TO DERAIL MY THREAD!
Leave your fundy interpretation of The First Amendment to another topic!

sorry.. I forgot to give credit in my last post to the Author


www.allabouthistory.org...

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by open_eyeballs

 

Sorry but you are being so contradictory it's making my temples pulsate.

So you claim to be a libertarian yet you want more government regulation and more taxes.

Indeed I am a libertarian. This isnt about carbon tax or adding any other tax. So quit trying to maneuver around addressing the crux of the issue.

Should they be held acountable to the communities that support them or not? If we are going to have standards for some non profit oranizations why shouldt churches be grouped into that category? Easy. They should be grouped into that category. This isnt a special "church tax" or any additional tax. Thsi is placing churches in the proper category and holding them acountable for some of the monster scams some of them have pulled over the ages. If those that are scamming were under a higher degree of scrutiny maybe we wouldnt have as many Haggards of teh world.

This doesnt go against my libertarian principles in the slightest. In fact it makes it more fair...A libertarian believes in the specific role the government plays as regulator...This would fall smackdab in the middle of such a belief.

Im not talking about the tax code as a whole either..which is what you are trying to make it sem like...All that stuf you said is basically irrelevant.

Plain as day. There neds to be some kind of accountability within the code for churches. Or just wipe the whole slate clean and get rid of it all. The preferential treatment isnt constitiutional as it has been pointed out all throughout this thread. Flip it, twist it throw it on its back...whuudya call it ? throw lipstick on a pig?? its unconstitutional. And it should be addressed.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by open_eyeballs]

[edit on 7-6-2010 by open_eyeballs]

Originally posted by hawkiye

I am responding and quoting just because this deserves to be posted again... and again, and again.....!!! I couldn't have said it better! Read it and let is sink in folks.


"WAHHHHH WAHHHHH YOU AREN'T STEALING FROM CHURCHES!

I DEMAND YOU LOOT THEM LIKE YOU LOOT ME!

WE ALL MUST BE EQUALLY POOOR!"

This is insane.

The world has gone insane."

[edit on 7-6-2010 by hawkiye]

I take everything I said back.

The government IS stealing from churches!

Its called inflation!

Inflation is ALSO a form of theft that everyone who transacts in US dollars pays.

Inflation ONLY RESULTS from expansion of the money supply.

Printing money.

The insidious thing about inflation is that, unlike taxes, it can be done without violence.

At least with taxes you know someone has a gun to your head.

Central banking is the worst evil of all.

I suppose one could argue that inflation also requires violence, because it requires a fiat currency with legal tender laws, which also require violence to enforce.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by mnemeth1]

There should be no complicated exceptions from taxes, or multiple tax rates. Everyone should be taxed the same, including churches, so that you dont artificialy shape the market, which is always bad. The simpler the system is, the better!!

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

As if taxes are not enough, we are being robbed by current faulty fractional reserve economic system via inflation and interest, as mnemeth1 pointed out.

Churches are some of the biggest crooks in this country, but imagine the backlash from them if we tax? oh i guess they'll care about seperating church and state then huh?

Addressed to the OP.

You really want to increase the amount of money that flows through greedy politicians hands?

Would it really improve your life or just cause hardship on someone you don't agree with?

How is not taxing someone the same as subsidizing them?

Where do you draw the line on what you're willing to be taxed on?

Why in an era of such waste and corruption is someone so interested in feeding a system that does nothing to benefit the people it serves?

I understand that SOME tax is neccessary to maintain roads and parks but the major grids are private companies delivering ultilities. Churches are not exempt from paying their bills(which supports local businesses).

I hear people crying about extremely rich pastors. I'm sick of people scamming in the name of Jesus too. BUT after they get taxed...they are still going to be rich. You can't stop them as long as millions of people are buying prayer rocks , which in this country, is still legal.

Clearly you have no idea what you're walking into. Most likely your blind hatred for Christianity has blinded you from seeing that opening one flood gate opens many more that maybe will even affect you.

reply to post by OldDragger

so why the UnConsitutional exemption for churches?

Wow, you really know nothing about the Constitution..... or tax codes.

