Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

I'm not sure I've ever been exposed to that argument.  A quick timeline of my reaction.

"Hmm... that's sound logic.  I don't have such a problem with this anymore.

But... wouldn't it be nice if that same logic were applied to other demographic spectrums like race and social class, to prevent discriminatory taxes in those spheres.

Except... then taxes would have to cease to be a thing entirely.

So really... this is still an argument for religion getting special treatment.  It could be applied to all forms of taxation, but is only applied to religion.  Because apparently freedom of religious choice is seen as more sacrosanct than ex. the freedom not to be punished for being poor."

[Reelya]

I think it's the other way around smjames, it could be argued that religious exemptions to tax laws are a breach of the First Amendment. There's no need for a "church tax", since that's a red herring. Just make them do their taxes like any other organization.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

This section doesn't justify tax-exemptions for churches any more than it justifies tax-exemptions for newspapers.

[smjjames]

Did we ever have church tax laws in the US? Other than the pre-Revolutionary War period. Gonna try and look it up.

Doesn't appear that we ever did post Revolutionary War, and it's even reinforced by a Supreme Court decision almost a century ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#United_States https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=DgC8W7T2C8qY0gLpo7iQBg&q=church+tax+laws+in+the+united+states&btnK=Google+Search&oq=church+tax+laws+in+the+united+states&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.1540.9676..9864...0.0..0.118.3314.27j11....2..0....1..gws-wiz.......0j0i131j0i3j0i22i30.BWQ2bwi2B8E

Congress did accidentially put taxes on churches earlier this year due to some language around non-profit orgs, but that was a symptom of the way they rushed the proccess rather than any actual desire to tax churches.

[Dunamisdeos]

Perhaps it's because the press is an established and clear single concept, whereas "what constitutes religion" is a question that would infringe upon multiple religions if the government even so much as answered it.

[smjjames]

Not to mention running smack into the whole concept of separation of church and state as taxes could be seen as an endorsement of a particular religion. And as lord shonus said, it's easy enough to create some arbitrary tax which doesn't directly target religion, but affects it in some way.

[McTraveller]

Most people give to charitable causes because they want to give to the cause, not to save cash.  You have to be in some pretty contrived situations to come out cash-positive by donating compared to just keeping it and paying taxes.

And because of the way the federal budgets work (ha!), even "wasteful" religious organizations still often spend more per donation dollar on true social programs that the federal government would spend per tax dollar.

I'd argue we'd actually have a better effect on society if you eliminated the tax exemption on profits less than $500k on sale of a home. Slowing down real estate price hikes and increasing home affordability would be a huge social benefit.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

This is because income tax is not used the same as payroll tax.

Let's be generous and say you're in the 23% tax bracket. Donating $100 to a church that spends 10% on social programs, so $10.  The federal government spends 58% of its budget on social programs - but 34% of its revenue is FICA and medicare payroll tax, and 47% is personal income tax.  This means at most 51% of personal income tax can go to social programs (from (58-34)/47).  So in the 23% tax bracket, at most $13.79 of the $23 collected from the $100 you didn't donate will go to a social program. But note that the $10 from the church program is typically after overhead, whereas the $13.79 is before overhead. So call it a wash.  But if you consider the other 90% of the church donation as a 'social program' (after all, it's employing some of the church staff, so they don't need unemployment!) then churches do way better than tax dollars.

It's not even close in the 10% or 15% tax brackets - donating to churches is almost always going to be more effective in those cases.

[Reelya]

Yeah, someone was trying to tell me that charitable donations by businessmen were a tax-scam, and I tried to point out that you only get your *taxable income* reduced by the size of the donation, not your actual tax bill. Doing donations leave you with less money, but you can claim that your income was lower as a result, which is perfectly fair.

[RedKing]

... I'm going to run for president when I turn 35. I mean, Trump got elected. I have a decent chance of being president if I market myself on social media virally.

I've had that thought (I'm 42, almost 43) and then I realize I would be the worst possible choice for President. Like, I wouldn't even vote for myself.

[Reelya]

We all know who's next up:

http://fortune.com/2018/09/01/kanye-west-president-2024/

gotta love Kanye's statement that being slaves was a choice.

In the hour-long interview, West also speaks about the opioid crisis, the fashion industry, artificial intelligence, and his business endeavors.

Man I hate Kanye and don't have a second to waste on him, but goddamn am I tempted to hear his take on artificial intelligence.

[Akura]

Man I hate Kanye and don't have a second to waste on him, but goddamn am I tempted to hear his take on artificial intelligence.

Maybe he supports the development of artificial intelligence because he's lacking a natural one?

[SalmonGod]

The world has just over a decade to get climate change under control, U.N. scientists say

[Folly]

In a statement, a U.S. State Department official expressed appreciation for all the work that went into the report but noted that “governments do not formally endorse specific findings presented by the authors.”

Sorry kids, I know you really wanted a world to grow up on, but we just can't be bothered to give any fucks right now.

[Kagus]

Did we not pass the point of no return a while back?

[Reelya]

Did we not pass the point of no return a while back?

Various levels of no-return. Like if you get your arm cut off that's one point of no return, but getting a leg cut off is a worse one.

[Hanslanda]

In a statement, a U.S. State Department official expressed appreciation for all the work that went into the report but noted that “governments do not formally endorse specific findings presented by the authors.”

Sorry kids, I know you really wanted a world to grow up on, but we just can't be bothered to give any fucks right now.

I can't wait until Florida and most of the Baby Boomers in their retirement villages are being flooded by the ocean and I can start bitterly and grimly telling people, "They told you. You were warned."