Finally...TAX Churches

[ASUMountaineer]

Did I say that?

Hey you know what? My business has a charitable foundation. It's humble compared to some churches but it's raised about $40,000 in 4 years for a very worthy charity. Even my feeble mind can keep it separate from the rest of our activities. But I've poured a ton of blood, sweat, and tears into it and my customers really people really BELIEVE in it. In fact they really BELIEVE in my business...almost to the point of worship...

You know where I'm going with this

Hey, it's perfectly fine for D1B and YT and other religion haters out there to give their opinions on how they feel about religion. The power of free speech. But it's very clear, from the get go in this country through today and for the near future, that plenty of people in this country do not want government to intercede on religion or religious belief, and if they do, then to do it as minimally as possible. And for better or for worse, people see taxes as a way that government would do that.

Again, taxing a church building like an actual brick and mortar church is vastly different than taxing an empty office building that the same church owns and then rents out, at a profit, to a completely non-related, non-religious application, like the church in Spain renting out to a restaurant. It's easy and certainly well past due for Spain to tax that property that is being used in that manner and if we aren't doing that here then we should. It's an entirely different animal to tax the church itself for it's church building or any other building directly related to the practice or education of that religion. And right now, that's not going to change. No matter how much you dislike or disapprove of that particular religion or religion in general.

Good post, GF.

[D1B]

Hey, it's perfectly fine for D1B and YT and other religion haters out there to give their opinions on how they feel about religion. The power of free speech. But it's very clear, from the get go in this country through today and for the near future, that plenty of people in this country do not want government to intercede on religion or religious belief, and if they do, then to do it as minimally as possible. And for better or for worse, people see taxes as a way that government would do that.

Again, taxing a church building like an actual brick and mortar church is vastly different than taxing an empty office building that the same church owns and then rents out, at a profit, to a completely non-related, non-religious application, like the church in Spain renting out to a restaurant. It's easy and certainly well past due for Spain to tax that property that is being used in that manner and if we aren't doing that here then we should. It's an entirely different animal to tax the church itself for it's church building or any other building directly related to the practice or education of that religion. And right now, that's not going to change. No matter how much you dislike or disapprove of that particular religion or religion in general.

Good post, GF.

Actually, it's not. Its a decent description of what is and what is is wrong.

GF, Hen, Hogan and the rest of the delusional and weak would rather the issue of taxing their stupid religion never be brought up. The fact is, people are rapidly and finally seeing religion for what it is - a for profit business no different than Madoff Capital Mgt, Enron, AIG and McDonalds. People are seeing religion as a waste of time and human capital, finally, and it being not worthy of exemption.

We should be having these discussions and religion should be investigated and highly scrutinized and taxed. I and other humanists and peaceful people who have shed the fairy tales should not be forced to financially support a religion.

[D1B]

Here's an excellent article that hit the nail on the head regarding religion and taxation

Not all churches or all ministers are rich, but some of them are very rich indeed. And that's no surprise, because society subsidizes them through a constellation of generous tax breaks that aren't available to any other institution, even non-profits. For example, religious organizations can opt out of Social Security and Medicare withholding. Religious employers are exempt from unemployment taxes, and in some states, from sales tax. Religious ministers - and no other profession; the law specifies that only "ministers of the gospel" are eligible for this benefit - can receive part of their salary as a "housing allowance" on which they pay no taxes. (Compounding the absurdity, they can then turn around and double-dip, deducting their mortgage interest from their taxes, even when their mortgage is being paid with tax-free money in the first place.) And, of course, churches are exempt from property tax and from federal income tax.

We're all paying for the special privileges afforded to religion. Your taxes and mine have to be higher to make up the revenue shortfall that the government isn't taking in because these huge, wealthy churches don't pay their own way. By some estimates, the property tax exemption alone removes $100 billion in property from U.S. tax rolls. (And it's not just the big churches where that exemption bites: According to authors like Sikivu Hutchinson, the proliferation of small storefront churches is a major contributor to poverty and societal dysfunction in poor communities, since these churches remove valuable commercial property from the tax base and ensure that local governments remain cash-strapped and unable to provide basic services.) Just about the only restriction that churches have to abide by in return is that they can't endorse political candidates - and even this trivial, easily evaded prohibition is routinely and flagrantly violated by the religious right.

