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.
Actually no. Fundamentalist churches receive a lot more money from their congregation, which tends to be poorer than mainline churches. I doubt that these same fundamentalist give to the United Way. In addition, the United Way has to post how much of the money that they receive goes to administrative costs. No such requirement for churches. It would be an interesting number to see though.
You missed the entire point. Obviously churches don't give to UW. They don't need to.
But churchs are like UW. They get money from their members and distribute some of it to charity. That's exactly what UW does. And BTW, hundreds of thousands of the UW contributors are low income people. And many of them are forced to give to UW by their employer.
Whether Spain is doing a great job politically and economically hasn't much if anything to do with the topic of taxing churches in America ... which topic you can Google without including the word "Spain" and get millions of hits, all of which predate this story about the Spanish considering church taxation ... thus sort of doing away with any link to "following Spain's example" ...
btw: you'll note there is nothing in my presentation of the topic that says I am proposing such -- although admittedly now, having read more on the topic, I am getting more and more inclined to agree that wholesale 'absolution' (gotta love my puns) from taxation is maybe nuts.
What part of taxation without representation is so hard for you to understand? Maybe we can help you understand that if you tax a church then they have say in your government. Something I'm sure you'd be thrilled with.
Of course they should be taxed. Just because you sell an invisible product doesn't mean your taxes should be invisible.
Most certainly they are all businesses ! if they can prove what amount they actually spend on goods for their people ( recipient's of their services , needy people ) then the rest of their donations, income, are in fact income to pay those that work for the organizations ! and should be taxed as such .
Most certainly they are all businesses ! if they can prove what amount they actually spend on goods for their people ( recipient's of their services , needy people ) then the rest of their donations, income, are in fact income to pay those that work for the organizations ! and should be taxed as such .
The reality of that approach would be nothing but silly.
Most churches are rather small. They would/could only be taxed on net profit, and any church could EASILY end their fiscal year with no net income.
Most certainly they are all businesses ! if they can prove what amount they actually spend on goods for their people ( recipient's of their services , needy people ) then the rest of their donations, income, are in fact income to pay those that work for the organizations ! and should be taxed as such .
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Well what does that mean?
Quote:
a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2 : a heavy demand
: a tax in the form of a percentage of the taxable estate that is imposed on a property owner's right to transfer the property to others after his or her death — compare inheritance tax 1
So any person with a semi functioning brain could see that a tax is an infringement on a right. In this case the right to transfer property. If you decide to tax churches or religions (besides the obvious implications of possibly imposing taxes unfairly) then you'll be infringing on the right or freedom to express religious beliefs.
So I repeat:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
What part of taxation without representation is so hard for you to understand? Maybe we can help you understand that if you tax a church then they have say in your government. Something I'm sure you'd be thrilled with.
Well BIG guy, there's nothing in any of my posts that suggests I don't understand "taxation without representation".
As far as religion and churches go, the only thing I'd be thrilled with is if they were outlawed completely. As I wrote before, organized religion is the root of more suffering in the history of the world than all other factors combined.
As for representation, they are already represented -- albeit tacitly. Their influence is HUGE -- and hugely destructive to democracy. On top of that, they are getting a free pass. Many folks here cry about freeloading individuals but laud freeloading churches and other corporate scams.
Well BIG guy, there's nothing in any of my posts that suggests I don't understand "taxation without representation".
As far as religion and churches go, the only thing I'd be thrilled with is if they were outlawed completely. As I wrote before, organized religion is the root of more suffering in the history of the world than all other factors combined.
As for representation, they are already represented -- albeit tacitly. Their influence is HUGE -- and hugely destructive to democracy. On top of that, they are getting a free pass. Many folks here cry about freeloading individuals but laud freeloading churches and other corporate scams.
BS, humans are and if you think it's solely religion you'll have to explain the 100 million or so that were killed under the banner of atheism.
You should outlaw humans.
You can take the religion out of humans (most likely by force, *snickers*) but you can take the animal out of them.
BS, humans are and if you think it's solely religion you'll have to explain the 100 million or so that were killed under the banner of atheism.
You should outlaw humans.
You can take the religion out of humans (most likely by force, *snickers*) but you can take the animal out of them.
Heh ... I'm all for outlawing humans ...
100 million killed under the banner of atheism? Do tell? You don't mean to say that any wars have been waged to promote or defend atheism specifically, do you? I assume you merely refer to conflicts undertaken by various heathens to raid, rape, and pillage -- including, of course, the communist regimes of Stalin, etc.
Take the animal out of humans? Sure can't. Wouldn't be human if you managed. Animal isn't the problem anyway. Animals manage fine -- except homo sapiens.
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.