Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.....

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
Link

Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.”

But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears.

I don’t, however, like his solution. And he’s not going to like mine. Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.

The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 exempted nonprofits from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax-free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, or most, property tax and state income tax. This system of tax exemptions and deductions took shape partly during World War I, when it was feared that the new income tax, with top rates as high as 77%, might choke off charitable giving. But whatever its intentions, today it’s a mess, for several reasons.

First, the religious exemption has forced the IRS to decide what’s a religion, and thus has entangled church and state in the worst way. Since the world’s great religion scholars can’t agree on what a religion is, it’s absurd to ask a bunch of accountants, no matter how well-meaning. You can read part of the IRS’s guidelines for what’s a bona fide religion here; suffice it to say that it has an easier time saying what’s not a religion. The site gives the example of the rejection of an application from an “outgrowth of a supper club … whose primary activities were holding meetings before supper, sponsoring the supper club, and publishing a newsletter” but which professed a religious doctrine of “ethical egoism.” ".....
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This will cause enormous harm to churches and demonstrably put many out of existence. The ruling is supposed to support expansion of rights, not destruction of them. I would think a progressive would oppose attacking churches in such manner as being hateful due to the injury it would inure.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
This will cause enormous harm to churches and demonstrably put many out of existence. The ruling is supposed to support expansion of rights, not destruction of them. I would think a progressive would oppose attacking churches in such manner as being hateful due to the injury it would inure.

:killingme

that is all
 

PJay

Well-Known Member
That's the plan get rid of churches then chop Christians heads off. But nooo, that will never happen.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That's the plan get rid of churches then chop Christians heads off. But nooo, that will never happen.

Alrighty then.



I still maintain that churches are non-profit organizations and should enjoy the same tax exemption as any other non-profit. Why is this a thing?

And since nobody can argue with me again until tomorrow - because I've had my fill of arguing today - that's that.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I still maintain that churches are non-profit organizations and should enjoy the same tax exemption as any other non-profit. Why is this a thing?
.


That's where I am too...

Since there are tens or even hundreds of thousands of tax-exempt non-profit orgs in existence, anyone like the boy that wants to exclude religious orgs from that mix simply illuminates their ultimate mission.
 
Last edited:

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Curious what other countries rules on tax exempt organizations are. If churches are exempt there they could simply pull the "double irish" like many businesses.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

Title should be "Time To End (Property) Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions....."
Besides, as a business owner, I've been at non-profit status for quite a while. I don't get a break. That's a joke, but I bet many businesses, and families, are just like that.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
If I may ...

Title should be "Time To End (Property) Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions....."
Besides, as a business owner, I've been at non-profit status for quite a while. I don't get a break. That's a joke, but I bet many businesses, and families, are just like that.

Just another attack on Christianity that everyone says isn't happening.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Get rid of the tax code and the IRS. All of it.

All tax breaks for churches and "non-profits", like, you know, the NFL. No tax breaks for GE where they can pay zero taxes. No special treatment for married people (and hopefully no more of this dumb ass gay marriage "debate"). None of it.

Of course, no one but Rand Paul is talking about this, while everyone else is talking about gay marriage (and soon, the war against Christianity, or how churches will be forced to marry gay people [which they won't])
 

tommyjo

New Member
Get rid of the tax code and the IRS. All of it.

All tax breaks for churches and "non-profits", like, you know, the NFL. No tax breaks for GE where they can pay zero taxes. No special treatment for married people (and hopefully no more of this dumb ass gay marriage "debate"). None of it.

Of course, no one but Rand Paul is talking about this, while everyone else is talking about gay marriage (and soon, the war against Christianity, or how churches will be forced to marry gay people [which they won't])

Just because Mr. Paul is "talking about it" doesn't mean his idea carries any weight or has any realistic differences from that of Mr. Ryan's smoke and mirrors budget.

Mr. Paul and Mr. Ryan both relied on magical (unspecified) budget cuts and magical (unsustainable) economic growth projections that defy the demographic realities of the population of the US.

In his WSJ article announcing his "plan", Mr. Paul offers nothing of substance or value. He proposes a 14.5% flat tax. This is insufficient to fund govt at its current levels...significantly insufficient.

He claims that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. This is a common claim of the right. It is also widely discredited by economists. (This does not mean that govt should tax 100% of income or that no tax cut is beneficial...it simply means that the right's tried and true propaganda on tax cuts is incorrect).

Mr. Paul claims that the best way to balance the budget and pay down the debt is to put people back to work. Sounds nice in theory...but this does not meet the sniff test of reality. Without reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security putting people back to work will not close the gap. Mr. Paul claims his plan will create 1.4 million new jobs over 10 years. There are an average 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring PER DAY over that time frame.

Mr. Paul also claims he will balance the budget with his "package of spending cuts". OK...what are they?

