Any particular reason? Or you just love the idea of people being taxed as much as possible?
Election 2020 Beto O'Rourke says churches should be taxed if they refuse to support gay marriage
- Thread starter LifeisTiresome
- Start date
Any particular reason? Or you just love the idea of people being taxed as much as possible?
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Speaking as a dedicated Christian, I'd be fine if they just operated under not-for-profit tax exemption like other not-for-profits.
It'd make it easier to keep charlatans and fraudsters in it for the money separated out.
AspblastUSA
Well-known member
IMHO Beto is well aware he has exactly zero chance of actually being nominated by this point, so he's throwing the most blatant stuff out there to try and build up his brand for the inevitable book; and to maximize donations in the meantime.
I seriously think he doesn't care whether he's hurting his party's chances at this point
I seriously think he doesn't care whether he's hurting his party's chances at this point
Tyzuris
Primarch to your glory& the glory of him on Earth!
Then you lose an argument for separation of religion and state. Without tax exemption, religious organizations are going to naturally lobby a favourable tax policy and so on as the state is putting their fingers in the religious matters against the principle of separation of state and religion.
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
The church already lobbies for the things they want. This simply ensures they pay the price of admission that I and everyone else already pay.
Separation of church and state does not forbid the church from lobbying the state, it forbids the state from endorsing a religion. There is no state religion, the state is not run by religious law, the state does not enforce participation in a religion, and the state is not allowed to prioritize one religion over another.
It would be nice to see some of these grand stadium sized megachurches pay some property tax, maybe get the roads fixed.
There is no price of admission for Freedom of Speech and Petition. Under the US system, everyone has those inherently, taxes or not be damned. Heck, for more than half the US' history, individuals paid no direct taxes on them, but still had Freedom of Speech and Petition.
That's not what would happen. Those big megachurches have enough money and individuals involved that they would easily find a way of avoiding paying most of the taxes just like any other large organization does.
No, what this would do is destroy small local community churches with small congregations. It would also destroy many historical and community churches in areas where land values have dramatically gone up. Either that, or it would cause those smaller community churches to have to dramatically reduce the number things they do to serve the local community.
Bear in mind, nearly half (47%) of Churchgoers in America go to a Church with fewer than 100 members. Medium Churches (> 100 < 1000) account for the next 47%. Only 8% of Church goers in the US go to what can be called a "Megachurch".
Do you really think a small church of around 100 members can easily absorb a sudden annual tax of thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars? Those medium Churches who CAN afford it (and that likely is only the upper end of those), they're going to pull it from funds they would otherwise use to serve their community.
But that's not all the damage it would do. There are many Churches that are also historical buildings in the core of older cities. Consider... what do you think the property value of St. Patrick's Cathedral is? Sure, the RCC is likely able to afford to pay taxes on it... but is the Episcopal Church? Or a Historical Black Baptist Church? You can find many such older Churches still acting as Churches throughout the United States, especially in core city areas.
D
Deleted member
Guest
There are religions which tolerate homosexuality; that's always been the problem about a religious justification for banning gay marriage. Ultimately we live in a nation founded on equal respect for religions. That means that we have to balance between the interest of all religions and deeply held beliefs. The correct way to do this is with laws like the ones Utah has adopted, where equal rights acts explicitly exclude public accommodation.
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
I mean I am expected to soak up that tax burden on my own personal property so I don't see why they can't.
D
Deleted member
Guest
What do you mean your personal property? If it's Fee Simple, it's not really your's.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Your tax burden should be lighter, and the rich should be paying more. I don't mean that their taxes should be raised, but something should be done about all the loopholes they exploit to avoid paying any taxes at all. As for churches, they don't pay taxes for the same reason any other non-profit doesn't pay; they provide a service to the community at a cost to themselves, and derive no profit from it. Arguing that churches should pay taxes is the same as arguing that the Salvation Army should pay, and runs into the same problem; the payment would come from the funds that would otherwise serve to directly benefit the communities they serve, and would instead be used by the government for whatever they want to do with the money.
Take the church I volunteer at for example; instead of being used to feed and shelter the homeless, the money would instead be used to fund whatever pointless public works project my local government feels the need to build, to bolster their political resumes. I don't want that, and neither should you.
But they already do. All the people who attend a church, who are members of the congregation, are already paying income tax, and taxes on property, and all the other oppressive grabby taxes your out-of-control behemoth of a government imposes, just like you do.
Not an American here, can you cite where that principle is stated in the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution?
UltimatePaladin
Well-known member
Francis Urquhart
Well-known member
Yes, you are. "An establishment of religion" references a government giving a specific religion preference over another, thus showing enhanced respect to one religion at the expanse of others. Thus, all religions must be treated equally.
D
Deleted member
Guest
It’s really quite simple, in the context of America being united by a single civic religion we are tolerant of all religious professions with the government’s job solely being to neutrally balance when belief systems come directly to blows. That’s why gay marriage should be legal but so should a Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for one.
PsihoKekec
Swashbuckling Accountant
Afterall, he is the guy who had to cosplay as Mexican to get any kind of attention.
Last edited:
ReeeFallin
The Yankee Candle
Salvation army isn't exactly the best example here but I get your meaning.
At the same time there's something fucked up about joel osteen not paying taxes on his millions.
Yeah but your solution is like saying you don't feel the rich pay their fair share so we should have a flat income tax of 30% with no exemptions starting at a $1 income. Your mad about a select few so you want to hurt tens of thousands to get a few dozen.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
That sums it up, though it’s without malice, just poor foresight