(August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm)Undeceived Wrote: So you think nonprofits should pay taxes? People in the church already pay taxes. You want their freely-pooled money split to the government a second time?

Donations to qualified churches in the U.S. are tax-deductible (as I expect they are most places that have income tax). That is to say, that the money flowing from churchgoers to the church has not, in fact, been subject to taxes to the donor.

Unless of course, the donor chooses to not claim the deduction, which would hardly be the fault of anyone by the donor. Taxpayers that don't itemize get the standard deduction, which more than covers what would have been deductible (because, duh, if it didn't, it would be in their interest to itemize). So, no, that money has NOT been taxed to the donor, except by the donor's consent.

So, what was your point again?

(August 30, 2012 at 11:07 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm)Undeceived Wrote: So you think nonprofits should pay taxes? People in the church already pay taxes. You want their freely-pooled money split to the government a second time?

Donations to qualified churches in the U.S. are tax-deductible (as I expect they are most places that have income tax). That is to say, that the money flowing from churchgoers to the church has not, in fact, been subject to taxes to the donor.

Unless of course, the donor chooses to not claim the deduction, which would hardly be the fault of anyone by the donor. Taxpayers that don't itemize get the standard deduction, which more than covers what would have been deductible (because, duh, if it didn't, it would be in their interest to itemize). So, no, that money has NOT been taxed to the donor, except by the donor's consent.

So, what was your point again?

Wait.

...He HAD a point??

(August 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Good job, hair plugs. Way to avoid the totality of his argument.

What fucking argument. How does a one line sentence asking a question constitute an argument. Dipshit.
I inferred what I could from his question. If he had an actual argument to make he did a pretty shitty job of it, and I don't need your approval of my response thank you very much.

Quote:Taxes ought to be abolished period.

Oh you're one of those are you. I suppose you still expect the government to exist and clean up your streets, help you when you are ill, and magic up money from thin air to build and maintain the entire infrastructure of the country you live in.

Get in the real world you imbecile.

Quote:Anyone crying about how the government doesn't have enough of our money to mismanage can freely pour more of their discretionary income into the state coffers.

People pay taxes for reasons quite obviously beyond your comprehension.

Quote: Given that we can't be entirely throw

Your English sucks.

Quote:the government off our teat we need to first promote responsible government managing of funds before we demand more groups pay into their coffers, religious or not. I don't give a shit what religious groups do with their money.

Your point invalidates itself. First you say you think taxes should be abolished, now you're saying governments should manage funds. Where the fuck do you think the government is going to get the funds from without bloody taxes? Are you seriously this retarded?

Quote:I'm more interested in our government doing things right.

About the only reasonable thing you've said, but seemingly for all the wrong reasons.

Quote:GET IT RIGHT, B.

Please, please sort your writing skills out. You come across as a 13 year old chav, with the intellect to match.

Quote:Donations to qualified churches in the U.S. are tax-deductible (as I expect they are most places that have income tax). That is to say, that the money flowing from churchgoers to the church has not, in fact, been subject to taxes to the donor.

They just HATE it when you resort to facts, Cthulu. They think it is unfair or something.

(August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm)Undeceived Wrote: So you think nonprofits should pay taxes? People in the church already pay taxes. You want their freely-pooled money split to the government a second time?

Cry me a river. Since when is a rackeeting and corrupt criminal organizations like most christian churches not for profit?

And when was the first time you idiot Jesus devotees paid tax on the money you give to your church???? You mean you forgot to deduct it on your tax returns?

As to paying a second time, and so you should. When you go to the grocery store to provide charity to your own stomach, you pay sales tax on the purchase using money out of which you've already paid income tax.

So fuck your bleeding church whine.

(August 31, 2012 at 9:00 am)Napoléon Wrote:

(August 30, 2012 at 11:00 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Good job, hair plugs. Way to avoid the totality of his argument.

What fucking argument. How does a one line sentence asking a question constitute an argument. Dipshit.
I inferred what I could from his question. If he had an actual argument to make he did a pretty shitty job of it, and I don't need your approval of my response thank you very much.

