Printable View
much as i find tax annoying i know it is essential. I don't enjoy paying it, but without it we wouldn't have the things we need.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
just one example....Where would our homeland security be?...we need that to protect us all...church included. So if the church enjoys the protection why shouldn't it ante up like the rest of us.
remember as i have already pointed out i am talking about "the church", meaning human based practices of worship methods.......not God.
...and without taxes, how would our politicians pocket all that PAC money. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You miss the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Your tax contribution also funds the foreign aid and other things done overseas in the name of the USA that are ostensibly the cause of the terrorism which makes Homeland Security necessary.
A chicken/egg thing, really.
..Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
isn't that my point?...where would that contradict me thinking churches should be taxed?
i gave one example...i don't have to delve into the "knock on" effect.
As a tax payer i have to accept that my money isn't always used as i wish. I made this point on another thread where the woman wanted a promise that not one tax dollar would go to pay for an abortion...well we can't have it our way all the time. seems to me that churches enjoy that nasty thing... "positive discrimination"
It would seem that you are afflicted with a sense of fatalism where your taxes are concerned, vid.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Why do you feel so helpless?
There is nothing stopping your objection.
As was recalled here recently:
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing..."
I assume you could be counted upon to summon an argument against any attempt to (for example) withdraw tax monies used to make abortion available to a single mother who could not afford same.
Would you support a massive government-funded campaign to promote abstinence (rather than condoms) among school children?
Or would you "accept" that, with regard to this question, you can't "have it your way"?
Do you attempt to influence the political process with anything apart from, or in addition to, your vote?
Would a self-respecting Jennifer Government groupie do it for real?
Not at all...I accept the fact that in a democracy we have to accept that we can't have it all our own way.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
How could i possibly seek to deny tax spending on things i disagree with if i want spending on things i like but others don't? I live in reality and the word of the day is "compromise"...without it society would cease to function.
Sounds like politics to me.
As it's slow in here i will expand
yes i would argue against it..i already haveQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I wouldn't support it if it ignored condoms etc. Texas has a program of sorts along those lines and it has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the country.Quote:
Would you support a massive government-funded campaign to promote abstinence (rather than condoms) among school children?
Yes promote abstinence...but the fact is that teenagers DO have sex... and if they do they should know how to do it as safely as possible.
One thing i learnt pretty quickly as a parent that the best way to get a child to do something is to tell them not to.:lol:
already ansered with the need for compromiseQuote:
Or would you "accept" that, with regard to this question, you can't "have it your way"?
I am not a political activist, but i do use my vote.Quote:
Do you attempt to influence the political process with anything apart from, or in addition to, your vote?
On the odd occasions i have had contact with people in politics (at various levels) i do put them on the spot if the opportunity arises.
You are engaging in a type of activism merely by being here, vid.
Why bother trying to change my mind, if you couldn't be bothered to pester your representatives?
They are not in any way exceptional other than that they are unusually thick-headed.
I have enlightened a few of them; maybe you should try it.
Religions should be taxed, based on exactly the same criteria of any other company.
Those that say that its a non-profit making enterprise, please explain to me how all these TV preachers are millionaires, the Catholic Church has so much wealth, What the Latter Day Saints spend their Tithes on etc etc etc...
Sorry, they should be audited and taxed accordingly.... no one says that the Clerics shouldnt live, but to buy Gold Candlesticks, while their flocks are starving isnt my idea of non-profit...
Well... they keep tax free status because the money is purely based on donations. There is no requirement for service or wares.
Hell, I'm as pissed at these televangelists being millionares and driving beamers as the rest; it's pure extortion, but this does not portray religious America as a whole.
Most of a Waitress' or Taxi Drivers income is based upon Donations (Tips)... Guess what?Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
They're taxed...
again...
There is no requirement for service or wares.
and they are individual persons, well a church is not: more corporate.
Then why have them?Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
No one makes you tip a waitress, no one makes you give to a Church...
Same principle.
If they are actually non-profit, then their books willl show they are. However, i wouldnt class Liimo's and Gold Candlesticks as Tax deductable
:rolleyes:
Edit: After Mannies edit..
And Corporations shouldnt be taxed? :rolleyes:Quote:
and they are individual persons, well a church is not: more corporate.
well, wouldn't they be taxed on limos and gold candlesticks accordingly?
If they were taxed...which currently they arent.
HAvent you read the thread? :unsure:
And Corporations shouldnt be taxed? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
misspoke,..my mistake...
I ment that they're more of an entity, not such as a individual. They church is usually made up of its fellow members, and is considered such. Well sure busnesses can pass on taxes to consumers, churches can't.
no, there are such things as sales tax and such that the church would be paying if they want such products.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If you think having any equity cancels out being non profit; then surely no one would qualify
The books would show if there was a profit element.
For example; if a Charity takes in money, and only pays wages and accumulates money, then its making a profit..
If it pays out to whatever it was set up to help, then that would not be a profit.
The Churches are no different: IF they are making a profit, they should pay taxes accordingly, if they arent they shouldnt. They should be audited, like any other organisation.
If the Church is treated as a charity or a non profit organisation then the employees of the church are still taxed. At least they are in the UK via Pay As You Earn.
