[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Tax exemption is as much government control as additional taxation.[/quote]
This makes no sense.[/quote]
“If you do this you can’t have tax exemption.”
“I you do this, we’ll take away your exemption.”
“We approve of this nut who claims to worship hookers, so all the money he spends on hookers is tax exempt.”
I thought it said something about free exercise of…You want to them to start charging for the right to exercise religious practices? Sure, tax Churches and their associations. You’ll cut down on both. The government will have more revenue and more people needing services. And, they’ll provide to those additional people inefficiently. So, you’ll need even more revenue.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“If you do this you can’t have tax exemption.”
“I you do this, we’ll take away your exemption.”
“We approve of this nut who claims to worship hookers, so all the money he spends on hookers is tax exempt.”[/quote]
Churches are going to be churches whether the government taxes them or not, or grants an exemption. The government isn’t controlling their inherent institutional behavior.
Providing an exemption isn’t a kind of control - not being taxed is a good thing, and churches are going to be churches regardless.
Secondly, institutions have to demonstrate that they are a bona fide religious institution for purposes of the exemption. And there is always going to be questions at the margin (your hooker church, for example) - that doesn’t invalidate the general point.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“If you do this you can’t have tax exemption.”
“I you do this, we’ll take away your exemption.”
“We approve of this nut who claims to worship hookers, so all the money he spends on hookers is tax exempt.”[/quote]
Churches are going to be churches whether the government taxes them or not, or grants an exemption. The government isn’t controlling their inherent institutional behavior.
Providing an exemption isn’t a kind of control - not being taxed is a good thing, and churches are going to be churches regardless.
Secondly, institutions have to demonstrate that they are a bona fide religious institution for purposes of the exemption. And there is always going to be questions at the margin (your hooker church, for example) - that doesn’t invalidate the general point.[/quote]
This is what you said in reference to taxing churches before: “we dare not open the possibility that the government can start dictating to churches”
Taxes including exemptions is a way to control the pocket book and dictate behavior.
What can be a snare though is that religion is inextricably woven into the very substance of politics as well. Nobody with religious convictions is immune to voting in concurrence with their religion. Accordingly it’s very tough to not have anything of a political nature ever come from a pulpit, but as soon as it does it’s deemed endorsement and the the tax exempt status is in jeopardy.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
This is what you said in reference to taxing churches before: “we dare not open the possibility that the government can start dictating to churches”
Taxes including exemptions is a way to control the pocket book and dictate behavior.[/quote]
Not exemptions - exemptions are definitionally an act of keeping their hands off church policy and behavior. A government that doesn’t tax a church can’t dictate to it. That’s common sense - the government has no power to dictate, it has no leverage.
Taxing is the opposite. A government that taxes a church can dictate to it, because it has leverage - i.e., the ability to grant less favorable tax rates if the church doesn’t do the government’s bidding.
Tax exemptions don’t control anything with respect to churches - that’s ridiculous. Churches have been tax-exempt since time immemorial - so tell me, what behavior has the government been “dictating” or “achieving” this whole time of historical tax exemptions?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
This is what you said in reference to taxing churches before: “we dare not open the possibility that the government can start dictating to churches”
Taxes including exemptions is a way to control the pocket book and dictate behavior.[/quote]
Not exemptions - exemptions are definitionally an act of keeping their hands off church policy and behavior. A government that doesn’t tax a church can’t dictate to it. That’s common sense - the government has no power to dictate, it has no leverage.
Taxing is the opposite. A government that taxes a church can dictate to it, because it has leverage - i.e., the ability to grant less favorable tax rates if the church doesn’t do the government’s bidding.
Tax exemptions don’t control anything with respect to churches - that’s ridiculous. Churches have been tax-exempt since time immemorial - so tell me, what behavior has the government been “dictating” or “achieving” this whole time of historical tax exemptions?[/quote]
Except it can set rules for compliance for tax exempt status, which they all do.
Much like how tax exemptions for fuel efficient vehicles is a control for what people drive.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Except it can set rules for compliance for tax exempt status, which they all do.[/quote]
Well, sure, it has to, to prevent tax fraud. So what? It’s not as though these rules command behavior from churches they aren’t already going to engage in - they set ground rules so that non-churches can’t cheat the system.
And churches have certain rules that would make them forfeit their tax-exempt status, such as politciking from the pulpit. That is no big deal - that is part of the ability to combat tax-fraud from non-churches.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Much like how tax exemptions for fuel efficient vehicles is a control for what people drive.[/quote]
Absurd. Those tax exemptions are designed to provide financial incentives to consumers to choose one good over another in a market. You actually think that churches wouldn’t exist or function without the tax exemption, i.e., that the tax benefit would cause people to form churches when they otherwise wouldn’t?
