(02-28-2012 12:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Do you disagree or were you just posting a link?

I disagree on the basis that people/organizations that avail themselves to the public goods and services provided by the government do in fact benefit. If you do not contribute to the taxes that pay for those goods and services, you are receiving something for nothing and are, in effect, being subsidized.

I'm applying the same standard to organizations that I want applied to people.

You evidently disagree.

I do. I believe religion should be free of the burdens of government control and taxation. You don't. Religious freedom is on my side.

(02-28-2012 11:54 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:40 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:25 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The vast majority of the people you're asking to pay more are households with children making under $20,000 and widows on Social Security. These are people struggling to make ends meet and you want to tax them?

And besides it's not as if they're not paying any taxes at all. They already pay taxes through payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, etc.

A family of 4 making $65,000 has less money than a family 4 making under $30,000. One of these gets Section 8, food stamps, free child care etc. The other doesn't. As Joe Biden said, "it is patriotic to pay taxes".

And they do pay taxes (payroll tax, gas tax, etc).

They need to pay their fair share of income tax also.

Dollars are fungible. It doesn't matter how the dollar gets there.

Say a person makes $15,000 and pays $2,000 in payroll taxes and $0 in income taxes. They take $13,000 home.

So if we reduced the rate of the payroll tax by half to $1,000 and made them pay $1,000 in income taxes, that would satisfy you? Either way they've paid $2,000 to the government and take home $13,000. It's a distinction without a difference. We should do this to shut up all the morons whining about poor people paying no income taxes.

(02-28-2012 11:14 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:10 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:07 AM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  He's rich. So what? Dont see the big deal and I really dont know why he is trying to hide it.

Thank you...who cares? Oh, that's right...Max does...class warfare is the Left's most effective weapon right now.

So what do you call it when you want tax cuts for the rich and taxes increased on the poor coupled with cuts to their safety nets...ya know...so they have some skin in the game.

Trickle down economics?

(02-28-2012 12:23 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.

Walz holds that tax breaks are permissible because they don't violate the establishment clause. Permission to grant tax exempt status =/= prohibition against taxation. The Free Exercise clause is not a guarantee against taxation.

(02-28-2012 12:22 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  While the church is not subservient to the government, neither is the government subservient to the church. Although government can aid or support virtually all types of social or educational institutions which have a public purpose with the use of tax money, the Supreme Court stated in 1948 that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.” Thomas Jefferson coined the highly referenced “wall of separation” between church and state (but not in the Constitution, as many people assume). The separation he referred to must be bilateral and reciprocal. Whatever the degree of separation required by the Constitution, it is surely this: the government may not make the church subservient by taxing its existence.

Government can't tax to support religion but they can tax religion. Taxing all churches like other organizations is in no way a violation of the establishment clause. That's crazy.

(02-28-2012 12:34 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I'm no legal expert.

Get out of town.

(02-28-2012 11:57 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:54 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:47 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:40 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 11:25 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The vast majority of the people you're asking to pay more are households with children making under $20,000 and widows on Social Security. These are people struggling to make ends meet and you want to tax them?

And besides it's not as if they're not paying any taxes at all. They already pay taxes through payroll taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, etc.

A family of 4 making $65,000 has less money than a family 4 making under $30,000. One of these gets Section 8, food stamps, free child care etc. The other doesn't. As Joe Biden said, "it is patriotic to pay taxes".

And they do pay taxes (payroll tax, gas tax, etc).

They need to pay their fair share of income tax also.

Paying those taxes spending money given to you by the government isn't paying taxes. I earn the money I pay taxes on.

Tell that to Rebel.

(02-28-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Do you disagree or were you just posting a link?

I disagree on the basis that people/organizations that avail themselves to the public goods and services provided by the government do in fact benefit. If you do not contribute to the taxes that pay for those goods and services, you are receiving something for nothing and are, in effect, being subsidized.

I'm applying the same standard to organizations that I want applied to people.

You evidently disagree.

I do. I believe religion should be free of the burdens of government control and taxation. You don't. Religious freedom is on my side.

How do you feel about the taxation of non-religious organizations then?

(02-28-2012 01:33 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Do you disagree or were you just posting a link?

I disagree on the basis that people/organizations that avail themselves to the public goods and services provided by the government do in fact benefit. If you do not contribute to the taxes that pay for those goods and services, you are receiving something for nothing and are, in effect, being subsidized.

