(December 13, 2014 at 2:08 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(December 13, 2014 at 1:55 pm)Heywood Wrote: Individual members of the church pay taxes too. If they own property they pay property tax. If they buy stuff they pay sales tax. You want them to pay taxes again when they pool their resources to exercise their right to freedom or religion. You want Church going folk to subsidize your tax burden.

You are missing three important points:

1) The individual church members get to deduct their contributions to their church from their taxable income, thus they are not paying taxes on those pooled resources.

2) Other kinds of groups who pull their resources to buy things such as social clubs, babysitting cooperatives, and gardening clubs do have to pay taxes on those pooled resources.

3) Churches are government resource users. They expect police and fire protection and they use neighborhood streets heavily. For zoning purposes they very heavy users like schools and recreation centers (which is pretty much what they are).

So yes they should be taxed like everyone else unless they otherwise meet the definition of a charitable institution. Providing church services and proselytizing should not be a subsidized activity. Subsidizing is establishment. Taxing at the same rate everyone else is taxed is not prohibiting.

Well you already know I disagree with 1. Regarding 2, those other kinds of groups are not expressly protected under the constitution like religion is. Regarding 3, people are governmental resource users and we should tax people....as individuals and not when they come together to perform some activity. Corporations should not be taxed. Instead dividends should be taxed at the individual rate. If a corporation retains earnings then they can issue statements to the stockholders on the amount of dividends they would have had received had the earning not been retained. The stock holders could then pay tax on that.

The purpose of taxing individuals and then taxing people when the come together to preform some activity is to disguise the amount of taxes you are paying. The tax code should be simple and transparent and it should apply equally to everyone....as individuals.

---

(December 13, 2014 at 3:14 pm)robvalue Wrote: Proving this thread is true, using this thread?

That sounds familiar...

Read the thread Rob, one guy asked if my argument applied to media companies....so that person clearly understood my argument......which means it had have been laid out in this thread. I replied "yes" Then comes Parker with a silly request for a citation for a conclusion of a laid out argument. If Parker wants to ask for a citation for a fact used to support that argument....such as the Supreme Court saying back in 1819(if my memory is correct) that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" that is something else entirely. However parroting "Citation needed" as he did got the answer it deserved.

Well, Marshall did say that - regarding a bank. While a tax -could- be used to destroy any body with financial holdings - in principle..whether or not it does or is actually used to do so is another matter entirely. Sort of like how cops -could be- used to provide security..or they -could be- used to shake a town down. Thankfully, the fed isn't taxing religion - just business transactions, property, etc. Do you also feel that this grants the federal government the "power to destroy" the citizen? Is that how you would describe our individual situation?

Hey, what if paying taxes was against my religion? Could I opt out? Being forced to pay a tax would surely be prohibition then, eh?

(December 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(December 13, 2014 at 1:43 pm)IATIA Wrote: The request is for a qualification of your unsubstantiated "Yes".

How does taxing the media companies that form the press obstruct the press?

The qualification he is seeking can be found in posts 1-280 of this thread.

No, it can't.

Link specifically to an instance where the media was forced to mitigate its message at the instigation of the IRS.

That is, after all, what you are claiming.

---

(December 13, 2014 at 3:20 pm)Heywood Wrote: Read the thread Rob, one guy asked if my argument applied to media companies....so that person clearly understood my argument......which means it had have been laid out in this thread. I replied "yes" Then comes Parker with a silly request for a citation for a conclusion of a laid out argument. If Parker wants to ask for a citation for a fact used to support that argument....such as the Supreme Court saying back in 1819(if my memory is correct) that "the power to tax is the power to destroy" that is something else entirely. However parroting "Citation needed" as he did got the answer it deserved.

Look, I had given you credit for not being so stupid that you should understand that that sarcasm was pointing out the need for evidence ... but apparently I was wrong; you are indeed so stupid that you didn't get the simple gist.

You need to lay out exactly how the tax codes have been used to hamper a free press, since that is what you've claimed.

If you can't support that, then I and others will simply file this as one more entry into "Heywood's Bullshit Roundfile" and move on -- no harm, no foul, just you being your arguing-out-of-your-ass self. It really is simple, and you should be smart enough to see it.

