[quote]MrRezister wrote:
I don’t care if they don’t have to pay taxes on that, since presumably all the people who attend the church already pay taxes individually.[/quote]
All the people working in a business pays taxes individually. All the customer of the same business pay taxes individually. Why do businesses pays taxes and not churches?
Good idea. Meanwhile, they’re still mooching on your share of the utilities bill.
Yes, that’s true, but businesses are “for-profit” and churches are non-profit. Whereas a business’s primary purpose is to generate ever greater amounts of income while setting out a service or product for consumption, a church’s primary goal is [supposed to be] taking care of those who can’t help themselves, both spiritually and physically.
Leaving aside the argument of proselytizing, the church’s primary objective is to reach out to people in need of help and give them aid and support. This necessitates a large commitment of both time and money, with nothing coming back in return in terms of material gains or liquid assets. They don’t gain anything.
Church’s subsist off of their member’s generosity, as well as using that generosity to look for ways to improve the community around them or at large.
You can think of it this way— you pay capital gains tax on any net profit you receive from in the stock market in any fiscal year. However, you don’t pay any capital gains taxes on money you’ve lost over that year, if your stocks go negative.
Churches operate in the negative at all times. They spend money on things that don’t make them any money.
Not always so: there are churches that have huge investment portfolios.
It seems to me that that is actual income by any definition.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
The tax exempt status was partly instated under the premise that churches refrain from political bias. Any church that pushes for any particular party should lose that status. Adams feared not only that religion would corrupt government (as we’ve seen with the right-wing), but that government would dictate religion.
Keep em’ separate… as the forefathers desired.
Please cite a couple of particular instances where the church has corrupted government - specifically from the right wing, as you state.
Are you blind and deaf, RJ? The religious right? Ever hear that term? Doesn’t it concern you that the religious right has hijacked the Republican Party?
There’s a great book by Jim Walls called “Who Speaks For God” where he explains such a hijacking, its negative effects on the party, and how it goes against true conservativism.
[/quote]
No. I am neither dumb, nor blind. Are you? I asked for you to show me particular instance where the church has corrupted government.
In return, you gave me citizens exercising their 1st amendment rights. That is not the same thing as “church” corrupting government.
If you are going to be upset about that, are you not also equally upset about the enviro-whackos hijacking the democratic party?
Or is it only corrupting when a group you hate has a voice?
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not always so: there are churches that have huge investment portfolios.
It seems to me that that is actual income by any definition.[/quote]
There are plenty of non-profits that invest their cash. While it is income, it would only be taxable if they did something with it that violates their 501(c) status.
I am on the board of several non-profits, and they all have money earning a return in one vehicle or another.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
The tax exempt status was partly instated under the premise that churches refrain from political bias. Any church that pushes for any particular party should lose that status. Adams feared not only that religion would corrupt government (as we’ve seen with the right-wing), but that government would dictate religion.
Keep em’ separate… as the forefathers desired. [/quote]
And you don’t see the corruption on the left because of the lack of religion (ie: there is no right or wrong, only opinion) on the left?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Leaving aside the argument of proselytizing, the church’s primary objective is to reach out to people in need of help and give them aid and support. This necessitates a large commitment of both time and money, with nothing coming back in return in terms of material gains or liquid assets. They don’t gain anything.[/quote]
So? They pay for the buildings they buy, the cars they drive, furniture, etc.
They can pay taxes too, just like the rest of us.
My house on my property is to shelter my family. I do not derive income from living here. I am also “non-profit” and provide for my family, but still manage to pay my taxes.
I’m not asking for any “special” church tax or “non-profit” tax… I’d just prefer to have no exceptions and that everyone paid their share.
If members wish to donate money, no problem. In fact, since the tax burden would be reduced for everyone else, people can then choose to donate to an organization they support. I don’t have to support religious institutions, and you don’t have to support the ACLU (for example).
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not always so: there are churches that have huge investment portfolios.
It seems to me that that is actual income by any definition.[/quote]
True. I stand corrected. However, in my experience this is mostly giganto-megachurches. I know my old church when I was growing up didn’t have one, and it’s fairly large. I know a vast vast number don’t either.
[quote]jawara wrote:
And you don’t see the corruption on the left because of the lack of religion (ie: there is no right or wrong, only opinion) on the left?[/quote]
A lot of religious folks consider themselves “on the left.”
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
jawara wrote:
And you don’t see the corruption on the left because of the lack of religion (ie: there is no right or wrong, only opinion) on the left?
A lot of religious folks consider themselves “on the left.” [/quote]
I’ve been a Christian for 15 years, as well as on the left.