A modest deficit reduction proposal: stop government subsidies to churches, page 1

From the Teapot Atheist:

We can not afford this kind of wanton waste any longer from these parasitic institutions that provide nothing and take plenty. What's best about my proposal is that, for those few churches that actually do some of the charitable things as a regular part of their operations like the scriptures they're so loudmouthed about tell them to do, they can still be tax exempt- just like any other charity that applies and meets the criteria.

See the link for the rest of the plan. I say, hell yes.

reply to post by SirMike

---

We already have sin taxes....its only fair that they pay there fair share. The religion industry creates billions every year all untaxed. Most churches are very political, and its only right that they show some patriotism and help chip in.

reply to post by SirMike

---

People do these things, not the Church, which is just the excuse people need to allow themselves to do these good acts. Taxpayers / State money should never go towards a religious group or institution - religion is a personal preference, and short of 'spreading the word' through speech and printed word, an honest religion should aim to remove itself from money and the State as much as possible.

reply to post by Homoousia316

---

Let's first stop giving government money to ACORN, they are just takers.

The money the church receives is personal and has already been taxed. They are taking donations and using them to support themselves with the balance helping others.

Reply to post by Homoousia316

---

Funny thing here.

Atheists, who always bring up the wall of separation of church and state, want to get rid of a wall of separation of church and state.

Ahhh, the irony.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Homoousia316

---

Funny thing here.

Atheists, who always bring up the wall of seperation of church and state, want to get rid of a wall of seperation of church and state.

Ahhh, the irony.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

How does wanting to abolish a government subsidy for churches "get rid" of the wall between "seperatin" [sic] of church and state? This is about stopping churches and clergymen from having a major advantage over the rest of us.

Originally posted by Homoousia316

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Homoousia316

---

Funny thing here.

Atheists, who always bring up the wall of seperation of church and state, want to get rid of a wall of seperation of church and state.

Ahhh, the irony.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

How does wanting to abolish a government subsidy for churches "get rid" of the wall between "seperatin" [sic] of church and state? This is about stopping churches and clergymen from having a major advantage over the rest of us.

Do you really need me to explain it to you?

The power to tax is the power to control.

Governmental control of the clergy is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and breaks down the separation of church and state.

Common sense here.

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Homoousia316

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Homoousia316

---

Funny thing here.

Atheists, who always bring up the wall of seperation of church and state, want to get rid of a wall of seperation of church and state.

Ahhh, the irony.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

How does wanting to abolish a government subsidy for churches "get rid" of the wall between "seperatin" [sic] of church and state? This is about stopping churches and clergymen from having a major advantage over the rest of us.

Do you really need me to explain it to you?

The power to tax is the power to control.

Governmental control of the clergy is a violation of the 1st Amendment, and breaks down the separation of church and state.

Common sense here.

So in your mind, the best way to maintain the wall of separation of church and state is for the government to directly subsidize churches by giving them free access to every government service, from police and fire departments to hospitals, government grants from the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to military protection from foreign invaders, while requiring all the rest of us to saddle the burden for them in the form of taxes that the rest of us "normal" people have to pay, but they don't. And it hardly makes sense for you to say that this exemption is just the government leaving the churches alone since it's the government that creates the exemption.

And in your mind, this SEPARATES church and state.

I'm not sure we're exactly on the same page here.

Originally posted by Homoousia316


So in your mind, the best way to maintain the wall of separation of church and state is for the government to directly subsidize churches

What?

--A subsidy is money given by a government to help support a business or person the market does not support. Link--

There is no exchange of money.

--Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. . . . The government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries or hospitals into arms of ~he state or employees “on the public payroll” [Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 644, 1970].--

. . .while requiring all the rest of us to saddle the burden for them in the form of taxes that the rest of us "normal" people have to pay, but they don't.

Umm . . .

Normal people that attend church pay taxes. They also donate part of their income to the church they attend (that is where the Church's money comes from . . tithing.) So you want double taxation on normal people's money.

And it hardly makes sense for you to say that this exemption is just the government leaving the churches alone since it's the government that creates the exemption.

It created the exemption Constitutionally, to avoid 1st Amendment issues.

Learn some history, please.

And in your mind, this SEPARATES church and state.

Indeed. The power to tax is the power to control.

