Churches cost this country 71-83 billion a year (wage, atrocities, 2015)
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.
Thanks for a little bit of a chuckle upon reading your comment...
Needless to say, all that is taxed or not taxed is a result of the "IRS policy/regulation" (AKA our tax code) that attempts to make tax law clear in these respects, but also of course all such "IRS policy/regulation" is a result of those elected to establish laws and regulations, for all variety of reasons. Also needless to say, all such laws need to be in accordance with our Constitution.
Your comment is something like pointing out the speed we drive is because of the speed signs/limits we see on the roads. Yes of course (if we don't want a ticket), but those signs/limits -- laws -- didn't get established without government representatives deciding what they should be, for another variety of reasons. Federal, state and local. Right?
Agreed that a "feel good"reason to tax or not tax is really no reason at all. I think that's what my prior comment also argued. Also of course taxes and tax exemptions are at least in part about promoting positive results, benefits to society, in theory anyway.
What we can probably all agree upon is that there is worthy argument on both sides, or here too there wouldn't be the debate about this going on a long time now, again as follows:
US churches* received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained.
Proponents argue that a tax exemption keeps government out of church finances and upholds the separation of church and state. They say that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services, and that 200 years of church tax exemptions have not turned America into a theocracy.
Opponents argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right. They say that in tough economic times the government cannot afford what amounts to a subsidy worth billions of dollars every year.
Like all things religion and politics, depends on who you ask of course...
I think you have missed the discussion points I was making:
tax churches etc. at the municipal level (property taxes) as they are obtaining municipal services that cost money such as fire, infrastructure and police services.
if a church etc. is demonstrably contributing to the community, such as food banks, homeless shelters etc, they continue to be exempt from property taxes
Why should a church demand fire protection, but not pay for it? Or any other organization that does not provide a legitimate community service?
Thanks for the link, but it only discusses the Federal exemption. I think one is on fairly weak ground to have that removed. Municipally? I think that is a different issue.
Your ticked that they are urging people to vote for certain values. That is what everyone does. "Live and let live". Like being able to accept whatever customers you want in your bakery? (I thought the guy was a jerk but many wanted to force their values on him, No)?
I too get "ticked" when people promote laws based on their unique beliefs or value systems that are not secular in nature, based on their religion rather than respecting the freedoms of those who don't share those beliefs, religion.
Our constitution also promotes democratic principles that should not promote religion or any one religion over another. That's what it means to live in a secular society and to abide by those protections that provide everyone a shot of living their life as freely as possible, as long as what they do is not affecting/harming others.
"Live and let live" in other words, means you are free to live (and do) as you wish as long as I am free to live and do as I wish! As long as we are not harming or imposing on one another, why not?
If the answer has to do with what is written in your particular holy book of choice, no! Wrong! That's not in keeping with the secular government/society our founding fathers meant to be!
Seems this is what religious fundamentalists simply cannot come to accept, to which I suggest to them they go ahead and practice whatever they preach in the privacy of their own home, in their church and wherever else their particular religious practices don't impose on those who don't share their beliefs. Leaving everyone else to enjoy the same freedom!
First off they cost the country nothing. Its not the Govs. money. You liberals think that every ones property belongs to the gov or should. So what is your line in the sand to tax and not to tax? Should the Gov. Tax Susan Coleman?
I believe this is what we elect our government representatives to broker for us, on behalf of all the varied beliefs and interests that we don't all share in common. Hard to ignore your swipe at liberals, what YOU think liberals think, so rather than answer your question more specifically, let's back up the bus and understand this just for starters...
Liberals DO NOT think everyone's property belongs to the gov or should. Speaking just for myself as a liberal as well, I also think your kind of rhetoric is unproductive, immature, "loaded and provoking" and not much more. Too bad when that sort of "thinking" gets in the way of adult civil discussion.
Makes me want to return a similar comment about what conservatives think, but I'm trying to keep the exchange polite...
I think you have missed the discussion points I was making:
tax churches etc. at the municipal level (property taxes) as they are obtaining municipal services that cost money such as fire, infrastructure and police services.
if a church etc. is demonstrably contributing to the community, such as food banks, homeless shelters etc, they continue to be exempt from property taxes
Why should a church demand fire protection, but not pay for it? Or any other organization that does not provide a legitimate community service?
Thanks for the link, but it only discusses the Federal exemption. I think one is on fairly weak ground to have that removed. Municipally? I think that is a different issue.
I have not "missed" your discussion points. I have addressed the discussion points I have chosen to address, not necessarily all of them...
