PDA

View Full Version : Religion Speaking of closing loopholes: Religious Tax Exemptions cost US $71,000,000,000


healthpellets
06-18-2012, 06:42 PM
That's an estimated $71B every year that could be used on all sorts of fun things like healthcare, teacher salaries, roads, etc.

Has the time come to reexamine the necessity of religious tax exemptions?

The original study: http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=cragun_32_4

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/16/the-yearly-cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

We know churches get tax exemptions, but how much money does that actually come out to?

University of Tampa professor Ryan T. Cragun along with students Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega ran some calculations and figured out a number:

While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion — to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

So… chump change.

Their article (with a defense of how they calculated the amount) appears in the June/July 2012 issue of Free Inquiry.

“The issue of religious tax preferment is especially relevant now because the number of Americans living outside any religious tradition continues to grow,” said Tom Flynn, Free Inquiry’s editor. “That underscores the unfairness of taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize.”

The researchers already know what they’ll get criticized for:

… before we get into our calculations, we think it best to address a criticism that is likely to be raised about this article. By suggesting that these groups should pay taxes, we are likely to be criticized by those who think that religions are largely charitable institutions engaged in beneficial service or charitable work and should therefore be exempt from taxes.

Cue reporter Kimberly Winston‘s article in which she interviews a critic of this finding:

… Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said that Americans have made a democratic decision that religious institutions are good for our communities — believers and atheists alike.

“Whether it is the Quakers opposing slavery, Reverend King arguing for equality, or a Catholic soup kitchen feeding and sheltering all in need,” Rienzi said, “our history is full of examples confirming the great public benefit of our religious diversity.”

Right… because church leaders never use the pulpit to oppose civil rights for gay Americans, or speak out against affordable/accessible health-care for women, or use the extra money to buy themselves a larger house because Jesus wants them to be prosperous…

The researchers also ran a few other calculations:

States bypass an estimated $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes.

Capital gains tax exemptions for religious institutions may be as much as $41 million a year.

U.S. clergy may claim as much as $1.2 billion in tax exemptions annually via the parsonage allowance.

Given the current political scene, none of this is going to change anytime soon. Religious groups have far too much power in Washington and they’re not about to ask the government to remove their special privileges. But we can keep the pressure on.

Even if these calculations are proven to be off, the principle isn’t going to change: Religion is a business, churches get tax breaks they don’t really deserve, and we’d all be better off if they paid their fair share.

Ace Gunner
06-18-2012, 06:46 PM
They got americans singing the chorus lines now. Good for them.

Taco John
06-18-2012, 06:49 PM
A tax exemption doesn't cost anything.

Unless, of course, you count the money that is being exempted as the inherent property of the US Government - which is insane.

healthpellets
06-18-2012, 06:54 PM
A tax exemption doesn't cost anything.

Unless, of course, you count the money that is being exempted as the inherent property of the US Government - which is insane.

Let's think of it this way: Why should they be entitled to keeping all of their money, but not the rest of us? Their should be an equal playing field. So, either tax everyone, or tax no one.

While you might favor taxing no one, i think we both know that taxing everyone is a much more realistic alternative than taxing no one.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:15 PM
Has the time come to reexamine the necessity of religious tax exemptions?


That time passed many years ago, but better late than never.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 07:31 PM
You'll have to get rid of tax exemptions for charities then as well. I'd have no problem with that as long as the changes were consistent.

Garcia Bronco
06-18-2012, 07:33 PM
Most churches are charities. So if you want kill that...go ahead.

Chiefshrink
06-18-2012, 07:34 PM
A tax exemption doesn't cost anything.

Unless, of course, you count the money that is being exempted as the inherent property of the US Government - which is insane.

Precisely !

Cost who? Oh, Uncle Obama ! Screw him !

blaise
06-18-2012, 07:35 PM
Yeah, how dare those churches use money for poor people. Let's get at that money they're all using to live in luxurious homes.

blaise
06-18-2012, 07:38 PM
The portrayal that church donations are used so pastors can all live high on the hog is laughable. This isn't motivated by some desire for economic fairness. This is just anti-church.

Chiefshrink
06-18-2012, 07:41 PM
Let's think of it this way: Why should they be entitled to keeping all of their money, but not the rest of us? Their should be an equal playing field. So, either tax everyone, or tax no one.

While you might favor taxing no one, i think we both know that taxing everyone is a much more realistic alternative than taxing no one.

Oh the slippery slope to Marxism and serfdom for the people. Seriously, you don't realize how much most of these charities help people. You take that away you only make the beast/Fed Govt bigger and people more dependent and will get far less help in the short and long runs from the Fed making it even worse.:rolleyes:

jspchief
06-18-2012, 07:41 PM
Yeah, how dare those churches use money for poor people. Let's get at that money they're all using to live in luxurious homes.

Yeah they just ship it all off to poor people.

Chiefshrink
06-18-2012, 07:41 PM
The portrayal that church donations are used so pastors can all live high on the hog is laughable. This isn't motivated by some desire for economic fairness. This is just anti-church.

BINGO !!

morphius
06-18-2012, 07:42 PM
Sounds like a great way to keep even more help from getting to the poor.

jspchief
06-18-2012, 07:42 PM
BTW isn't this why hospitals affiliate with churches?

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:45 PM
You'll have to get rid of tax exemptions for charities then as well.

Why?

jspchief
06-18-2012, 07:49 PM
Why?

Because that's why churches are exempt. They are charities. Non profits.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:50 PM
The portrayal that church donations are used so pastors can all live high on the hog is laughable.

I agree. Some is used for settling lawsuits.

qabbaan
06-18-2012, 07:50 PM
The portrayal that church donations are used so pastors can all live high on the hog is laughable. This isn't motivated by some desire for economic fairness. This is just anti-church.

If you want to talk about hours worked, pastors probably put in more hours than anyone in any line of work.


More than anything, I think tax exemption protects religion from the state. This wall of separation keeps the state from establishing religion by dictating doctrine from Washington through tax credits, hikes, cuts, etc. Today, so long as churches don't violate a few major rules, the government can't tell them what to believe.

You can't have it both ways. If you want religion banished from public life and limited to occurring between those four walls as the left does, you can't try to say they have to fund the government. If you force them to fund your policies then they get to have a say in those policies.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:52 PM
Oh the slippery slope to Marxism and serfdom for the people. Seriously, you don't realize how much most of these charities help people. You take that away you only make the beast/Fed Govt bigger and people more dependent and will get far less help in the short and long runs from the Fed making it even worse.:rolleyes:

I thought the thread was about churches. You seem to be talking about charities.

notorious
06-18-2012, 07:56 PM
OK, since most churches operate at 0% profit, they would be paying 0% in taxes.


This is so fucking stupid words can't explain.......

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 07:56 PM
Because that's why churches are exempt. They are charities. Non profits.

Some charities have a mission of feeding people, housing people, drug rehab, wheatever. And some have a mission of preaching religion. I think there is a difference.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 08:00 PM
I thought the thread was about churches. You seem to be talking about charities.

The only church i can think of that shouldn't qualify as a charity is Scientology. please list the churches that wouldn't qualify as charities and please lay out explicit differences between those churches and many existing charities.

scott free
06-18-2012, 08:03 PM
I thought the thread was about churches. You seem to be talking about charities.

If you knew anything about a church, you'd know that any real one, of any denomination, IS a charity that does thousands of things for all kinds of people.

