What are you referring to?
The tax exemptions for those who claim to be religious.
So you’re unable to come up with an example, or how that’s put into place? Let me ask you this - do you know what a “tax exemption” is as it refers to non-profits? Also, how exactly is the “jesus brigade” treated differently than those of other religions?
The point was that those with religion are treated differently to those without. If you can’t get tax exemption for a club where you talk about chess or knitting, I don’t see how the jesus chat club gets a free pass.
This is not going to go well for you.
You’re aware that you CAN, in fact, get non-profit status for such clubs? Now, would you please answer the questions I asked? What is your understanding of what a “tax exemption” actually is?
I would also support such an arrangement. Already many NPOs perform a lot of the social functions that once were performed mostly by church charities (e.g. food banks) so why treat one preferently over the other.
Though it would be tricky on the policy side because politically the pressures would be to either loosen all regulation on NPOs so that churches can be maximally unfettered, thus leaving the door open to many scammy NPOs, vs., going super-strict about not letting any NPO do or advocate anything not in the charter definition and thus risk squelching the social mission of the church.
And I sould poll the ten churches within walking distance as to where’s the pastor’s helo pad and why is he driving such a heap 
Though three of them are Catholic so they can actually point to one in Rome 
The notion that people become clergy or found churches to make money is popular in some circles, but it’s ridiculous. Anyone can simply look up the average salary that is earned by an ordinary Catholic priest or mainline Protestant minister. They do not earn a lot of money. My wife is a pastor (ELCA) and when she gets her first call, her salary will be about $35,000. Any person with a comparable level of eduction–she did 8 years of college and grad school–could get far more money by going into almost any other field you would care to name.
If there are any clergy who became clergy because of the money, they obviously constitute a tiny fraction of the total.
Any club can get a free pass as long as they are non-profit. Now that you’ve been informed that you are completely wrong in your assumptions does that change your opinion on the subject at hand?
Agreed.
Churches, etc., are businesses and when they are exempted from property taxes and the like, it makes taxes go up for the rest of us. They should pull their share.
So who are the shareholders? Who owns a church? Churches and other non-profits are fundamentally different from businesses in this way - I’m sorry, but your statement is completely 100% incorrect.
I suppose I better leave the debate to people who know what the hell they’re talking about, I believe I’m a disservice to both sides.
Or stay and learn something. It’s a complicated subject that will be getting more and more attention in the next 3 years. I think it’s going to become a pretty serious political issue by the next election, and there’s going to be a tremendous amount of misunderstanding about what, exactly, a non-profit is and does, and why their protection across the board is going to be threatened.
When people shout “churches should be taxed!”, it doesn’t make much sense, unless they’re talking about local property taxes. Generally, a non-profit, if taxed at normal business rates, wouldn’t be levied that much, if at all. Very few non-profits turn a significant “profit”, and they all pay income taxes on salaries. That’s, I think, one of the big misunderstandings - that they think clergy aren’t paying their own taxes because “they’re exempt”. The major tax-exemption is actually for those who donate to those organizations - they get to deduct the amount of that donation out of their taxable income.
I’m not a religious person but am still quite startled that the number answering “Yes” was more than zero.
Taken as you’ve worded it, your hypothetical is that a particular religious organization, by some quirk, got taxed at 90% - and would we be in favor of that religious organization, knowing nothing else about it?
IOW, that’s one of the most poorly worded OPs I can recall.
My answer to the OP as written is that I’d have to know something about a religion other than its tax status to decide whether I approved of it.
My answer to the apparent meaning of the OP, putting forth the question of whether religious organizations should be taxed at 90% (presumably of revenues, including contributions, minus operating costs), is the same as everyone else’s: even if one views them as a business, which is pretty questionable*, why on earth should they be taxed at a rate well above what any other person or enterprise in the United States is taxed at?
*A better analogy would be to regard churches for tax purposes as fraternal organizations of like-minded people, like the Optimists or the Shriners. I’m not actually sure that would change their tax status one iota, but whether or not it did, that would seem to me to be the natural larger class that churches are part of.
Even if you could get away with this, religious groups would find some loophole to continue their tax break. I dont think it would change much aside from officially calling themselves something different in legalese.
And giving Christian groups an even bigger persecution complex :rolleyes:
Well, I’m pretty sure at this point that you don’t understand the difference between fact and opinion, so I don’t think arguing with you would be much fun either.
Obviously. That’s my point. Charitable donations ought to limited to helping others, not helping yourself. That’s why paying your tuition isn’t the same as making a donation. Which is… exactly what I said in the post you quoted.
The salary is frequently low. But they get use of all the assets of the church, which are often quite vast. I have personally witnessed a church closing down their daycare program for low-income children because it “consistently lost money” (that’s what the donations are for!) so the church could afford a new SUV “for the church” which was really for the use of the minister.
I’m sure that’s what Jesus meant when he said to help people.
Seriously, what on earth are you talking about tuition for? You aren’t making any sense. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Nobody said, or even implied, that paying tuition is the same as making a charitable donation.
Around here, I’m not. There are quite a few people who consider religion to be flat out evil or at least overwhelmingly corrupt, and since this would be tantamount to dismantling or at least criplling organized religion, I can understand why people with that opinion would think that.
That said, like others in this thread, I don’t really get why, even people who are strong atheists, think religion should get taxed differently than it is now.
I agree with the idea that the power to tax is the power to control which, if not against the letter of the constitution, is definitely in the spirit of the constituion. Yes, not taxing religion let’s through a few of the churches that to most people probably look like scams, but that’s part of the cost of liberty. It’s not any different than how sacred freedom of speech is, even if it means the the Nazi Party or the Westboro Baptist Church can spew their hatred; personally, I’d rather they not say what they say, but if the alternative is greater restriction on other unpopular opinions, I’ll take it. That said, I do think that when churches engage in certain activities which also violate that spirit of separation, like political speech, they probably should be taxed or at least penalized.
If I make a donation to the Red Cross or some other charitable organization, it’s tax deductible, regardless of how much of that money goes to overhead and how much goes to their cause. So why should religious donations, which have overhead and do charity not also be tax exempt?
And I also saw an objection to churches building basketball courts or whatever. Why is this a bad thing? A lot of churches do a lot of work with youth, and providing a place for kids to gather and play basketball and make friendships, rather than being outcast or loners, getting involved in gangs or drugs, or other things that help at-risk youth? It makes perfect sense for a church or chartible organization to build a basketball court if that’s part of what they’re doing.
And, frankly, I think the idea of religious groups shouldn’t just apply to people who have well recognized faiths, like Chritianity, Buddhism, Islam, or whatever. If a group of atheists wants to have a place to gather together and talk about their experiences as atheists, maybe have talks and lectures about stuff that’s of general interest to them and then engage in good works in their community, I think they should have the same protection. Hell, I’d feel the same way about a group of anime fans or whatever. I think people getting together, forming a community, sharing knowledge, and doing good works, regardless of whether it’s based on religion or not, is an unqualified benefit to society and deserves protection.
There’s a vast difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Actively avoiding information that could get you closer to the latter doesn’t speak well to the former.