O-Trap;1257071 wrote:Costing me acts as a restriction of my free practice of religion.

I don't know much about Scientology, so I won't pretend to, but if they charge, the obligatory giving is likely a part of their religious practice, so paying is actually the exercise of the religion itself.

Since that is not a part of my own, it isn't, and shouldn't be governmentally mandated.

You can practice your religion in your home for free. If your church cannot generate enough revenue to outweigh costs, they can go bankrupt like every other business.

sleeper;1257401 wrote:You can practice your religion in your home for free.

I cannot. Gathering together with others in communal worship is a part of what I believe I was created to do.

sleeper;1257401 wrote:If your church cannot generate enough revenue to outweigh costs, they can go bankrupt like every other business.

Except they're not run for profit like every other business. Sort of the point you seem to be missing.

stlouiedipalma;1257395 wrote:Nice try. You used the term "infringing on the rights" three times in your analogy. I never went there. I said that the lack of tax dollars which are collected from religious orders puts a larger burden on those of us who do pay taxes. That's quite a stretch, trying to equate a "larger burden" with "infringing on the rights". No slippery slope there, other than the one you invented.

The slipperiest of slippery slopes is the argument: "the lack of tax dollars collected from person/place/thing/activity X puts a larger burden on the rest of us." Fill in the X with anything you want- babies, breathing, and on and on and on. Most ridiculous argument ever.

I've seen the explanation about religious institutions (and non-profits in general) about 10 times in this thread, and the fact that some still can't grasp it tells me they are either trolling or incapable of grasping it.

O-Trap;1257408 wrote:Except they're not run for profit like every other business. Sort of the point you seem to be missing.

Gotta hand it to sleeper. Not many can get one's argument shot down so many times and keep coming back for more.

stlouiedipalma;1257395 wrote:Nice try. You used the term "infringing on the rights" three times in your analogy. I never went there. I said that the lack of tax dollars which are collected from religious orders puts a larger burden on those of us who do pay taxes. That's quite a stretch, trying to equate a "larger burden" with "infringing on the rights". No slippery slope there, other than the one you invented.

Replace everywhere I said infringing on the rights with 'larger burden' and my argument stays the exact same and is still correct.

Originally Posted by stlouiedipalma
Nice try. You used the term "infringing on the rights" three times in your analogy. I never went there. I said that the lack of tax dollars which are collected from religious orders puts a larger burden on those of us who do pay taxes. That's quite a stretch, trying to equate a "larger burden" with "infringing on the rights". No slippery slope there, other than the one you invented.



How about - the lack of tax dollars collected from deadbeats is putting undue pressure and greater burdens on those of us who do pay taxes. I think that those who don't pay anything (47%) should either pay a minimum amount, say $500 (for national defense) or face a penalty (ala obamacare penalty) of up to $2,500 per year. This is only fair and it insures that we are all contributing to the pool (at least for national defense, say). I will back such legislation, as it obviously now complies with U.S. law.

Except they're not run for profit like every other business. Sort of the point you seem to be missing.

Tell that to the mega churches being constructed all over the country. I'm sure they aren't in it for the money. :rolleyes:

sleeper;1258076 wrote:Tell that to the mega churches being constructed all over the country. I'm sure they aren't in it for the money. :rolleyes:

Megachurches is a small sector of the number of churches, but even so can you provide a link showing their profit margines a P/E ratio would be interesting.

Unless you can, you need to stop since you have no facts so your logic would be false.

jmog;1258085 wrote:Megachurches is a small sector of the number of churches, but even so can you provide a link showing their profit margines a P/E ratio would be interesting.

Unless you can, you need to stop since you have no facts so your logic would be false.

Oh, a believer asking me for proof to validate a claim. How ironic. :laugh:

sleeper;1258076 wrote:Tell that to the mega churches being constructed all over the country. I'm sure they aren't in it for the money. :rolleyes:

Instead of spitballing, do you have a reason for thinking so, besides that they're big?

sleeper;1258096 wrote:Oh, a believer asking me for proof to validate a claim. How ironic. :laugh:

You claim to require empirical proof for everything. As such, it doesn't sound that far fetched to ask for for said proof about something you believe.

If you hold it in as high an esteem as you claim to, then if anyone should be asked about it, it's you.

stlouiedipalma;1257395 wrote:Nice try. You used the term "infringing on the rights" three times in your analogy. I never went there. I said that the lack of tax dollars which are collected from religious orders puts a larger burden on those of us who do pay taxes. That's quite a stretch, trying to equate a "larger burden" with "infringing on the rights". No slippery slope there, other than the one you invented.

Merely out of curiosity, how does the burden increase compared to, say, if the same group of people shoved a bunch of money in a mattress?

It may be a different proportion of the overall taxes on the rest of us, but the amount (or burden, if you prefer) doesn't seem to change, unless I misunderstood your post (which is possible).

jmog;1258085 wrote:Megachurches is a small sector of the number of churches, but even so can you provide a link showing their profit margines a P/E ratio would be interesting.

Unless you can, you need to stop since you have no facts so your logic would be false.

I don't think we have access to that information. (I could be wrong)

But if I'm not wrong I don't think anyone can reasonably object when I say that charities and churches that get tax exemptions should have their financial records available to the public via a system like EDGAR or something like we do with 10-K filings and the like.