But keeping fighting the good fight anyway :thumb:

stonedstooge
06-18-2012, 08:06 PM
Funny, unions aren't taxed either

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 08:08 PM
The only church i can think of that shouldn't qualify as a charity is Scientology. please list the churches that wouldn't qualify as charities and please lay out explicit differences between those churches and many existing charities.

I can't say that I am familiar with every church in the country, but to focus on a few--the Catholic Church, any church that has a TV show, any church that has a facility that looks like you could hold a Van Halen concert in it.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 08:10 PM
If you knew anything about a church, you'd know that any real one, of any denomination, IS a charity that does thousands of things for all kinds of people.

But keeping fighting the good fight anyway :thumb:

Then they can take the normal deductions for such actual charitable activity. Money spent preaching who is and who isn't going to hell shouldn't qualify.

jspchief
06-18-2012, 08:14 PM
I can't say that I am familiar with every church in the country, but to focus on a few--the Catholic Church, any church that has a TV show, any church that has a facility that looks like you could hold a Van Halen concert in it.It's better enforcement of current laws that's the problem.

scott free
06-18-2012, 08:17 PM
Then they can take the normal deductions for such actual charitable activity. Money spent preaching who is and who isn't going to hell shouldn't qualify.

You're out of your mind, this isnt even worth discussing.

Good luck with the idea, get back to me on its progress.

healthpellets
06-18-2012, 08:17 PM
More than anything, I think tax exemption protects religion from the state. This wall of separation keeps the state from establishing religion by dictating doctrine from Washington through tax credits, hikes, cuts, etc. Today, so long as churches don't violate a few major rules, the government can't tell them what to believe.

You can't have it both ways. If you want religion banished from public life and limited to occurring between those four walls as the left does, you can't try to say they have to fund the government. If you force them to fund your policies then they get to have a say in those policies.

This is the only legitimate argument for continuing the current scheme.

However, there is little to no enforcement when it comes to enforcing the restrictions on electioneering in the house of zeus.

There needs to be strict enforcement, and swift punishment, for those who violate those restrictions.

InChiefsHell
06-18-2012, 08:22 PM
If you think the government will spend that better than the Church or charity, you are a complete utter fool. Or a liberal. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

La literatura
06-18-2012, 08:23 PM
Sounds like a great way to keep even more help from getting to the poor.

I agree with this comment. Churches are much more efficient at helping the poor than government.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 08:43 PM
You're out of your mind, this isnt even worth discussing.

Good luck with the idea, get back to me on its progress.

I have no expectation it will happen, but it should.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 08:46 PM
If you think the government will spend that better than the Church or charity, you are a complete utter fool. Or a liberal. Not that they are mutually exclusive.

For the most part, they spend money to enable them to preach who is and who isn't going to hell. Yes, even the government could put it to better use.

KC native
06-18-2012, 08:55 PM
I've actually always thought this was an interesting issue (especially as someone who figured out they were an athiest very early in life). A good portion of churches sit on some good real estate.

Why should I, as someone who pays property taxes, have to be subjected to their preferential tax treatment which deprives revenue from services that I actually use?

Dave Lane
06-18-2012, 08:56 PM
Id be all over it and jesus would to.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

blaise
06-18-2012, 09:38 PM
For the most part, they spend money to enable them to preach who is and who isn't going to hell. Yes, even the government could put it to better use.

No, they mostly spend it to give food to poor people.

Brock
06-18-2012, 09:42 PM
It only "cost" us money if it's our money. It isn't. The government gets enough money.

La literatura
06-18-2012, 09:47 PM
Let's be real: churches have overhead like businesses do. It takes money to heat up a large building in northern winters. But the salaries are typically much smaller than federal salaries, and the difference in benefits is extreme. Probably most of the costs go to maintenance, salary, and educational support if there is a parochial school or school system attached. I'd say less than a quarter of the budget will go to charity.

But if you close the tax deductions on religious organizations, that < quarter to charity is the first thing to go.

scott free
06-18-2012, 09:47 PM
No, they mostly spend it to give food to poor people.

Thats not even the half of it.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 09:56 PM
Basically this comes down to.. "I don't like churches (or certain churches) so let's get rid of tax breaks!" ... but unless you are willing to apply that to all charities you are being a hypocrite. Many charities promote agendas just as much as any church does. Oxfam anyone?

So you better be ready to get rid of ALL tax breaks or none at all.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 10:02 PM
Let's be real: churches have overhead like businesses do. It takes money to heat up a large building in northern winters. But the salaries are typically much smaller than federal salaries, and the difference in benefits is extreme. Probably most of the costs go to maintenance, salary, and educational support if there is a parochial school or school system attached. I'd say less than a quarter of the budget will go to charity.

But if you close the tax deductions on religious organizations, that < quarter to charity is the first thing to go.

Yeah, way less. As you said, overhead, overhead, overhead. There's very little cash directly given to or used for actual charity. You're more likely to see a volunteer drive for some charitable purpose or maybe a food drive, but that is not money given by the church.

If you want to contribute to feeding the hungry or clothes for poor kids, giving to a church to do so is probably the least efficient way of going about it. A church's mission is to preach the gospel and save souls, etc. If you want to help the poor, give to an organization who has a mission to do that.

Brock
06-18-2012, 10:07 PM
I don't care if churches give zero money to charity. If some people think the government needs more money, let them write the check. Spending too much doesn't mean the government needs more money, it means they're spending too much.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 10:13 PM
Basically this comes down to.. "I don't like churches (or certain churches) so let's get rid of tax breaks!" ... but unless you are willing to apply that to all charities you are being a hypocrite. Many charities promote agendas just as much as any church does. Oxfam anyone?

So you better be ready to get rid of ALL tax breaks or none at all.

A church, by definition (although you and patteeu are likely to want to change it) has a mission of teaching religion, preaching, saving souls, etc. That is their main purpose. That is very different from Harvesters or a food pantry or some other oganization/charity that has a mission of feeding/clothing/housing children, the elderly, the poor, etc.

morphius
06-18-2012, 10:48 PM
Yup, because every Church is just like a TV evangelist charecture you have built up in your head, wow, and you probably think people in Churches are sheltered, lol

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 11:00 PM
A church, by definition (although you and patteeu are likely to want to change it) has a mission of teaching religion, preaching, saving souls, etc. That is their main purpose. That is very different from Harvesters or a food pantry or some other oganization/charity that has a mission of feeding/clothing/housing children, the elderly, the poor, etc.

And it is YOUR judgment that one holds more societal value than the other. What if there was a charity whose sole function was to teach? For example, the International Literacy Foundation. You could say their main purpose is to teach literacy. Is it only organisations that teach what YOU agree with that get tax breaks? Why don't we just hand YOU a list every year and you can give tax breaks to the people YOU agree with and like.

Your argument is just plain stupid.

If you want it to be fair, it's an all or nothing proposition.

cosmo20002
06-18-2012, 11:46 PM
And it is YOUR judgment that one holds more societal value than the other. What if there was a charity whose sole function was to teach? For example, the International Literacy Foundation. You could say their main purpose is to teach literacy. Is it only organisations that teach what YOU agree with that get tax breaks? Why don't we just hand YOU a list every year and you can give tax breaks to the people YOU agree with and like.


I guess I have to agree with you--it is my judgment that feeding poor kids or teaching people to read has more societal value than preaching about what you should do (in that particular church's opinion) to avoid going to hell.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 11:51 PM
I guess I have to agree with you--it is my judgment that feeding poor kids or teaching people to read has more societal value than preaching about what you should do (in that particular church's opinion) to avoid going to hell.

And that is the point. YOU don't get to decide... I don't get to decide. Which is why it has to be all or nothing.

