The debate "Religious establishments should be taxed" was started by
June 6, 2016, 4:51 pm.
By the way, SwaggerPoptart is disagreeing with this statement.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 25 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
historybuff posted 13 arguments to the agreers part.
asiaphone12 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Sleepypenguin, Burnin, SueAnnMohr, historybuff, Bodaciouslady16, DemonLlama, Freyja, NameWasTakn, Schnuupi, EddyCamacho and 14 visitors agree.
SwaggerPoptart, fadi, LawfulOne, cmt11, asiaphone12, Sad_Teddy_Bear, Nemiroff, Sugandha, MrShine, Daffa8799, bruff21, moneybagboyz and 13 visitors disagree.
alright, the idea that everything the government touches breaks is just outright bullshit. that is what right wing nut jobs say because they don't want anyone to ever tell them what to do.
if you admit there are many for profit churches then what do you propose if not government oversight? clearly they need oversight. and who else is going to do it?
-The government needs to get its hands off everything. Everything it touches and subsidizes breaks and fails. For instance, the ACA.
-Some churches help the local community, and some don't. I don't think government oversight is the right solution.
-If churches are non-profit, they should not be taxed. If they are profit, I would say they are a business and it defies the purpose of a church so tax them.
-Since all churches are profit, I mean the ones that people/pastors gain private profit for their personal benefit.
people choose to give money to casinos. they are not forced or required to. and churches can and do profit. some of them spend what they make on the community. some of them don't. there is absolutely no oversight of that.
your taxes are some of the lowest in the developed world. you aren't paying enough taxes to provide necessary basic services.
what do they do that a government couldn't? and some churches do a good job. some don't. the ones that are selfish and/or innept are just as tax free as the good ones.
if it were a government program then there would be oversight, there is very little oversight of churches.
-People choose to donate to churches. They are not forced or required, nor does the church gain profit like casinos.
-The government does not know how to spend its money wisely, and we the people are already taxed way to much.
-Churches do what the government can't and quite frankly, they do a better job than the government.
in my opinion a church is like a casino. people walk in with money and walk out without it. they didn't gain anything tangible but they probably felt good.
granted churches generally do charitable work, but with the billionaires in tax revenue the government could afford to do alot of social services as well.
we should not rely on churches to take care of the people. that is the governments job.
but should we?
the Vatican may act like a business, but local churches usually dont.
was hearing a story on NPR this morning talking about pay day loan.
a local church acted like a financial advisor and than an investigator to find out how much damage these loans were doing to its community.
the church does more than just spiritual services for their communities. that is in addition to multitude social benefits.
of course we can't tax the Vatican. but we could tax the Catholic churches within our borders.
the Catholic Church is closer to a nation than a corporation. with a head of state rather than a CEO.
but my point is we can regulate the churches within the US, do you really believe we can regulate the actual Vatican which is considered a sovereign country?
separation of church and state, simple fact of western civilization
the Vatican is the head of the Catholic Church. the Catholic Church is most definitely present in the US and therefore subject to US law.
its kind of like Microsoft coming out with a charity branch that is a small percentage of the company's earnings so you make the entire company tax free. historically religions have been for profit businesses, many still are. only a small part if their earnings go to charitable endeavors.
Yoga studios are profit driven. Maybe a free yoga for everyone group wouldnt be
the Vatican is an international organization not subject to US law and outside of our control. most churches within the US don't act like that. I believe.
religion can pursue spirituality all they want. but spirituality is not a public service. yoga can be a form of spirituality too, I doubt many people think their yoga studio should be tax exempt.
churches can, and do create money for themselves. look at the Vatican and say that churches aren't a for profit enterprise. the Catholic Church is probably the largest corporation on the planet. they rake in massive amounts of profit. but because a small percentage of that wealth is spent helping people, all their wealth is tax exempt.
That's the current system. You cant establish a hypothetical, alter reality, then assume the hypothetical is correct. Many churches are established within poor regions.