Quote:Taxes ought to be abolished period.

Oh you're one of those are you. I suppose you still expect the government to exist and clean up your streets, help you when you are ill, and magic up money from thin air to build and maintain the entire infrastructure of the country you live in.

Get in the real world you imbecile.

Quote:Anyone crying about how the government doesn't have enough of our money to mismanage can freely pour more of their discretionary income into the state coffers.

People pay taxes for reasons quite obviously beyond your comprehension.

Quote: Given that we can't be entirely throw

Your English sucks.

Quote:the government off our teat we need to first promote responsible government managing of funds before we demand more groups pay into their coffers, religious or not. I don't give a shit what religious groups do with their money.

Your point invalidates itself. First you say you think taxes should be abolished, now you're saying governments should manage funds. Where the fuck do you think the government is going to get the funds from without bloody taxes? Are you seriously this retarded?

Quote:I'm more interested in our government doing things right.

About the only reasonable thing you've said, but seemingly for all the wrong reasons.

Quote:GET IT RIGHT, B.

Please, please sort your writing skills out. You come across as a 13 year old chav, with the intellect to match.

What you don't have a point, you break up someone elses point till it loses all context.

Good job. You invented a new logical fallacy. I didn't think it was possible, hair-plugs.

I suggest we vote "Vinny" off the island.

Here's your tax exempt xtian shit up your nose....

http://gawker.com/5831155/megachurch-pas...mes-square

Quote:Megachurch Pastor Found Dead, with Drugs, in Times Square

Times Square has cleaned up a lot over the last 20 years or so! But there's still no better place on earth to die with drugs in your pocket. Especially if you're the pastor of a huge church in Florida.

(August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm)Undeceived Wrote: So you think nonprofits should pay taxes?

You think churches are "non-profits"? Okay, then let the churches open their books and file with IRS like REAL non-profits do.

Quote:People in the church already pay taxes. You want their freely-pooled money split to the government a second time?

This is like arguing that the people who work for IBM already pay taxes, so IBM shouldn't have to pay taxes.

I don't have time or inclination to research this thoroughly at the moment, so I'm just going to stick my nose in under the tent. There is a lot more at issue than simply saying religion is a business and since we tax businesses, they too should be taxed. There are plenty of organizations that are businesses that are also not taxed, and for many you can likely find an enemy who dislikes them for personal, political, or emotional reasons and would love to see their tax exemption stripped. The question is not whether you like what churches do, but rather is what churches do deserving of the same protection as other tax exempt organizations under the reasons given for supporting those other organizations' tax exempt status. (And the reasons go beyond the mere existence of charitable activities.) I at one time was on the board of directors of a 501(c)3, and a large part of an effort to revise our core documents, but I'm still only minimally aware of the history and working of that section of the tax code. I can't speak to any other than the U.S. tax code, nor would I, as some of these questions are specific to the particular country (e.g. the Church of England). (Just by way of example, American Atheists is itself a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization. I'm sure there are people who would like to see that taken away, likely for illegitimate reasons, but all the same. [1])

Quote:
The idea that tax exemptions are accorded to certain organizations because they provide a benefit to society which the government is unable or unwilling to provide has a long history in the United States. In the 1861 Supreme Court case Perin v. Carey, the Court held that “It has now become an established principle of American law that courts of chancery will sustain and protect ...a gift ...to public charitable uses, provided the same is consistent with local laws and public policy...”

Later, in 1877 in Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings, the Supreme Court held that “A charitable use, where neither law nor public policy forbids, may be applied to almost any thing that tends to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man.” Thus, the exact nature or purpose of a charitable organization remains open and variable, but one constant remains which unites the class: the general benefit of the public and society.

—

Quote:
There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

—



[1] At the regional conference of American Atheists here recently, AA President Dave Silverman recounted an effort currently underway, I believe it was, to put the ten commandments in government buildings and offices; the aim of this campaign, according to Silverman, was not to gain a legal victory — the law is firmly settled against them — their main goal is simply to launch repeated cases in an effort to bleed the AA's legal fund dry. (And the opponents of AA are quite capable of outspending AA.)