Pretend for a minute that the Catholic Church is 100% correct on everything it teaches .. AND you have PROOF that it is. Now, those teaching become EXTREMELY valuable and worth being taught as compared to.. well ANYTHING and EVERYTHING else.

Just because you and I don't feel that way doesn't mean that we get to pick and choose what has merit and value and deserves tax breaks. Period.

AustinChief
06-18-2012, 11:54 PM
I guess I have to agree with you--it is my judgment that feeding poor kids or teaching people to read has more societal value than preaching about what you should do (in that particular church's opinion) to avoid going to hell.

Another way to put it... is it more important to be able to read or even eat than possibly spending an eternity in misery? To someone who truly believes in hell... I imagine they'd rather be illiterate and in heaven.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 12:06 AM
And that is the point. YOU don't get to decide... I don't get to decide. Which is why it has to be all or nothing.

Pretend for a minute that the Catholic Church is 100% correct on everything it teaches .. AND you have PROOF that it is. Now, those teaching become EXTREMELY valuable and worth being taught as compared to.. well ANYTHING and EVERYTHING else.

Just because you and I don't feel that way doesn't mean that we get to pick and choose what has merit and value and deserves tax breaks. Period.

If they can show they are 100% right about everything, I would change my mind. I would actually accept far less than 100%. Until then, any place that raises money by teaching unverifiable stories should pay taxes like other businesses.

BigChiefFan
06-19-2012, 12:08 AM
If they can show they are 100% right about everything, I would change my mind. I would actually accept far less than 100%. Until then, any place that raises money by teaching unverifiable stories should pay taxes like other businesses.

I'm so sick of ****ing fools like you. Helping others should NOT be taxed, you heartless dipshit.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 12:15 AM
If they can show they are 100% right about everything, I would change my mind. I would actually accept far less than 100%. Until then, any place that raises money by teaching unverifiable stories should pay taxes like other businesses.

Again your liberal arrogance is showing through. You blindly assume that everything YOU hold dear is correct and all else is ignorant mumbo jumbo for the retards of the world.

I can show you many many many sociological studies that show massive benefits that churches have for a society. But let's put that aside.. let's look at other "charities." So would you get rid of tax breaks for ALL charities that teach things you don't agree with? What if there was a charity that "taught" about global warming? What if there was one that "taught" that man made global warming was unverifiable at this time? What about a charity that teaches tolerance for gays?

This is a simple concept. YOU DON'T FUCKING GET TO DECIDE. How arrogant do you have to be to think that you get to pick and choose what is acceptable???

InChiefsHell
06-19-2012, 05:24 AM
For the most part, they spend money to enable them to preach who is and who isn't going to hell. Yes, even the government could put it to better use.

Not much of a church goer I'm guessing...

blaise
06-19-2012, 07:17 AM
If they can show they are 100% right about everything, I would change my mind. I would actually accept far less than 100%. Until then, any place that raises money by teaching unverifiable stories should pay taxes like other businesses.

It's not a business. It's a non-profit organization.

blaise
06-19-2012, 07:19 AM
This is the only legitimate argument for continuing the current scheme.

However, there is little to no enforcement when it comes to enforcing the restrictions on electioneering in the house of zeus.

There needs to be strict enforcement, and swift punishment, for those who violate those restrictions.

If you think much electioneering goes on in church you must have a warped sense of what goes on in most churches.

Radar Chief
06-19-2012, 07:44 AM
I don't care if churches give zero money to charity. If some people think the government needs more money, let them write the check. Spending too much doesn't mean the government needs more money, it means they're spending too much.

The mindset amazes me that think money not owed to the government in the first place is somehow costing the government anything.

InChiefsHell
06-19-2012, 07:50 AM
If you think much electioneering goes on in church you must have a warped sense of what goes on in most churches.

I wonder if he feels the same about unions who take money from their members and use it for political campaigns, and muscle people into voting for certain (ie Democrat) candidates.

Churches exist to serve others. Unions exist to serve themselves.

donkhater
06-19-2012, 07:55 AM
A tax exemption doesn't cost anything.

Unless, of course, you count the money that is being exempted as the inherent property of the US Government - which is insane.

Exactly right. The US government does not OWN wealth. It has no money. It collectes and redistributes wealth according to the needs of the country. The idea that tax breaks and exemptions are seen as expenditures speaks volumes to the mindset of politicians and pundits who say they are such.

blaise
06-19-2012, 08:24 AM
I wonder if he feels the same about unions who take money from their members and use it for political campaigns, and muscle people into voting for certain (ie Democrat) candidates.

Churches exist to serve others. Unions exist to serve themselves.

I doubt it. Clearly the desire here is just church-hating. This has nothing to do with financial fairness. It's just something posted by someone who obviously spends time looking for ways to bash religion.

patteeu
06-19-2012, 09:04 AM
A tax exemption doesn't cost anything.

Unless, of course, you count the money that is being exempted as the inherent property of the US Government - which is insane.

Exactly right. The US government does not OWN wealth. It has no money. It collectes and redistributes wealth according to the needs of the country. The idea that tax breaks and exemptions are seen as expenditures speaks volumes to the mindset of politicians and pundits who say they are such.

I agree that a targeted tax break is not a case of giving away the government's money to the fortunate recipient, but I disagree with you two nonetheless. Targeted tax breaks are redistributive mechanisms in the same way that progressive rates are. The non-favored class is paying higher taxes to make up for the lower taxes being paid by the favored class. It's fine to argue with the philosophy that all money belongs to the government except what they allow you to keep after taxes, but don't let that righteous philosophical point lead you to applaud government-determined tax-favoritism of every imaginable kind.

patteeu
06-19-2012, 09:05 AM
I doubt it. Clearly the desire here is just church-hating. This has nothing to do with financial fairness. It's just something posted by someone who obviously spends time looking for ways to bash religion.

Yes

Amnorix
06-19-2012, 09:31 AM
I don't have any problem with charitable exemptions in theory. In reality, I've found that they're often abused by people who simply dont' want to pay taxes so they disguise the "business" as a religious enterprise or whatever.

L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology is perhaps the best and largest, but it is only one example of this.

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 09:40 AM
$71 billion wouldn't even cover Obama's yearly vacations...

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 09:41 AM
“The issue of religious tax preferment is especially relevant now because the number of Americans living outside any religious tradition continues to grow,” said Tom Flynn, Free Inquiry’s editor. “That underscores the unfairness of taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize.”


Kinda like welfare, huh?

headsnap
06-19-2012, 09:45 AM
“The issue of religious tax preferment is especially relevant now because the number of Americans living outside any religious tradition continues to grow,” said Tom Flynn, Free Inquiry’s editor. “That underscores the unfairness of taxing all Americans to subsidize religious institutions that only some Americans utilize.”


Kinda like welfare, huh?

and public schools..

mikey23545
06-19-2012, 09:47 AM
… Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said that Americans have made a democratic decision that religious institutions are good for our communities — believers and atheists alike.

“Whether it is the Quakers opposing slavery, Reverend King arguing for equality, or a Catholic soup kitchen feeding and sheltering all in need,” Rienzi said, “our history is full of examples confirming the great public benefit of our religious diversity.”

Right… because church leaders never use the pulpit to oppose civil rights for gay Americans, or speak out against affordable/accessible health-care for women, or use the extra money to buy themselves a larger house because Jesus wants them to be prosperous…


So I guess it's OK to ignore all the good that religion does and bash them for standing up for what they believe in and not agreeing with all the left-wing crap you like to spew out...

