Tax on churches

[nobspeople]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?

In the USA, churches have been officially tax exempt since the late 1800s.
Some say this prevents churches from becoming involved in politics (though that's not true in today's world). Others say, by allowing them to be tax exempt, it allows them to funnel more money into social causes. Additionally, some say donations to churches would lessen if churches lost their tax exempt status (though I find that hard to believe - surely crafty churches would find a work-around to keep that ca$h coming in to pay dem bills!).

Opponents say, basically, churches make too much money (especially mega-churches) to not be taxed - that money would benefit all instead of specific, church affiliated charities. They point out that churches tend to get involved in politics and public organizations such as public schools and, thus, should be taxed.

Some claim there's a potential of billions of dollars that can (and should) be taxed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... on-a-year/
https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/w ... pay-taxes/

So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?





* Churches, synagogues, mosques, et al.

[1213]

...
Deleting the word government wouldn't stop people from banding together to do things, ...

I think governments are like legalized mafia really. Normal mafia is better in that it has usually higher moral values and even though it may be bad, it would be easier to get rid of it than get rid of tyrannical government.

[1213]

A nice sentiment, but the fact remains that so many rich folks use their funds to keep from having to put up their fair share to fund the very government that's provided for their gains.

I think it is a problem that governments can be bought to work for the rich. Because that seems to happen always, it would be better to not have governments at all. then also poor people could avoid crazy taxman.

[1213]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

Sorry, I disagree with that. The money is not spent for the benefit of those who pay it and the people who pay, don't really have anything to say how it is spent.

[Athetotheist]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

Actually, the current system----at least where I live----is a system in which people pay money into a communal fund and those elected to control the fund use the money to subsidize the private sector, get the money back as campaign contributions when they run for re-election and then tell the people who paid the money in that there isn't enough money to fix their roads, fund their schools or provide universal health care.

Democracy, eh? If it only enabled you to vote those people out of office.

Oh, wait...you said 'when they run for re-election'. So I guess that you could. In which case I wonder why you don't.

Oh, we sometimes do----but the candidates we're given to replace them with tend to be just as bad since they have to have loads of money to run effective campaigns and those who can provide loads of money attach heavy strings to it. Third-party and independent candidates are edged further and further out by campaign rules, and corporate-owned media dutifully ignore them in favor of the two-party duopoly which rules the roost.

And that's the lecture for this unit of American Politics 101.

[Bradskii]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

Sorry, I disagree with that. The money is not spent for the benefit of those who pay it and the people who pay, don't really have anything to say how it is spent.

So no roads, schools and hospitals where you live. Maybe you do live in the woods...

[Purple Knight]

...
Deleting the word government wouldn't stop people from banding together to do things, ...

I think governments are like legalized mafia really. Normal mafia is better in that it has usually higher moral values and even though it may be bad, it would be easier to get rid of it than get rid of tyrannical government.

I don't see how. If you didn't have government, the mafia would assume that role, and entrench itself so that it would be difficult to dislodge.

You're correct that government = legalised mafia. But you must remember that the actual mafia does not make laws against itself, so if you had no government, the mafia would be legalised mafia, and thus, by definition, a government.

[JoeyKnothead]

A nice sentiment, but the fact remains that so many rich folks use their funds to keep from having to put up their fair share to fund the very government that's provided for their gains.

I think it is a problem that governments can be bought to work for the rich. Because that seems to happen always, it would be better to not have governments at all. then also poor people could avoid crazy taxman.

Our problem here becomes one of defending the poor against the interests of the rich.

Oh.

In a society we're gonna need us a government that works to ensure we all kinda work together, and not kill one another, and all such as that.

What I observe in American government is a kowtowing to the corporations, to the rich, and connected.

We observe that after the government spent massive amounts of money to help the poor, and not so poor, to make it through "pandemic expenses", folks've started to realize that suppressed, poverty level wages need not be the norm.

In the richest country the world's ever known, I contend it ain't too expensive to provide for basic needs, like food and rent, and health care, including it the remaining tooth and that one good eye, and even internet access at speeds that don't have the Lithuanians laughing at us.

On the backs of billionaire space tourists. On the backs of em so wealthy they can afford to spend on the keeping us from the doing it.

[1213]

...
So no roads, schools and hospitals where you live. Maybe you do live in the woods...

For example here in Finland all taxes compined are about 50 % of what one gets (income tax+ VAT +...). If it would really be only for the commonly useful matters like roads, schools and hospitals, they would be good and it would take less money than 50 % of what person earns to arrange them properly.

Maybe it is better in where you live, but here, even though the taxman is utterly greedy, we don't have free healtcare for all, and most workers have healthcare from separate work healthcare system that is in addition to the "free tax based healthcare". And that public health care has also service fees, if you dare to use it. Goverment collects more and more, still all useful services are getting worse every year. It would be better, if people would decide by themselves how their money is used, insted of government tyrants using them like ########.

[1213]

...
I don't see how. If you didn't have government, the mafia would assume that role, and entrench itself so that it would be difficult to dislodge.

You're correct that government = legalised mafia. But you must remember that the actual mafia does not make laws against itself, so if you had no government, the mafia would be legalised mafia, and thus, by definition, a government.

Ok, I think it is better not to have any kind of mafia. But, traditionally, in mafia movies mafia has certain honor and family values, and normal governments doesn't seem have any other values than what the politicians and their sponsors benefit from the serfs.

[1213]

...In a society we're gonna need us a government that works to ensure we all kinda work together, and not kill one another, and all such as that....

Sounds nice, about the same as why some could have claimed that we need to forge a power ring to rule all, to make secure society. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be working. Without human governments, we would not have wars, I think that only would be good reason to not have human governments.