Con_Alma;1165151 wrote:The tax payers are not funding the religion.

Yes they are. Subsidizing religion by not making them pay taxes like every other business is tax payer funding. Just like corn farming is tax payer supported because the government gives them subsidies.

It's fraud. Churches should be required to pay taxes like every other business.

I Wear Pants;1165157 wrote:By providing an incentive to donate to religion they are. And taxpayers are subsidizing religion because there's a lot of revenue that could go towards roads and **** which as far as I'm aware of churches and churchgoers use to get to and from church activities. There is a cost to society for religions, or any group/person, being tax exempt. The question is whether it's worth it, in the case of religion I'd think not. ...

There may be an opportunity cost but there is not a direct funding by the government.

I Wear Pants;1165157 wrote:By providing an incentive to donate to religion they are. And taxpayers are subsidizing religion because there's a lot of revenue that could go towards roads and shit which as far as I'm aware of churches and churchgoers use to get to and from church activities. There is a cost to society for religions, or any group/person, being tax exempt. The question is whether it's worth it, in the case of religion I'd think not.

But you ignore the CEO's of other "Charities" making 6-7 figure salaries along with many other perks/benefits and many,many paid staff which lowers the % of donations that actually makes it to the people the Charity is suppose to be helping?

sleeper;1165160 wrote:Yes they are. Subsidizing religion by not making them pay taxes like every other business is tax payer funding. Just like corn farming is tax payer supported because the government gives them subsidies.

It's fraud. Churches should be required to pay taxes like every other business.

I disagree. Not requiring someone to pay isn't funding them.

I don't dispute the opinion that churches should pay taxes. That's a subjective view and if the collective people decide that they want them to pay then so be it. I am not opposed to it but I disagree that the government is funding religious institutions.

sleeper;1165160 wrote:Yes they are. Subsidizing religion by not making them pay taxes like every other business is tax payer funding. Just like corn farming is tax payer supported because the government gives them subsidies.

It's fraud. Churches should be required to pay taxes like every other business.

You mean like these tax paying companies?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/02/23/the-top-ten-corporate-tax-dodgers.html#slide10

Skyhook79;1165165 wrote:But you ignore the CEO's of other "Charities" making 6-7 figure salaries along with many other perks/benefits and many,many paid staff which lowers the % of donations that actually makes it to the people the Charity is suppose to be helping?

There are other shitty charities yes. But even those ones you're talking about (probably things like Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc which are very large charities) the whole purpose is to help people in need. That is not the purpose of religion. Do they provide services and help? Sure they do sometimes but that is not why they exist. They exist to spread their faith/practice it.

And some of the larger charities require leadership that is akin to a CEO for a large company and you won't get anyone if you don't pay them well. Of course some of them take that overboard.

It'd be easier if we just taxed them all instead of deciding things, that way there is no favoritism anywhere.

It's interesting how you constantly deflect the topic from faults with religion onto literally anything, secular charities being your target this time.

Con_Alma;1165166 wrote:I disagree. ot requiring someone to pay isn't funding them.

I don't dispute the opinion that churches should pay taxes. That's a subjective view and if the collective people decide that want them to pay so be it. I am not opposed to it but I disagree that the government is religious institutions.

It's the same thing, if anything just an accounting gimmick.

For example,

Company A gets $1,000,000 a year from taxpayers to pick up trash. This is government tax payer funding.

Company B earns $1,000,000 a year in revenue, $250,000 in profit and pays 0% in taxes. Assuming the tax rate is 10%, $25,000 is not being paid to the government that should be. Therefore, the government is paying Company B $25,000 per year. That is taxpayer funded.

Simple.

Skyhook79;1165169 wrote:You mean like these tax paying companies?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/02/23/the-top-ten-corporate-tax-dodgers.html#slide10

I'm all for churches hiring thousands of accountants to avoid paying taxes. If anything, it'll give more accountants jobs and it'll heavily increase the overhead of the churches to where they'll have to shut down.

It'll also get the churches off their current business model and force them to raise prices on their consumers. Then everyone can easily see that Churches are a business and deserve the taxes they have to pay.

Skyhook79;1165169 wrote:You mean like these tax paying companies?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/02/23/the-top-ten-corporate-tax-dodgers.html#slide10

Close the tax loopholes then. Of course the right (read: very much religious) doesn't want to do that because it's the filthy poor people ruining everything. There should not be gigantic companies, churches, or charities that don't pay taxes.

Company A of religious institutions are not getting money to do anything.

Opportunity cost is not the same as funding something.

The government isn't required to tax. By choosing not to doesn't mean they are providing them funding.