That makes sense.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 09:52 AM
I'm so sick of ****ing fools like you. Helping others should NOT be taxed, you heartless dipshit.

Sorry, but where did I say that it should be, you stupid dipshit that apparently doesn't know how to read.

blaise
06-19-2012, 10:07 AM
I've attended hundreds of services and the only time I've ever been encouraged to support anything politically was the pastor at Church of the Resurrection saying he thought supporting the Health Care Act was the most Christian thing to do. I've never once heard a sermon on abortion or gays being evil. Not once.

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:13 AM
if you want to practice fairy tales, you need to do it on your own dime IMO. they shouldn't be exempt.

Do you really need an expensive church to read a book to a crowd? I'm sure that there are completely free ways to go about doing that. It's bullshit.

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:15 AM
another thing that pisses me off is when someone is affiliated with the church, they get to use the tax exempt card on everything. Going shopping, dinner, etc. Total bullshit.

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 10:19 AM
another thing that pisses me off is when someone is affiliated with the church, they get to use the tax exempt card on everything. Going shopping, dinner, etc. Total bullshit.

Yeah, that's not true. The purpose of your purchase has to be directly affiliated with the organization itself. You can't just go buy a pair of jeans and say it's tax-exempt.

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:23 AM
Yeah, that's not true. The purpose of your purchase has to be directly affiliated with the organization itself. You can't just go buy a pair of jeans and say it's tax-exempt.

well, they do it all of the time and get away with it.

AndChiefs
06-19-2012, 10:32 AM
well, they do it all of the time and get away with it.

"They" is a pretty broad statement. Are there some unethical people that take advantage of it? I'm sure.

But there are many others that do their best to follow the rules.

stevieray
06-19-2012, 10:36 AM
well, they do it all of the time and get away with it.

it's funny how non believers say they don't want anything rammed down their throats, yet they are the ones who cant stop talking about something they claim they don't believe in.

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:46 AM
it's funny how non believers say they don't want anything rammed down their throats, yet they are the ones who cant stop talking about something they claim they don't believe in.

you gotta fight fire with fire

stevieray
06-19-2012, 10:49 AM
you gotta fight fire with fire
...more like becoming exactly what you claim to dislike.

|Zach|
06-19-2012, 10:50 AM
I saw a lot of questionable tax exempt purchases back in my retail days but shit like that happens. I think its better to keep things as they are to maintain the separation of church and state.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 10:51 AM
I doubt it. Clearly the desire here is just church-hating. This has nothing to do with financial fairness. It's just something posted by someone who obviously spends time looking for ways to bash religion.

I don't understand why you and many others on here cannot see the difference between running a charity/giving to a charity and running a church. By charity, I mean things like food/clothes/shelter for the poor, hungry, elderly, sick; school supplies for poor kids, etc. Its a wide net, but its fairly clear.

A church exists to support and promote the religious beliefs of the congregation. Can a church be involved in charity? Sure, and many are. But by and large, it is in the form of getting members to volunteer, or holding a food drive or a clothing drive. For comparison, my private, non-religion-based employer does the same thing. The church IS NOT SPENDING MONEY ON THESE CHARITABLE CAUSES. The money churches bring in go to running the church and/or promoting the religion.

Bump
06-19-2012, 10:52 AM
...more like becoming exactly what you claim to dislike.

I have never in my life tried to preach my beliefs to anyone in person. And all I said was if you want to read a fairy tale book to a crowd, there are probably free ways to go about doing that.

How is that ramming my beliefs down your throat?

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 10:54 AM
I have never in my life tried to preach my beliefs to anyone in person. And all I said was if you want to read a fairy tale book to a crowd, there are probably free ways to go about doing that.

How is that ramming my beliefs down your throat?

expressing opinion on a public forum = ramming

headsnap
06-19-2012, 10:55 AM
I have never in my life tried to preach my beliefs to anyone in person.

LOL

Yet you are vocal and opinionated on this board...

Bump
06-19-2012, 11:00 AM
LOL

Yet you are vocal and opinionated on this board...

C'Mon, I've been holding back lately. I'm trying....

FishingRod
06-19-2012, 11:44 AM
I don't understand why you and many others on here cannot see the difference between running a charity/giving to a charity and running a church. By charity, I mean things like food/clothes/shelter for the poor, hungry, elderly, sick; school supplies for poor kids, etc. Its a wide net, but its fairly clear.

A church exists to support and promote the religious beliefs of the congregation. Can a church be involved in charity? Sure, and many are. But by and large, it is in the form of getting members to volunteer, or holding a food drive or a clothing drive. For comparison, my private, non-religion-based employer does the same thing. The church IS NOT SPENDING MONEY ON THESE CHARITABLE CAUSES. The money churches bring in go to running the church and/or promoting the religion.

It pains me to say but, we are basically in agreement. Religious, charity, Non-profit, these can be the same thing. They are often portrayed as such but, ( not to offend anyone) to call the Mormon or Catholic Church “Non-Profit” is a dishonest even though that is indeed their legal status. They are very profitable thank you. This is not to say that I somehow feel the money would be more efficiently used if it were confiscated by the Government and then redistributed in the manner to best purchase votes just that the religions much like our political parties do a poor job of policing their selves and have a far too generous self view.

blaise
06-19-2012, 02:22 PM
It is funny how the people that claim religion is being shoved down their throats scream incessantly about their own beliefs on religion every chance they get.

blaise
06-19-2012, 02:23 PM
expressing opinion on a public forum = ramming

Mentioning God in any public setting = ramming.

blaise
06-19-2012, 02:28 PM
I don't understand why you and many others on here cannot see the difference between running a charity/giving to a charity and running a church. By charity, I mean things like food/clothes/shelter for the poor, hungry, elderly, sick; school supplies for poor kids, etc. Its a wide net, but its fairly clear.

A church exists to support and promote the religious beliefs of the congregation. Can a church be involved in charity? Sure, and many are. But by and large, it is in the form of getting members to volunteer, or holding a food drive or a clothing drive. For comparison, my private, non-religion-based employer does the same thing. The church IS NOT SPENDING MONEY ON THESE CHARITABLE CAUSES. The money churches bring in go to running the church and/or promoting the religion.


You work for a non profit?

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 02:32 PM
You work for a non profit?

No, a large company. But they hold food drives, back-to-school drives so poor kids have school supplies, gather stuff for overseas troops, etc. And they don't even preach religion to do it.

listopencil
06-19-2012, 02:32 PM
More than anything, I think tax exemption protects religion from the state. This wall of separation keeps the state from establishing religion by dictating doctrine from Washington through tax credits, hikes, cuts, etc. Today, so long as churches don't violate a few major rules, the government can't tell them what to believe.

You can't have it both ways. If you want religion banished from public life and limited to occurring between those four walls as the left does, you can't try to say they have to fund the government. If you force them to fund your policies then they get to have a say in those policies.

Well said, and I agree.

blaise
06-19-2012, 02:33 PM
No, a large company. But they hold food drives, back-to-school drives so poor kids have school supplies, gather stuff for overseas troops, etc. And they don't even preach religion to do it.

So, they operate for profit. Unlike a church.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 02:46 PM
So, they operate for profit. Unlike a church.

"Non-profit" describes a church's legal status. It does not necessarily describe their balance sheet.

blaise
06-19-2012, 02:49 PM
"Non-profit" describes a church's legal status. It does not necessarily describe their balance sheet.

So, like any non profit then.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 03:24 PM
So, like any non profit then.