Again, absurd.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And churches have certain rules that would make them forfeit their tax-exempt status, such as politciking from the pulpit. That is no big deal - that is part of the ability to combat tax-fraud from non-churches.
[/quote]
There is a perfect example. And it is a big deal.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You actually think that churches wouldn’t exist or function without the tax exemption, i.e., that the tax benefit would cause people to form churches when they otherwise wouldn’t?
[/quote]
No, didn’t claim that. It isn’t necessary. You can change behavior with rules that don’t have the power to bankrupt or completely drive something into non-existence.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, didn’t claim that. It isn’t necessary. You can change behavior with rules that don’t have the power to bankrupt or completely drive something into non-existence. [/quote]
But you used the analogy of the tax exemptions for cars. Clearly, those tax exemotions are designed to buy cars they might otherwise not buy.
So, tell me - what behavior exactly is the government trying to get to occur via tax exemptions to churches in the same way it uses them for low-pollution cars? What is the government trying to accomplish from a behavior prespective via these exemptions?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
No, didn’t claim that. It isn’t necessary. You can change behavior with rules that don’t have the power to bankrupt or completely drive something into non-existence. [/quote]
But you used the analogy of the tax exemptions for cars. Clearly, those tax exemotions are designed to buy cars they might otherwise not buy.
So, tell me - what behavior exactly is the government trying to get to occur via tax exemptions to churches in the same way it uses them for low-pollution cars? What is the government trying to accomplish from a behavior prespective via these exemptions?[/quote]
But it isn’t necessary that the cars wouldn’t exist without it. There is no reason to assume this.
What rules does the government have to maintain tax exemptions?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is no wall.[/quote]
Yes, there is.
No, everyone (or thing) should not be taxed the same, because they aren’t the same, and different things should be treated differently.
Churches get preferential treatment precisely because they are different, they hold a special place in our culture - and we decided long ago that we dare not open the possibility that the government can start dictating to churches, for the reason I mentioned above - there’s no conceivable way the government policy would ever be even-handed among churches, and that would send us down the road to sectarian strife.[/quote]
I think that if a church (or anyone for that matter) is doing business inside the church (selling drinks, food, etc.) then those item’s revenue should be taxed, no doubt. I agree with DoubleDuece (I think) where he said that the donations should not be taxed, because that would start making things a little muddy on the individuals end as well.
Again, if they own property that is used to sell products not in a church those should be taxed as well. (all the property they rent out, etc.)
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But it isn’t necessary that the cars wouldn’t exist without it. There is no reason to assume this.[/quote]
No one assumed this, least of all me, and it’s irrelevant. Just answer the question posed in accordance with your own example: what kinds of behavior is the government trying to achieve via its tax exemptions for the church?
Your example, so you tell me.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But it isn’t necessary that the cars wouldn’t exist without it. There is no reason to assume this.[/quote]
No one assumed this, least of all me, and it’s irrelevant. Just answer the question posed in accordance with your own example: what kinds of behavior is the government trying to achieve via its tax exemptions for the church?
Your example, so you tell me. [/quote]
For one, they would prevent people from donating to the church of the holy hooker.
You have already admitted they regulate political speech in the church.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have already admitted they regulate political speech in the church.[/quote]
So, let me understand you - you’re saying that the government creates tax exemptions for the church to purposely restrict them from engaging in political speech? That is the purpose of the tax exemption?
You didn’t offer up any other justifications, so I’ll just run with this one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You have already admitted they regulate political speech in the church.[/quote]
So, let me understand you - you’re saying that the government creates tax exemptions for the church to purposely restrict them from engaging in political speech? That is the purpose of the tax exemption?
You didn’t offer up any other justifications, so I’ll just run with this one. [/quote]
It is one of the results, you already admitted that. It changes what is and isn’t preached from the pulpit.
And regardless of whether they do use the power or not, they have it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It is one of the results, you already admitted that. It changes what is and isn’t preached from the pulpit.[/quote]
Stop avoiding the question. You compared the tax exemption of churches to tax exemptions given to purchasers of low-pollution cars. Well, we know why we do it for low-pollution cars - we want to create incentives for consumers to but a low-pollution car instead of a different one.
What I want to know from you, pursuant to your own example - what incentives are we creating via the tax exemption for churches? What, specifically, are we trying to get churches to do that they would not ordinarily do without the tax exemption?
I don’t care about “results” - those can be the result of unintended consequences, or other policy directives (i.e., preventing fraud). I want to know what we are tryting to get churches to do with this tax exemption.
I’ll wait patiently.