Should religious institutions be taxed?

[ApeDosMil]

Well, the poll settles this. Guess we can all go home.

[Karreck]

I would say no to taxing religious institutions simply because it would allow the state to exercise some control over faith. Don't like a religion? Tax them into non-existence. Slippery Slope I know, but a concern I have regarding government having power over religion, even if it's just tax power.

[Julian Rayne]

You haven't proven a thing. After a review of your methods I can clearly state with 99% certainty that the conclusions you have drawn are in-fact inaccurate due to evidence of greater quantity to the contrary.

If you can't understand the principle of non-contradiction, which I used to prove you're a liar, I don't have the time to explain it to you. Nevertheless the proof stands.

[Deleted]

If you can't understand the principle of non-contradiction, which I used to prove you're a liar, I don't have the time to explain it to you. Nevertheless the proof stands.

"Proof"

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

I have "proven" you don't understand the scientific method. It is not worth explaining to you why your conclusions are wrong and how poor your research methodology was.

With that, I bounce.

[FAILoZOFF]

.

and thats the point, people just don't understand certain principles

for instance, we have here in POland people that that want to make it illegal to talk about politics in churches (im an agnostic so don't even really care what they are talking about there) as "priests have influence on how people vote"
how f. stupid is that???
specially if you take into account fact of how many actors or otherwise famnous people get to advertise all political parties, and they are doing it specially because they are FAMOUS and they have INFLUENCE on peoples actions (this is why there is so many actors in advertisements compared to "your regular joe's")
i can't support double standards

[ApeDosMil]

I would say no to taxing religious institutions simply because it would allow the state to exercise some control over faith. Don't like a religion? Tax them into non-existence. Slippery Slope I know, but a concern I have regarding government having power over religion, even if it's just tax power.

I get what you are trying to say, but I think most of us just mean a fair tax. No added taxation. Separation of church and state happened a long time ago, so why shouldn't the church help out their communities like any other?

[Julian Rayne]

"Proof"

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

It does actually, since the principle of non-contradiction is a logical principle, i.e., it's math. Unlike science where there is only 'evidence' and not 'proof', mathematical disciplines like logic do indeed have the concept of 'proof'.

It's clear you understand neither math, nor science nor even the first principles of epistemology. I'm done wasting my time on you.

[Eroginous]

So should religious institutions be taxed like rest of soceity. Many places here in australia use business models to attrack the masses whilst making millions tax free.
They should be taxed like the rest of business.

Yup, every single church in the US should be treated like a business and taxed accordingly.

[khadaryan]

Charity? No, as usual.

But usually people pay a lot of things that dont want. Just remember that.
Some countries you indirect pay for abortion, sex change and go on.

Its ok to remove the ''moral component'' from the State. But if you will remove religion, remove all moral components. No one should pay for anything ''moral''.

Sad, this include social help.

[Frogguh]

And that's exactly what I mean, Shinobu. Richard Dawkins fanboys. By saying you think Dawkins needs to chill, you're obviously not reasonable. In fact, it means you are trying to "silence" him, along with "your kind" because he dares to politely (snicker snicker) question others' beliefs. This is the type of atheist I typically encounter on the internet, which is how I formed my opinion of internet atheists in general. Not fair to the reasonable ones, to be sure, but if they don't speak up against the ideologues like Dawkins, it's often hard to tell which is which.

[Slaskra]

Your average American church is not a profit-seeking entity, so I think it would make more sense to have them be subject to the same tax laws and regulations that non-profits must conform to. It would suddenly become a lot rougher for any mega-church to avoid paying some sort of additional income taxes.

[Afrospinach]

lemme guess, you are the one that will tell us WHICH rules? and in case its not "you" then who?; please tell me as it means we have a some monarch i don't know about, lurking nearby
power to point rules are in and which rules are out is veeeeery close to stating rules itself, aka having absolute power

How many referendums do you have? I am guessing not many.

If it is not a referendum then it is really democracy by proxy through elected officials who really don't answer to the people that voted them in, with only a few people really being involved in the process of actually coming up with an instating laws.

[Zathrendar]

You're right, using this principle to taxes is a matter of interpretation. I, as a libertarian, would argue that you shouldn't pay taxes that would be used to things that don't affect you directly (like public healthcare if you don't use it, for instance). Social-democrats/interventionists would argue that everybody who can afford should pay taxes to support those services because everyone is subject to eventualy become poor and need government's assistance. As it is not the point of this thread, I won't go deeper in this issue.