Mr. Paul claims our economy is $2 trillion behind "where it should be in a normal recovery". Well of course, we didn't have a "normal" recession...we were never going to have a "normal" recovery. Any 2 bit student of economics should understand the intense differences between the popping of a credit fueled debt bubble and an equity price bubble. It is difficult to fathom how much worse things would have been had we listened to the likes of Mr. Paul's father. The Tea Party made things significantly worse than necessary...
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Without reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security putting people back to work will not close the gap. Mr. Paul claims his plan will create 1.4 million new jobs over 10 years. There are an average 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring PER DAY over that time frame.



indeed ... time to end base line budgeting , no more automatic raises for entitlements


 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
you wanna place a wager on that, say $ 100 bucks

Sure. Anyone who read the SCOTUS opinion would also wager that bet.
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Of course, the religious argument is what some are using to ignore the law they personally disagree with. I don't see folks on here up in arms about that (surprise).

“Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further protect religious liberties for all Texans, but most immediately do anything we can to help our county clerks and public officials who now are forced with defending their religious beliefs against the court's ruling,” Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton said in a separate statement.

Although the Supreme Court found that the right of same-sex couples to marry is enshrined under the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, the attorney general’s opinion asserts that county officials and their employees “possess constitutional and statutory rights protecting their freedom of religion” under the 1st Amendment.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-texas-same-sex-marriage-20150629-story.html#page=1
 

LibertyBeacon

Unto dust we shall return
Money given to churches has already been taxed once. What basis is there for taxing it a 2nd time?

I will never understand the mind of a statist.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Just because Mr. Paul is "talking about it" doesn't mean his idea carries any weight or has any realistic differences from that of Mr. Ryan's smoke and mirrors budget.

Mr. Paul and Mr. Ryan both relied on magical (unspecified) budget cuts and magical (unsustainable) economic growth projections that defy the demographic realities of the population of the US.

In his WSJ article announcing his "plan", Mr. Paul offers nothing of substance or value. He proposes a 14.5% flat tax. This is insufficient to fund govt at its current levels...significantly insufficient.

He claims that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. This is a common claim of the right. It is also widely discredited by economists. (This does not mean that govt should tax 100% of income or that no tax cut is beneficial...it simply means that the right's tried and true propaganda on tax cuts is incorrect).

Mr. Paul claims that the best way to balance the budget and pay down the debt is to put people back to work. Sounds nice in theory...but this does not meet the sniff test of reality. Without reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security putting people back to work will not close the gap. Mr. Paul claims his plan will create 1.4 million new jobs over 10 years. There are an average 10,000 Baby Boomers retiring PER DAY over that time frame.

Mr. Paul also claims he will balance the budget with his "package of spending cuts". OK...what are they?

Mr. Paul claims our economy is $2 trillion behind "where it should be in a normal recovery". Well of course, we didn't have a "normal" recession...we were never going to have a "normal" recovery. Any 2 bit student of economics should understand the intense differences between the popping of a credit fueled debt bubble and an equity price bubble. It is difficult to fathom how much worse things would have been had we listened to the likes of Mr. Paul's father. The Tea Party made things significantly worse than necessary...

All those words you typed and not a single one of them - not one - with any constructive idea or proposal as an alternative.

Ahma so surprised.


More on the subject...

http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/29/ending-tax-exemptions-means-ending-churches/
 
Last edited:
H

Hodr

Guest
He claims that tax cuts stimulate economic growth. This is a common claim of the right. It is also widely discredited by economists. (This does not mean that govt should tax 100% of income or that no tax cut is beneficial...it simply means that the right's tried and true propaganda on tax cuts is incorrect).

I think the discredited theory is that tax cuts for the wealthy immediately stimulate the economy. If you already make enough money to cover your necessities and entertainment costs, then any extra money you earn likely does not immediately enter the economy (though it obviously will eventually).

It has also been shown that tax cuts to the non-wealthy do stimulate the economy. Right now we have a situation where a good percentage of the middle class is living in debt, so any money they get back from a tax cut may only go to service that debt rather than directly into the economy, but this still frees up their immediate future income.

This is a bit of a tangent, but in my opinion eventually the only people able to generate wealth will be land/resource owners (rent seekers) and artists. The value of general labor will drop to such an extent that your average person would not be able to "earn" a living wage no matter how hard they work. At the same time, the amount of work necessary for owners to generate income will drop at the same rate.

Eventually the rich, the ownership class, will have to make a hard decision. Is it better to part with a larger percentage of their wealth by paying for the non-rich to have a basic lifestyle and continue to live in a society that values the principles that lets them amass their wealth without working, or should they part with perhaps an even larger percentage of their income to pay for private armies to protect their persons and property and live in fear whenever they leave their compounds as the rest of society devolves into a Flint, MI state?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
or should they part with perhaps an even larger percentage of their income to pay for private armies to protect their persons and property and live in fear whenever they leave their compounds as the rest of society devolves into a Flint, MI state?

Looking a the track we're on, that's where it ends up..regardless. IMHO.
 
Top