Combined with a near-total lack of government scrutiny, the privileges granted to religion have enabled megachurch ministers to live fantastically luxurious lifestyles. An investigation by Sen. Chuck Grassley in 2009 gave a rare public glimpse of how powerful preachers spend the cash they rake in from their flocks: jewelry, luxury clothing, cosmetic surgery, offshore bank accounts, multimillion-dollar lakefront mansions, a fleet of private jets, flights to Hawaii and Fiji, and most famously in the case of Joyce Meyer, a $23,000 marble-topped commode. Meyer's ministry alone is estimated to have an annual take of around $124 million. (*Catholic Church is worse )

Most of these Elmer Gantry-types preach a theology called the "prosperity gospel". The basic idea of this is that God wants to shower you with riches, but only if you first "plant a seed of faith" by giving your church as much money as you possibly can, trusting that God will repay you tenfold. (The typical ask is for 10% of your annual income - gross, not net; people who tithe based on their net income hate the baby Jesus.) Naturally, this idea has made some churches very, very rich, while making a large number of poor, desperate people even poorer.

One might think this scam would only work for so long before people start to realize that giving all their money away isn't making them rich. But the pastors who preach it have a very convenient and clever rationalization: when supernatural wealth fails to materialize, they tell their followers that it must be their own fault, that they're harboring some secret sin that's preventing God from fulfilling his promises.

But beyond the prosperity gospel, we're now witnessing a new and even more brazen idea spreading among the American religious right: that the poor should accept their lot without complaint, and that calling for a stronger social safety net or advocating higher taxes on the rich is committing the sin of envy. (*This is also what the hypocrit conks here preach ) For example, here's Watergate felon Chuck Colson, who's found a profitable after-prison career as a born-again right-wing pundit, denouncing the poor for wanting a better life for themselves:

Despite this, many people insist on soaking the well-off because... what they want is to see their better-off neighbors knocked down a peg. That's how envy works.

Thomas Aquinas defined envy as "sorrow for another's good." It is the opposite of pity. And it is one of the defining sins of our times.

(I would guess that by Colson's standard, some of the authors of the Bible would also be committing the sin of envy with their denunciations of the rich.)

The right-wing Family Research Council has also joined in, calling for its followers to pray that God stifles the Occupy Wall Street protests; its president, Tony Perkins, has said that Jesus "endorses the principles of business and the free market". And then there's this billboard, which asserts that protesters' demands for health insurance and higher corporate tax rates violate the biblical commandment against coveting. I would've thought this was a bizarre joke if not for the fact that so many powerful right-wing Christians are openly saying the same thing.

On its surface, Christianity seems like the least likely religion for this theology of the rich and powerful to take root. The Bible, after all, denounces wealth and praises poverty in no uncertain terms. In fact, Jesus unequivocally commands that Christians should sell all their possessions, give the money to the poor, and live as wandering mendicant evangelists. The famous analogy about a camel going through the eye of a needle was a parable intended to forcefully make the point that it's almost impossible for a rich person to get into Heaven - and by the Bible's standard, millions of modern Christians are very rich indeed:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

...Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

—Matthew 19:16-24

In another verse, Jesus tells his followers not to save money or store up possessions, but to travel constantly with no thought for the future, having faith that God will somehow feed and clothe them each day:

"And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?

Consider the lilies, how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is today in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?

And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind... But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you."

—Luke 12:22-31

The Bible goes so far as to say that the first community of Christians weren't just socialists, but communists:

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

—Acts 2:44-45

By some accounts, this verse is what inspired Karl Marx's dictum, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Irony of ironies: Communism began in the pages of the Bible!

Of course, these commands are nearly impossible to follow, and that's precisely the point. In the beginning, Christianity was a small, radical sect whose followers expected the world to end within their own lifetimes. It's no wonder that they saw no use for earthly possessions. But when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire and began to convert the powerful and the comfortable, this would no longer do. No large, organized religion could possibly thrive on precepts like this, and so they were left by the wayside in the pursuit of worldly riches and imperial grandeur.

This pattern happens over and over: Even when it begins among the poor and disenfranchised, religion almost always ends up being co-opted by the wealthy and powerful and used as a convenient excuse to justify inequality. Nothing is more effective at persuading the poor not to rebel or protest than the belief that, if they stay quiet and compliant, they'll be rewarded after death. As the columnist Ed Weathers wrote, "If you would have your slaves remain docile, teach them hymns." And this idea isn't just prominent in Christianity - we also see it in other religions, like Hinduism, which teaches that people's social caste is the deserved result of the karma they accumulated in past lives. Obey the rich people in this life, and maybe you'll be reborn as one of them next time!

