SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

[Dave_pro2a]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

It is clear the real desire and intent of some is to destroy churches and the influence of religion and religious values in society.

What a shame that those so dedicated to protected the rights enumerated in the 2nd amendment, can be so hostile to some of the rights protected by the 1st amendment.

Charles

If the gov is allowed to destroy people, then no church should be spared.

If gov is allowed to destroy businesses, then no church should be spared.

When churches aren't spared, maybe we will all start working on the fundamentals of freedom: taking away the government power (our money).

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I dunno about others in the LGBT community, but I for one am all for the destruction of religion, and the tennents thereof. #Banreligion.

Gee, that seems so similar to

#ban gays

Sounds bigoted.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Of course it is. How can stealing the income from some but not other organizations possibly be just? Tax exemptions of any kind should eliminated. Who could possibly say that the scum who rule our land can be trusted to make such decisions? We like your product we will steal less from you. We don't like your product we will steal more from you. ugh.

Stealing is injust, whether you steal the same amount from everyone or different amounts. So no, it's not. Equal (in the sense of equality), even, and fair all have different meanings.

To achieve equality it isn't enough to just simply treat everyone the same, you have equality when you treat others as equals. Taxation isn't treating others as equals. Making that taxation evenly applied doesn't help. In fact, it could make it worse, as in the case of taxing churches.

How? For one, because people like yourself might misunderstand and think that things are better off as a result of what amounts to a net gain in taxation.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Gee, that seems so similar to

#ban gays

Sounds bigoted.

Gays can't be bigots any more than blacks can be racists. Don't you know that?

To tie into previous post, some think that because they've endured bigotry they get a pass on being bigots themselves. It's certainly "even" to say so. Hardly consistent with principles of equality, though. Certainly not the attitude taught by the Christian principles that they're being bigoted toward.

 

[nonameisgood]

Many churches are operated as businesses, with large real estate holdings and highly paid employees, whose principal purpose is to make money. This money may be for the benefit of certain people in the organization or for use in promoting the business itself or for charitable purposes. If the latter, only the money used for charitable purposes should be deductible. Many "charities" have the same issue where very little of the funds actually going to those in need.
I do NOT agree that promotion of religion is a tax-deductible purpose in and of itself. Just as a social club should not be tax-exempt.
The tax code is cobbled to encourage "desirable" behavior, primarily to allow social clubs to provide support to members and to encourage charity to others. However, many of these organizations enrich themselves without effectively performing their essential mission.
Remove money from the equation and you have freedom from government intrusion, as it should be. The government has no business in religion, but it does have a role in the trade of currency.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Churches should be tax exempt,,,, along with everyone else. No exceptions should be made.

 

[Liberty-or-Death]

We have a church here near where I live that reviews W2's and requires signed contractual tithing agreements of it's members. Great thing about churches is you can choose to leave when they teach wacky stuff. I would never permit such activity at my church.
And the reason why government does not tax NPO's is to not penalize the good they do, or ought to do. To tax them into oblivion is counterproductive. Though I'm sure some godless folks pray to themselves or their government for that.

 

[Citizen]

Churches should be tax exempt,,,, along with everyone else. No exceptions should be made.

I always openly agree with anybody who says I need to pay my fair share of taxes.*



*My fair share is nothing, just like everybody else's fair share is nothing. Too bad for the socialist if he leaves the door wide open like that.

 

[nonameisgood]

SJG, if you think there is no purpose to government your view is spot on. However, there are good an valuable reasons to have effective federal state, and local governments, even if they have become bloated and a bit out of control.

This ruling is an example of the latter, wherein the Government and The People collectively had gone into restricting things which a government and The People had no business meddling under our constitutional limitations.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Stealing is injust, whether you steal the same amount from everyone or different amounts. So no, it's not. Equal (in the sense of equality), even, and fair all have different meanings.

To achieve equality it isn't enough to just simply treat everyone the same, you have equality when you treat others as equals. Taxation isn't treating others as equals. Making that taxation evenly applied doesn't help. In fact, it could make it worse, as in the case of taxing churches.

How? For one, because people like yourself might misunderstand and think that things are better off as a result of what amounts to a net gain in taxation.

