It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why should I subsidize your religion? Tax the Churches!

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 03:37 AM
Tax Them!

Second line.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:20 AM
[edit on 8-6-2010 by NightGypsy]

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 04:55 AM
I believe that churches are considered in the same category as non-profits.....
ya know people donate to them, and they in turn pool that money together and do good things for the community, or across the world... at least that is how it's supposed to be. churches aren't the only non profits abusing the system...matter of fact, I got a feeling that most of the abuse lies outside the religious communities.
so, should we tax the all???
what about your small charitable donation to your favorite non-profit?? shouldn't that then be taxable also???

if you say no, then well....I'm afraid I think you are just out to bash the religions...

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:13 AM
Just wait until you figure out where another untaxed 300-400 billion dollars of your money goes...

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:19 AM
Just more of the popular "everyone must suffer" bandwagon Americans love so much.

How about I'm sick of subsidizing pages and pages and pages of waste, corruption, murder, theft, war, abuse, etc...

Instead of fighting to force everyone to suffer equally why not fight to end the sufferig? Oh, that's not the big gov authoritarian way.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 07:19 AM
Tax the churches? Bad idea. Churches do a lot of good things for people who have nowhere else to go. Tax rich people. They have the most to give and they are the ones who benefit the most from the system.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:35 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Just more of the popular "everyone must suffer" bandwagon Americans love so much.

How about I'm sick of subsidizing pages and pages and pages of waste, corruption, murder, theft, war, abuse, etc...

Instead of fighting to force everyone to suffer equally why not fight to end the sufferig? Oh, that's not the big gov authoritarian way.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

You could fight for both, because both would be an improvement. Simple tax system with one rate for everyone is less bureaucratic, does not artificialy shape free market, and gives you just one big number you can then fight to lower instead of current mess.

And after all, there are many people, including me, who do not support abolishing all taxes.

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by twitchy

Thanks for the link. I read parts of it and immediately began going around my home and looking up products. I found several for which I would not have suspected had the mark..K or U on them.

Jiff Peanut butter, Keebler al Diet coke...

I too found it disturbing that when you bring this up people automatically think of anti semitism. I did not find it to be so.
What I found disturbing is that this occurs right in front of us and so few know it or are educated in it ..just like this issue of taxing the churches.

No one want to talk about it or think it through but many want to "emote" their way through it.

By the way Twitchy ..the connection with Judaism and Freemasonry is that they are both often followers of the Talmud..they are Talmudic.
Lots of groups follow this pattern. A code of conduct for the insiders and another code for the outsiders.
Muslims are Talmudic in this manner though they don't advertise or label it so. So too are Mormons. ...a set of conduct for the Mormons or Saints but another for non Mormons. The key is that outsiders are never taught this is going on. Just like this food labeling issue of which you are speaking...people are not taught that this dual code of conduct even exists. The investment is first and foremost in ignorance...not knowing.

One must be very careful about this knowledge because not all practitioners of these religions follow this Talmudic practice nor do they know of its existence either under that name or any others. While Talmudic practices are known by many ..not all practice them...nor accept them as a valid form of conduct. So it does not do to label all as operating under this manner.

What I find disturbing is that very few even want you to know this exists...just like the added costs for the labels K or U on products...very Talmudic of them.

I suspect that in the future..other groups will enter this market in competition for their concerns and also practice keeping the public ignorant of this method in labeling foods....while passing the costs on to a unwary/knowledgeable public.

The tax on churches the same thing. Ignorance...only runaway emotions.

Churches should be tax immune..not tax subsidized. The governments should not be giving a price support to the churches the way they do. This is not separation of church and state..both on the part of the churches and on the part of the government. Both groups ..the churches and government ..have a heavy investment in the public ignorance on this issue and knowledge. Both groups are in bed together while fleecing the public on ignorance..not knowing.

Also....I don't think the government belongs in the charity business.
A government tax benefit for giving to charity is a price support...just like the churches.

I am all for charity ..nothing wrong with this ..I just don't think the government belongs in the charity regulating business. In the end..only the most politically affluent charities will survive...the rest must beg and scrape for the tailing's.

Thanks Twitchy for the information's about product labels. I will be educating others on this and also looking more closely at products.


posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 06:04 PM
So it's agreed then! Tax 'em!

posted on Jun, 8 2010 @ 08:01 PM
I live right next door to a church and boy could I sit here and complain about what I see. Maybe i'll just try to touch on my experience.

I'll state that Im not sure if taxing a church is the right thing to do, I just feel that some people out there can and do seem to take advantage of a non profit org and church relationship slash laws.

I live in a half a double and right next door is the preachers house. Its not another half a double its a custom built brick home. Directly across our small street is the main worship house, and a newer built parish house. I remember growing up, Ive seen sitting preachers to the church come and go. About three or four. The current Preacher and her family have been here for going on 10 yrs.

We were friendly at first, not overly just basic. I'm not sure what caused us to stop being friendly I only recall things that solidified our differences.
I wont go into small details, but I remember when we got hit with a flood about four yrs ago. I very much remember the cleaning up afterwards, as Im sure everyone else in the nieghborhood does all except for the Preacher and family.

They ironically had matters to attend to "in another state" for some supposed reason. As we cleaned out along side of the parishoners , we heard that when they fled, they had left the dinner table with dirty plates like they ate and just left. dirty dishes in the sink with rotting food.
to this day I'm sure some of the parishoners have discontent.

The flood thing was a big part, the other major thing was an attempt to turn the parish house into a homelss shelter. This was being coordinated by a non practicing preacher just a few houses away that has been here for a few yrs. They started bussing homless people in from 30 miles away, and I quickly noticed drug paraphenalia littering the vicinity.

This was met with town hall meetings and they were met with a lawsuit from the aclu for saying the church couldnt house people without an up to code sprinkler sytem.

The preacher and her family don't work, the guy coordinating the homless shelter doesn't work but is the founder of a non profit org.
Both of their houses are neglected, and you can just see their laziness everyday.

I just figure they chose religion as a source of income, enabling homless people to stay homless, not really helping them.

I just wonder what kind of loopholes are do you question people like this about their intentions without looking like an athiest hatemonger?

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by OldDragger

So it's agreed then! Tax 'em!

Oh wow, finally the troll has taken off his mask. troll tactic #66: If troll thread is drifting off into oblivion, stop being polite and start trying to stir things back up.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in