The repeated exploitation of religion throughout history to further beat down the downtrodden isn't just a coincidence. Any belief system which teaches people to fix their gazes on another life can by its nature be leveraged to excuse poverty, oppression, and injustice in this one. When we see wealthy preachers joining hands with wealthy bankers to urge the masses to stop protesting and quietly accept their lot, it shouldn't be surprising - it's a reminder of the natural order of things. Both groups are privileged elites whose highest concern, with a few rare and honorable exceptions, is hanging on to that privilege.

There's a lesson here for the 99% of us: If we seek social justice, the only way we'll ever truly attain it is to overthrow every ideology that promises pie in the sky by and by. As long as our effort is focused, even partially, on another world, it will always be divided and therefore less effective than it could be. (It's not for nothing that John Lennon put "Imagine no religion" together with "No need for greed or hunger".) We'll have real equality and real opportunity when we learn to set aside fantasies of another existence and turn our attention fully to this life and the things of this world, which are the only real or important things.

GF, Hen, Hogan, Simple Andy = all hypocrites.

[GannonFan]

Good post, GF.

Actually, it's not. Its a decent description of what is and what is is wrong.

GF, Hen, Hogan and the rest of the delusional and weak would rather the issue of taxing their stupid religion never be brought up. The fact is, people are rapidly and finally seeing religion for what it is - a for profit business no different than Madoff Capital Mgt, Enron, AIG and McDonalds. People are seeing religion as a waste of time and human capital, finally, and it being not worthy of exemption.

We should be having these discussions and religion should be investigated and highly scrutinized and taxed. I and other humanists and peaceful people who have shed the fairy tales should not be forced to financially support a religion.

So other than you disparaging mine and other's beliefs, what do you have that I didn't say? I was very clear that the reason we don't tax them is that a majority of people in this country, and most everywhere, believe that we shouldn't tax them, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, if the majority of people held your beliefs, then the opposite would be true and we would tax them. What's so controversial about that?

Oh, and not taxing something is not automatically a conclusion that we are supporting something. That comes from the weird perspective that everything should be naturally taxed and then anything that we don't tax and the government "gives away" is therefore supporting it. But that's a different discussion.

[kalm]

Actually, it's not. Its a decent description of what is and what is is wrong.

GF, Hen, Hogan and the rest of the delusional and weak would rather the issue of taxing their stupid religion never be brought up. The fact is, people are rapidly and finally seeing religion for what it is - a for profit business no different than Madoff Capital Mgt, Enron, AIG and McDonalds. People are seeing religion as a waste of time and human capital, finally, and it being not worthy of exemption.

We should be having these discussions and religion should be investigated and highly scrutinized and taxed. I and other humanists and peaceful people who have shed the fairy tales should not be forced to financially support a religion.

So other than you disparaging mine and other's beliefs, what do you have that I didn't say? I was very clear that the reason we don't tax them is that a majority of people in this country, and most everywhere, believe that we shouldn't tax them, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, if the majority of people held your beliefs, then the opposite would be true and we would tax them. What's so controversial about that?

Oh, and not taxing something is not automatically a conclusion that we are supporting something. That comes from the weird perspective that everything should be naturally taxed and then anything that we don't tax and the government "gives away" is therefore supporting it. But that's a different discussion.

Meh. There's no such thing as a free lunch...or something like that.

[GannonFan]

So other than you disparaging mine and other's beliefs, what do you have that I didn't say? I was very clear that the reason we don't tax them is that a majority of people in this country, and most everywhere, believe that we shouldn't tax them, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, if the majority of people held your beliefs, then the opposite would be true and we would tax them. What's so controversial about that?

Oh, and not taxing something is not automatically a conclusion that we are supporting something. That comes from the weird perspective that everything should be naturally taxed and then anything that we don't tax and the government "gives away" is therefore supporting it. But that's a different discussion.

Meh. There's no such thing as a free lunch...or something like that.

Yes, I'm sure that's what Friedman meant and I'm sure he believed that all wealth belonged with government to be dealt out to businesses, organizations, and individuals as that government saw fit.

[89Hen]

Here's an excellent article that hit the nail on the head regarding religion and taxation..

