Americans wouldn't have to pay taxes if....

[MMMariah]

if we were to take away tax exemption for churches, american citizens would no longer have to pay taxes. I have to ask why churches are permitted to purchase real estate and invest their money and make millions in profit, billions in some cases and not pay a single cent in taxes? What is the reason for it in the world TODAY?

A perfect example is the church of Scientology. I live near the world headquarters which is located in Clearwater. They own the entire downtown of Clearwater. When you drive there it looks like a bomb filled with people in navy-looking uniforms exploded. There are less than 50,000 scientologists in the world yet the church has more than $9 BILLION in real estate holdings. Their collectors, people who do nothing more than harass their members for money, have a weekly quota of $400,000. People like Tom Cruise and Travolta and Kirstie Ally have given the church tens of millions of dollars each. I have a friend who's parents left the church after 35 years and attaining CLEAR status & level 7, nearly the top of their level chart for spirituality. They own a very lucrative PR firm and after they left the church admitted to giving the church more than half of their life's income which they estimate to be more than $7 million dollars.

And it's all tax free money. Why?

If the republicans truly want to not have to pay taxes, there's the answer.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I can sum up every one of your posts with 3 words.

Gays,Grids, God

 

[Mr. Daystar]

First of all, the church of Scientology, isn't a church, it's a cult, and while I agree that churches should pay their fair share of taxes, that alone would not make enough of a difference. Now, if they stopped giving aid to Africa, and Israel, along with health care to illegal aliens, and clamped down on welfare fraud, along with cutting tax breaks for corporations that are based outside of the US, but do a lot of business here...like Haliburtun, for example, or companies that import their goods, then yes we likely would. But it will never happen, no matter how much you try, because your Dems, are just as greedy as the Republicans, and they all want their hand outs. They all want the same thing, and they don't care how they get it. You can't honestly believe that ANY Democrat is going to say...."Hey, we have a surplus, no more income taxes!". They won't. They'll stick it in a fund, and use it for some worthless bullshit, just like the Republicans do. Think about this. Every time you see a train go past with stacked containers...you probably never notice them, or pay attention...but every one of those containers, is a truck driver NOT getting a trailer to pull, Every one of those, came off of a ship, that came from somewhere else, and they're all filled with goods that could have been made here, in America. That would mean jobs, which would mean a better economy, which would mean less welfare, and poverty

 

[Jack Davenport]

For someone that believes in the separation if church and state, Mariah sure doesn't seem to grasp that the government taxing churches would be in direct violation of that. Good luck with your campaign.

 

[Rattrap]

As a firm supporter of your basic premise, I must nevertheless call you out on this specific premise:

if we were to take away tax exemption for churches, american citizens would no longer have to pay taxes.
[...]
And it's all tax free money. Why?

If the republicans truly want to not have to pay taxes, there's the answer.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any numbers/expert opinions to back this up? What potential tax revenue are we losing to churches? That much should at least be easily located.

First of all, the church of Scientology, isn't a church, it's a cult...

You say island, I say continent. The distinction is entirely arbitrary and more importantly: nonetheless on the same spectrum.

Now, if they stopped giving aid to Africa...

Africa probably deserves our aid, considering the constant rape our corporations perform on the continent.

...and Israel...

With you there. Rey's already gone on long about how that's not happening though.

...along with health care to illegal aliens...

How much does that actually happen?

But it will never happen, no matter how much you try, because your Dems, are just as greedy as the Republicans, and they all want their hand outs. They all want the same thing, and they don't care how they get it. You can't honestly believe that ANY Democrat is going to say...."Hey, we have a surplus, no more income taxes!". They won't. They'll stick it in a fund, and use it for some worthless bullshit, just like the Republicans do. Think about this. Every time you see a train go past with stacked containers...you probably never notice them, or pay attention...but every one of those containers, is a truck driver NOT getting a trailer to pull, Every one of those, came off of a ship, that came from somewhere else, and they're all filled with goods that could have been made here, in America. That would mean jobs, which would mean a better economy, which would mean less welfare, and poverty

Now we're getting into stuff that spills over nicely to the free trade thread. I agree with you on the parties; maybe less so on truck drivers versus trains. The origin of the cargo, sure, but trains are far more efficient than trucks. We should like trains. Trains are good.

 

[knowone]

I can sum up every one of your posts with 3 words.

Gays,Grids, God

Grids??? Really? Where did you grow up? Them's GRITS, boy! Oh and you left out Guns!

 

[Will E Worm]

For someone that believes in the separation if church and state, Mariah sure doesn't seem to grasp that the government taxing churches would be in direct violation of that. Good luck with your campaign.

