SHOULD... I vote yes... but they can't I don't think because they are "non-profit" organizations, and hence tax exempt.
I honestly think the churches have started going too far and the whole church and state being seperate have been blurred past recognition.
2007-02-15 07:50:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You raise an interesting question about taxing churches, not because of any political influence that they register, but because the majority of them are run as business, and therefore should contribute to the financial welfare of the nation. And let us not exclude other charitable organizations such as the Red Cross, the YMCA, the Masons, the Shriners, etc. etc, etc. Now, if the government starts taxing all these operations, then all of the donations that people make to them would no longer be tax exempt, that is write-off on their income taxes, and they would have to pay taxes on THAT money that they previously were not required to do. Thus, they would no longer make those donations, which would mean that all of these previously non-profit organizations would go out of business. Most of the money to support churches and faith-based ministries comes from outside sources. Now, with all of this new-found tax revenue, Congress and the President would have a field day with by funding pork-barrel project you would not believe and starting new wars and continuing the old wars indefinitely. The worthwhile things that these now defunct charity organizations and churches used to do would go undone and this country would soon slip into a cast system like India. Wealth never trickles down, it always percolate up. In other words, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Still interested in seeing churches and other non-profit organizations taxed?
2007-02-15 16:01:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by Preacher 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Religion always has had a significant impact on American politics. While I think religions are overstepping their boundaries right now, along with our stupid president mixing them together that much more; I think officially taxing would be a disaster. There would be such an outcry from the religious people, churches,etc.
They would demand more "rights," cause hell on earth by inciting their followers to create trouble, it would be terrible. Though the separation of church and state in theory exists, should they be taxed, it would no longer exist in theory either. They would gain more political power should they be directly tied into the government. There are other ways to legally keep them from gaining too much power.
2007-02-15 16:03:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by ajm48786 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'd be happy as a Tax Payer to just be able to quit subsidizing the Tax Exempt expenses of some churches used to fund Bribes/Payoffs/Legal Defense/Living Expenses/Moving Expenses,,etc,etc of Child Molestors
Nobody else that I know of gets an Income Exemption for $$$ spent on Legal Defense of Criminal Activity
Why are Right Wingers and Religous Fanatics so intent on Funding and Support of Sex Offenders and Child Molestors?
If Individuals want to continue their religous traditions of sacrificing their OWN children to the Pedophilia Cults and Syndicates---well, that's Their Rights of Freedom of Religion.
But I don't think it's right that everyone else who is compelled to pay Tax should have to subsidize the budget shortfall of the Exemptions granted the Sex Offenders & Child Molestors.
I don't care if it costs the rest of us "Only 2 Cents" per Citizen.
I think it's wrong that WE should have to pay.
Those who Chose to bendover their kids for their Pedophile Gods should Pay their OWN Money to have their kids raped by THEIR Religous Leaders.
TAXPAYERS should not.
Another thing,,,
Where's all the Normal,,NON-Pedophile/SexAbuse Doctrine Churches?
I've never noticed or heard of a SINGLE ONE protesting the abuse of the TaxExemption granted Churches.
CERTAINLY NOT on any grounds of Justice/Fairness,,or any Moral stand of Right or Wrong.
Not Even in their own Best Interest of Protecting their Legit-Use Exemption.
It appears to me that ALL Churches have chosen to Remain Silent about Tax Exempt Status being used to Support CRIME and Child Abuse.
Is one possible reason of why they rather not have any Legal obligation to ACCOUNT,,,
perhaps because they themselves would rather not be subject to such scrutiny?
I'm 100% FOR the Charitable -Use Tax Exemption.
Frankly,I begrudge the TaxExempt extravagant expenditures displayed by so many religous organizations,,,
Though if that's what contributors & supporters of those excesses must pay for their ticket to heaven,,Oh Well.
But expecting Taxpayers to help finance Crime and Ritual Sexual Abuse of Children is something I beleive is beyond the Spirit of Constitutional Law and the US Tax Code.
2007-02-15 17:14:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by TXm42 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you going to tax all other non profit organizations as well?
I don't think so.
And what about those churches that have little involvement with politics?
2007-02-15 15:53:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yeah! We should start with an "atheist tax" for all those who are not supporting the political process by supporting religion. They are a drag on the American way of life!
2007-02-15 15:50:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Open Heart Searchery 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
If you tax the church, you run the risk of the government having to come in and sieze the church for failure to pay their taxes ... do you want the government running a church, ANY church?
Can't have separation of church and state and have the church paying the state money owed on taxes.
2007-02-15 15:55:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by arewethereyet 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Churches which become involved in politics can LOSE that tax exempt status UNDER CURRENT LAW. That has been the case for several decades and SHOULD remain so. Churches have no business becoming involved in politics, BUT, at the same time, Christians SHOULD BE INVOLVED in their communities.
Why do people seek to STIFLE the freedom of speech of Christians? Do we not have the same right under law to express our views?
2007-02-15 15:47:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
Taking their tax dollars also means taking their input to some extent. I like it how it is......promote their success by not taxing....and keeping them the heck out of the political arena.
The ones that are overtly political, and for profit, like Pat Robertson should be taxed.
2007-02-15 15:48:00
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes, if you are going for a tax free status you shouldn't be using that extra cash to buy off politicians.
2007-02-15 15:48:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Sara 5
·
1⤊
2⤋