Now if only they could abolish the tax exemption in Canada... Oh wait the CONservatives are in power right not...
I didnt know there was a law that allowed it but I did know that churches were able to give housing allowances to ministers tax free. I dont agree with the spirit of the ruling though. IMO if you tax people who work for a religious or tax exempt institution then you are indirectly taxing that institution because they will have to pay their employees more so that they still make competitive wages. If atheists have a problem with that then they should make their own tax exempt atheist "church" and use the same rules.
Most ministers dont make very much which is why the law was used to help finance their housing. In the meantime the corporate world is still allowed to own and operate the homes of their high ranking employees who are making plenty of money.
Mwa-hahahaha! I am The Riddler. I never "make stuff up"... Deal with it!I can't find anything that contains enough maniacal laughter for this statement.
http://s13.photobucket.com/user/Nafa...Laugh.mp4.html
Last edited by The Riddler; 2013-11-23 at 04:47 AM.
Sounds good to me.U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb for the Western District of Wisconsin issued a strong, 43-page decision Friday declaring unconstitutional 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), passed by Congress in 1954. Quoting the Supreme Court, Crabb noted, “Every tax exemption constitutes subsidy.” The law allowed “ministers of the gospel” paid through a housing allowance to exclude that allowance from taxable income. Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes.
“The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.”
If religious organizations paid taxes they would demand representation. We decided taxation without representation was a bad idea a few hundred or so years ago.
The church wielded incredible political power in Europe because it was the main source of income for local governments because it was the most wealthy institution in town. That led to a lot of really bad things.
That's because pastors, regardless of their religious affiliation, are private citizens with the right to vote.
Churches are considered non-profit organizations. Like most non-profits, they are tax exempt. You could start up a non-profit dedicated to the spread of atheism and destruction of Bibles and get a tax exempt status for it.
Taxation without representation wasn't applied to individuals, it was applied to the colonies as an entity. We asked for one single seat in Parliament from which to voice our grievances in exchange for the crap-ton of money we were making for the Crown and King George refused.
If churches were taxed as though they were businesses they would become a gigantic source of income for the government and the entire basis for the separation of church and state would collapse.
It's a fairly simple rule. They aren't supposed to use their pulpits to support a particular candidate, and in exchange, they're granted non-profit tax-exempt status.
They can say "We think abortion is wrong, and here's why." What they can't add to that is "And that's why you should vote for <Insert Republican Representative>" (republican only picked because they're mostly anti-abortion, not to make a political point).
If they were to campaign for or endorse a specific candidate, they'd lose their status as a religious entity, and under the tax law would be considered a political group, not a faith group. And thus lose that religious exemption.
It works both ways, basically. If you make them pay taxes, then they're gonna campaign on behalf of specific representatives.
No. They already have representation. That's why ministers and priests and whatever get a vote.
Corporations don't get a vote, and thus aren't represented directly, for the same reasons churches don't and aren't. It's unrelated to the tax exemption, which is about a distinction between religious and political groups.
How in the world did you get that from my post?
Ministers and priests get a vote because they are private citizens, regardless of their religious affiliation.Originally Posted by Endus
A corporation is perfectly free to bring its grievances before government. A church technically isn't. Religious people can do so as private citizens, but a church as an entity cannot go to its representatives in congress and say "We, as 1st St. Church, want the following things...". The only exception is that government is allowed to make an exception if a faith-based group is deemed to be a charitable organization, in which case funds can be allocated for aid.
And this prohibition does, in fact, arise from churches' tax-exempt status under section 501 (C)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
I think we should eliminate the tax exemption on chruches and religious stuff in general, in turn, let them talk politics. Most of them do anyway and that's a shit ton of money we're missing out on that goes completely unreported as "income" by the church AND gives wealthy folks huge tax breaks, so it's double expensive.
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
Churches are already well represented in our government. While not directly represented as a politically affiliated group, their views are all too obviously represented by their membership.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"