I've not brushed up on the conceptual framework recently but I would imagine that a similar system is operated in the U.S. Therefore the wages that these TV preachers earn would be taxed as they are profiting directly from their activities. However, I imagine that in congruence with our taxation laws here their expenses would not be taxable, this could feasibly include a multitude of luxuries.
So, in essence those charities that wish to pay their employees vast sums of money for their services do actually get taxed, leaving the charities which actually use their funds for the purposes the donors would appreciate the most, tax free.
I think this is fair in concept although as I've hinted there are many ways to abuse the system. Of course, such abuses are evident throughout entire sphere of tax collection.
This is all for moot though... If you want to open up the idea of taxing churches, prepare for the line between church and state to be abolished, because then churches would need representation in government. (as vid has stated).
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
wow...good point manker...thats what happends...(my father is a minister)
Correction.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.
If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.
anybody or person has the right to lobby government...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
but if they are to make campaign contributions and the such, then they should be taxed.
@ j2
By not being a political activist i don't go on marches and i don't go to court to "make policy"
I don't sit at my computer writing my congress "person" /senator.
but i do
I've been to both the republican and the democrat campaign offices in my town and given them a hard time.... after all the only time a politician is interested in mine or your views is when he/she needs your vote.Quote:
On the odd occasions i have had contact with people in politics (at various levels) i do put them on the spot if the opportunity arises.
I don't spend my life lobbying because i don't have any particular "special interests" or agenda that i feel i have the right to force upon others.
Non commercial lobbyists often appear to be groups that want to stop someone elses freedoms
RF, They have to adhere to strict guidelines in order to maintain their non-profit status. This often includes paying tax via other channels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If their profit level is either 'substantial' or above 10% of their income then they lose their 'special status' and have to pay tax. Investing in property and gold candlesticks does not affect this as they are examples of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.
Again, this is subject to abuse via creative accounting and plain fraud, but the point is that the system is in place such that these charities cannot make vast sums of money without paying the taxman.
Isnt that what ive been saying should happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
:blink:
The Tax Free position being argued is that in the US...
I know our tax rules...i work for em :unsure:
It would be very similar in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
That's my point. It probably is happening as you'd wish it - to a certain extent. I don't know the US tax rules on this particular point but in general ours and their tax system is based on the same principles. Some people laugh at the conceptual framework but it has had the effect of a certain amount of homogenisation with the UK and US tax systems in the past 10 years or more.
I'd be really surprised if the TV preachers weren't taxed, likewise the charities not having to adhere to certain rules to maintain their status. Plus the candlesticks and property investments could never be used to lower the profits in a revenue sense in any western country that I'm aware of.
Just my two cents, since I'm here reading ruthies brilliance...
The Catholic Church is worth over $100,000,000,000... They should be taxed, at least property tax. About fifteen years ago the property the Church owned along the Hudson River in Upstate New York in just my area was worth over $9,000,000. That should be taxed. It would lower the local tax burden on all the people in the surrounding towns, a very charitable action, if you ask me. A priests minimal "income" shouldn't.
...and, as RF has already pointed out, they do have representation. Every Christian religion in the US does. Half the country thinks the US is some kind of divine intervention. Every other major speech includes some reference to god. God bless America, In god we trust.
Jerry Falwell Ministries is classified by the IRS as a non-profit organization, making it exempt from paying federal income taxes on the money they collect from followers... reported at $12.4 million for the year ending June 30, 2003. That, even more than the Catholic Church's holdings, should be taxed. Especially since Falwell, in his Falwell Confidential, expresses unabashed support for Bush and extols his sheep to follow his lead.
To take it even further (perhaps I can steal the liberal loonie crown from RF and Ruthie) religion is a farce and all "churches" should be taxed. What ever happened to rich men and eyes of needles and all that shit? Matthew 19:24
why, thank you honey. As usual, I appreciate your brilliance.
well I'll be amiss if I didn't think that this is ruthie's other halfQuote:
Originally Posted by scroff
tis true?
if not then truly; you are made for each other (sorry B :) )
Taxing religions is probably a non-starter. Any accountant worth his salt could produce an operating statement for a non-profit making organisation showing there is no surplus to tax. Remember it is not income that is taxed but profit.
Having said that, people like the Bakers in the US did a pretty good job in trying to blur the lines and bring most if not all tele-evangelism into disrepute.
Is it just me or have we digressed from J2's original homily on the spread of political correctness?
Edit: added the word no as that was my original intent.
It will never happen here...too many people of faithQuote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
Vidcc
Perhaps, and many faiths do use their surplus for worthy causes, taxation of which would not be desireable. It is, however, less agreeable to see such funds used to build flash follies and expensive cars for the charismatic leader/guru of the relevant cult/faith.
I was taken with the debate I saw on Yahoo regarding Halloween/Samhain. As it falls on a Sunday this year it is apparently causing a little (although presumably minor) ruckus in some US States. Most of the contributions were surprisingly balanced a well informed. It was pleasing to see.
tis true. Scroff is my love. :wub:Quote:
Originally Posted by spinningfreemanny
ShitBergerFlickel!!!:angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthie
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Lol.
There are other ways to tax. Like I said, paying property tax would be a real good start. And nutjobs like Falwell and Pat Robertson need to be "re-assessed" as a for profit organization. If they have to re-write the tax code to do it... so be it.
Oh, yea....
Sorry B...
Ok, I'll shut up now (at least in this thread)