Should Uncle Sam Tax Churches?

They would be spearated by state which is a diosy. The Boston arch diosy probably own 200 million worth of land which would amount to 10s of millions of dollars in taxes each year. The church could not sustain its self
 
can you read? he said a church had to sell land to pay out 20,000,000$ well guess what a signal church will still not have to pay out 20,000,000 in taxes. also saying that religions should pay taxes means I hate them?
 
Ok this is turning to bullshit, it's time I call you out on your messed up statement.

First of all, my question is not wrong, maybe you don't like it, but a question can't be wrong.

Secondly, I did not say that we have everything figured out, but that we have disproved time & time again that god was only there for people who needed an answer without doing the work to figure things out. This is the same today; give me an example of something which we haven't figured out, where you believe god is doing his work and not the laws of our universe.

I am not afraid of explaining my reasoning in person, but I find it hard when I see how intensely people feel bound to their religion, and instead of trying to make them stop believing something which so many people have told them, I just stop because it's useless explaining something to someone whose decision has already been made.

As I stated in my last post, I am aware that there are many intelligent people, but repeatedly you have tried to make it clear that you are more intelligent than I, when simply it makes no difference to me.

You wrote "your reasoning would probably be embarrased by someone who is more educated and intelligent than you."

No, my reasoning would not be embarrassed.

I prefer to discuss things with people more intelligent than myself.

The difference we have is that I am able to take on new facts, go through them, and accept them into the world I see, and you are forced to follow certain rules which were made up and set, never to be changed, and taught not to question, instead to believe.

 
For the sake of argument, if God exists is it not possible that he is doing his work through the laws of the universe? For example (not trying to turn this into a creation/evolution thread) if God exists and he did indeed create the world/universe/etc wouldn't it be logical to come to the conclusion that the laws of the universe we also created by him? I guess I just don't understand how people always come to the conclusion that God and science are mutually exclusive. I suppose for a long time the church has propagated that line of thinking, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

I also think it's a faulty premise to assume that those who believe in God (more/less intelligent, younger/older, etc. than you) are forced to follow rules and taught not to question what they believe. Simply because they come to a different conclusion does not they are unable to question or struggle with their beliefs.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are churches across America (and around the world) who abuse the money that is freely given to them. They build with opulence and excess and it is wrong. I think one of the biggest failings of the church is financial stewardship. I still choose to believe that there are more churches doing good things with the money that is given too them and should continue to be treated with charity/non-profit status.
 
Lets just start with the beginning of the universe. We are nowhere near to being able to explain it. We like to act like we do, but when you start picking apart the current theories there are a lot of loopholes in them. Like you said, it doesn't matter if I am more intelligent than you, but at the same time you should not be calling religious people "cardboard" if they are more intelligent than you. Believe me, I have tried to find a definitive answer that could shut down my faith, I've taken multiple graduate level physics courses on the matter, but they just don't have it figured out, and even the professors accept that fact. You act like the religious don't explore their faith, that they just take it on word, but I highly doubt you have taken the levels of classes in this matter that I have, and I still believe. So really, I am MORE informed than you, have looked deeper into the issue than you, and yet you still, for some reason, feel like I am just stuck in my beliefs.
 
After reading that it sounded like I was saying I was more intelligent than you, when in actuality I was being more general. I apologize for that
 
You're more informed yet you still seem to perscribe to a doctrine that claims to be infallible and has all the answers.

We cant explain the origin of the universe but we can keep trying. Why settle with a dumbed down fairy tale explanation that doesnt even satisfy most children? Cant you just admit that you dont know? and may not ever know? That seems like the most educated opinion to take because with all the different gods and deities out there the chances of any god that we read about or has had a church made for him probably doesn't exists. I mean even in christianity alone there are hundreds of different versions of god which all profess to be the one and only.

Nietzsche once postulated that being indoctrinated into a faith at a young age was a type of neurological disorder, and I think he was right. You are stuck in your faith. Even after being presented with massive amounts of evidence about our world its origin that contradicts and proves wrong a lot of what is in the bible and other holy books, you still hold onto and believe in something that was created by delusional herdsmen in the greater palestinian area. (assuming you believe in an abrahamic god, but who knows roman deities may tickle your fancy)

Also, most religious people dont really explore their faith. I would be surprised if most religious people actually read their holy books cover to cover.
 
