Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-16-2014, 02:59 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
No, using the carrot of tax-exempt status does exactly what you are claiming a tax would do. That's why it occasionally becomes controversial.

A tax of X% applied to all church receipts upfront, collected from all religious organizations, would not do that.

Please cite the precedent you think supports your view.
Why? You haven't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-16-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,479,163 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Why? You haven't.
See my edit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 03:06 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
See my edit.
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York

After examining the long history in the United States of exempting religious institutions from taxation, the Court determined that the exemption has not resulted in the excessive entanglement of religion and the government. In fact, the Court found, taxing religious property could increase government entanglement by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, and tax foreclosures. Further, demanding that religious institutions support the government by paying taxes would also create entanglement.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,479,163 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York

After examining the long history in the United States of exempting religious institutions from taxation, the Court determined that the exemption has not resulted in the excessive entanglement of religion and the government. In fact, the Court found, taxing religious property could increase government entanglement by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, and tax foreclosures. Further, demanding that religious institutions support the government by paying taxes would also create entanglement.
That decision did not rule it unconstitutional to require churches to pay taxes. If it were, tax exemptions could not be revoked, as we know they sometimes are. Please read the entire link without cherrypicking lines from it, and if you can't admit you were in error, at least stop being intentionally obtuse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 03:15 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
That decision did not rule it unconstitutional to require churches to pay taxes. If it were, tax exemptions could not be revoked, as we know they sometimes are. Please read the entire link without cherrypicking lines from it, and if you can't admit you were in error, at least stop being intentionally obtuse.
It was a brief statement on the ruling. I am fully secure in my position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,479,163 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
It was a brief statement on the ruling. I am fully secure in my position.
"Moreover, while finding no constitutional barriers to the imposition of taxes on religious organizations and individuals, the Court in one decision found the establishment clause to bar an exemption from taxation for a religious entity. In Texas v. Bullock the Court held unconstitutional, 6-3, a Texas statute that exempted from the state's sales and use taxes only those periodicals and books that promoted the teachings of a religious faith." p. 69.

Are you now going to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "I can't hear you..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 04:09 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
I posted the actual case where they did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 04:12 PM
 
2,776 posts, read 3,595,372 times
Reputation: 2312
Militant homosexuals irk me as much as militant homophobes...neither can resist forcing their beliefs on everyone else. Like moths to flame they must do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,479,163 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I posted the actual case where they did.
Except that they didn't. Anyone can look it up and find out for themselves.

The most conclusive language on the point being discussed is in Brennan's concurrence:

"The [tax] exemptions have continued uninterrupted to the present day. They are in force in all 50 States. No judicial decision, state or federal, has ever held that they violate the Establishment Clause. In 1886, for example, this Court, in Gibbons v. District of Columbia, 116 U. S. 404, rejected on statutory grounds a church's claim for the exemption of certain of its land under congressional statutes exempting Washington churches and appurtenant ground from real property taxes. But the Court gave not the slightest hint that it ruled against the church because, under the First Amendment, any exemption would have been unconstitutional. To the contrary, the Court's opinion implied that nothing in the Amendment precludes exemption of church property..."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2014, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
38,642 posts, read 26,378,527 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
They're suing the city to try and remove anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodation and employment.


Transvestites and transsexuals need to be protected from exactly what and how does free access to the opposite sex's restroom provide this protection?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:21 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top