2017 Tax Bill Has Churches Start Paying Some Taxes

[tytlyf]

What politicians do not try to push their own religious values?
This is one reason we have the Supreme Court.

Democratic ones. You know, being Pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Not anti-choice like the evangelical right. That's an example of pushing religious law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Democratic ones. You know, being Pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Not anti-choice like the evangelical right. That's an example of pushing religious law.

Hah!
Democrats so often tout their Christian faith.
It's why Bill & Hillary opposed gay marriage...
....back when even Dick Cheney favored it.

 

[tytlyf]

Hah!
Democrats so often tout their Christian faith.
It's why Bill & Hillary opposed gay marriage...
....back when even Dick Cheney favored it.

Correct, the majority of democrats are white christians. The difference is you don't see democrats pushing religious law like republicans. Republicans do it to keep the evangelical base on their side.

Thankfully, true patriots like the FFRF defend the constitution from the religious right. And they always win. Because the constitution is on the side of secularism, not religious law.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct, the majority of democrats are white christians. The difference is you don't see democrats pushing religious law like republicans. Republicans do it to keep the evangelical base on their side.

Thankfully, true patriots like the FFRF defend the constitution from the religious right. And they always win. Because the constitution is on the side of secularism, not religious law.

Christians in the Democratic Party still push laws per their own religious values.
They're just stealthier about them. Sneakier.

 

[tytlyf]

Christians in the Democratic Party still push laws per their own religious values.
They're just stealthier about them. Sneakier.

Uhuh. Guess which propaganda technique you just used....again. Same one too.

 

[Revoltingest]

Guess which propaganda technique you just used....again.

Critical observation?

Ya know, you should be the last person on RF to accuse another of "propaganda".

 

[tytlyf]

Critical observation?

Ya know, you should be the last person on RF to accuse another of "propaganda".

I'll play. Go find something I said and tell me what technique.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What politicians do not try to push their own religious values?
This is one reason we have the Supreme Court.

Why do you think the supreme court is a failsafe against theocracy? You start taxing churches they will have a real interest in government, and taxing church employees is a half step towards regulating religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you think the supreme court is a failsafe against theocracy?

Because they rule on the constitutionality of laws.
And the Constitution requires separation of church & state.

You start taxing churches they will have a real interest in government, and taxing church employees is a half step towards regulating religion.

Churches & members already have an interest in government & politics.
To require churches to pay taxes like everyone else wouldn't increase
regulation of them. It would simply curb their free ride on the backs of
taxpayers.
Consider that we also have freedom of the press.
Does your argument mean that they shouldn't pay any taxes either?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Because they rule on the constitutionality of laws.
And the Constitution requires separation of church & state.

They rule on the constitutionality of laws, and yet they do not always notice unconstitutional laws, can ignore appeals, can change their rulings... Did you notice that income tax has been unconstitutional from the beginning? How about social security cards and govt issued ID? The supreme court is in many cases a lame duck, a big rubber stamper.

Churches & members already have an interest in government & politics.
To require churches to pay taxes like everyone else wouldn't increase
regulation of them. It would simply curb their free ride on the backs of
taxpayers.
Consider that we also have freedom of the press.
Does your argument mean that they shouldn't pay any taxes either?

Requiring religious institutions to pay taxes 'Like everyone else' cannot happen without audits, government oversight, attendance counts, membership lists. Tax alone is a huge discouragement against starting up churches, hence unconstitutional; but that is not the issue. Constitutionality is meaningless to many citizens. They dont believe in it, except at moments. The issue is increased connection and a collusion between church and state using churches to collect taxes. Another issue is privacy. Does govco now get to know what my religion is, whether I attend and how much I donate?

 

[Mister Emu]

Separation of church & state doesn't mean that churches should get free services, eg, fire protection, police, roads.

The supreme court has already ruled that less entanglement of government and religion is found in granting just those services that serve public interest than in taxing churches in order to financially support government.

It's one thing to have a political party, it's another to be elected to the federal government dictating religious law. That's unconstitutional.

As is taxing churches as if they are any other organization. It is quite possible that if a church constitutionally challenged the authority of 501.c.3 to demand they not endorse political candidates it could fail, much less if any law was passed to directly tax all churches and faith organizations.

It is one of the major founding principles of our nation, and a vital liberty, that taxation and representation are bound in an essential manner. There were 172 Billion dollars of agricultural subsidy in 2010 according to wikipedia. Tax churches and you could easily see the same for religious institutions.

 

[Revoltingest]

They rule on the constitutionality of laws, and yet they do not always notice unconstitutional laws, can ignore appeals, can change their rulings... Did you notice that income tax has been unconstitutional from the beginning? How about social security cards and govt issued ID? The supreme court is in many cases a lame duck, a big rubber stamper.

SCOTUS only notices all suits which are brought to it.
Income tax was made legal in the 16th Amendment.
What about SS cards & government issued ID?

Requiring religious institutions to pay taxes 'Like everyone else' cannot happen without audits, government oversight, attendance counts, membership lists.

Membership lists aren't required for tax payment.
In this particular case, it's only when workers receive taxable benefits.

Tax alone is a huge discouragement against starting up churches, hence unconstitutional; but that is not the issue.

That paying taxes discourages activity is not at all unconstitutional.
It discourages starting a business, running a newspaper, etc, and
yet those enterprises still arise & thrive.

You say it's not the issue, but then why bring it up?

Constitutionality is meaningless to many citizens. They dont believe in it, except at moments. The issue is increased connection and a collusion between church and state using churches to collect taxes. Another issue is privacy. Does govco now get to know what my religion is, whether I attend and how much I donate?

Back to my earlier question.....

To require churches to pay taxes like everyone else wouldn't increase
regulation of them. It would simply curb their free ride on the backs of
taxpayers.
Consider that we also have freedom of the press.
Does your argument mean that they shouldn't pay any taxes either?

 

[Revoltingest]

The supreme court has already ruled that less entanglement of government and religion is found in granting just those services that serve public interest than in taxing churches in order to financially support government.

A link supporting the claim would be nice.

Would you go so far as to say that church shouldn't pay any payroll taxes on employees?

As is taxing churches as if they are any other organization. It is quite possible that if a church constitutionally challenged the authority of 501.c.3 to demand they not endorse political candidates it could fail, much less if any law was passed to directly tax all churches and faith organizations.

As a big fan of free speech, I favor churches endorsing whomever they wish.

Pay your taxes & speak your mind.
That's how it should be.

It is one of the major founding principles of our nation, and a vital liberty, that taxation and representation are bound in an essential manner. There were 172 Billion dollars of agricultural subsidy in 2010 according to wikipedia. Tax churches and you could easily see the same for religious institutions.

And I will be there to oppose any increase in church subsidies.

I don't believe the slippery slope argument that if churches lose one subsidy
(tax exclusion) that this will open the door to additional subsidies being given.

 

[Brickjectivity]

SCOTUS only notices all suits which are brought to it.
Income tax was made legal in the 16th Amendment.
What about SS cards & government issued ID?

It was added to the Constitution but should have been repealed. There should not be a direct Federal tax. States should tax and then contribute to the federal level. Anything else is an attack on our union. Sure it got us into space and helped us win wars, but its feeding a central govco that just cant say no to spending. Unconstitutional. Notice nobody cares about local elections? Its because of federal taxation.

Membership lists aren't required for tax payment.
In this particular case, it's only when workers receive taxable benefits.

So when the IRS inevitably audits churches they will not be required to identify sources of income?

That paying taxes discourages activity is not at all unconstitutional.
It discourages starting a business, running a newspaper, etc, and
yet those enterprises still arise & thrive.

You say it's not the issue, but then why bring it up?

