Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Freedom to worship doesn't entail a free ride.Taxes on roads are paid for through gas taxes, not property taxes.
There is simply nothing that churches need to pay to society. Freedom of religion is an inalienable human right.
Should a government tax at all, then?
Freedom to worship doesn't entail a free ride.
Which does not entail a free ride. See the court case cited above.Freedom to practice ones religion is enshrined in the Constitution.
Drama much?If you have a problem with it, you can always move to North Korea, where they share similar attitudes.
Which does not entail a free ride. See the court case cited above.
Drama much?
Why should a religious organization get to take advantage of what my taxes pay for? Everything they get, they get by piggybacking on my dollar. I don't consent to that.
Should a pastor pay taxes on his income? (It is not required, though some do.) Is it a hindrance on the free practice of religion if he is required to? What about on his housing allowance? What about on her car allowance?
I think my paying taxes is a hindrance on my free exercise of atheism. (Note for the purposes of interpreting the 1st amendment, SCOTUS has ruled that religious stance -- not being religious -- is protected.)
If a church gets road maintenance, power lines, etc., they should pay taxes. They needn't pay taxes on every facet of their budget, but they should budget for property taxes to cover infrastructure costs.
Look. I'm willing to allow churches that actually do community work, e.g., soup kitchens, to get a break, but they need to provide records and evidence of this. They should not get off just on their say-so. The tax break should be proportional to what they actually contribute.Pastors do pay taxes on their income. They only are allowed to exempt some of their income proportional to a parsonage exemption, if the church does not provide a parsonage and gives them a parsonage stipend. I actually opposed the expansion of this exemption, as I do believe that ministers should actually serve their congregations and not use religion to enrich themselves beyond what is reasonable to support their vocation. That ministers should pay property taxes the same as everybody else.
Look. I'm willing to allow churches that actually do community work, e.g., soup kitchens, to get a break, but they need to provide records and evidence of this. They should not get off just on their say-so. The tax break should be proportional to what they actually contribute.
I reiterate that tax breaks were not a given between 1789 and 1894, that the court case cited above doesn't find tax exemption necessary to the free exercise of religion.
There're all sorts of loop holes.
Could you re-post a link to that court case?
But not roads or emergency services. Profit is irrelevant. Their property has value and it has value because of societal infrastructure. They benefit from MY taxes. They should pay their own.
"Free" doesn't imply lack of financial burden. It means without restriction. Cite: Tax exemptions | Freedom Forum Institute
The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption.
While SCOTUS has allowed tax exempt status, it is not inherently necessary.
Here you go
My quote within a quote in my last post (and, of course, my original post) came from cited website.All I see is talking about how there are reasonable limits on what can be considered tax exemptions for free exercise of religion, which I don't disagree with. However, a place of communal gathering is a reasonable part of a religion, whether it be a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple.
The Supreme Court has made clear that a tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment’s free-exercise and establishment clauses. The Walz Court said that the long history of tax exemption for religious organizations in no way creates an entitlement to any such exemption.
My quote within a quote in my last post (and, of course, my original post) came from cited website.
"Tax exemption is neither prohibited nor required under the First Amendment's free-exercise and establishment clauses." There is no entitlement.
This is not persecution.
This is, in fact, Biblical.
"Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."
A guy named Jesus Christ said that.
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches “creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” The Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.
Who's saying it's animus except you based on interpretation of online tone? I'd say churches should be taxed, though perhaps there can be compromises in that certain things shouldn't be taxed under the understanding they fit into non profit aspects versus others that are more explicitly public in nature.Taxation should be according to reason, not animus.
Who's saying it's animus except you based on interpretation of online tone? I'd say churches should be taxed, though perhaps there can be compromises in that certain things shouldn't be taxed under the understanding they fit into non profit aspects versus others that are more explicitly public in nature.
I vaguely seem to recall there still are taxes to a degree with churches, but it's usually much more limited in nature; the question becomes whether that limit is too easy for churches to exploit by loopholes, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?