If equality, an intangible, is sought for by the NAACP, why cant spirituality be pursued by religion
many communities get a lot from their church. some communities revolve around the church, as a place of meeting, community, and socialization. they also promote charitable giving which is a good for the entire population.
we need to crack down on abusers but in general they deserve their tax exemption as much as any other social/civil organization, because that is what they are.
yeah, the more I think about this issue the more problematic it seems to be. not because you would have to tax other non profits. other non profits provide critical services, the NAACP exists to help racial minorities. planned parenthood exists to hell women with medical care. religion's primary purpose does not seem to be so philanthropic.
the problems that would likely arise from this would be that it would restrict access to religion to wealthier people. especially in neighborhoods with high property values. the cost of maintaining churches would increase dramatically, especially in these areas.
while I have no problem with the decline of religion, the fact that it would affect the poor's access to religion far more than the wealthy is unacceptable to me. the rich can afford to pay for their churches, the poor could not.
if that is the case then all non profit organizations should pay taxes including the NAACP, Planned parenthood, and all other civil groups.
it isn't a matter of how important it is to you. different people find importance in different things. that doesn't mean they qualify to be tax free. if a group of people want to have a church, then they have every right to have one. but that church should not be subsidized by the government. they should be paying for it.
church services may not be important to you, but I have a feeling a large number of Americans dissagree.
not for profit organizations also have to pay employees, rent and maintenance. the fact that churches have to support clergy and upkeep their facilities does not make it not a not for profit.... within limits.... which should be better defined.
there is a lot of abuse, mostly televangelist. but they are considered official, tax exempt, churches.
tax exemptions are the intertwining of church and state. it forces the government to decide what is and what is not a religion I'm order to decide who gets to be exempt. if all religions are taxed normally then they are all separate bodies taxes the same way. that is the separation of church and state.
So you want to separate church and state by intertwining them with taxes. That seems rather counterproductive. But 501c3 arent only for charities as well.
I, and every other person, believe in a separation of church and state. it is the state's job to look after it's people. if the things churches are doing are that important then they are a service the state should provide.
if the service they are providing isn't that important then they aren't a charity and there is no reason not to tax them. either way there is no reason a religious organization should be considered a charity. the two are very different things.
Wtf did I just type, "You hate religion, so you want to abolish everything wrong with it even if it is good or bad."
You hate religion, so you want to abolish everything it provides even if it is good. -What I meant to say.
-People choose to go there historybuff. They do not kidnap people and force them to go there. Yes, sometimes people go door to door to try to explain their views because they want people to believe in what they believe because they believe it is correct! Everybody does, isn't that the very reason you are on this app. There is nothing wrong with the services religous places do, nothing at all! They have a better success rate with the help they recieve from churches than the government. You hate religion, so you want to abolish everything wrong with it even if it is good or bad. Admit it. Go ahead.
But they do those things historybuff
and with the massive amount of tax revenue the government would gain they could do all of that and more without trying to (to use the homophobes favorite phrase) jam their lifestyle down their throats. there is no reason public services should comes from a religious organization.
Not minimal. These groups help kids with community and social interaction. There is this ongoing group where the church brings kids and the work on projects for the eldery and people in need.
Anybody can go into one church who is in serious need and they will help you. You can go too any of these two churches and my city and see that regardless what race, gender, or sexual orientation.
What is your definition of public service
they provide some minimal services to the poor and religious services are not a public service. those services to the poor would be easily offset by the massive amount of money the government would then take in and be able to support the poor.
They give to the poor and provide religious services. To me, religion is critical.
planned parenthood is a health care service. it is necessary for women's health. religions don't give any medical care. they do not provide a public service.
"they aren't tax exempt because they aren't for profit. they are tax exempt because they are in the same category as charities. but since the majority of any religions spending is not going to charitable purposes, in my opinion the should certainly be taxed.
people are forced to subsidize (and being tax free is a subsidy) the religious practices of others. this is a horrible idea. if people want to practice their religion they are free to do so. the government has no business subsidizing that." -historybuff
Therefore is it ok for people to be forced to pay taxes to subsidize planned parenthood? Your logic is wonky.
I'm not sure what that has to do with scam churches which are allowed to operate tax free and exist solely for personal profit.
Atheist have a grudge with religion, so the tax religous establisments. Atleast, historybuff for that matter.
perhaps churches should be better defined so as to prevent abuse.
I do not see why they should. They do not gain profit as I know of some do, and those get taxed. Most churches are non-profit, and the donations they get are to only keep the church moving.
They qualify under the conditions of a 501c3. It isnt just religious institutions.
they aren't tax exempt because they aren't for profit. they are tax exempt because they are in the same category as charities. but since the majority of any religions spending is not going to charitable purposes, in my opinion the should certainly be taxed.
people are forced to subsidize (and being tax free is a subsidy) the religious practices of others. this is a horrible idea. if people want to practice their religion they are free to do so. the government has no business subsidizing that.
the object for tax is when an organization is a profit oriented. What is the purpose when establishing a religion?? is it for profit or inner satisfaction?? those who establishing religion search inner peace, not profit. so it is not the object for tax, except the purpose for religious establishment is a profit, then I agree it can be object for tax