• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax Exemption for Churches

Status
Not open for further replies.
yankintx said:
As a gay man, I can honestly say, I don't find that offense, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Fine. I don't care either way.

It clearly shows your ignorance on the issue.
Click to expand...

No, actually it shows yours; there is over 300 years of American history you need to catch up on.

And what does that have to do with the taxation of churches? Nothing!!

Keep on topic
Click to expand...

It's very much on topic, and everything to do with your 'talking point'.
 
Crovax said:
What was the topic again? Your ignorant claim that "separation of church and state" is a right? or maybe your ignorance of Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) which ruled that property tax exemptions dont violate the establishment clause?
Click to expand...

My ignorance?

Why you being rude?
 
Oberon said:
Fine. I don't care either way.



No, actually it shows yours; there is over 300 years of American history you need to catch up on.

I have a Masters In European history, I know the documents you are referring to, and I don't have to use sarcasm to make a point.



It's very much on topic, and everything to do with your 'talking point'.
Click to expand...

I have a Masters In European history, I know the documents you are referring to, and I don't have to use sarcasm to make a point. What is it with some you folks, you get extra points for sarcasm? It brings nothing intelligent to the conversation.
 
yankintx said:
Most churches don't have to follow the IRS guidelines for charities, separate rule book.
Click to expand...

you are 100% wrong. church have to account to where they spend their money at the end of the year and what they spent it on.
they have to follow the same IRS standards as everyone else in their classification.

that is why some of these mega church's got into some serious trouble.

you really don't know what you are talking about.
 
ernst barkmann said:
question?..... then why am i and others to subsidize people on welfare, and other government social programs.
Click to expand...

Your argument is not related to the question in the OP. Following your reasoning why should we pay sugar subsidies, or pay for financial support of pharmaceutical corporations, oil, banking, farms, education, and on and on.

Your argument is not germane.
 
yankintx said:
I have a Masters In European history, I know the documents you are referring to, and I don't have to use sarcasm to make a point. What is it with some you folks, you get extra points for sarcasm? It brings nothing intelligent to the conversation.
Click to expand...

I got one guy bringing up AIDS, another who clearly did not read my post, if your religious and want to protect your churches tax exemption go ahead. Its not like atheist and gays don't get slammed over something, we are used to being on the outside looking in, many would prefer we go away and our opinion don't matter. This was a mistake to post, if I want to get gay bashed lots of places here in San Antonio I can go for that.
 
Visbek said:
US law stipulates that churches that engage in political advocacy lose their tax-exempt status; though rarely enforced, this reinforces the separation of church and state. If tax exemptions are gone, churches will be free to endorse candidates and advocate political positions. And of course, they may get politically involved to regain their former tax-exempt status. There may be valid reasons to revoke the exemption, but "taxing churches will increase the separation of church and state" is not one of them.
Click to expand...

They can and do engage in political advocacy quite legally, but yes, advocating and endorsing specific candidates is a no no. They can freely comment on moral and social issues, including legislation involving those areas, without crossing any boundaries. They have free speech and free exercise rights, and aren't required to stay silent on any of the issues. If that is all they do, then yes, they should incorporate as 527's like every other political group does.
 
yankintx said:
My ignorance?

Why you being rude?
Click to expand...

Its rude to point out that what you claim as a right is no such thing and what you call unconstitutional has already been ruled by the SCOTUS as constitutional?

Well I guess Im just rude then but that doesnt change the fact that you are completely ignorant about the 1st amendment.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Your argument is not related to the question in the OP. Following your reasoning why should we pay sugar subsidies, or pay for financial support of pharmaceutical corporations, oil, banking, farms, education, and on and on.

Your argument is not germane.
Click to expand...

i took no position in my previous statement, because i asked a question.

however in stating a position, i do not support subsidies of any kind to any entity or person.
 
yankintx said:
I got one guy bringing up AIDS, another who clearly did not read my post, if your religious and want to protect your churches tax exemption go ahead. Its not like atheist and gays don't get slammed over something, we are used to being on the outside looking in, many would prefer we go away and our opinion don't matter. This was a mistake to post, if I want to get gay bashed lots of places here in San Antonio I can go for that.
Click to expand...