The tax code does not tax CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

If it was a law that said "Baptist pay no taxes, all other churches pay 35% of income" .. that would be unconstitutional. Or "Only Christian Churches may be exempt form taxation"

But that's not what the law says. Law says if you're non-profit you don't pay taxes.

There IS a reason for this: Churches specifically, and charitable organizations actually shoulder the burden of many, many social programs. From feeding the poor, housing homeless, caring for children, raising funds for medical research and so on, and so forth. If these institutions were taxed, that percentage would cut into their ability to fund their social programs. For every penny the church spends, it's a penny the Government doesn't have to spend. And charities are far, far more efficient than government programs.

Also it was the founding fathers belief that citizens should be allowed to direct their taxes .. so if you pay $20k in taxes a year, you should be allowed to say where you want your taxes to go. The Tax code says 50% of your income can be self directed.. if you paid 20k in, you can donate another 10k to what ever charities you want, and then that amount is taken from your gross income, readjusting total taxation liabilities.

Personally.. I don't think you seem very educated in the matter.

Apparently it's too much for many posters to actually read what I wrote in my OP about non profits. Oh weel.

In Canada our tax dollars
went to fund faith based residential schools
where aboriginal children were forced to go.

sexual abuse, murder, cultural assimilation...
internationaly condemed as on of the worst genocides ever
all the worse because it was foisted on children.

our PM Harper apologized for it a couple years ago.
these same churches are still tax exempt
they get paid in taxes
but do not have to pay taxes.
guess how much the fancy cathedral like churches we have around here are worth...?
and built by donation and volunteer labor
and the tything...
thats not a tax on the sheeple?

they are corporations.
not for profit...??!!!?!


yeah right,
like BP is not for profit

This of course is why I burdened this thread with my earlier posts
hope I didn't offend OP

solid pueter statue
in a
Genuine cardboard box
for a mere 100 dollar donation....
and they never mentioned Jebus at all


show me a corporation
that is not
for profit
prophet
pro fat

PS Jesus beat up the money changers in the temple
Banking was invented by the temple prostitutes in Babylon
whore
worship


[edit on 7-6-2010 by Danbones]

" Because it costs you and me billions. We are not talking chump change here. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf."

No, you would have to pay the same amount of tax you pay right now.

I'm a Christian and a church member, you may be surprised to find out I agree. Even Jesus said "pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God" and he was talking to the Sadducees, religious leaders of the time. If churches want to collect money then they should pay taxes.

Fini

reply to post by OldDragger


Saying you want some one to rob the church is a vile statement.

I can't fix ur probs in one thread. Pick up some books live free. Figure it out.


God Bless. Im going to do some P90x and hit the pool. Cya!

But that's not what the law says. Law says if you're non-profit you don't pay taxes.

Churches that are truly non-profit and give all they collect away to the poor or other social programs could claim these gifts as deductions and not pay tax on them. Problem is too many organizations that call themselves churches are for profit look at their bank accounts, land, building(s), and in some cases art collections. All denominations have examples of this. This is the problem we need to define non-profit and tax the rest!

Treat em like a for profit Corporation, that's what they are. One of the largest landowners in the world is the Catholic church. Now what a church need with all those slums oops I mean land?

Churches receive money that has already been taxed. How do we pay the church's taxes? We don't pay their taxes and neither do they. Let religon be one place the goverment stays the hell out of. It is the last sanctified area that the government has not invaded with policy and law. No one should have to pay the taxes we do.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by lostviking]

Originally posted by sadwolf
Treat em like a for profit Corporation, that's what they are. One of the largest landowners in the world is the Catholic church. Now what a church need with all those slums oops I mean land?

Owning assets does not relate to profit.. The Catholic Church does not keep profit to spread to share holders like a corporation, and no singular entity owns it to use as personal wealth. All funds, assets and value are kept within Church functions and use, meaning there is no "profit". There can be excess cash flow to operating cost, and the funds are invested through various accounts, and assets are acquired to further the trust or to assist in Church function, such as monasteries or orphanages, even farms.

I see a lot of speculation and ignorance in this thread regarding tax code, laws and general understanding of what a Church even is -- or their importance to society.