Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
Author Message
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
(04-17-2015 04:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 04:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Of course, any new legislation which did anything like that would be unconstitutional. The point I was making when I said that statement is that right now, as the tax code currently stands, the government does this by deciding what can be considered a religion. I cannot successfully contend my home is a site of worship for UCF08ism, because it doesn't meet the qualifications for a religious exemption. I understand the case law behind it and the reason it is this way, but in a purely rational sense, that is religious discrimination like what you described above.

It seems you're playing a little fast and loose with your words...

UFC08ism doesn't need to be considered a religion... Neither does the Catholic Church for that matter. It must merely meet the 510©(3) qualifications. The IRS doesn't really care WHY you have bound together... it only cares what you do as a result of it. Churches are not any different under IRS rules than any other 501 ©(3) organization.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profi...anizations


Generally speaking, If you could show that UCF08ism was not organized nor operated for the benefit of private interests and no part of its net earnings inured the benefit of a shareholder or individual and it doesn't engage in excess benefit transactions, you would qualify. The rules for churches (in terms of qualifying for an exemption) aren't really any different than any other charity.

Man, I just must not be explaining myself clearly but I'll say it again; I understand the regulations and the reasons behind these laws as they currently are, but it's still religious discrimination. I get that it's discrimination in the effort to limit people from abusing religious tax exemptions and is done in a manner to be sure to include all major organizations that a common person would consider a 'religion'. But if I truly had faith in the fact I am a singular god, and my house is my place of worship, those requirements for religious exemption do not allow this hypothetical form of religion the same benefit as others based on my belief set. It's an understandable line that had to be drawn, I'm just commenting on the line.
04-17-2015 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
(04-17-2015 04:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 04:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 03:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  How would you define 'church'?
The entire reason churches were declared exempt from taxes is that it was believed they served a public 'good'... NOT because they worshiped a deity. On the whole, they are fundamentally no different from any other charitable organization.. some with, and some without a belief in a higher power. The separation of church and state was as you note, to not treat 'the church you agree with' any different than 'the one you don't'. As such, the belief (or not) in God or Jesus or Muhammad or Space Aliens or the tooth fairy or animals or the power of 'red hats' is completely immaterial to their status. What matters is whether or not they serve their communities in a charitable fashion.
If the argument is that they don't serve a public good, then the ability to remove their individual tax exemption is already in place as is the mechanism to do so.
Like every other charitable organization, they discriminate for membership based on your belief (or not) in their mission. That is entirely different from discriminating in their charitable acts. While a church CAN certainly promote the well being of its members (and thus its financial base) it must also provide charity to people (or animals) REGARDLESS of their beliefs. With exceptions, the monies spent for the benefit of members is not considered 'charity'... hence the Pastor is taxed on his earnings, but building a nice facility where rich people want to come and be encouraged to 'give to others' is not.
I very specifically used the word MIGHT because of the points you make here.
Understood.... I just didn't want the response to be that he would favor just that. Most atheists would be fine with that solution, but it wouldn't be fair. If a church isn't acting charitably, then I'd have no problem yanking their status... but if they are, then going after them because they believe in a God is not only morally wrong, but Constitutionally so (imo)
I think their tax status could be tied to their charitable contributions without much of a fuss. And quite frankly, while a lot of churches do a lot of good (please don't think I'm questioning that), there are a lot who function more like marketing companies for jesus. I understand that proselytizing is important to their religion, but I don't see any compelling reason it should be tax deductible. Now, if you're providing food/shelter/assistance/care/etc while doing that, you're a-ok by me.

What the 1st Amendment, coupled with about a millennium of common law, actually says is that proselytizing is a tax exempt activity.

Proselytizing can cost lots of money.
04-17-2015 05:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #63
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
(04-17-2015 04:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I think their tax status could be tied to their charitable contributions without much of a fuss. And quite frankly, while a lot of churches do a lot of good (please don't think I'm questioning that), there are a lot who function more like marketing companies for jesus. I understand that proselytizing is important to their religion, but I don't see any compelling reason it should be tax deductible. Now, if you're providing food/shelter/assistance/care/etc while doing that, you're a-ok by me.

Proselytizing is how you get the money to be charitable. It's the 'playing golf' part of the golf fundraiser. It's the cookies at the charity bake sale. It's the Sarah Mclachlan song for the SPCA. The people they pay must pay taxes on their earnings. They are the bands at Farm Aid.

They ARE marketing companies for Jesus, and as long as they are turning those profits over to the needy, they are a charity. It's no different than the SPCA being a marketing company for its animals.