Kinda funny that you'd post 90% of the article, but not the intro or the source. Would see this was written by a pretty staunch socialist (who also just happens to be an athiest). No agend here.

I bring this up because, thanks to the Occupy protests, inequality has come to dominate the American political conversation. Poverty and inequality are at their highest levels since the Great Depression, and there's a growing clamor to raise taxes on the wealthy to provide more opportunity for the rest of us. I think this is an excellent idea, and I'd like to suggest that beside Wall Street bankers and stock traders, there's another group of the mega-wealthy that's often overlooked.

Why don't we consider taxing the churches?

[kalm]

Meh. There's no such thing as a free lunch...or something like that.

Yes, I'm sure that's what Friedman meant and I'm sure he believed that all wealth belonged with government to be dealt out to businesses, organizations, and individuals as that government saw fit.

Just working on my conk bona fides.

[ASUMountaineer]

Good post, GF.

Actually, it's not. Its a decent description of what is and what is is wrong.

GF, Hen, Hogan and the rest of the delusional and weak would rather the issue of taxing their stupid religion never be brought up. The fact is, people are rapidly and finally seeing religion for what it is - a for profit business no different than Madoff Capital Mgt, Enron, AIG and McDonalds. People are seeing religion as a waste of time and human capital, finally, and it being not worthy of exemption.

We should be having these discussions and religion should be investigated and highly scrutinized and taxed. I and other humanists and peaceful people who have shed the fairy tales should not be forced to financially support a religion.

Cool rant, bro. I don't think I have as much hate as you do towards anything--not even Georgia Southern. I'm ok with religion not being involved in politics, and I also agree with GF's post. I'm sorry you don't, but then again...as a humanist, you should be ok with people having differing viewpoints.

[D1B]

Here's an excellent article that hit the nail on the head regarding religion and taxation..

Kinda funny that you'd post 90% of the article, but not the intro or the source. Would see this was written by a pretty staunch socialist (who also just happens to be an athiest). No agend here.

I bring this up because, thanks to the Occupy protests, inequality has come to dominate the American political conversation. Poverty and inequality are at their highest levels since the Great Depression, and there's a growing clamor to raise taxes on the wealthy to provide more opportunity for the rest of us. I think this is an excellent idea, and I'd like to suggest that beside Wall Street bankers and stock traders, there's another group of the mega-wealthy that's often overlooked.

Why don't we consider taxing the churches?

Because its irrelevant and i posted the link for fucks like you. No shit captain obvious that those behind the tax argument are atheists.

[D1B]

Actually, it's not. Its a decent description of what is and what is is wrong.

GF, Hen, Hogan and the rest of the delusional and weak would rather the issue of taxing their stupid religion never be brought up. The fact is, people are rapidly and finally seeing religion for what it is - a for profit business no different than Madoff Capital Mgt, Enron, AIG and McDonalds. People are seeing religion as a waste of time and human capital, finally, and it being not worthy of exemption.

We should be having these discussions and religion should be investigated and highly scrutinized and taxed. I and other humanists and peaceful people who have shed the fairy tales should not be forced to financially support a religion.

Cool rant, bro. I don't think I have as much hate as you do towards anything--not even Georgia Southern. I'm ok with religion not being involved in politics, and I also agree with GF's post. I'm sorry you don't, but then again...as a humanist, you should be ok with people having differing viewpoints.

No i shouldnt. I should fight for what is right. The church should be taxed.

[D1B]

Actually, it's not. Its a decent description of what is and what is is wrong.

GF, Hen, Hogan and the rest of the delusional and weak would rather the issue of taxing their stupid religion never be brought up. The fact is, people are rapidly and finally seeing religion for what it is - a for profit business no different than Madoff Capital Mgt, Enron, AIG and McDonalds. People are seeing religion as a waste of time and human capital, finally, and it being not worthy of exemption.

We should be having these discussions and religion should be investigated and highly scrutinized and taxed. I and other humanists and peaceful people who have shed the fairy tales should not be forced to financially support a religion.

So other than you disparaging mine and other's beliefs, what do you have that I didn't say? I was very clear that the reason we don't tax them is that a majority of people in this country, and most everywhere, believe that we shouldn't tax them, for a variety of reasons. Obviously, if the majority of people held your beliefs, then the opposite would be true and we would tax them. What's so controversial about that?