I get your argument or the fact that churches also benefit from municipal services "that cost money," but I'm not sure I agree this wins the argument with regard to tax exemption status. As also argued (by me and by way of that link), churches do provide benefits to many members of society, outside the church. (I'm not sure you've come to recognize this fact which is problematical with respect to moving this argument or discussion forward).
Frankly, I'm not sure I'm entirely decided myself (which is rare for me), but perhaps the consideration of another non-profit is worth a look. Makes me "think twice" about this anyway...
Feeding America (AKA the Food Bank) helps millions of Americans but obviously not all of us directly. That help, however, benefits ALL of us in a variety of different ways, indirect ways. Those distribution centers are also served by municipal services that cost money. So?
Not also a trade-off of benefits for ALL society that needs to be considered?
Dismissed. You are fine with people creating laws to abide by your beliefs but demean others for the same. I have no respect for this position.
Wrong, just wrong (also wrong to dismiss what you don't understand)...
I fully understand that I have feelings and beliefs different from others, say with respect to many political issues, but I fully understand and accept when those differences are brokered by way of our elected representatives in keeping with what our secular government requires, even when those decisions don't go according to what I think is right/best.
This is very different from the imposition of people promoting their feelings and beliefs born of religious, non-secular, reason and rationale.
Right?
Another example to help you understand what no one can really or fairly "dismiss" I don't think...
I may not like the Citizens United ruling, but I respect and accept the ruling based on legal arguments having nothing to do with anyone's particular religion or Holy book.
In no way do I respect or accept any ruling NOT based strictly on legal arguments, secular laws, that are influenced or a result of religious doctrine. This is what it means to live in a secular society!
Of course, I would have to accept theocratic rule of law if I lived in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia, but thank goodness I don't live in a country ruled by religious beliefs. Far from it! As far from it as possible please!
All to say, my position about this has nothing to do with laws I prefer because of my personal beliefs. Many laws I do not prefer are contrary to my personal beliefs, but I respect them for the reason(s) clarified above. Religious people have to accept the same thing, not per their personal belief or preference but out of respect for our rule of law that is secular, not theocratic.
Fair? Understand?
PS: None of this argument or reality should be "demeaning" to anyone. To be demeaned by my argument here is strong evidence you really don't understand the argument, about what is right or wrong from strictly a legal standpoint in this country, as our founding fathers intended.
You very conveniently forget that we had a long discussion that those churches who provide a true community service would continue to be exempt from paying for services like fire protection, police protection and other municipal services.
My gosh, once you get on a bandwagon, you are as bad as an anti-vaxxer.
Sure don't see that in your post below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
Good. So then churches should be happy as a pig in scat not to get any government services. You know, like fire protection. Or police protection.
I have not "missed" your discussion points. I have addressed the discussion points I have chosen to address, not necessarily all of them...
I get your argument or the fact that churches also benefit from municipal services "that cost money," but I'm not sure I agree this wins the argument with regard to tax exemption status. As also argued (by me and by way of that link), churches do provide benefits to many members of society, outside the church. (I'm not sure you've come to recognize this fact which is problematical with respect to moving this argument or discussion forward).
Frankly, I'm not sure I'm entirely decided myself (which is rare for me), but perhaps the consideration of another non-profit is worth a look. Makes me "think twice" about this anyway...
Feeding America (AKA the Food Bank) helps millions of Americans but obviously not all of us directly. That help, however, benefits ALL of us in a variety of different ways, indirect ways. Those distribution centers are also served by municipal services that cost money. So?
Not also a trade-off of benefits for ALL society that needs to be considered?
Your example is exactly the type of organization that I would argue deserves an offset, and continue to be exempt. I concur, just because I don't directly benefit, doesn't mean the community or society doesn't. There are some churches who make significant contributions to the community beyond the "spiritual" kind, and I, as an atheist, give kudos to them.
As mentioned, we have one of those in our community. I talked to the pastor of that one yesterday. We happen to be a bit of a tourist destination, and have a decommissioned Anglican church in town that was built over 100 years ago. She volunteers with our historical society, and yesterday she guided tourists through that church, doing so dressed up in 1890's style period pastor clothes. The tourists loved it!
That church puts on a harvest supper for the whole village at a cost recovery price of only $10.00. The other church, the evangelical one, is never seen at community events.
One gives back, and gives back in spades, even though it is the smaller denomination, the other one hides in their own realm.
Wrong, just wrong (also wrong to dismiss what you don't understand)...
No I am not......
Quote:
I too get "ticked" when people promote laws based on their unique beliefs or value systems that are not secular in nature,...
"As long as"......You are OK as long as they fit your belief.
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.