Simple logic, which you seem to be lacking on your witch hunt.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

Really, so if the government decided that I didn't have to pay taxes but everybody else did, thereby impairing all of my competitors to my direct advantage that wouldn't be a subsidy.

But as for "double taxing," no, but SINGLE taxing would be nice- since surely you know that donations to 501(c)s are tax deductible. Surely you have ever paid taxes in your life. But if I give money to a business and actually help a hard working person, or if I invest in a start-up and actually give a leg-up to an entrepreneur to our mutual benefit and to the economy's benefit, that gets taxed. But if I throw money into the bottomless pit of money-hungry megachurches so they can keep their private jets in the air for an extra ten seconds, that gets the subsidy of a tax exemption.

And churches weren't exempt from taxes for all of American history because the tax code we have today didn't exist for all of American history, and the kinds of taxes that we levy today did not exist throughout American history, and if you read the Supreme Court arguments on this issue going back to 1924, you will see laughably bad legal scholarship obviously designed by theists, for theists, to protect the interests of their religio-businesses from the same kind of fair, free-market competition to which you, me, and every other ordinary business is subject.

Did everybody in this thread just fail econ 101 or something? What is going ON here?

reply to post by Homoousia316

---

Actually, you are wrong, Churches in the US have never been subject to taxes and as far back as the founding there have been statutory exemptions on it.

Crack a book open some time.

Originally posted by Homoousia316
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

Really, so if the government decided that I didn't have to pay taxes but everybody else did, thereby impairing all of my competitors to my direct advantage that wouldn't be a subsidy.

Really? What competitors does a church have that is impaired and not tax exempt?

But as for "double taxing," no, but SINGLE taxing would be nice- since surely you know that donations to 501(c)s are tax deductible. Surely you have ever paid taxes in your life. But if I give money to a business and actually help a hard working person, or if I invest in a start-up and actually give a leg-up to an entrepreneur to our mutual benefit and to the economy's benefit, that gets taxed.

Then you have the government interfering. They would get to decide what is considered a religious donation. Don't like Buddhists? Their donations don't count for tax exemption. Nice, huh. Again, breaking down this wall that you atheists are always harping over.

But if I throw money into the bottomless pit of money-hungry megachurches so they can keep their private jets in the air for an extra ten seconds, that gets the subsidy of a tax exemption.

Not a subsidy. Again. Please learn the English language.

And churches weren't exempt from taxes for all of American history because the tax code we have today didn't exist for all of American history, and the kinds of taxes that we levy today did not exist throughout American history,

You don't say. Well, at least you are partly correct.

I am glad you have the tiniest grasp on history.

and if you read the Supreme Court arguments on this issue going back to 1924, you will see laughably bad legal scholarship obviously designed by theists, for theists, to protect the interests of their religio-businesses from the same kind of fair, free-market competition to which you, me, and every other ordinary business is subject.

Free market competition? Really? It is a church, FFS. Where is said competition?

Oh, that's right. All the church competition is other churches, which are also tax exempt. Silly me.

Did everybody in this thread just fail econ 101 or something? What is going ON here?

edit on 22-7-2011 by Homoousia316 because: Hit go too early

How about we close the loopholes that allow legally taxable entities to avoid taxation, which breed Corporatism. That will give you more bang for your buck then your current crusade to break down the separation of church and state.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

---

It is a violation of separation of church and state. The get special treatment just because they are churches.

Then you have the government interfering. They would get to decide what is considered a religious donation. Don't like Buddhists? Their donations don't count for tax exemption. Nice, huh. Again, breaking down this wall that you atheists are always harping over.

The opposite is true, thats the issue now, dont you see? If Churches would pay taxes like everyone else, then deciding what is a religious donation does not even come into play. When you create a special category for churches to not pay tax, then the separation is violated. Church and state will not be fully separated until the word church is present in the tax code.

Do I have freedom FROM religion?
  Posted 2 days ago with 34 member flags

Is this the only politician in europe that is not blind?
  Posted 3 days ago with 8 member flags

Former NAVY SEAL Rebukes Obama
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
  Posted 11 days ago with 6 member flags

Newsweek Cover: \'The First Gay President\'
  Posted 15 days ago with 4 member flags

Westboro Baptist Church
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags

Police Pursue 4-Year-Old for Overdue Library Book
  Posted 14 days ago with 3 member flags

Senate Poised to Give UN Control of Everything Re the Oceans by Ratifying LOST
  Posted 14 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: