2017 Tax Bill Has Churches Start Paying Some Taxes

[Revoltingest]

State universities dont pay taxes, and they are redundant publicly funded floating cities whose primary function is to restrict access to jobs much like guilds.

- They pay payroll taxes to the state & the fed.
- Their employees pay income tax on some benefits.
- They're actually part of state government.
This I know from leasing to university departments.
- State universities' primary functions are education
& research, not job access restraints.
That's a really odd claim.

They are complicit in granting monopoly power to a corrupt textbook industry, which buys and destroys all used textbooks such that our public libraries are almost devoid of higher quality technical resources. But its the churches that ought to pay taxes?

Complaining about textbook prices has
nothing to do with churches paying taxes.

What about we non university goers? What about those who do not frequent zoos and national parks? I do not use Route 66. Why did I ever pay taxes on that? I am subsidizing Hollywood!

Those are governmental functions, not religious.
This shouldn't be a tit for tat, ie, that if government escapes
taxing itself, then churches should get the same. Churches
have tried to make the argument that they're exempt from
law enforcement, & must handle things from within.
We've all seen what evil that hath wrought.

Churches today enforce silence upon themselves or the govco would not have any sway. They are big boys and are responsible for their own problems. In fact the problems in our govco can be laid at the feet of the churches, but taxing churches does not seem like a solution though it would solve some university bloat to tax state universities.

I don't propose taxing churches to be a solution to anything.
It's just fair & legal. End the free ride, & allow'm more speech.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Complaining about textbook prices has
nothing to do with churches paying taxes.

I merely point out that you complain churches are subsidized, but even if that were true there are much worse excesses elsewhere which are more actionable. Churches are untaxable.

not job access restraints.
That's a really odd claim.

Ok, leave that tangent.

State universities' primary functions are education
& research,

The promise of low cost high quality education is why we keep them around, and its why they are considered charitable. The research attracts and boosts industry, and that is why we allow them to amass wealth. In the public eye churches provide another kind of service, albeit one you do not recognize. People attend churches voluntarily and consider them important community meeting places. To replace them with public squares and shelters would cost a lot in taxes. Churches help with domestic issues, work with the homeless and do other charitable work.

They pay payroll taxes to the state & the fed.
- Their employees pay income tax on some benefits.
- They're actually part of state government.
This I know from leasing to university departments.

Yet a university does not help with domestic problems or provide shelter or basic services. They do not provide governance, logistical support or emergency support except minimally and for their own staff. In that respect they are quite different from state institutions.

I don't propose taxing churches to be a solution to anything.
It's just fair & legal. End the free ride, & allow'm more speech.

How is it fair when churches are non profits, and what free ride? They are supported by charitable contributions. Why should charities be taxed?

 

[Revoltingest]

I merely point out that you complain churches are subsidized, but even if that were true there are much worse excesses elsewhere which are more actionable.

You wouldn't be suggesting that if something somewhere is wrong,
it should be ignored if something else somewhere else is worse now,
would you?

Churches are untaxable.

This isn't quite true.
They pay payroll taxes on employees.
The only question is to what extent churches should be subsidized.

The promise of low cost high quality education is why we keep them around, and its why they are considered charitable. The research attracts and boosts industry, and that is why we allow them to amass wealth. In the public eye churches provide another kind of service, albeit one you do not recognize. People attend churches voluntarily and consider them important community meeting places. To replace them with public squares and shelters would cost a lot in taxes. Churches help with domestic issues, work with the homeless and do other charitable work.

Churches are not public squares, which are open to all.
They do some charitable work, but they exist primarily
to serve themselves, ie, the members.

Yet a university does not help with domestic problems or provide shelter or basic services. They do not provide governance, logistical support or emergency support except minimally and for their own staff. In that respect they are quite different from state institutions.

State universities are still part of state government.
And they pay payroll taxes, just as everyone else does.
Note that churches aren't required to do charitable work,
nor is this audited.

How is it fair when churches are non profits, and what free ride? They are supported by charitable contributions. Why should charities be taxed?

When a charity hires workers & owns buildings, it consumes services.
The workers consume services, & they are part of the payroll tax
system. If they're given perquisites which are taxable in the for profit
world, then they should be so in the non-profit world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You wouldn't be suggesting that if something somewhere is wrong,
it should be ignored if something else somewhere else is worse now,
would you?

Nothing so general as that, but a broken leg is worse than a sprain and requires priority.

This isn't quite true.
They pay payroll taxes on employees.
The only question is to what extent churches should be subsidized.

They are supported by charitable contributions, but unlike other charities are not subsidized as they are not taxable because of separation of church and state.

Churches are not public squares, which are open to all.
They do some charitable work, but they exist primarily
to serve themselves, ie, the members.

They do not sell services and have to rely on contributions of members who are already heavily taxed. Why should they be taxed again through reduction of their contributions?