Well, non-profits (other than churches) don't have teaching, supporting, and marketing their religious views as their primary mission.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 04:08 PM
Well, non-profits (other than churches) don't have teaching, supporting, and marketing their religious views as their primary mission.

remove the word religious and you are dead wrong... plenty of non-profits exist to promote their views.

Which gets to the heart of the issue... you hate religion and want to impose your hatred on others. Nice work! Do you not see how much of an asshole move that is?

The only difference between a religious non-profit and another agenda based non-profit is the religion aspect... which you don't like so you discriminate against.

You do realize that you are a bigot, right?

If you want to get rid of tax breaks for everyone, fine... if you want to TARGET religious institutions, simply because YOU don't see any value in them... you are an intolerant, ignorant bigot.

vailpass
06-19-2012, 04:09 PM
Visiting the Vatican archives is an amazing trip. My folks recently returned from
Lux in Arcana, reported that it is a living breathing history experience.
Tax the church my ass.
Bring it on boy.

blaise
06-19-2012, 04:23 PM
Well, non-profits (other than churches) don't have teaching, supporting, and marketing their religious views as their primary mission.

So...churches are a non profit.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 04:43 PM
remove the word religious and you are dead wrong... plenty of non-profits exist to promote their views.

Which gets to the heart of the issue... you hate religion and want to impose your hatred on others. Nice work! Do you not see how much of an asshole move that is?

The only difference between a religious non-profit and another agenda based non-profit is the religion aspect... which you don't like so you discriminate against.

You do realize that you are a bigot, right?

If you want to get rid of tax breaks for everyone, fine... if you want to TARGET religious institutions, simply because YOU don't see any value in them... you are an intolerant, ignorant bigot.

Oh geez, another debate of definitions with you. So if someone thinks churches should not be tax exempt, that makes them a bigot? I think you're a bigot for calling someone who doesn't think a church should be tax exempt a bigot. The only one expressing hate here is you.

Now if I had said the Catholic church should pay taxes but not the Latvian Orthodox church, you might have something.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 04:56 PM
Oh geez, another debate of definitions with you. So if someone thinks churches should not be tax exempt, that makes them a bigot? I think you're a bigot for calling someone who doesn't think a church should be tax exempt a bigot. The only one expressing hate here is you.

Now if I had said the Catholic church should pay taxes but not the Latvian Orthodox church, you might have something.

Man, you have ZERO logic skills. I will lay this out for you like I would for a 12 year old.

Organisation A has tax exempt status and teaches ZZZ to people as a non profit.

Organisation B has tax exempt status and teaches YYY to people as a non profit.

YOU are saying that depending on WHAT they teach.. zzz vs yyy .. they should or shouldn't be allowed to be tax exempt. Please explain to me what objective method will be used to judge which teachings have merit in your system?

AGAIN, I ask you, would you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches that global warming is a man made issue? Would you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches that global warming science has not progressed far enough to make reliable predictions? Would you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches about evolution? Would a you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches against evolution?


And you really are a fucking moron when it comes to understanding the meaning of words. You basically just called me intolerant for not tolerating your intolerance. You can't possibly be this stupid in real life.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 06:15 PM
Man, you have ZERO logic skills. I will lay this out for you like I would for a 12 year old.

Organisation A has tax exempt status and teaches ZZZ to people as a non profit.

Organisation B has tax exempt status and teaches YYY to people as a non profit.

YOU are saying that depending on WHAT they teach.. zzz vs yyy .. they should or shouldn't be allowed to be tax exempt. Please explain to me what objective method will be used to judge which teachings have merit in your system?

AGAIN, I ask you, would you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches that global warming is a man made issue? Would you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches that global warming science has not progressed far enough to make reliable predictions? Would you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches about evolution? Would a you give tax exempt status to a non-profit who teaches against evolution?


And you really are a ****ing moron when it comes to understanding the meaning of words. You basically just called me intolerant for not tolerating your intolerance. You can't possibly be this stupid in real life.

You fly into a rage faster than Frank Costanza. Sorry I don't accept the meaning that you come up with for already-defined words, but I'm not buying that being against tax exemptions for churches makes someone a bigot. You think it does, well, its up to you to be a dumbass I guess.

You're so offended that I'm supposedly picking and choosing. At some point, someone's got to set a standard.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 06:27 PM
You fly into a rage faster than Frank Costanza. Sorry I don't accept the meaning that you come up with for already-defined words, but I'm not buying that being against tax exemptions for churches makes someone a bigot. You think it does, well, its up to you to be a dumbass I guess.

You're so offended that I'm supposedly picking and choosing. At some point, someone's got to set a standard.

Again you didn't answer my post one bit.

What is this mythical "standard" you want?

So far all you have said is... "I'm ok with tax exemptions for people I agree with". That's bigotry. There is nothing logical or objective about that.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I POSED. Would you support tax exemptions for a non profit that teaches about global warming? etc etc...

As for defined words... you are showing yourself to be completely intolerant of religious groups. Check the definition, that is bigotry. If you want to claim you are not intolerant... please explain how selectively removing ONLY THEIR tax exempt status is not intolerant.

Please try to keep up.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 06:43 PM
So far all you have said is... "I'm ok with tax exemptions for people I agree with". That's bigotry.



See the part in bold above. Since I never said that, should I take you for a moron with no reading comprehension skills or just a liar?

I don't think a church should be tax exempt. Whether I agree with the particular church has nothing to do with it. I don't think political parties should be tax exempt either. That make me a bigot there as well?

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 06:53 PM
See the part in bold above. Since I never said that, should I take you for a moron with no reading comprehension skills or just a liar?

I don't think a church should be tax exempt. Whether I agree with the particular church has nothing to do with it. I don't think political parties should be tax exempt either. That make me a bigot there as well?

You might be too stupid to argue with.

1)You clearly are anti-religious. You have shown that in you past statements. Fine, that's your prerogative. (You're Bobby Brown!)
2)You have stated that all religious orgs should be taxed but not other non-profit orgs
3)You are a bigot.

A bigot doesn't have to mean that you are intolerant of ONE particular church.. you in fact are intolerant of ALL of them. You show that intolerance by advocating stripping them of tax exempt status because they are religious. Until you show an objective metric that proves otherwise... you are simply a bigot. If you were advocating stripping all orgs of tax exempt status.. you'd be on solid logical footing. Instead you opted to spew your bigoted view of things and favor certain orgs over others simply because YOU don't like religion.

AND you have yet to answer my question on other teaching charities. Like one that addresses global warming...

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 07:14 PM
You might be too stupid to argue with.

1)You clearly are anti-religious. You have shown that in you past statements. Fine, that's your prerogative. (You're Bobby Brown!)
2)You have stated that all religious orgs should be taxed but not other non-profit orgs
3)You are a bigot.

A bigot doesn't have to mean that you are intolerant of ONE particular church.. you in fact are intolerant of ALL of them. You show that intolerance by advocating stripping them of tax exempt status because they are religious. Until you show an objective metric that proves otherwise... you are simply a bigot. If you were advocating stripping all orgs of tax exempt status.. you'd be on solid logical footing. Instead you opted to spew your bigoted view of things and favor certain orgs over others simply because YOU don't like religion.

AND you have yet to answer my question on other teaching charities. Like one that addresses global warming...