Yes, and it's already Constitutionally illegal to try to tax a church.

They don't need to be 501c3 and the preacher doesn't need a license to preach.

 

[ThatRedWing]

Yes, and it's already Constitutionally illegal to try to tax a church.

They don't need to be 501c3 and the preacher doesn't need a license to preach.

They also do not need to have any sense of morals or an understanding of whichever fictional book that they use really says. There is nothing in the constitution about churches being taxed. If they want to have a say in public policies then they can pay their entry fee like everybody else.

 

[Jack Davenport]

No

They also do not need to have any sense of morals or an understanding of whichever fictional book that they use really says. There is nothing in the constitution about churches being taxed. If they want to have a say in public policies then they can pay their entry fee like everybody else.

There is plenty in it to make sure that taxation of churches would never withstand legal and judicial scrutiny. Just the latest idea by secular atheists/leftists and their war on religion and in particular Christianity.

 

[xfire]

No

There is plenty in it to make sure that taxation of churches would never withstand legal and judicial scrutiny. Just the latest idea by secular atheists/leftists and their war on religion and in particular Christianity.

Which part of the Constitution do you specifically believe would protect churches from taxation? Certainly not the 1st Amendment. Contrary to what religious people proclaim the constitution was designed to keep religion out of government, not the other way around. Keep in mind that King George III, as all monarchs of Great Britain, was anointed by God as the Soveriegn head of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the founding fathers wanted to make sure that a monarch never reigned over this nation. Free exercise of religion doesn't include exemption from taxation.

 

[Will E Worm]

They also do not need to have any sense of morals or an understanding of whichever fictional book that they use really says. There is nothing in the constitution about churches being taxed. If they want to have a say in public policies then they can pay their entry fee like everybody else.

They do have to have morals and ethics.

Churches don't have to pay to be in politics.

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

http://hushmoney.org/501c3-myths.htm

No

There is plenty in it to make sure that taxation of churches would never withstand legal and judicial scrutiny. Just the latest idea by secular atheists/leftists and their war on religion and in particular Christianity.

Yes. :hatsoff:

 

[Jagger69]

For someone that believes in the separation if church and state, Mariah sure doesn't seem to grasp that the government taxing churches would be in direct violation of that. Good luck with your campaign.

Yes, and it's already Constitutionally illegal to try to tax a church.

They don't need to be 501c3 and the preacher doesn't need a license to preach.

Then both of you would also agree that a woman's right to have an abortion is also protected by the constitution, yes?

Which part of the Constitution do you specifically believe would protect churches from taxation? Certainly not the 1st Amendment. Contrary to what religious people proclaim the constitution was designed to keep religion out of government, not the other way around. Keep in mind that King George III, as all monarchs of Great Britain, was anointed by God as the Soveriegn head of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the founding fathers wanted to make sure that a monarch never reigned over this nation. Free exercise of religion doesn't include exemption from taxation.

Because the SCOTUS ruled as such back in the 1970s. The court ruled that to tax any church would violate the "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment. As such, the ruling is only the presently-accepted interpretation of the amendment and is certainly not a literal translation of it. Personally, I take great exception to the decision but it is, unfortunately, the law of the land as it presently stands. There are two ways it could be changed. The first would be for a case to be brought to the court and have the decision reversed. The second would be the introduction of a constitutional amendment to specifically allow churches to be taxed. I'd gladly support either means. Any organization that enjoys tax-exempt status and does not have to comply with section 501(c)(3) is basically being granted a subsidy by the government to pursue its own selfish interests from my perspective and should therefore be subject to taxes just like any other similar organization or individual is. The SCOTUS disagrees with me (or at least they did 40 years ago). Doesn't mean it's right, it just means it's the law as presently interpreted.

Side-note....the tax dollars that are sacrificed to subsidize religion (not just Christianity....synagogues, mosques, temples and their corresponding organizations are also exempt from taxes) is estimated to be about $82 billion annually. How does it make you feel that you are paying to support Joel Osteen's opulent lifestyle?? :dunno:

 

[Will E Worm]

Then both of you would also agree that a woman's right to have an abortion is also protected by the constitution, yes?

No, murder is illegal.

Abortion is being shut down, soon it will be gone.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

Abortion is being shut down, soon it will be gone.

Abortion is closing up shop but TNA will be around forever.