State universities are still part of state government.
And they pay payroll taxes, just as everyone else does.
Note that churches aren't required to do charitable work,
nor is this audited.

They are charities and considered to be charitable work, and they are not allowed to support themselves with normal business arrangements. A corporation could try to call itself a church I suppose, but that would be different as it would be selling products or services.

When a charity hires workers & owns buildings, it consumes services.
The workers consume services, & they are part of the payroll tax
system. If they're given perquisites which are taxable in the for profit
world, then they should be so in the non-profit world

Their pay, however, comes from contributions; and taxing them reduces the effectiveness of the contributions. It is like a tax on the contributions, kind of like taxing contributions directly.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nothing so general as that, but a broken leg is worse than a sprain and requires priority.

I say that both can be addressed.
One needn't exclude the other.

They are supported by charitable contributions, but unlike other charities are not subsidized as they are not taxable because of separation of church and state.

Separation of church & state is best served by not giving subsidizing tax
exemptions, which are then used to justify quelling political speech.

They do not sell services and have to rely on contributions of members who are already heavily taxed.

This is true of other non-profits too.;

Why should they be taxed again through reduction of their contributions?

Because they're compensating workers, & trying to avoid their paying taxes on it.

They are charities and considered to be charitable work, and they are not allowed to support themselves with normal business arrangements. A corporation could try to call itself a church I suppose, but that would be different as it would be selling products or services.

Their pay, however, comes from contributions; and taxing them reduces the effectiveness of the contributions. It is like a tax on the contributions, kind of like taxing contributions directly.

Other non-profits pay taxes, & the recipients of benefits pay taxes.
Would you extend the same subsidies to them too?
I wouldn't.
All who have real estate should pay for the services which taxes fuel.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I say that both can be addressed.
One needn't exclude the other.

With only so much political capital, we must focus on the most obvious and doable projects.

Separation of church & state is best served by not giving subsidizing tax
exemptions, which are then used to justify quelling political speech.

Separation of church and state has been supported by current policy, so why rock the boat?

they're compensating workers, & trying to avoid their paying taxes on it.

This is your best argument. They pay workers. If the workers are not volunteers then their incomes are no longer religious. Why if the work is religious are the workers paid?

Other non-profits pay taxes, & the recipients of benefits pay taxes.
Would you extend the same subsidies to them too?
I wouldn't.

For separation of church and state I would accept earthquakes and volcanoes.

All who have real estate should pay for the services which taxes fuel.

What is your position on taxing graveyards?

 

[Revoltingest]

With only so much political capital, we must focus on the most obvious and doable projects.

Churches paying more taxes looks doable.
Moreover, it happened.
Now all we need is for politicians to resist
calls to back off on the change.

Separation of church and state has been supported by current policy, so why rock the boat?

Because the boat is leaky.
The tax subsidy comes with strings attached, ie, political silence.

This is your best argument. They pay workers. If the workers are not volunteers then their incomes are no longer religious. Why if the work is religious are the workers paid?

The tax change affects people who are both religious and workers.
And the workers are the ones paying the tax on benefits received.
The church might only need to send a form 1099 or similar.

What is your position on taxing graveyards?

They should pay real estate taxes.

 

[fantome profane]

In the public eye churches provide another kind of service, albeit one you do not recognize.

This is the point right here. You are asking the state to recognize and to subsidize the church. And that goes against the idea of separation.

 

[Milton Platt]

I take it that History isn’t your subject. Or, you’ve been educated by the left wing educational system of America. The same left wing that supports the fascist Anti-Fa and other Democrats who are following the playbook of Hitler and Aulinsky all rolled up into one.
Again, there is a purpose for the 1st Amendment. To keep Government from controlling Churches and their religions. Once there is that bond of money through taxation Government leaders who hate God, guns and their religions will exercise tyranny and a church favored by the government will exercise unrighteous dominion over all other religions and freedom of thought.
It isn’t about paying a fair share, as if life is fair. It’s about liberty, freedom of religion and thought, freedom of speech and we know money talks too much. The founding fathers were truly inspired of God.

Have an agenda much? So I guess you dodged the education system entirely, then?
How is paying taxes a bond to the government? Is the act of a church using government funded roads and utilities bonding, then? I rather think that forcing others who do not share the religious beliefs to subsidize the churches is promoting a religion.

I am open to evidence supporting your assertion, though. Provide and example or two out of history that shows a bond is formed with government when an institution pays taxes.

 

[tytlyf]

Have an agenda much?

They always repeat the same things. Propagandists teach them.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Besides missing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution understanding, only large churches will be able to shoulder the extra costs squeezing small rural and other churches from existing. Which is fine for atheists. But, bad for America.

It's amazing where the doctrine of Christian faith goes in matters like this.