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about a net gain in taxation. I am speaking of equality where all are violated the same.
I have personal interest but unlike you and churches, I do not support special treatment for them at the cost of others. No exemptions can be justified.

 

[Citizen]

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about a net gain in taxation. I am speaking of equality where all are violated the same.
I have personal interest but unlike you and churches, I do not support special treatment for them at the cost of others. No exemptions can be justified.

Hey, man! I'm pretty much for any restriction on the ability of government to tax. Kinda like, instead of making gun carry illegal for everybody in the interest of fairness, the solution isn't to scrap CCW permits so nobody can carry; the solution is constitutional carry. Instead of denying churches exemptions, the solution is to give everybody an exemption.

Especially in this day and age where taxing churches would just increase the amount debt interest the fedgov could pay, allowing the fedgov to pyramid on the additional tax income to drive the debt even higher, then spend that money on prolonging the wars Iraq, and Afghanistan. Anybody hear in the news today the prez's comment that ISIL is adaptable and shifting and that its gonna take a long time to defeat them? He was planting the seed to mold public opinion to bear more years of military intervention overseas, meaning more money for military equipment suppliers, and bomb makers, and missile makers, more dead innocent people.

At 2-4% interest on Treasury bonds (made up interest rate), if the fedgov gets a few more million a year taxing churches and so forth, how much more debt can the fedgov take on with those few more millions to pay the interest? How many more dead or maimed US young soldiers will that buy? How many more Hellfire missiles? Predator drones? 500lb bombs? Dead innocent people and their children?

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Hey, man! I'm pretty much for any restriction on the ability of government to tax.

I am not. At least not subjectively. The problem is you give them financial power to wield for or against businesses based on their whims.
Look at this vid NY had out. New businesses (or ones willing to move there), in certain zones, will have no taxes for 10 years. How is that fair? How damaging it may be to other current businesses who have to now compete with one supported by the government.
[video=youtube;kB5tJwS-3zw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB5tJwS-3zw[/video]

Especially in this day and age where taxing churches would just increase the amount debt interest the fedgov could pay, allowing the fedgov to pyramid on the additional tax income to drive the debt even higher, then spend that money on prolonging the wars Iraq, and Afghanistan. Anybody hear in the news today the prez's comment that ISIL is adaptable and shifting and that its gonna take a long time to defeat them? He was planting the seed to mold public opinion to bear more years of military intervention overseas, meaning more money for military equipment suppliers, and bomb makers, and missile makers, more dead innocent people.

At 2-4% interest on Treasury bonds (made up interest rate), if the fedgov gets a few more million a year taxing churches and so forth, how much more debt can the fedgov take on with those few more millions to pay the interest? How many more dead or maimed US young soldiers will that buy? How many more Hellfire missiles? Predator drones? 500lb bombs? Dead innocent people and their children?

I understand your point. Again I am not saying just start taxing churches. But advocating removal of all exemptions. Also again not to advocate more taxable income. A new fair flat system where every entity is violated the same, preferably much lower, amount.

 

[solus]

again, 71 BILLION a YEAR is what is estimated religious non profits fail to pay in taxes.

oh their pastors live in multi-million dollar estates not charity...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

numerous religious entities in rural religious eastern NC require individuals submit tax documentation before the individual is allowed to become a member of the organization.

ipse

 

[77zach]

Haven't read through the thread, sorry. I have to say I could have sworn that the Constitution is silent on marriage and that it also says in that case the decision is up to the states.

Also, the state has never defined marriage but merely assumed it was obvious. Now, there is (in theory) nothing keeping the state from allowing polygamy OR forbidding interracial marriage. To cite two examples.

As Scalia has said, not even a veneer of legal honesty in this decision. The OP is quite mistaken.

 

[OC for ME]

After the honeymoon, what next is on the liberal agenda.

 

[77zach]

After the honeymoon, what next is on the liberal agenda.

Easy. Going after pastors who will not marry gays and business people who won't condone and make things for gay weddings

It is not enough to stay quiet. You must join with them. In the end they want you to love Big Brother.