 

[xfire]

Because the SCOTUS ruled as such back in the 1970s. The court ruled that to tax any church would violate the "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment. As such, the ruling is only the presently-accepted interpretation of the amendment and is certainly not a literal translation of it. Personally, I take great exception to the decision but it is, unfortunately, the law of the land as it presently stands. There are two ways it could be changed. The first would be for a case to be brought to the court and have the decision reversed. The second would be the introduction of a constitutional amendment to specifically allow churches to be taxed. I'd gladly support either means. Any organization that enjoys tax-exempt status and does not have to comply with section 501(c)(3) is basically being granted a subsidy by the government to pursue its own selfish interests from my perspective and should therefore be subject to taxes just like any other similar organization or individual is. The SCOTUS disagrees with me (or at least they did 40 years ago). Doesn't mean it's right, it just means it's the law as presently interpreted.

Side-note....the tax dollars that are sacrificed to subsidize religion (not just Christianity....synagogues, mosques, temples and their corresponding organizations are also exempt from taxes) is estimated to be about $82 billion annually. How does it make you feel that you are paying to support Joel Osteen's opulent lifestyle?? :dunno:

Overturning a SCOTUS decision is akin to changing tax code, you're pretty much stuck with what you've got until someone musters up the intestinal fortitude to tackle the issue. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see churches get slammed with a progressive tax, with exemptions to small churches and an increasingly larger tax proportionally, particularly religious organizations that can't keep their noses out of politics.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Which part of the Constitution do you specifically believe would protect churches from taxation? Certainly not the 1st Amendment. Contrary to what religious people proclaim the constitution was designed to keep religion out of government, not the other way around. Keep in mind that King George III, as all monarchs of Great Britain, was anointed by God as the Soveriegn head of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the founding fathers wanted to make sure that a monarch never reigned over this nation. Free exercise of religion doesn't include exemption from taxation.

Au contraire

Unless the court is loaded with Freeones style secular leftists and atheists, there is no way that a tax bestowed upon churches by the government could be interpreted as anything other than the government "restricting the free exercise thereof".

None
Nada
Zilch

So my advice to all of you religion hating heathens is to get busy stacking the court.

It's your only hope Obi wan.

 

[Jagger69]

No, murder is illegal.

Abortion is being shut down, soon it will be gone.

That's exactly the response I expected from you. Here's ol' Will taking his scissors to the constitution again.

I'll give you this much, Mr. Cupcake, at least you're consistent.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I am willing to consider that a pregnancy endangering the life of the mother not being terminated would be a denial of due process.

I disagree with the court's interpretation of what constitutes a human being and when it becomes a human being or viable, which was the hoops they had to jump through to reach this decision.

 

[xfire]

Au contraire

Unless the court is loaded with Freeones style secular leftists and atheists, there is no way that a tax bestowed upon churches by the government could be interpreted as anything other than the government "restricting the free exercise thereof".

None
Nada
Zilch

So my advice to all of you religion hating heathens is to get busy stacking the court.

It's your only hope Obi wan.

Yeah, you pray that never happens, anyway. I don't have any problem with religion as long as they're living up to their core teachings and actually doing good instead of pushing a prejudicial social agenda.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

maybe less so on truck drivers versus trains. The origin of the cargo, sure, but trains are far more efficient than trucks. We should like trains. Trains are good.

I drive a truck, and while I see your point, not all freight can be moved by truck, not all of it should be moved by train, and some freight companies are putting more trailers on flat cars. That's fucked up as far as I'm concerned. Add to that, the continuing regulations piled upon drivers, which are used under the bullshit excuse of safety, but is nothing more then revenue generation, and an attempt to turn it into a $10.00 an hour job again, it's just fucked up, nothing more, just fucked up. And then, when they have all of the old timers like me, that have 29 years of all weather experience under their belts are gone, and the asphalt cowboys from truck drivers schools are filling the highway...how many deaths do you think will be avoided? Now, on to other things.

Then both of you would also agree that a woman's right to have an abortion is also protected by the constitution, yes?

It is only my opinion, but here's how I see it. If there is a separation of church and state...which I believe should exist, but really doesn't seem to, then yes, seeing as how the state can't govern by religious belief, it must govern by state belief, which means science must be the yard stick, and seeing as how doctors have determined when life begins and ends, if they say it's not dangerous. There ya go. Plus I would go so far as to also bring up the right to the pursuit of happiness. If the woman would suffer undo lifelong anguish, that's on her, as cold as it might sound. Although I do not feel tax payers should have to pay for them, especially if they are used as a form of birth control. However, birth control should be supplement-ally paid for.

No, murder is illegal.

Abortion is being shut down, soon it will be gone.

No, it's not...it might be killing, but it's not murder. There's a difference...but hey, you want to keep the babies around, you adopt them all. And abortion will never go away, if you make it illegal, it will take place in back rooms, just like it used to. Drugs are illegal, are they gone? Booze was once illegal, how did that work out for us?