O-Trap;1258209 wrote:Merely out of curiosity, how does the burden increase compared to, say, if the same group of people shoved a bunch of money in a mattress?

It may be a different proportion of the overall taxes on the rest of us, but the amount (or burden, if you prefer) doesn't seem to change, unless I misunderstood your post (which is possible).

I don't think that's a very good comparison. People keeping money in their homes, wallets, or mattresses are completing a financial transaction. People giving money to a business, church, etc are. How you got from stlouie thinking transactions should be taxed to thinking people simply possessing money should be taxed I have no idea.

I Wear Pants;1258366 wrote:I don't think that's a very good comparison. People keeping money in their homes, wallets, or mattresses are completing a financial transaction. People giving money to a business, church, etc are. How you got from stlouie thinking transactions should be taxed to thinking people simply possessing money should be taxed I have no idea.

The only comparison I was intending to make was that of a "burden." They aren't equitable in every element, but I fail to see how either one of them increases the tax burden on anyone else.

The point I'm trying to make is that churches don't pay taxes and some of them take in a heck of a lot of money. I don't have the numbers on this, but if every church in the US were required to pay taxes I'd bet that tax revenues would go up dramatically.

People stuffing money into matresses have probably already paid taxes on that cash, unless the money was obtained illegally. In that case, there would be a different burden placed on the taxpaying public in the form of higher prison expenses.

O-Trap;1258458 wrote:The only comparison I was intending to make was that of a "burden." They aren't equitable in every element, but I fail to see how either one of them increases the tax burden on anyone else.

People stuffing their mattresses tend not to have massive political influence. Not so for the religious groups in this country which do have massive political influence and do spend money which helps them get legislation they want enacted. Sometimes this legislation takes rights away from others.

stlouiedipalma;1258476 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that churches don't pay taxes and some of them take in a heck of a lot of money.

They take it in, sure, but not as "profit." As non-profits, they are required to spend the money a certain way, and that doesn't involve padding anyone's pockets. Not so with private businesses.

stlouiedipalma;1258476 wrote:I don't have the numbers on this, but if every church in the US were required to pay taxes I'd bet that tax revenues would go up dramatically.

I don't think anybody is debating that part.

stlouiedipalma;1258476 wrote:People stuffing money into matresses have probably already paid taxes on that cash, unless the money was obtained illegally. In that case, there would be a different burden placed on the taxpaying public in the form of higher prison expenses.

Assuming they were caught, I suppose, but then, if the money was obtained illegally, I doubt it's the only offense against them.

And there are ways of avoiding paying taxes on money stored like that.

I Wear Pants;1258480 wrote:People stuffing their mattresses tend not to have massive political influence. Not so for the religious groups in this country which do have massive political influence and do spend money which helps them get legislation they want enacted. Sometimes this legislation takes rights away from others.

This is not LEGALLY allowed for any non-profit. Because of this, I know some of the religious non-profits I used to market for had to tell their donors that their donations were not tax deductible, while others could tell their donors that they were.

Also, while that certainly creates a potential influential "burden" (I guess ... not sure what else to call it, as there are other lobbyist-like entities that are also exempt from a lot of taxes, but are not religious), it doesn't seem to create an additional tax burden.

I do get your point, and I do think that any religious organization found to be leveraging political clout should have their non-profit status revoked, and possibly owe back taxes as far back as they have been proven to be breaking that rule for non-profits.

stlouiedipalma;1258476 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that churches don't pay taxes and some of them take in a heck of a lot of money. I don't have the numbers on this, but if every church in the US were required to pay taxes I'd bet that tax revenues would go up dramatically.

People stuffing money into matresses have probably already paid taxes on that cash, unless the money was obtained illegally. In that case, there would be a different burden placed on the taxpaying public in the form of higher prison expenses.

Businesses take in a lot of money but are only taxed on their profits. If a business takes in a lot of money but breaks even or loses money they pay no taxes on the money they took in.

So, a non-profit, like even a huge megachurch, if all of the money goes back into the ministry or helping the community, even if you stripped its non-profit status will still pay zero taxes. That is the part you guys are not understanding.

jmog;1258566 wrote:Businesses take in a lot of money but are only taxed on their profits. If a business takes in a lot of money but breaks even or loses money they pay no taxes on the money they took in.

So, a non-profit, like even a huge megachurch, if all of the money goes back into the ministry or helping the community, even if you stripped its non-profit status will still pay zero taxes. That is the part you guys are not understanding.

It's precisely because of this that I wouldn't have any major issues making churches taxable.

Right now there are already borderline unconstitutional laws that more or less limits what pastors, priests, and rabbis can preach from the pulpit if the speech is political in nature. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pastors-unite-against-irs-tax-code-restrictions-on-political-speech-in-the-pulpit/

If the IRS taxes churches, then I guess they'd be free to say whatever political commentary they want from the pulpit. They should be allowed to do it anyway according to the 1st Amendment regardless of tax status.

Mother of all Taliban

believer;1258609 wrote:If the IRS taxes churches, then I guess they'd be free to say whatever political commentary they want from the pulpit. They should be allowed to do it anyway according to the 1st Amendment regardless of tax status.

Actually, I'm glad they don't. If the churches had legal grounds for political pandering, guess who would continually try to get more and more involved in controlling the churches?