I'm applying the same standard to organizations that I want applied to people.

You evidently disagree.

I do. I believe religion should be free of the burdens of government control and taxation. You don't. Religious freedom is on my side.

How do you feel about the taxation of non-religious organizations then?

Of what type?

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:33 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:35 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Do you disagree or were you just posting a link?

I disagree on the basis that people/organizations that avail themselves to the public goods and services provided by the government do in fact benefit. If you do not contribute to the taxes that pay for those goods and services, you are receiving something for nothing and are, in effect, being subsidized.

I'm applying the same standard to organizations that I want applied to people.

You evidently disagree.

I do. I believe religion should be free of the burdens of government control and taxation. You don't. Religious freedom is on my side.

How do you feel about the taxation of non-religious organizations then?

Of what type?

non profits......

(02-28-2012 01:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:33 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:41 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  I disagree on the basis that people/organizations that avail themselves to the public goods and services provided by the government do in fact benefit. If you do not contribute to the taxes that pay for those goods and services, you are receiving something for nothing and are, in effect, being subsidized.

I'm applying the same standard to organizations that I want applied to people.

You evidently disagree.

I do. I believe religion should be free of the burdens of government control and taxation. You don't. Religious freedom is on my side.

How do you feel about the taxation of non-religious organizations then?

Of what type?

non profits......

shouldn't tax them either. They do more good than the government ever could. I'd rather take what I'm taxed now (the portion used for entitlement spending) away from the government and give it to the church or another non profit of my choosing.

(02-28-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:33 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 12:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I do. I believe religion should be free of the burdens of government control and taxation. You don't. Religious freedom is on my side.

How do you feel about the taxation of non-religious organizations then?

Of what type?

non profits......

shouldn't tax them either. They do more good than the government ever could. I'd rather take what I'm taxed now (the portion used for entitlement spending) away from the government and give it to the church or another non profit of my choosing.

And for profits don't do good? This goes back to the government deciding which organizations have missions that "qualify" as good enough to not be taxed and which ones don't.

(02-28-2012 03:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:33 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  How do you feel about the taxation of non-religious organizations then?

Of what type?

non profits......

shouldn't tax them either. They do more good than the government ever could. I'd rather take what I'm taxed now (the portion used for entitlement spending) away from the government and give it to the church or another non profit of my choosing.

And for profits don't do good? This goes back to the government deciding which organizations have missions that "qualify" as good enough to not be taxed and which ones don't.

The government already chooses which organizations "qualify" for government assistance....Solyndra come to mind.

(02-28-2012 05:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:44 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Of what type?

non profits......

shouldn't tax them either. They do more good than the government ever could. I'd rather take what I'm taxed now (the portion used for entitlement spending) away from the government and give it to the church or another non profit of my choosing.

And for profits don't do good? This goes back to the government deciding which organizations have missions that "qualify" as good enough to not be taxed and which ones don't.

The government already chooses which organizations "qualify" for government assistance....Solyndra come to mind.

I'm not OK with that. Are you OK with that?

(02-29-2012 09:23 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 05:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 01:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  non profits......

shouldn't tax them either. They do more good than the government ever could. I'd rather take what I'm taxed now (the portion used for entitlement spending) away from the government and give it to the church or another non profit of my choosing.

And for profits don't do good? This goes back to the government deciding which organizations have missions that "qualify" as good enough to not be taxed and which ones don't.

The government already chooses which organizations "qualify" for government assistance....Solyndra come to mind.

I'm not OK with that. Are you OK with that?

No, but we all have to play by the same set of twisted rules.

(02-29-2012 09:29 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-29-2012 09:23 AM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 05:31 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:48 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-28-2012 03:43 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  shouldn't tax them either. They do more good than the government ever could. I'd rather take what I'm taxed now (the portion used for entitlement spending) away from the government and give it to the church or another non profit of my choosing.

And for profits don't do good? This goes back to the government deciding which organizations have missions that "qualify" as good enough to not be taxed and which ones don't.

The government already chooses which organizations "qualify" for government assistance....Solyndra come to mind.

I'm not OK with that. Are you OK with that?

No, but we all have to play by the same set of twisted rules.

While we disagree about how to correct it, I think we can both agree that there is a messed up system in place.