Yes, As a former member of the LDS Church I know "ROUGHLY" how much money that church alone makes. Then again I cannot honestly say because they don't release their spending/income for the year do to this very reason of tax exemption. Its not a church anymore its a fucking business. Anyone from Utah can attest to this, there is the City Creek Shopping mall that is OWNED by the LDS church. To me that is just straight up slap to the face in regards of misuse of the tax free exemption status. Time to cut the cord on it and use the funding to things that actually progress humanity, not set it back five steps.
 
Well this is the first attempt at a well formed argument that I have seen, and I find it interesting. Nonetheless I will try to give my answers.

___

If god exists and is doing whatever work you may suggest he might be doing, then which bits of this work is influencing us? Does he answer prayers? Is he typing this message through my fingers? The easiest way to allow god to exist is to have him how Einstein explained his faith: (roughly) god exists outside of the universe, he is a supernatural force which we cannot perceive with our senses, and he has no influence on the universe as we know it.

Another thing you mention is that it may be logical to come to the conclusion that god created laws of the universe. Imagine that no people existed. Nobody would have come up with strange ideas about some kind of being creating all of this moving mass and emptiness of galaxies, particles, energy and so on - and yet it would all still be here, without the need for a god.

___

The way in which god and science can be mutually exclusive is that people who claim to follow gods build their lives around their beliefs, and then provide facts about such gods to others, making the idea grow stronger.

Science, on the other hand, uses multiple research methods and repeats over & over again until a conclusion is reached, whilst even then leaving possibility for further change & adaptation, should a better description, or a new, unknown set of rules become apparent.

___

People who believe in fairy tales are not forced to follow rules, yet if they wish to participate in more well known and sociable fairy tales such as organised religion, then, in most cases, they are certainly taught not to question what they believe. Priests in church ceremonies, for example, preach from a book, interpreting what the book says using their own abilities.

In the way you say that they come to a different conclusion, I would like to say that what they have reached is not a conclusion, but simply an early presumption with no further evidence or thought expected.
 
OF COURSE we should keep trying. Am I trying to argue that? I am completely open to more knowledge that might change my mind. Keep exploring, keep using the collider, keep doing everything you can to get answers. I dont understand how you got the idea that I was against scientific progress, especially since I am in a science major. Yes I have explored my religion, I have read the bible cover to cover, and read numerous books analyzing the text. hahaha neurological disorder, someone doesnt have the slightest idea what that implies do they?!
 
I dont see why not. If they act like a business and make a profit they should be treated like everyone else. Do the people who work at churches get paid? I literally know nothing about how they are run. Ive been in 2 churches in my life, both weddings
 
they don't turn profit. A few major characters in the church will get paid so that they can concentrate on the church but it is more of a donation to them than anything
 
that is by definition a profit. Profit: A financial gain, esp. the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.
 
If the donations are considered gifts and gifts up to X amount ($10,000ish?) are not taxable then they should not pay tax on that amount. Anything over that seems like fair game.

If i got that tax jargon wrong someone please feel free to correct it. I know very little about this but it is interesting
 
the IRS code describes what the government considers to be an eligible nonprofit, religious group. "A tax-exempt religious organization is a legal entity or vehicle created and operated exclusively for religious purposes, no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any private individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in or interfere in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any private individual. no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any private individual. no part of the net earnings of which insures to the benefit of any private individual. You just said churches pay people to "concentrate on the church" that is a private individual being paid money from donations.

Also nonprofits can engage in revenue generating activities that result in annual surpluses or profits. The distinction between nonprofits and for profit companies is what happens to the surplus. profit businesses may distribute their money to the owners or shareholders. Nonprofits must reinvest surpluses back into the organization. Excess revenues may not be distributed to individuals affiliated with the organization.

You clearly know nothing about taxes GTFO of my thread with that shit.

 
hahaha youre entire argument is flawed. Non-profits still have paid workers within them, the same as religious institutions. I dont understand what youre getting at here. In addition, the funding that is going to pay these individuals is exclusively donations, so that is not taxable anyways (as long as it isnt over like $12k). If religious institutions don't fall under the IRS religious group, then they would still fall under general non-profit allowing them to pay certain workers.
 