Emphasis on "should."

---

(December 13, 2014 at 3:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Hey, what if paying taxes was against my religion? Could I opt out? Being forced to pay a tax would surely be prohibition then, eh?

I think you're onto something. PM sent.

(December 13, 2014 at 3:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 13, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: The qualification he is seeking can be found in posts 1-280 of this thread.

No, it can't.

Link specifically to an instance where the media was forced to mitigate its message at the instigation of the IRS.

How about all the media companies that do not exist because taxes make their business model untenable.

---

(December 13, 2014 at 3:54 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 13, 2014 at 3:38 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Hey, what if paying taxes was against my religion? Could I opt out? Being forced to pay a tax would surely be prohibition then, eh?

I think you're onto something. PM sent.

Freedom of religion does not allow one not to pay taxes or sacrifice virgins. The government can still pass laws that obstruct free exercise of religion if they are necessary for governance. Revoking the tax exempt status of churches is not necessary for governance. Society and government are not collapsing because churches have tax exempt status. All we are doing here is arguing our opinions and why we hold them.

(December 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: How about all the media companies that do not exist because taxes make their business model untenable.

Please enumerate them.

(December 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Freedom of religion does not allow one not to pay taxes or sacrifice virgins. The government can still pass laws that obstruct free exercise of religion if they are necessary for governance. Revoking the tax exempt status of churches is not necessary for governance. Society and government are not collapsing because churches have tax exempt status. All we are doing here is arguing our opinions and why we hold them.

The tax-exempt status of churches forces their rightful obligations to be paid by non-believers. Corporations pay taxes, after its shareholders have done so. Why shouldn't churches be treated as corporations? That is, in fact, what they are: a group of people, pooling their resources to pursue a common good.

If you're okay with taxing other corporations, why do you draw a special line around your church?

I mean, other than the fact that you want a special privilege?

(December 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Freedom of religion does not allow one not to pay taxes or sacrifice virgins.

But in some cases it does allow for sacrificing their own children when the parents decide to pray instead of calling a doctor. This has actually caused deaths.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm

(December 13, 2014 at 7:44 pm)abaris Wrote:

(December 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Freedom of religion does not allow one not to pay taxes or sacrifice virgins.

But in some cases it does allow for sacrificing their own children when the parents decide to pray instead of calling a doctor. This has actually caused deaths.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical1.htm

Yeah, but were they virgins? They probably deserved it.

(December 13, 2014 at 7:38 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(December 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: How about all the media companies that do not exist because taxes make their business model untenable.

Please enumerate them.

(December 13, 2014 at 5:30 pm)Heywood Wrote: Freedom of religion does not allow one not to pay taxes or sacrifice virgins. The government can still pass laws that obstruct free exercise of religion if they are necessary for governance. Revoking the tax exempt status of churches is not necessary for governance. Society and government are not collapsing because churches have tax exempt status. All we are doing here is arguing our opinions and why we hold them.

The tax-exempt status of churches forces their rightful obligations to be paid by non-believers. Corporations pay taxes, after its shareholders have done so. Why shouldn't churches be treated as corporations? That is, in fact, what they are: a group of people, pooling their resources to pursue a common good.

If you're okay with taxing other corporations, why do you draw a special line around your church?

I mean, other than the fact that you want a special privilege?

If you read post 1-295 you will find that I have already put out my position about taxing people when they come together to engage in some activity.

(December 13, 2014 at 8:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: If you read post 1-295 you will find that I have already put out my position about taxing people when they come together to engage in some activity.

Like Heywood, you are free to dismiss/ignore those that lay waste to your unfounded assertions.

People can come together to worship any time they want. It doesn't have to be in a church, and it doesn't have to be really loud and intrusive. It just so happens that Christianity has the lion's share of religions so has a bazillion churches. My new religion has no allocated buildings, but I can do religious stuff just fine. No one can tax any of this.

Plus, God is a pussy who is scared of the tax man. He clearly has no interest in "providing" anything. I know I said that already, but it's funny, so I said it again. What's he gonna do about it? People (not God) threatening me with what will happen after I'm dead are not scaring me in the slightest. Do what you want to me when I'm dead, what do I care?