Well I am of the same view as you. However, I just find it shocking that some people think churches need to be taxed to "contribute" to society, as if the government usually "contributes" by sucking resources out of it and putting a fraction of this amount back in.

[Karreck]

I get what you are trying to say, but I think most of us just mean a fair tax. No added taxation. Separation of church and state happened a long time ago, so why shouldn't the church help out their communities like any other?

The argument can be made that churches do help out their community. Homeless Shelters, Soup Kitchens, Community outreach, all are often associated with religious institutions. Not all religions engage in it, but several do.

In regards to a "fair" tax, this concerns me for two reasons. First, is that once we break that seal and start taxing religious institutions, it becomes easier to change the tax rate whenever is suits the state. Secondly, what is fair? Is it flat across the board meaning that the super mega church pays say 5% and the small town Baptist church with 20 parishioners pays 5%? Or is it based on the income of said church? That super mega church makes much more money so they have to pay "their fair share". All these possible deviations can be used to over tax a religion that you disagree with and under tax a religion that you do agree with. Look at the corporate tax rate and tax breaks currently in America. Those came to be because of lobbyists. Now imagine religious lobbyists. Those with the most money to spend on a politician get the better tax rate.

I feel that it is better in the long run to maintain the current system. If anything, tweak the code for tax exempt status to verify and encourage more financial charity and involvement in the community.

[khadaryan]

And that's exactly what I mean, Shinobu. Richard Dawkins fanboys. By saying you think Dawkins needs to chill, you're obviously not reasonable. In fact, it means you are trying to "silence" him, along with "your kind" because he dares to politely (snicker snicker) question others' beliefs. This is the type of atheist I typically encounter on the internet, which is how I formed my opinion of internet atheists in general. Not fair to the reasonable ones, to be sure, but if they don't speak up against the ideologues like Dawkins, it's often hard to tell which is which.

Sad, but true.

The average Dawkins fanboy thinks that is ok to bash beliefs, cause there is only ''a belief''. Except atheism that gives you moral authority to judge people.
Sure, some religious people have this behavior, but they are wrong.
I usually like ''free thinkers'', if they start by free their own minds first.

[grimsanta]

Man this thread is full of derp.

What in the hell are you supposed to tax them on? I mean we have a bunch of people here yelling that churches should be taxed, and I would agree with that if they had anything to tax...but they don't. They are non-profits by nature. Without profit, what are you supposed to tax? What are you people wanting them to tax?

[Slaskra]

Why should he chill out? Why does "muh beliefs" always get a pass?

It certainly shouldn't always get a pass, but Dawkin's extraordinarily condescending and demeaning attitudes towards religion aren't exactly secret. How someone can claim to be an advocate of critical thinking while acting out in ways that do nothing but turn people off to you and your ideologies is beyond me.

Don't get me wrong, love the guy, but he is an ass.

[spinner981]

Fortunately this isn't the medieval period where organized superstition could silence freethinker who disagreed with them. Your supertitions aren't special, they aren't above criticism. The only problem with Dawkins is that he's too polite to the cultists. He should try to emulate Hitchens more.

Monkey wrench! What if religion is correct and atheism is false? What if religion is free thinking and atheism is superstition? Isn't dawkins the one that says that we should openly mock and silence the religious in every possible moment? I don't think I have ever read anything from dawkins that shows that he has any intelligence in the understanding of theology and he merely just flings the fallacies that he himself claims religion is all about.

[Endus]

Man this thread is full of derp.

What in the hell are you supposed to tax them on? I mean we have a bunch of people here yelling that churches should be taxed, and I would agree with that if they had anything to tax...but they don't. They are non-profits by nature. Without profit, what are you supposed to tax? What are you people wanting them to tax?

They have income. That income can be taxed.

Their property, as well; property tax is a big factor.

They aren't "non-profits by nature". They're claiming to be non-profits due to their religious nature, but we're disputing that this is relevant.

Particularly as non-profits actually have to spend the money coming in on their work; the minister can take a salary, but in any other non-profit he couldn't dip into the tithes/donations to buy himself a new million-dollar house. Which they can, in churches.

[khadaryan]

Religion say that non belivers go to hell = bigotry.
Dawkins and Hitchens say, without scientific proof, that religion is a kind of pathology, mind parasity, and go on... = heroes of reason and free thinking.

Just remember that the same Dawkins that say ''religion is child abuse'' say too ''mild child abuse" dont cause ''too much harm''.
Sure, i think that every psychologist applaud that. Its very scientific and reasonable.