Eliminate church (and ALL other) tax exemptions?

[Zzyzx]

.
In another thread I posted:

Floating an idea

Why not eliminate church tax-exemptions and ALL tax-exemptions?

Reasoning: If we donate to an organization and take a tax exemption for our donation, OTHERS have to pay more tax to cover what we do not pay. Therefore, THEY are forced to subsidize our donation (and thereby our choice of where to donate – and the organization itself).

Tax exemption favors certain types of organizations -- many of which find ways to game the system and enrich select people.

1) Should our decision to donate to a certain cause or organization obligate others to support our decision by paying more taxes to make up for what we don't pay -- even if they disagree with the cause or organization?

2) Should non-believers pay extra tax to make up for exemptions for religious organizations?

I understand "freedom of (and from) religion" and how taxation could be used to favor certain sects; however, if all churches were taxes at equal rates there would be no favoritism.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 60 by dianaiad]

Probably not.

So your blanket statement of "A church, however, given the same incentive (no property taxes, for instance) is all gain for the community..." is not true, correct?

As long as the church concerned does not actively advocate violent behavior toward members or non-members, the value of its presence in the neighborhood remains the same.

So violence is now the caveat?!? I'm sure you're aware that non-violent measures are hurtful as well, no?

Whether its neighbors are bigots or not.

That's exactly why some people don't want a church in their neighborhood and thus, isn't a "...gain for the community..." as you seem to think.
Now then, if you wish to add the words 'a better benefit than a drug house' of the like, that's a different story. But, as a blanket statement, you are wrong.
asically:
just because you want a church doesn't mean it's a benefit to the cummunity.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 60 by dianaiad]

Probably not.

So your blanket statement of "A church, however, given the same incentive (no property taxes, for instance) is all gain for the community..." is not true, correct?

What, because some bigots around it might not want it?

Tell me: was the elimination of 'whites only' drinking fountains NOT a gain for the community because some bigots wanted to keep them?

The advantages I listed come along with almost every church...with the exceptions I also listed. Doesn't much matter what the nay sayers who don't want it moving into their back yards think. Those financial advantages to the community remain.

/viewtopic.php?p=664450#664450]connermt[/url]"]

As long as the church concerned does not actively advocate violent behavior toward members or non-members, the value of its presence in the neighborhood remains the same.

So violence is now the caveat?!? I'm sure you're aware that non-violent measures are hurtful as well, no?[/quote]

Define 'hurtful.'

Whether its neighbors are bigots or not.

That's exactly why some people don't want a church in their neighborhood and thus, isn't a "...gain for the community..." as you seem to think.
Now then, if you wish to add the words 'a better benefit than a drug house' of the like, that's a different story. But, as a blanket statement, you are wrong.
asically:
just because you want a church doesn't mean it's a benefit to the cummunity.

Or rather, just because you don't like them is doesn't mean that they aren't.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 62 by dianaiad]

You messed up your quoting so I'm not sure what you're saying - but I'll try to 'make sense of it':

Tell me: was the elimination of 'whites only' drinking fountains NOT a gain for the community because some bigots wanted to keep them?

I would suppose it would depend on the community you asked...you'd need to find that community and ask them For me, I never understood why one would want to keep one group from their rights simply because they're different. But that's just me - I'm not bigoted like that.

The advantages I listed come along with almost every church...with the exceptions I also listed. Doesn't much matter what the nay sayers who don't want it moving into their back yards think. Those financial advantages to the community remain.

So now, you're saving face by adding the caveat 'some churches' instead of 'churches'. So, your statement of "A church, however, given the same incentive (no property taxes, for instance) is all gain for the community..." should be amended to say '"Some churches, however, given the same incentive (no property taxes, for instance) may be gain for some in the community..."

Define 'hurtful.'

Do you not know what the word means? Stop with the word games please. Simply because you're not advoacting violence doesn't mean a church will not cause harm to the lives of those in a community whose lives they may disagree with, does it not?
Let's say WBBC wants to build one of their churches in a highly military community - not too far from the local base. Would that be a benefit to the community? Their picketing of military funerals will benefit this community how, exactly?
Now you will probably say 'that's an extreme' but, for many who don't want a church in their communuty, the comparison is apt and thus, a church in their community might not be a benefit. This is one reason why you see churches that cater to the community in which they are a part of.

Or rather, just because you don't like them is doesn't mean that they aren't.

What's wrong with not wanting a church of bigots in one's community? Surely you're not suggesting that a community should accept any church in their community because they're 'a church' which you don't seem to think can do no wrong, no?

[The Nice Centurion]

.
In another thread I posted:

Floating an idea

Why not eliminate church tax-exemptions and ALL tax-exemptions?

Reasoning: If we donate to an organization and take a tax exemption for our donation, OTHERS have to pay more tax to cover what we do not pay. Therefore, THEY are forced to subsidize our donation (and thereby our choice of where to donate – and the organization itself).

Tax exemption favors certain types of organizations -- many of which find ways to game the system and enrich select people.

1) Should our decision to donate to a certain cause or organization obligate others to support our decision by paying more taxes to make up for what we don't pay -- even if they disagree with the cause or organization?

2) Should non-believers pay extra tax to make up for exemptions for religious organizations?

I understand "freedom of (and from) religion" and how taxation could be used to favor certain sects; however, if all churches were taxes at equal rates there would be no favoritism.

I believe that the idea is to tax one's income. You know, the money you keep. If you choose to give away your money (and thus it is not yours) why should you be taxed on it?

It seems like a fairly easy concept...and one that the government actually encourages. The more money one gives to charity, the less the government has to spend on the programs that charity supports.

Now the government doesn't give a hoot what that tax exempt money goes for: you can contribute to the local museum of dog prints. You can contribute to an organization whose sole function is to provide rainbow colored Solo cups to beach goers so that it will be easier to spot them when the folks serving community service have to go pick up the litter. You can contribute to the folks who hand out scholarships based on essays entitled 'why religion is dying and what I can do to finish it off." You can contribute to the guys who want to buy bright red vests for the sea turtle crossing guards.

You can contribute to the folks who rescue abandoned guinea pigs. You can support the folks building the biggest monument to the hot dog ever, and continue to contribute toward the maintenance and upkeep of that monument. You can contribute to the museum that houses "The Piss Christ" so that it will have extra security around the display.

It's your choice.

I don't see that anybody is having snit fits over contributions to non-profit organizations along those lines.

Personally, I figure that, if you give away your money, the government shouldn't have any right to that part. No matter who you give it to.

Now, if someone could come up with a really fair flat tax that handles everything, I'd listen, but until then.....nah. Religion, secular, whatever; if you want to give your money away, it's your money.

And the government should keep its greedy sticky fingers off of it.

The churches give only the very smallest spare part of their income to the poor. And even that just for show and propaganda.
Much more church money goes, for example, into kiddie porns for priests and magic underwear for believers. And at least the latter is again sold by the church.