The only people who get paid in nonprofit organizations are the accountants and they're not technically affiliated with the organization. There just paid to handle the money so directly there not affiliated with them. A priest that is affiliated with the church gets money that is not the same. The owner of nonprofit organizations or the volunteers that get donations do not get any of the money. If they did they would go directly to jail becaise nonprofit accounting and tax regulations are extremely strict. That's twice that you posted about something that you clearly know nothing about.
 
That is so unbelievably false that I cannot even believe it. There are a TON of non-profits with full time employees. Hell, there are whole non-profit hospitals. I'm getting trolled aren't I....
 
Again being directly affiliated with the nonprofit organization and providing a nonprofit organization a service are two completely different things. Obviously if your doctor working at a nonprofit hospital you're getting get paid money you're doing your job. A priest The head of a church, A direct affiliation with his organization. is not Providing a service to a community Is not the same thing. getting up in front of a church audience and talking should not make a tax free salary Not only that but also nonprofit accountants and doctors still have to pay taxes.
 
I'm sorry dude, but this simply is not true. Exempt Organizations are allowed to pay employees reasonable wages under IRS code. They also have to withhold employment taxes from said wages.
 
I should clarify regarding EOs and the withholding of income taxes...

"Unlike other exempt organizations or businesses, achurch is not required to withhold income tax from the

compensation that it pays to its duly ordained, commissioned,

or licensed ministers for performing services in

the exercise of their ministry."

 
Incorrect good sir my cousin who now works for Goldman Sachs used to worked a nonprofit organization and he told me he had to pay taxes on what he made. Is this the case for all nonprofits no is it because he made over certain amount yes probably, I didn't ask how much he actually made. But to say that an accountant or doctor should be treated the same way for working for a nonprofit organization as a priest is ridiculous.
 
Ha, I don't really give a shit who your cousin is or who he works for to be honest. You stated that the only people that get paid in an EO are the accountants....and that's not true. Churches, however, differ from other EOs in that they are not required to withhold income taxes for ordained ministers.
 
I admit I didn't word that correctly accountants or other people who provide services to the nonprofit. The head of the organization or the people who started it do not get any of the income. And churches don't Legally have to pay taxes that's what we're arguing about I think the wall should be changed and churches should pay taxes.
 
tax code states that EO's, including churches, have to withhold, report, and pay employment taxes on salaries and wages. the exception to this being, of course, for the ordained ministers of religious organizations. still not really sure how this applies to the taxation of EOs in the broader sense as this amounts to a drop in the ocean.

you're suggesting that churches should lose their EO status, which in turn would basically make them for profit entities. as such, their coffers would be opened up to distribution for personal gain as opposed to being required to being reinvested in the organization. and this is supposed to be a good idea? i don't see how society as a whole would benefit from this.

 
Being a pastor is a full time job. They put in at least 40 hour weeks, not only just speaking, but preparing the talk, working with the community, meetings, working with worship team etc etc etc
 
an optimistic number. not to mention..."The result would be a smaller Church presence in America, and incidentally, less and less tax revenue for the IRS with each passing year."

also, when you consider all of the charitable organizations that would cease to exist as a result of this change, thus causing the government to pick up the slack, the increased revenues would be offset by the additional required expenditures.

long term, this is not the answer.

 
So what if it would decrease from $71 billion, Even though the number will decrease it'll still be a positive number that IRS will get Each year they pay taxes. Also shocker you've been so wrong in this entire thread I'm not Responding to you anymore, however Barefootin Actually seems educated on this matter and is bringing up a few good points. Also I think churches and charitable organizations should be completely separate churches pay taxes the money they donate they could be a write off so if they donate enough money they actually won't have to pay That much in taxes taxes.
 
Ok, so if you're taxing churches, then that also opens them up to be able to receive all kinds of financial assistance from the government. You've already stated that revenues would decrease from year to year. Do you think the number of institutions, read "churches", with their extended hands would also decrease proportionately with that revenue? Nope. Are we in the black in the grand scheme of things? Highly doubtful...I'd almost guarantee we aren't. (Not to mention all of the separation of church and states issues that come along with this.)

I'll be honest with you. I do not like organized religion, and some of these mega churches are most certainly more of a business than a church. However, taxation is not the solution. I can't claim to have the answer. If I did, I'd be sitting in Washington fixing this god damn country, but I can assure you that this creates more problems than it solves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top