Oh, and not taxing something is not automatically a conclusion that we are supporting something. That comes from the weird perspective that everything should be naturally taxed and then anything that we don't tax and the government "gives away" is therefore supporting it. But that's a different discussion.

Its a business so tax em. No one should be forced to support your stupid fairy tales and your fucking pedophiles.

[Baldy]

This is on my radar right behind reorganizing my sock drawer, but be careful what you wish for....
If you think religious institutions are too involved in the political process now, just wait and see how involved they will be once you take away their tax exempt status.

[JohnStOnge]

One positive of taxing churches is there would no longer be any incentive for churches to remain silent on political issues. Right now tax policy is basically used to silence Church dissent. Getting rid of that situation might not be a bad thing.

[JohnStOnge]

This is on my radar right behind reorganizing my sock drawer, but be careful what you wish for....
If you think religious institutions are too involved in the political process now, just wait and see how involved they will be once you take away their tax exempt status.

I didn't see that before I posted. But I can see that you're thinking along the lines that I'm thinking.

Tax policy has been used to repress the participation of religious institutions in the political process. Take away the "hammer" of threatening to deny tax exempt status and that repression is going to be a whole lot more difficult.

[Tod]

This is on my radar right behind reorganizing my sock drawer, but be careful what you wish for....
If you think religious institutions are too involved in the political process now, just wait and see how involved they will be once you take away their tax exempt status.

I didn't see that before I posted. But I can see that you're thinking along the lines that I'm thinking.

Tax policy has been used to repress the participation of religious institutions in the political process. Take away the "hammer" of threatening to deny tax exempt status and that repression is going to be a whole lot more difficult.

Then why don't the churches just do it? I know some of them intentionally push the envelope, hoping for a court challenge, but the bigger, richer ones could simply give up their tax-exempt status and say what they want.

But greed gets in the way.

[kalm]

Yeah...churches aren't political.

[Baldy]

Yeah...churches aren't political.

Yeah, I don't see where anyone said that. What I am saying is...If you think they are too political now, just take away their tax exempt status and see what happens.

[Baldy]

Then why don't the churches just do it? I know some of them intentionally push the envelope, hoping for a court challenge, but the bigger, richer ones could simply give up their tax-exempt status and say what they want.

But greed gets in the way.

Of course...its all about that evil GREED!!!!

There are exceptions to every rule, but the vast majority of churches are benevolent organizations and I would rather them take that money to feed and clothe the needy than give it to the government so they can throw it down the drain.

Tod, why do you hate the poor and needy so much?

[D1B]

Then why don't the churches just do it? I know some of them intentionally push the envelope, hoping for a court challenge, but the bigger, richer ones could simply give up their tax-exempt status and say what they want.

But greed gets in the way.

Of course...its all about that evil GREED!!!!

There are exceptions to every rule, but the vast majority of churches are benevolent organizations and I would rather them take that money to feed and clothe the needy than give it to the government so they can throw it down the drain.

Tod, why do you hate the poor and needy so much?

Bullshit. The majority of the money taken in by a church clothes and feeds its priests and pays for indoctrination programs, advertising and the upkeep of its buildings and land holdings. In most churches, charitable endeavors that do not require or involve indoctrination take up a miniscule percentage of revenues.

Baldy

[D1B]

Yeah...churches aren't political.

Yeah, I don't see where anyone said that. What I am saying is...If you think they are too political now, just take away their tax exempt status and see what happens.

Yeah, go for it. More people will be disgusted by them.

[kalm]

Yeah...churches aren't political.

Yeah, I don't see where anyone said that. What I am saying is...If you think they are too political now, just take away their tax exempt status and see what happens.

Holy crap! You mean they might really really lend support to anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-sepertaion efforts?

[D1B]

Yeah, I don't see where anyone said that. What I am saying is...If you think they are too political now, just take away their tax exempt status and see what happens.

Holy crap! You mean they might really really lend support to anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-sepertaion efforts?

No shit, I say tax the fucks and let them loose for everyone to laugh at em. People will be leaving organized religion in even higher numbers than they are now.

[JoltinJoe]

We should tax fat stupid people.

[Baldy]

Yeah, I don't see where anyone said that. What I am saying is...If you think they are too political now, just take away their tax exempt status and see what happens.

Holy crap! You mean they might really really lend support to anti-gay, anti-porn, anti-sepertaion efforts?

*sigh*

Again...I haven't seen a single comment from anyone saying that churches aren't political (generally speaking).

What is your point?