Just fuk off then. You've had post after post of ranting, you're making up things I said, and then just going off like its true. You've extended the meaning of bigot to include being against tax exemptions. Under your bizarre, irrational, inconsistent, and ever-changing standard, being for or against anything makes one a bigot against whoever is impacted. The possibilites are endless. Take your grade-school mentality, your fabrications of what I said, and your apparent bigotry against logic and common sense and shove 'em up your ass, you freaking lunatic tool.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 07:24 PM
Just fuk off then. You've had post after post of ranting, you're making up things I said, and then just going off like its true. You've extended the meaning of bigot to include being against tax exemptions. Under your bizarre, irrational, inconsistent, and ever-changing standard, being for or against anything makes one a bigot against whoever is impacted. The possibilites are endless. Take your grade-school mentality, your fabrications of what I said, and your apparent bigotry against logic and common sense and shove 'em up your ass, you freaking lunatic tool.

waaaaaa.

You are not a bigot for being against tax exemptions. You are a bigot for TARGETING religious orgs as the only group to be stripped of tax exempt status. It's the same as if you said you wanted to remove tax exempt status from organisations run by blacks or women. It's arbitrary and bigoted based on your personal intolerance. If you had an objective criteria that religious groups fell under and THAT was your reasoning, then you would have a leg to stand on. BUT you yourself have admitted that they shouldn't be tax exempt, simply because they are religious. That is bigotry. Look up the word.

Chiefshrink
06-19-2012, 07:25 PM
Just fuk off then. You've had post after post of ranting, you're making up things I said, and then just going off like its true. You've extended the meaning of bigot to include being against tax exemptions. Under your bizarre, irrational, inconsistent, and ever-changing standard, being for or against anything makes one a bigot against whoever is impacted. The possibilites are endless. Take your grade-school mentality, your fabrications of what I said, and your apparent bigotry against logic and common sense and shove 'em up your ass, you freaking lunatic tool.


:popcorn:

Chiefshrink
06-19-2012, 07:34 PM
Some charities have a mission of feeding people, housing people, drug rehab, wheatever. And some have a mission of preaching religion. I think there is a difference.

My church does all of these and so from our perspective there is not a difference. You are just another Lefty hater of Christianity who is trying to live the Beattitudes of Marx and Alinsky;RID the world of Jews/Christians/Jesus !

Chiefshrink
06-19-2012, 07:41 PM
waaaaaa.

You are not a bigot for being against tax exemptions. You are a bigot for TARGETING religious orgs as the only group to be stripped of tax exempt status. It's the same as if you said you wanted to remove tax exempt status from organisations run by blacks or women. It's arbitrary and bigoted based on your personal intolerance. If you had an objective criteria that religious groups fell under and THAT was your reasoning, then you would have a leg to stand on. BUT you yourself have admitted that they shouldn't be tax exempt, simply because they are religious. That is bigotry. Look up the word.

Progressive/Marxists try to have it both ways but you have done an excellent job boxing him in with 'truth and logic'. Truth and logic are cancerous malignant inoperable tumors for Libs.

Well done:clap:

Cannibal
06-19-2012, 07:45 PM
They can keep their tax emempt status provided they STFU about politics, endorsing candidates, creationism in public schools etc.

If they can't refrain from that, pay up like eveyone else.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 07:51 PM
They can keep their tax emempt status provided they STFU about politics, endorsing candidates, creationism in public schools etc.

If they can't refrain from that, pay up like eveyone else.

Bigot

/Austin

Chiefshrink
06-19-2012, 08:00 PM
They can keep their tax emempt status provided they STFU about politics, endorsing candidates,

Trivia here. Who was the Senator who got this UnConstitutional law put through because the churches in his area were making it difficult for him to get re-elected?

I say tell the Fed Govt to STFU(freedom of speech) and see if they have the political guts to go after the majority of churches regardless of denomination. I damn guarantee after seeing what happened when they went after the Catholic church they will think twice but then we are talking Marxist Libs here and wisdom and common sense don't compute. But there is an actual grassroots movement who are doing just this.:thumb:

They definitely don't go after black churches who break this law aaaaaaaaaaall the time during election years.

La literatura
06-19-2012, 08:07 PM
They definitely don't go after black churches who break this law aaaaaaaaaaall the time during election years.

You don't know what goes on in black churches.

scott free
06-19-2012, 08:35 PM
There was a time when i wasnt so sure cosmo deserved his bad rep.

Boy was i wrong.

HonestChieffan
06-19-2012, 08:52 PM
There was a time when i wasnt so sure cosmo deserved his bad rep.

Boy was i wrong.


Give Cosmo credit. He earned it. And worked hard to get it.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 09:05 PM
They can keep their tax emempt status provided they STFU about politics, endorsing candidates, creationism in public schools etc.

If they can't refrain from that, pay up like eveyone else.

OMG.. LOOK COSMO! Here is an OBJECTIVE standard applied. If a charity spends too much of its time in politics, then strip them of tax exempt status. Doesn't matter if this is right or wrong.. at least it's not bigoted.

headsnap
06-19-2012, 09:06 PM
Give Cosmo credit. He earned it. And worked hard to get it.

dude put in double time today!!!

patteeu
06-19-2012, 09:25 PM
You don't know what goes on in black churches.

I only know what goes on in Obama's black church. God damn America!

La literatura
06-19-2012, 09:30 PM
I only know what goes on in Obama's black church. God damn America!

"God damn America!" said by angry black guy = bad

'God is sending tornadoes and hurricanes to kill people because of homosexuality and liberalism' said by Republican evangelical = understandable

Makes sense.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 09:32 PM
"God damn America!" said by angry black guy = bad

'God is sending tornadoes and hurricanes to kill people because of homosexuality and liberalism' said by Republican evangelical = understandable

Makes sense.

Exactly who is defending either statement? Both are full of ignorance.

scott free
06-19-2012, 09:43 PM
Exactly who is defending either statement? Both are full of ignorance.

.

La literatura
06-19-2012, 09:46 PM
Exactly who is defending either statement? Both are full of ignorance.

Some people were very angry at the former, but don't have much problem with the latter. Or vice versa.

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 09:48 PM
Some people were very angry at the former, but don't have much problem with the latter. Or vice versa.

OK, I'll take your word for that. I will gladly punk anyone who thinks either statement is ok.

Besides, we all know that hurricanes are caused by Al Gore!

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 09:54 PM
OMG.. LOOK COSMO! Here is an OBJECTIVE standard applied. If a charity spends too much of its time in politics, then strip them of tax exempt status. Doesn't matter if this is right or wrong.. at least it's not bigoted.

You've got to be kidding. My standard of no churches isn't objective? But a standard of "too much time in politics" is objective? That's pretty much what we have now, and how the hell is that judged? Basically, it is ignored.

It is like the freaking Twilight Zone in here today.

cosmo20002
06-19-2012, 10:02 PM
There was a time when i wasnt so sure cosmo deserved his bad rep.

Boy was i wrong.

Because I don't think churches should be tax exempt? This is really so controversial?

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 10:35 PM
You've got to be kidding. My standard of no churches isn't objective? But a standard of "too much time in politics" is objective? That's pretty much what we have now, and how the hell is that judged? Basically, it is ignored.

It is like the freaking Twilight Zone in here today.

You really are clueless. Your standard of "no churches because they are religious" is NOT an objective standard. It is based solely on your hatred of religion. His standard (yes, the current standard) applies to all charities regardless of if they are black, white, gay, religious or green.

You don't seem to get the fact that a charity that teaches something "religious" is NO DIFFERENT then a charity that teaches literacy or how to recycle. The only difference is that you don't like religion and you want to "punish" them by stripping them of tax exempt status. You made the claim earlier that it was different because they just teach "unverifiable stories"... so who exactly gets to decide which stories are verifiable and would you apply that "standard" to any charity that teaches something unverifiable? What? No?

yeah, you pretty much showed your ass on this one... You are a religious bigot. You singled them out because you don't like them and think they have no merit. The ONLY differentiating factor offered up by YOU is that they are religious.