You aren't doing this, but this is where SOME people (imo) go overboard on their criticism of churches. WHAT THEY DO that creates revenue or brings in donations or however else you want to describe it has almost nothing to do with whether or not they are a charity... and ANY business is allowed to deduct their revenue generating expenses... What makes a church a charity is what they do with my profits. 'how much' of what you bring in you can spend 'pimpin' for jesus' and still be a charity is subject to scrutiny.... but if you're spending 500mm to bring in $3byn and giving that $2.5byn to the needy, you're a charity.
(This post was last modified: 04-17-2015 05:33 PM by Hambone10.)
04-17-2015 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #64
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
Im for ending all tax deductions for churches.....for no other reason than end it for the Scientologists. Fcking outrageous.
04-17-2015 10:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #65
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
(04-17-2015 05:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, I just must not be explaining myself clearly but I'll say it again; I understand the regulations and the reasons behind these laws as they currently are, but it's still religious discrimination. I get that it's discrimination in the effort to limit people from abusing religious tax exemptions and is done in a manner to be sure to include all major organizations that a common person would consider a 'religion'. But if I truly had faith in the fact I am a singular god, and my house is my place of worship, those requirements for religious exemption do not allow this hypothetical form of religion the same benefit as others based on my belief set. It's an understandable line that had to be drawn, I'm just commenting on the line.


Perhaps I'm not explaining myself either.

Churches aren't tax exempt because they worship God. They aren't tax exempt because they are a 'religion'. Just being a church doesn't make you a charity. Just worshiping God (or anything else) doesn't make you a charity. They are tax exempt because just like thousands of NON-religious entities, they meet the definition of 'charity' under IRS rule 501c3.... which deals with being 'non-profit' and not particularly benefiting the 'owners'.... and not 'how they raise their money or recruit donors' (proselytizing)

You're saying that tax exemption for churches is RELIGIOUS discrimination... but the discrimination isn't based on religion... it's based on 'charity' of the entity. It is CHARITABLE, not religious discrimination.

If a church practices religion, but not charity... they won't be tax exempt. If they practice charity but not religion, they are. The discrimination has NOTHING to do with the practice of religion. The only reason churches have a special category is because MOST churches preach charity... though as you note, not every 'religion' is exempt Iif they don't practice charity). It doesn't matter if they worship God or Allah or Satan or mother earth or L.Ron Hubbard or Animals or cars or a three-legged boy named Teddy or even nothing. What matters is that they practice charity as defined by the IRS.

You say the rules are set up to include/protect the major religions... but they aren't. They are set up to protect 'charity'. It's true that all the major religions practice this... but so do thousands of other groups.... and plenty of religions DON'T practice it and they are not exempt from taxes.
(This post was last modified: 04-18-2015 11:43 AM by Hambone10.)
04-18-2015 11:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UCF08 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,262
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 211
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
(04-18-2015 11:41 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-17-2015 05:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Man, I just must not be explaining myself clearly but I'll say it again; I understand the regulations and the reasons behind these laws as they currently are, but it's still religious discrimination. I get that it's discrimination in the effort to limit people from abusing religious tax exemptions and is done in a manner to be sure to include all major organizations that a common person would consider a 'religion'. But if I truly had faith in the fact I am a singular god, and my house is my place of worship, those requirements for religious exemption do not allow this hypothetical form of religion the same benefit as others based on my belief set. It's an understandable line that had to be drawn, I'm just commenting on the line.


Perhaps I'm not explaining myself either.

Churches aren't tax exempt because they worship God. They aren't tax exempt because they are a 'religion'. Just being a church doesn't make you a charity. Just worshiping God (or anything else) doesn't make you a charity. They are tax exempt because just like thousands of NON-religious entities, they meet the definition of 'charity' under IRS rule 501c3.... which deals with being 'non-profit' and not particularly benefiting the 'owners'.... and not 'how they raise their money or recruit donors' (proselytizing)

You're saying that tax exemption for churches is RELIGIOUS discrimination... but the discrimination isn't based on religion... it's based on 'charity' of the entity. It is CHARITABLE, not religious discrimination.

If a church practices religion, but not charity... they won't be tax exempt. If they practice charity but not religion, they are. The discrimination has NOTHING to do with the practice of religion. The only reason churches have a special category is because MOST churches preach charity... though as you note, not every 'religion' is exempt Iif they don't practice charity). It doesn't matter if they worship God or Allah or Satan or mother earth or L.Ron Hubbard or Animals or cars or a three-legged boy named Teddy or even nothing. What matters is that they practice charity as defined by the IRS.

You say the rules are set up to include/protect the major religions... but they aren't. They are set up to protect 'charity'. It's true that all the major religions practice this... but so do thousands of other groups.... and plenty of religions DON'T practice it and they are not exempt from taxes.

You know, that's actually a fair argument and I should probably bow out as I don't have the tax knowledge to really pick this apart, if it even can be. I would worry about the amount of charity provided being open to abuse, say donating a few thousand dollars a year to charity while spending the overwhelming majority on salaries and buildings, but I think that's a problem the IRS has to deal with for all non-religious charities too, so I'm willing to accept they likely have a somewhat reasonable requirements.

If the requirements for charities and churches are the same, and I have no reason to think you're either being dishonest, then yeah you make a good case. Fair enough, and thanks for the patience.
04-18-2015 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #67
RE: Rand Paul: Unwinnable War of Gay Marriage Semantics
(04-18-2015 01:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  If the requirements for charities and churches are the same, and I have no reason to think you're either being dishonest, then yeah you make a good case. Fair enough, and thanks for the patience.

thank YOU as well for engaging in civil debate. Your points are all valid and we need to ensure that 'charity' is the focus... not religion. Obviously those questions/requirements are subject to debate and opinion... and that is what we did

04-cheers
04-20-2015 12:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.