The comments on that page are quite sad and pathetic.
No. That would open up a huge can of worms.
According to the
Secular Policy Institute
However, researchers at
Secular Humanism
They are anti religion. And the writer of the article,
James Forsythe (Writer, jamesaforsythe@gmail.com): James is a student of journalism at Cal State Northridge and his writing has appeared in online aggregates and publications such as MSN.com and Hypun.com. He specializes in bringing unique and different perspectives on groundbreaking stories about science,
secularism, sports and politics.
This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
(12-24-2015 04:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
Exactly.
The majority of churches do more good with the Tax Free money they get that the government would if they had the $71billion. If you take away tax-exempt status from churches then really all not-for-profits should be taxed, ASPCA, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, NAACP, etc.
(12-24-2015 04:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
Bingo. You also have to believe that they perform better than the private sector.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
(12-24-2015 08:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2015 04:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
Bingo. You also have to believe that they perform better than the private sector.
No you don't.
(12-25-2015 12:56 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]NO they do not.
Killer retort bro.
And before everyone knee-jerks into an anti UCF08 position, I am completely fine with religious based community services being tax-free. If you provide shelter for the homeless with the same building you use for your religious services, by all means we should support you with tax breaks.
Tax them. Everybody needs to chip in.
(12-24-2015 04:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
Close thread
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
It's the use of the word "subsidies" that disturbs me. Churches want to be tax-exempt? Fine. What do you need any of my money (that I don't voluntarily contribute) for?
(12-25-2015 09:19 AM)Smaug Wrote: [ -> ]It's the use of the word "subsidies" that disturbs me. Churches want to be tax-exempt? Fine. What do you need any of my money (that I don't voluntarily contribute) for?
Subsidies is in the imagination of the writer.
For example, with the parsonage allowance, its pretty similar to any other employee. The housing is for the benefit of the employer so its not compensation. The minister must be near the church and numerous church functions are held in the house. The President doesn't get taxed for the use of the White House.
Another reason on a list a mile long on why we need a consumption tax paradigm.
(12-25-2015 01:11 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2015 08:59 PM)blunderbuss Wrote: [ -> ] (12-24-2015 04:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
Bingo. You also have to believe that they perform better than the private sector.
No you don't.
Correct...You just have to be ignorant or not paying attention.
(12-25-2015 12:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Another reason on a list a mile long on why we need a consumption tax paradigm.
There's no reason on your list, or ANY list, that calls for a consumption tax. We're taxed enough already! Why you want MORE taxes astounds me.
(12-25-2015 01:41 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote: [ -> ] (12-25-2015 12:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Another reason on a list a mile long on why we need a consumption tax paradigm.
There's no reason on your list, or ANY list, that calls for a consumption tax. We're taxed enough already! Why you want MORE taxes astounds me.
I believe Fo Shizzle wants consumption taxes to replace the system we have now - no income taxes, payroll taxes, etc.
(12-24-2015 04:23 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote: [ -> ]This all hinges on believing that money first belongs to the Government. I refuse to acknowledge the idea that a tax break to me "cost" the taxpayers anything.
Exactly.
But sadly it's a common assumption by leftists. I look at it as churches don't get their money stolen by the government.
(12-25-2015 01:15 AM)UCF08 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-25-2015 12:56 AM)Paul M Wrote: [ -> ]NO they do not.
Killer retort bro.
What more needed to be said? They don't cost a ******* dime. Jeez. You want 12 paragraphs that says nothing more than my 4 words.