You may as well decide you don't like gays and say that any charity that teaches about the gay lifestyle should be stripped of tax exempt status.

If someone proposed that gay charities should NOT be tax exempt because they teach about the gay lifestyle... would you not think they were a bigot?

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 10:36 PM
Because I don't think churches should be tax exempt? This is really so controversial?

It's not controversial.. your point of view is just mired in ignorance and comes from NO logical standpoint. You're completely blind to the vast hypocrisy you are espousing.

Mr. Kotter
06-19-2012, 10:54 PM
It's not controversial.. your point of view is just mired in ignorance and comes from NO logical standpoint. You're completely blind to the vast hypocrisy you are espousing.

Hey, Kyle...

In an era, where folks would rather spend $$$ hundreds at the local casino or on Lottery tickets, but point-blank REFUSE to spend $20-30 per month on local property taxes to pay for a local school district "opt-outs" so they can try to "catch-up" to 49th or 48th in teacher-pay in the NATION...I'd suggest it's folks like you, who are truly blind to the "vast hyposcrisy" you are espousing...

Because many, or even MOST, of those "church-going" folks are very SAME folks who insist on tax-exemptions for their "Church"....but won't pay a dime more in real estate taxes, if it means less money to spend at the Casino of their choice...

I'm just sayin'.....and it's 100% truth; at least in my F'd-up f-ing state. Ya know?

AustinChief
06-19-2012, 11:06 PM
Hey, Kyle...

In an era, where folks would rather spend $$$ hundreds at the local casino or on Lottery tickets, but point-blank REFUSE to spend $20-30 per month on local property taxes to pay for a local school district "opt-outs" so they can try to "catch-up" to 49th or 48th in teacher-pay in the NATION...I'd suggest it's folks like you, who are truly blind to the "vast hyposcrisy" you are espousing...

Because many, or even MOST, of those "church-going" folks are very SAME folks who insist on tax-exemptions for their "Church"....but won't pay a dime more in real estate taxes, if it means less money to spend at the Casino of their choice...

I'm just sayin'.....and it's 100% truth; at least in my F'd-up f-ing state. Ya know?

Not sure how you equate that to me? I have never railed against property taxes for schools. Nor am I railing against stripping ALL charities of tax-exempt status if that is called for. OR just stripping certain charities if they fit certain sensible objective criteria.

I am simply pointing out that an attempt to strip churches simply because they are religious is an ignorant bigoted view.

So please tell ME how I'M being a hypocrite?

You may want to go back and read ALL of my posts in this thread instead of jumping in midstream and going off half-cocked. Because nothing you are saying in your last post makes sense.

stevieray
06-19-2012, 11:36 PM
Hey, Kyle...
those "church-going" folks

and there it is.

stevieray
06-19-2012, 11:39 PM
Id be all over it and the guy i've said that doesn't exist eleventy billion times would to.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

what's the rest of the verse, flaming hypo?

blaise
06-20-2012, 04:43 AM
I don't understand why you and many others on here cannot see the difference between running a charity/giving to a charity and running a church. By charity, I mean things like food/clothes/shelter for the poor, hungry, elderly, sick; school supplies for poor kids, etc. Its a wide net, but its fairly clear.

A church exists to support and promote the religious beliefs of the congregation. Can a church be involved in charity? Sure, and many are. But by and large, it is in the form of getting members to volunteer, or holding a food drive or a clothing drive. For comparison, my private, non-religion-based employer does the same thing. The church IS NOT SPENDING MONEY ON THESE CHARITABLE CAUSES. The money churches bring in go to running the church and/or promoting the religion.


Running the church involves setting up charitable programs that members participate in. The way you keep acting like the extent of church charity is holding food drives, and that most churches routinely engage in electioneering make you sound either ignorant or bigoted.
Charitable organizations aren't charities because they turn just turn around and give the money to someone else. Charities normally use their funds to allow members of the organization to help others. Churches use funds for that. Of course they have overhead, just like any charity. You just seem to be saying a charity isn't allowed to have any religious message associated with it, and that's what makes you seem like you just hate religion. It does come across as a form of bigotry.

patteeu
06-20-2012, 05:12 AM
"God damn America!" said by angry black guy = bad

'God is sending tornadoes and hurricanes to kill people because of homosexuality and liberalism' said by Republican evangelical = understandable

Makes sense.

Not to me. Both seem bad to me, but maybe you can convince me. As billay would say, go.

HonestChieffan
06-20-2012, 05:39 AM
Hey, Kyle...

In an era, where folks would rather spend $$$ hundreds at the local casino or on Lottery tickets, but point-blank REFUSE to spend $20-30 per month on local property taxes to pay for a local school district "opt-outs" so they can try to "catch-up" to 49th or 48th in teacher-pay in the NATION...I'd suggest it's folks like you, who are truly blind to the "vast hyposcrisy" you are espousing...

Because many, or even MOST, of those "church-going" folks are very SAME folks who insist on tax-exemptions for their "Church"....but won't pay a dime more in real estate taxes, if it means less money to spend at the Casino of their choice...

I'm just sayin'.....and it's 100% truth; at least in my F'd-up f-ing state. Ya know?

Church Going folk just hate schools. Church going folk like to gamble and spend time in dark places. Need to rally the non church folk and win the game.

Or maybe church going has zero to do with anything related to how they vote on a given issue.

Stay stupid Kotter.

LOCOChief
06-20-2012, 09:28 AM
Get a job you fucking libs and stop trying to figure out how to take more from everyone else. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED, you lazy worthless assholes.

KC native: How can I get some of that church's money to pay for my semi annual abortions? Afterall I'm an athiest, I'm entitled.

cosmo: I hear there's cash in those church's. All they do is tell you who is going to hell and who isn't. I already know I'm going to hell so give me some cash I'm entitled.

LOCOChief
06-20-2012, 09:52 AM
Oh that's right I forgot the freeloading wagon riding bitch know as Kotter

kotter: Those church folks gamble all their money away in casino's instead of paying my R/E taxes. I don't gamble, pay my R/E taxes I'm entitled.

blaise
06-20-2012, 09:59 AM
It's just kid of funny. I'm guessing half these people have no idea what goes on in most churches. They believe the stuff they see in movies, or clips of the most extreme church goers and just figure it's ok to condemn them all.
There was a couple at our church last week who run an after school program for inner city youth in Dallas. They have this little building where 25-30 kids go after school so they can get homework help and food, and they get some food to bring home. These are kids who have nothing, really. The couple that ran this don't make money on it, they do it because they care and no one else does. Our church gives them some of their money. But then you get jackwipes like cosmo who like to pretend church is just some pastor standing up in front of a room and yelling about abortion and birth control, even though you never hear a sermon like that at 90% of churches.
It really just reminds me of people who see stories about some black guy committing a crime and figuring it's ok to just say all blacks are criminals. I don't see much difference.

KC native
06-20-2012, 10:11 AM
I can deal with tax exempt status for everything but property taxes. The fact that so many churches sit on prime real estate but pay no taxes is bullshit.

Everything else should stay the same.

KC native
06-20-2012, 10:12 AM
Get a job you fucking libs and stop trying to figure out how to take more from everyone else. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED, you lazy worthless assholes.