You have the balls to say newspapers are thriving? Only the big ones can afford to pay their taxes. The taxes are helping to kill the little ones off.

Back to my earlier question.....

To require churches to pay taxes like everyone else wouldn't increase
regulation of them. It would simply curb their free ride on the backs of
taxpayers.
Consider that we also have freedom of the press.
Does your argument mean that they shouldn't pay any taxes either?

I guess if they were thriving as you say you would have a stronger argument, but as is plain newspapers have been dying like mayflies over the past forty years. Maybe its evidence that freedom of the press has been infringed through taxation.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was added to the Constitution but should have been repealed. There should not be a direct Federal tax. States should tax and then contribute to the federal level. Anything else is an attack on our union. Sure it got us into space and helped us win wars, but its feeding a central govco that just cant say no to spending. Unconstitutional. Notice nobody cares about local elections? Its because of federal taxation.

I have my problems with the 16th Amendment too, eg, no limit on
the percentage they can take, no requirement for GAAP (generally
accepted accounting practices), no presumption of innocence.
But it is nonetheless part of the Constitution.

So when the IRS inevitably audits churches they will not be required to identify sources of income?

Yes, this is something the rest of us all face.
It's no big deal.

You have the balls......

k
Language there, kitten!

....to say newspapers are thriving? Only the big ones can afford to pay their taxes. The taxes are helping to kill the little ones off.

I read the Drudge report daily.
Many diverse newspapers show up there.

I guess if they were thriving as you say you would have a stronger argument, but as is plain newspapers have been dying like mayflies over the past forty years. Maybe its evidence that freedom of the press has been infringed through taxation.

Print papers are dying not because of taxes, but due to
the cost of newsprint & labor, & electronic competition.
But the above is not the issue.
You argued that freedom of religion requires exemption
from taxes. But freedom of the press doesn't have this
same requirement. So something is wrong with your
claim about church exemption.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I wouldn't even mind the continuation of full tax exemption, were religious organizations actually good at reinvesting those savings into their communities, like they were supposed to... The whole premise of tax exemption for religious organizations and non-profits hinges on their charity and samaritan work. Without it, they become a selfish leech on the rest of society.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't even mind the continuation of full tax exemption, were religious organizations actually good at reinvesting those savings into their communities, like they were supposed to... The whole premise of tax exemption for religious organizations and non-profits hinges on their charity and samaritan work. Without it, they become a selfish leech on the rest of society.

But even the most sainted charities must pay payroll taxes on their employees.
The tax change simply extends this to benefits which would be taxable for any business.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But even the most sainted charities must pay payroll taxes on their employees.
The tax change simply extends this to benefits which would be taxable for any business.

Don't get me wrong. The current state of churches and non-profits is so bad nationally that I believe they should pay the same rates as any other organization, because that's really all they are at this point. Charitable spending is less than 6% nationally. That's pocketing 94% of donations and income for in-house upgrades, growth, and profits, which is just not cool.

I was more trying to make a comment on the double-edged nature of their need for exemptions in the first place. If they aren't doing charity work, then what good are they? We don't get to have exemptions because our thoughts are nice.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't get me wrong. The current state of churches and non-profits is so bad nationally that I believe they should pay the same rates as any other organization, because that's really all they are at this point. Charitable spending is less than 6% nationally. That's pocketing 94% of donations and income for in-house upgrades, growth, and profits, which is just not cool.

I was more trying to make a comment on the double-edged nature of their need for exemptions in the first place. If they aren't doing charity work, then what good are they? We don't get to have exemptions because our thoughts are nice.

Even if 100% of their money went to charitable works, they
& their workers should still pay taxes like the rest of us.
Of course, as non-profits, they'd still have no income tax.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Even if 100% of their money went to charitable works, they
& their workers should still pay taxes like the rest of us.
Of course, as non-profits, they'd still have no income tax.

Agreed