I Wear Pants;1165171 wrote:There are other shitty charities yes. But even those ones you're talking about (probably things like Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc which are very large charities) the whole purpose is to help people in need. That is not the purpose of religion. Do they provide services and help? Sure they do sometimes but that is not why they exist. They exist to spread their faith/practice it.

And some of the larger charities require leadership that is akin to a CEO for a large company and you won't get anyone if you don't pay them well. Of course some of them take that overboard.

It'd be easier if we just taxed them all instead of deciding things, that way there is no favoritism anywhere.

It's interesting how you constantly deflect the topic from faults with religion onto literally anything, secular charities being your target this time.

The CEO of the Salvation Army (one of the largest charities in the world) makes 13,000 per year.

I Wear Pants;1165171 wrote:...

It'd be easier if we just taxed them all instead of deciding things, that way there is no favoritism anywhere.

...

I agree but then again easy has never been the fuel of purpose for the legislative process as it relate to taxation rules and laws.

Con_Alma;1165178 wrote:Company A of religious institutions are not getting money to do anything.

Opportunity cost is not the same as funding something.

The government isn't required to tax. By choosing not to doesn't mean they are providing them funding.

It's the exact same. By not paying taxes, they are effectively getting the same result of receiving the $25,000.

Con_Alma;1165162 wrote:There may be an opportunity cost but there is not a direct funding by the government.

Well it's a pretty damned large opportunity cost especially when you look at the facilities of many churches and religious organizations. And then that's ignoring that they spend a shitload of that money that they would otherwise have paid in taxes on lobbying for discrimination against groups they don't like.

Churches either need to be paying taxes or banned from lobbying. I'd rather both (to be fair I don't like lobbying for anyone).

Skyhook79;1165179 wrote:The CEO of the Salvation Army (one of the largest charities in the world) makes 13,000 per year.

That organization campaigns against women's rights as well as against bans of sexual discrimination.

sleeper;1165181 wrote:It's the exact same. By not paying taxes, they are effectively getting the same result of receiving the $25,000.

The government isn't required to tax anyone. It's an important point.

The definition of funding is providing or furnishing money. The government is doing nether. They simply are not taking the churches money.

Not taking someone money isn't funding them.

I Wear Pants;1165186 wrote:That organization campaigns against women's rights as well as against bans of sexual discrimination.

Then don't support them. I don't agree with Planned Parenthood's agenda so I don't support them.

I Wear Pants;1165183 wrote:Well it's a pretty damned large opportunity cost especially when you look at the facilities of many churches and religious organizations. And then that's ignoring that they spend a ****load of that money that they would otherwise have paid in taxes on lobbying for discrimination against groups they don't like.

Churches either need to be paying taxes or banned from lobbying. I'd rather both (to be fair I don't like lobbying for anyone).

It may very well be a large opportunity cost.

If the people want the churches taxed it should be sought out but not taking their money doesn't provide or furnish them with money, ie. fund them.

Con_Alma;1165189 wrote:The government isn't required to tax anyone. It's an important point.

The definition of funding is providing or furnishing money. The government is doing nether. They simply are not taking the churches money.

Not taking someone money isn't funding them.

LOL

Come on man. This is simple. It's like getting a tax credit for doing something. That money should be going into a pool of taxes to pay for services. If you give someone a tax credit, are you saying that's not tax payer funded either?

It's not a tax credit. That would be the benefit against what you owe. The churches don't owe.

I don't disagree that churches hould possibly be taxed to fund services. Choosing not to doesn't fund them, however.

sleeper;1165194 wrote:LOL

Come on man. This is simple. It's like getting a tax credit for doing something. That money should be going into a pool of taxes to pay for services. If you give someone a tax credit, are you saying that's not tax payer funded either?

So your education was tax payer funded then? Why didn't you pay for it yourself? Why did I have to fund your education?

Con_Alma;1165197 wrote:It's not a tax credit. That would be the benefit against what you owe. The churches don't owe.

I don't disagree that churches hould possibly be taxed to fund services. Choosing not to doesn't fund them, however.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its not a duck?

LOL OK.

Skyhook79;1165191 wrote:Then don't support them. I don't agree with Planned Parenthood's agenda so I don't support them.

But I am forced to via the tax breaks.

Which is why I'd be fine with both organizations paying taxes (or at least the abortion services of PP, which is actually a very small part of what they do). Of course I think things like contraception should be freely available because there is a significant benefit to society for having done so.

sleeper;1165200 wrote:If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, its not a duck?

LOL OK.

Funding isn't that hard to determine as a word. lost revenue? sure. funding? Nope.

Skyhook79;1165198 wrote:So your education was tax payer funded then? Why didn't you pay for it yourself? Why did I have to fund your education?

Education most definitely is tax payer funded, at least partially.

Nice deflection though. Equating education and religious belief funding are entirely different.