Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I check back into this thread this morning after parting company yesterday, I see it has degenerated from a thread above average to something more typical in this forum, and that's not really a good thing. Too bad...
Maybe it's just about being called by one's accurate name. Duh. Admittedly, the full name of the Church is a mouthful, but since the general public can't seem to make a distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it's many small offshoots, it's merely a logical was of making a distinction between "us" and "them." People are always talking about how "Mormons" practice polygamy. If they are talking about the "FLDS" (Warren Jeff's group) or some other group that practices polygamy, President Nelson's request makes a lot of sense. It's the splinter-group "Mormons" who practice polygamy. It's not the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, a lot of people are simply too lazy or disinterested to bother making a distinction. Lutheranism broke off from Catholicism 500 years ago. They're not called "Fundamentalist Catholics," They're called by the name they choose to be called by. How is that unreasonable?
I have some very close friends and family who are members of the LDS church AKA mormons. My wife's family is mostly still in Utah, and they are either members of the church, "Jack-Mormon" or no longer associated with the church.
Here too, on this subject in particular, there is plenty "good, bad and ugly" that can be said about the LDS church, going back to its origin and as it exists today. I could get into those particulars, but again we all know that no one changes their mind about anything in this forum, especially when it comes to matters of faith, so I won't bother. Along those lines, especially when it comes to religion, people are victims of serious "confirmation bias" that I see evidenced by your comments as well. Well written, well argued, but not the "whole truth," as usual when it comes to the faithful defending their faith.
When you start a thread using a flawed argument, it's best to let it drop off the first page rather than keeping it alive with stupid arguments that make you look even worse than when you started.
Imagine how many of the nations financial problems would be solved by taxing churches.
No, they really wouldn't. Considering we are almost 20 trillion in debt..... collecting another 80 billion a year from the churches would likely be spent quickly by the politicians.
We don't have a tax problem in this country.... we have a spending problem.
When you start a thread using a flawed argument, it's best to let it drop off the first page rather than keeping it alive with stupid arguments that make you look even worse than when you started.
You're welcome.
Not sure about the argument, but the question and/or issue regarding property tax exemption for churches is nothing new or without some compelling reasons to consider. Lots of money involved in any case as most significant tax exemption status commonly involves.
Most threads in this forum start with something of a "flawed argument." No doubt C-D would have far fewer threads if only solid arguments were required to get them started, but this thread seemed to draw more than the average amount of interesting comments in the earlier going, on a variety of related subjects. Unfortunately, however, as already noted, almost all threads degenerate southward sooner or later, no matter how they get started.
No, they really wouldn't. Considering we are almost 20 trillion in debt..... collecting another 80 billion a year from the churches would likely be spent quickly by the politicians.
We don't have a tax problem in this country.... we have a spending problem.
I'd say both, and some...
The tax code is in need of some serious correction, in all too many respects. Government spending can always use a very serious review and correction as well, expense item by expense item.
Problem too, however, is we don't all agree on what correction is needed on either side of the ledger, so our elected representatives broker our interests according to their own special (interest) notions, and we end up with a tax and spend plan that is far from perfect and not really satisfactory to anyone. The way of compromise...
Seems any democratic process to accomplish these sorts of tasks can do no better, even though we all know we SHOULD do better. Which gets us to the true "million dollar question."
How?
Not sure you extremists on either end of the political spectrum have the answer, so please spare your key strokes and cutie one liners about who are the morons and who are not. We've all read them too many times to count!
I didn't read the article presented by the original poster behind the wapo pay wall, but I wonder if the wapo journalist took into account what religious institutions give in free services and volunteerism to communities? If religious donations to religious institutions were taxed, how would the reduction in funds available to support community programs impact these community programs? I assume it would have a significant impact.
Not sure about the argument, but the question and/or issue regarding property tax exemption for churches is nothing new or without some compelling reasons to consider. Lots of money involved in any case as most significant tax exemption status commonly involves.
Most threads in this forum start with something of a "flawed argument." No doubt C-D would have far fewer threads if only solid arguments were required to get them started, but this thread seemed to draw more than the average amount of interesting comments in the earlier going, on a variety of related subjects. Unfortunately, however, as already noted, almost all threads degenerate southward sooner or later, no matter how they get started.
Thanks.
Since you're not sure that the statement 'Churches cost this country 71 - 83 billion a year' is flawed, I really don't know what I could possibly say to explain it to both you and the original poster.
The statement within the post that many of the nations financial problems could be solved if churches were taxed is also flawed for different reasons, already pointed out by others, with the original poster debating them.
It's hard for a thread to degenerate when it starts out so poorly, imo, but I get that people have different standards and ymmv.
Taxing the mega churches that are so big that they have thier own soccer fields, etc. Sure, but I’m against taxing mom and pop churches.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Admittedly, the full name of the Church is a mouthful, but since the general public can't seem to make a distinction between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it's many small offshoots, it's merely a logical was of making a distinction between "us" and "them." People are always talking about how "Mormons" practice polygamy. If they are talking about the "FLDS" (Warren Jeff's group) or some other group that practices polygamy, President Nelson's request makes a lot of sense. It's the splinter-group "Mormons" who practice polygamy. It's not the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Of course, a lot of people are simply too lazy or disinterested to bother making a distinction. Lutheranism broke off from Catholicism 500 years ago. They're not called "Fundamentalist Catholics," They're called by the name they choose to be called by. How is that unreasonable?
