Time to tax churches and NGOS.

come you make money!!! should be treated no different.

I agree that if we are going to tax them, we should tax both.

If you just tax churches, they will all become NGOs.

If you just tax NGOs, they will find someway that they believe in some mild form of god in order to not be taxed.

both are pretty powerful in this country. However, you might have a better chance of taxing churches and NGOs over taxing the rich.

The rich seem untaxable

they'll tax the rich, cause they actually get mentioned lol, but you won't hear about religion or ngos or military in any of the cuts and taxes etc...

Oh man can you imagine the revenue...

Good God... goldmine.

Explain why.

whynot_31 said:

However, you might have a better chance of taxing churches and NGOs over taxing the rich.

The rich seem untaxable

The top 1% in this country pay more federal income tax than the bottom 95%. I don't think "untaxable" is the word you're looking for.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/

armchair_warrior said:

come you make money!!! should be treated no different.

I guess that separation of church and state thing was just a joke?

BrooklynBoyyee said:

Explain why.

Because it's something that isn't already taxed, and so they want to tax it. That's how things go around here. If they can hurt something they hate in the process, so much the better.

Can you guys explain why churches shouldn't be taxed? How does taxing churches erode the separation between church and state?

If not full on taxation, there should be some kind of requirement for churches to dedicate x percentage of money to charitable/philanthropic causes. There are a lot of churches that completely exploit their congregations that should be taxed as the for-profit operations they are.

Cool The Kid said:

Can you guys explain why churches shouldn't be taxed? How does taxing churches erode the separation between church and state?

I'd appreciate it one of you would explain why we should tax churches. Beyond "because it's there" please.

As for church and state, what's to stop the government from introducing excessive taxes on a particular church or religion? There are other good reasons not to do this, but let's deal with that one first.

If not full on taxation, there should be some kind of requirement for churches to dedicate x percentage of money to charitable/philanthropic causes.

Who gets to pick the causes? And one could easily make the case that many churches themselves are charitable causes.

There are a lot of churches that completely exploit their congregations that should be taxed as the for-profit operations they are.

Without any evidence to back this claim up, I'll have to take you at your word on this - regardless, again, who gets to make the distinction? The government?

Separation of church and state doesn't apply, churches are like everyone else, they aren't special, they should pay like everyone else. The government isn't going to say oh you can't do this and that with your religion, they'll be saying you'll just have to pay! they still can do what ever they want as long as they pay. That's truly separation of church and state, other wise church is above state and people.

The whole church shouldn't get tax thing is a joke, I could start my own church called pay no real taxes church. I'll buy everything under that church and make all my family members join. get salaries through the church and do business through it. Anyone who wants to work for us, they'll have to join the church! how bout them ideas huh. I hope every freaking company and small business start doing to to show how ridiculous the exemptions are.

This would wined up just like other tax exemptions only people who can't get these exemptions are middle class like other tax loop holes.

Jimmy said:

I'd appreciate it one of you would explain why we should tax churches. Beyond "because it's there" please.

In other words, you can't answer his question of why we shouldn't. Cool, just say that next time.

Jimmy said:

The top 1% in this country pay more federal income tax than the bottom 95%. I don't think "untaxable" is the word you're looking for.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/top-1-paid-more-in-federal-income-taxes-than-bottom-95-in-07/

"Rich" refers to a lot more than the top 1%, my friend.

Jimmy said:

I'd appreciate it one of you would explain why we should tax churches. Beyond "because it's there" please.

Because they collect money. Because they have investments and turn profits. Because the Catholic Church is the single biggest private land owner in Manhattan.

As for church and state, what's to stop the government from introducing excessive taxes on a particular church or religion?

Please. As if an American government would EVER unduly tax Christians above other groups.

There would literally be riots in the streets, led by Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann.

churches have hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and property etc... makes some of the big companies jealous.

If we are going to tax NGO and churches, I think we should start with capital gains due to the sale of non-real estate investments. Such things can be measured objectively, so we would not have to endure claims of being against one religion more than another.

Although they could represent substantial revenue for the tax coffers, let's leave the yearly profits (aka Net Income) and real estate holdings alone at least for a while, because valuing them is more difficult and could lead to significant church vs state problems.

Boygabriel said:

"Rich" refers to a lot more than the top 1%.

What's your point? He said "the rich" (offer a definition if you want) are "untaxable." That's blatantly false, and nothing more than silly class-baiting. The bottom 50% in this country famously pay basically no federal income tax. That's "untaxable."

Please. As if an American government would EVER unduly tax Christians above other groups.

And what about mosques? Or temples? As a thought exercise, let's say Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Rick Perry is elected president. Would you trust them with power to levy taxes fairly on mosques? Do you think Muslims should be asked to trust them?

There would literally be riots in the streets, led by Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann.

I assume from your tone that you think civil disobedience against government-sponsored religious persecution is unwarranted? Interesting.

WhyFi said:

In other words, you can't answer his question of why we shouldn't. Cool, just say that next time.

Because of the separation of church and state. Because it would allow the government to levy taxes on different religions in order to persecute a particular religion. I did answer it, you just chose to ignore it, apparently.

armchair_warrior said:

Separation of church and state doesn't apply, churches are like everyone else, they aren't special, they should pay like everyone else. The government isn't going to say oh you can't do this and that with your religion, they'll be saying you'll just have to pay! they still can do what ever they want as long as they pay. That's truly separation of church and state, other wise church is above state and people.

The whole church shouldn't get tax thing is a joke, I could start my own church called pay no real taxes church. I'll buy everything under that church and make all my family members join. get salaries through the church and do business through it. Anyone who wants to work for us, they'll have to join the church! how bout them ideas huh. I hope every freaking company and small business start doing to to show how ridiculous the exemptions are.

This would wined up just like other tax exemptions only people who can't get these exemptions are middle class like other tax loop holes.

If your point is that you want to throw out separation of church and state, then say so. Don't say it doesn't apply to taxation of churches. That's ridiculous.

when debating a unreasonable man you just give up.

AW-

Correct, taxing some of the earnings or holding of churches would not assure a state sponsored religion was in our future. ...that's a simply a classic, unproven, slippery slope, fear-mongering technique.

As to the "untaxable rich": For better or worse, I think the rich have now organized themselves to the degree that further taxes can not be placed on them.

The disparate religions and NGOs may be the low hanging fruit.

(When one ignores the present grandstanding of the Republicans, I become convinced that cutting spending isn't going to happen.)

armchair_warrior said:

when debating a unreasonable man you just give up.

Giving the government the power to levy taxes on churches opens the door for religious persecution through unequal taxation. If you think that's unreasonable, I'd welcome your explanation to the contrary.

Jimmy said:

What's your point? He said "the rich" (offer a definition if you want) are "untaxable." That's blatantly false, and nothing more than silly class-baiting. The bottom 50% in this country famously pay basically no federal income tax. That's "untaxable."

Actually discussion of class is something this country doesn't do enough of. We currently have a division of wealth not seen since since the 1930's. We have the same wealth distribution as EGYPT. And you think we don't have class issues to discuss? Please.

The poor not paying income tax is a great talking point, but it is used as a sleight of hand. The poor pay plenty in taxes, just not INCOME tax b/c they don't even make enough to pay it.

The implication that the poor aren't pulling their weight w/r/t to taxes is a joke.

And what about mosques? Or temples? As a thought exercise, let's say Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Rick Perry is elected president. Would you trust them with power to levy taxes fairly on mosques? Do you think Muslims should be asked to trust them?

You're concern trolling. Do you really think we're incapable of treating various religions equally? Do you think taxation is the one thing that will create a dangerous opportunity that doesn't exist already?

I assume from your tone that you think civil disobedience against government-sponsored religious persecution is unwarranted? Interesting.

Don't assume. We can have an honest discussion, or you can make poor assumptions, which you won't need me for.

whynot_31 said:

I think the rich have now organized themselves to the degree that further taxes can not be placed on them.

So all that talk on the left about "taxing the rich" is just grandstanding that should be ignored?

The disparate religions and NGOs may be the low hanging fruit.

Sigh. In other words, "Because we can."

(When one ignores the present grandstanding of the Republicans, I become convinced that cutting spending isn't going to happen.)

We probably won't know if it's grandstanding, since the left won't even consider cutting spending. But hey, let's blame the Republicans for even mentioning the idea.

I consider the world to consist of more than two types: Left or right.

...but I enjoy it when people try to fit me in a box, and they try to make me defend one party or the other.

I think I am pretty critical of whoever at the moment can't see the other side, or thinks one of our two pathetic political parties is somehow without blame.

Neither Ayn Rand or Karl Marx ever inhabited the world I live in.

Boygabriel said:

The implication that the poor aren't pulling their weight w/r/t to taxes is a joke.

No, the implication that the rich aren't pulling their weight w/r/t to taxes is a joke. As is the idea that "taxing the rich" would realistically do anything at all to alleviate our current situation.

Do you really think we're incapable of treating various religions equally? Do you think taxation is the one thing that will create a dangerous opportunity that doesn't exist already?

Yes, to both.

Don't assume. We can have an honest discussion, or you can make poor assumptions, which you won't need me for.

Your assumption was that unfair taxation of churches would lead to right-wing led riots in the streets. That doesn't sound like someone who's interested in an honest discussion.

whynot_31 said:

I consider the world to consist of more than two types: Left or right.

...but I enjoy watching people try to fit me in a box.

amen brother!!! but those who don't fit is sadly the minority in when it comes to party politics. there are so few these days.

Jimmy said:

Because of the separation of church and state. Because it would allow the government to levy taxes on different religions in order to persecute a particular religion. I did answer it, you just chose to ignore it, apparently.

If persecution is your main concern, would you support it if all churches were taxed equally?

whynot_31 said:

I consider the world to consist of more than two types: Left or right.

...but I enjoy it when people try to fit me in a box, and they try to make me defend one party or the other.

I enjoy it when people spend the majority of their effort on a forum attacking the right, and then try to escape discussions by feigning some kind of above-it-all condescension.

Jimmy said:

Your assumption was that unfair taxation of churches would lead to right-wing led riots in the streets. That doesn't sound like someone who's interested in an honest discussion.

Correct - the churches, and threats to their holdings, have never led to violence.

/S

WhyFi said:

If persecution is your main concern, would you support it if all churches were taxed equally?

My main concern is this never-ending search for new sources of tax revenue instead of focusing on cutting spending.

But in this instance - No, I would not, because I have absolutely zero faith that all religions and churches would be taxed equally.

Jimmy said:

My main concern is this never-ending search for new sources of tax revenue instead of focusing on cutting spending.

But in this instance - No, I would not, because I have absolutely zero faith that all religions and churches would be taxed equally.

Do you believe that all people are taxed equally? If not, should that be done away with, too?