KC native: How can I get some of that church's money to pay for my semi annual abortions? Afterall I'm an athiest, I'm entitled.

cosmo: I hear there's cash in those church's. All they do is tell you who is going to hell and who isn't. I already know I'm going to hell so give me some cash I'm entitled.

You are fucking retarded if that's what you took from my comment.

AndChiefs
06-20-2012, 10:14 AM
I can deal with tax exempt status for everything but property taxes. The fact that so many churches sit on prime real estate but pay no taxes is bullshit.

Everything else should stay the same.

True. How dare they be in accessible locations. They should be in out of the way areas where we can make sure no one accidentally stumbles across them.

KC native
06-20-2012, 10:20 AM
True. How dare they be in accessible locations. They should be in out of the way areas where we can make sure no one accidentally stumbles across them.

It has nothing to do with being accessable.

If a church catches fire, does the fire department put it out? If one of the youth pastors decides to molest little boys, do the police not respond? If some psyco walks in the church and starts shooting, do the police not come?

They use the same community resources as everyone else. Why should they get to skip out on property taxes?

LOCOChief
06-20-2012, 10:28 AM
You are ****ing retarded if that's what you took from my comment.

You're a blight on society. In America that is. South of the border your probably a pillar for all I know.

KC native
06-20-2012, 10:32 AM
You're a blight on society. In America that is. South of the border your probably a pillar for all I know.

You are a mouth breathing troglodyte.

AndChiefs
06-20-2012, 10:35 AM
It has nothing to do with being accessable.

If a church catches fire, does the fire department put it out? If one of the youth pastors decides to molest little boys, do the police not respond? If some psyco walks in the church and starts shooting, do the police not come?

They use the same community resources as everyone else. Why should they get to skip out on property taxes?

Guess what. Every non-profit uses the same community resources as everyone else.

KC native
06-20-2012, 10:40 AM
Guess what. Every non-profit uses the same community resources as everyone else.

And I have zero problem making them pay property taxes as well.

Also, if the nonprofit doesn't own the buidling they're in, then they are implicitly paying property tax (it's built into the rent).

AndChiefs
06-20-2012, 10:42 AM
And I have zero problem making them pay property taxes as well.

Also, if the nonprofit doesn't own the buidling they're in, then they are implicitly paying property tax (it's built into the rent).

As long as it's applied equally then my objection is lessened considerably. They shouldn't be singled out due to biases though.

KC native
06-20-2012, 10:44 AM
As long as it's applied equally then my objection is lessened considerably. They shouldn't be singled out due to biases though.

Yes, singling out churches is problematic. It would encourage a cat and mouse game that isn't worth pursuing.

LOCOChief
06-20-2012, 11:47 AM
You are a mouth breathing troglodyte.

:drool:

Iz Zat Chew
06-20-2012, 09:47 PM
I would estimate that the loss to the government would be more than the $71 billion the OP threw out. The taxes gained will be much less than the OP estimated and the government would automatically pick up the cost of the charities the churches would have to give up due to loss of funds.

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2012, 09:50 PM
I would estimate that the loss to the government would be more than the $71 billion the OP threw out. The taxes gained will be much less than the OP estimated and the government would automatically pick up the cost of the charities the churches would have to give up due to loss of funds.

Well, yeah, but that's kinda the point of the Marxist utopia we're building.

cosmo20002
06-20-2012, 09:57 PM
Well, yeah, but that's kinda the point of the Marxist utopia we're building.

:tinfoil:

AustinChief
07-05-2012, 06:20 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come out all ye hypocrites and defend this...

The Obamas, both Barack and Michelle, are exhibiting signs of a readiness to redefine the law which prohibits churches from taking sides in an election. According to a CNSNews.com on Monday, First Lady Michelle Obama told a church gathering that, "Ultimately, these are not just political issues - they are moral issues."

Breaking the IRS prohibition against politicizing from the pulpit could result in a church's loss of tax-exempt status. The Democrat sponsored law dates back to 1954. The amendment was passed just before the Senate's summer recess and was pushed through by then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, who was facing the re-election battle of his lifetime. Johnson used the constitutional amendment to silence support for his opponent from some of the largest Texas churches.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights released a statement pointing out how the Obamas are walking in lock-step calling for black churches to get political with their flocks: "President Obama has explicitly called for '''congregation captains' to organize for his reelection.”

The organization president, Bill Donohue, concluded that since the Obama's are pushing their faith community to "merge politics and religion," everyone should consider it a green light. In the video, Michelle Obama can be seen pointing her finger for emphasis, saying, "Anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues, you tell them there is no place better – no place better.”


http://www.examiner.com/article/michelle-and-obama-push-churches-to-air-politics-from-the-pulpit

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 06:39 PM
Well Obama said charitable donations to your church was a tax dodge. Boy is this man a govt bootlicker.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 06:40 PM
Original post cites a secular humanism study....but of course. They're religion haters that are deemed a religion by the SC.

BFD if a pastor is supported by his congregation to live in a nice home. Sounds like more busy-body thinking. Yeah, but it's the right to tries to tell everyone how to live.

Backwards Masking
07-07-2012, 08:36 PM
It has nothing to do with being accessable.

If a church catches fire, does the fire department put it out? If one of the youth pastors decides to molest little boys, do the police not respond? If some psyco walks in the church and starts shooting, do the police not come?

They use the same community resources as everyone else. Why should they get to skip out on property taxes?

They should get to skip out because if they sell the church and the land for a profit down the line they have to give that profit to the government because they're a not for profit organization.

Oh wait...

AustinChief
07-07-2012, 09:36 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come out all ye hypocrites and defend this...




http://www.examiner.com/article/michelle-and-obama-push-churches-to-air-politics-from-the-pulpit

Seriously??? No one wants to comment about the Obamas asking for Church leaders to engage in politics?

Chiefshrink
07-07-2012, 11:25 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come out all ye hypocrites and defend this...




http://www.examiner.com/article/michelle-and-obama-push-churches-to-air-politics-from-the-pulpit

AustinChief is the winner to my trivia question in post 109 !!!!:clap::clap::clap:

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2012, 12:07 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come out all ye hypocrites and defend this...




http://www.examiner.com/article/michelle-and-obama-push-churches-to-air-politics-from-the-pulpit

Are you seriously going to pretend this hasn't been happening for...oh, the last 20-30 years??? Especially, on the right-wing conservative and fundamentalist religious side? I've SAT in those seats and listened to their B.S. Just sayin'....

I mean....SERIOUSLY???

LMAO

Backwards Masking
07-08-2012, 09:16 AM
The portrayal that church donations are used so pastors can all live high on the hog is laughable. This isn't motivated by some desire for economic fairness. This is just anti-church.

yeah, the OP had nothing to do with saving the econony tens of millions. it's not like church leaders pay themselves salaries, buy homes, raise families, and then make real estate gains when they go to sell the church. it's just an excuse to rip on religious people, and nothing to do with the fact they don't pay taxes while everyone else has to.

Doctor saves actual lives of actual sick people - pays taxes on his practice.

Preacher saves invisible "souls" of "spiritually sick" people (i.e. bored people that need attention cause they have nothing better to do) - society pays for his taxes on his church.

Even some religious people I know have a problem with that.

stonedstooge
07-08-2012, 09:15 PM
Unions don't pay taxes. Thank God they stay out of politics

memyselfI
07-09-2012, 12:31 PM
I'd love to stop funding the crap. Belief is free. Faith is free. Religion is what costs money. Tax the industry like any other.

Count Zarth
07-09-2012, 12:40 PM
Another great reason the country is slowly, but surely, moving away from being religious.