 

[nonameisgood]

Haven't read through the thread, sorry. I have to say I could have sworn that the Constitution is silent on marriage and that it also says in that case the decision is up to the states.

Also, the state has never defined marriage but merely assumed it was obvious. Now, there is (in theory) nothing keeping the state from allowing polygamy OR forbidding interracial marriage. To cite two examples.

As Scalia has said, not even a veneer of legal honesty in this decision. The OP is quite mistaken.

The ruling is not a federal taking of power, but a limitation on the states from exercising power to govern individual decisions and choice. I don't really have much of a problem when the courts say, in essence "no, sorry, you can't have any law about that, it is up to the individual." SCOTUS does ultimately have responsibility for freeing individuals of unnecessary restrictions when the majority has created an unjust situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logan 5]

We have a church here near where I live that reviews W2's and requires signed contractual tithing agreements of it's members.

Ah! Mormons. BTDT. :cuss:

Great thing about churches is you can choose to leave when they teach wacky stuff.

That is not always so.

I would never permit such activity at my church.

Riiiiight! I’ve heard THAT line before! Oh boy! LOL!

And the reason why government does not tax NPO's is to not penalize the good they do, or ought to do. To tax them into oblivion is counterproductive. Though I'm sure some godless folks pray to themselves or their government for that.

Which is good, however the must be a limit. Ever read the Holy Bible? Read Matthew 19:20-22, Mark 10:20-22 & Luke 18:20-23. Can’t say that I’ve meet many preachers that can do that. I have known of a street preacher or two that did. Provided you give them enough beer or weed.

again, 71 BILLION a YEAR is what is estimated religious non profits fail to pay in taxes.

Enough to pay for a few of the POTUS vacations....

numerous religious entities in rural religious eastern NC require individuals submit tax documentation before the individual is allowed to become a member of the organization.

Ah. Salvation for a dollar. The true price of...? Can’t be Jesus. Jesus, according to the Holy Bible was as poor as a church mouse, but wealthy in Heaven.

The ruling is not a federal taking of power, but a limitation on the states from exercising power to govern individual decisions and choice. I don't really have much of a problem when the courts say, in essence "no, sorry, you can't have any law about that, it is up to the individual." SCOTUS does ultimately have responsibility for freeing individuals of unnecessary restrictions when the majority has created an unjust situation.

The states have limited rights. They cannot take your rights as an American away. And I think a lot of OCers miss that part. So if you think the states have these rights, such as restricting gay marriage, well...that is not covered by the Constitution. The RKBA is. If you want the states to have ultimate rights, then think about CA, NY, NJ and IL. You know, the radical gun laws the states have.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say anything about a net gain in taxation. I am speaking of equality where all are violated the same.
I have personal interest but unlike you and churches, I do not support special treatment for them at the cost of others. No exemptions can be justified.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth and my meaning was not that anyone advocates removal of these exemptions for the purpose of having a net increase in taxation, only making note of the fact that it would be the likely result and therefore, according to other beliefs I and many others hold, it might be said that there is a net decrease in liberty, freedom, and equality.

You seem to be trying to refuse to accept the difference between the concept of "Equality" and just making something is "equal" as in applied evenly (the latter not necessarily being in any way related to or founded on any principle or moral). Yet you seem to accept that what we're talking about would amount to making sure everyone is violated the same, and then surprisingly you actually advocate for that. I'm shocked that you'd advocate one person be violated just because another person is being violated.

Edit: Oh, I think I see where the confusion came from. See, when I said some might believe things are better off what I meant is that it might be misunderstood that equal in the sense of injustice being applied evenly might be mistaken for equality, and so then the increase in injustice is mistaken for an increase of equality. It isn't the case, inequality is increased (Equality, decreased) as the inequality is applied more equally (as in, evenly) to a larger number of people.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Stealth I think I understand where you're coming from. Normally I would not impose increased government maleficence on anyone. And yet the idea of government manipulation by harming one entity to a lesser or greater degree than another (for whatever reason) is so fundamentally offensive to me that I care about it more than the harm itself.

If a new tax break was proposed for a specific group, say unwed black mothers or something, would you support it?