What 'gay bashing'? Apparently you just wanted a thread bashing churches, and it's not going your way, is all.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Your argument is not related to the question in the OP. Following your reasoning why should we pay sugar subsidies, or pay for financial support of pharmaceutical corporations, oil, banking, farms, education, and on and on.

Your argument is not germane.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the defense, I have no time for folks that try to change the subject to fit there political needs. They should go make there own threads.
 
yankintx said:
As a land owner in San Antonio who pays a substantial amount of $$ in property taxes, I am perplexed why I should subsidize religious organizations thru my property taxes. I live quite close to downtown, a location where there are many large Churches, some with pay as you go parking lots, childcare centers, and restaurants. These Churches sit on large lots with multiple buildings. and I for one feel like as a property tax payer my rights (separation of Church and State) are being violated by subsidizing there tax exempt status. Churches use local and community services, they should pay up like the rest of us. Opinions? Please lets not bash anyone religion, that's not the intent, a sane rational discussion of why the Federal government allows this free ride would be cool.

Tax exemptions | First Amendment Center ? news, commentary, analysis on free speech, press, religion, assembly, petition

Pope Francis Calls for Ending Tax-Exempt Status of Churches That Don't Help the Needy
Click to expand...

Not just property taxes, but all tax breaks. Including, but not limited to:

Profits on businesses conducted by churches.

Income and property taxes on the parsonage.
 
yankintx said:
I have a Masters In European history, I know the documents you are referring to, and I don't have to use sarcasm to make a point. What is it with some you folks, you get extra points for sarcasm? It brings nothing intelligent to the conversation.
Click to expand...

Then you know your OP is a red herring, and you're just trolling then?
 
yankintx said:
Thanks for the defense, I have no time for folks that try to change the subject to fit there political needs. They should go make there own threads.
Click to expand...

you needed no defense, because i only asked a question of you, and if you had noticed i have given you praise in this forum before.
 
yankintx said:
I would answer that but choose not to respond to sarcasm. Reword without the unnecessary sarcasm and I will answer.
Click to expand...

Can't handle a little sarcasm? The Internet is definitely not the place for you. You can chose not to respond but that won't change the fact that "separation of church and state" is not a right. It's hardly sarcasm to claim that you have never read the 1st amendment if you don't know that.
 
Winchester said:
Not a lot in the scheme of things. They probably should pay property tax as they do make use of city services but then the argument could be made that their members already pay property taxes so in effect it's paid for. Granted there are those who don't go to church and theoretically a part of their property taxes goes to make up for churches and non-profits who don't pay.
Click to expand...

If you make the argument that the churchgoers already pay use and property taxes, then the same should apply to all business taxes.
 
Thank you

That's why I asked
 
jimbo said:
If you make the argument that the churchgoers already pay use and property taxes, then the same should apply to all business taxes.
Click to expand...

Not all, depends on the business, but yeah in some cases the argument could be made.
 
IRS's own administrative guidelines on churches and ministries:

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

26 USC 508 - Sec. 508. Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations - U.S. Code - VLEX 19209239

I also know most Christians as well as atheists would have no problem with some of these faux 'churches' and ministries getting audited and the book thrown at them, but amazingly the IRS never seems to bother them, and instead just threaten churches and ministries who get in the way of Neo-liberal agendas and Democratic Party platforms for some reason.
 
Crovax said:
Can't handle a little sarcasm? The Internet is definitely not the place for you. You can chose not to respond but that won't change the fact that "separation of church and state" is not a right. It's hardly sarcasm to claim that you have never read the 1st amendment if you don't know that.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That comes from a letter from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists during his first Presidential campaign, and isn't any kind of a 'law'.
 
the 1st amendment is a restriction on the power of the federal government only, until after the civil war when the USSC applied it to the states also.

the restriction is that congress shall make no laws, concerning what is "recognized" by the bill of rights.
 
Last edited:
Winchester said:
Not all, depends on the business, but yeah in some cases the argument could be made.
Click to expand...

Those cases are when those particular fund raising enterprises register as 501c(3)'s; selling t-shirts or whatever. That isn't really a requirement, but most do anyway, as it helps clean up the book keeping..
 
countryboy said:
Do you believe all non profit organizations should be taxed, or do you just have it in for churches?
Click to expand...

In most places, non profits are not property tax exempt, but it is a local issue.

The reverse is also true. Localities sometimes exempt businesses from property and other taxes as an incentive to locate in a specific area.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom