I figure non-church goers are not benifiting from a church getting a free ride. We b***h about certain groups of people that don't have to pay tax then why should it stop there? If the church doesn't want to help the country then why should the country help the church? Church doesn't pay tax= sears moves in and does.

I can understand you point, even if I don't agree with it, but what does this mean?

If the church doesn't want to help the country then why should the country help the church?

Originally posted by Frogger
I can understand you point, even if I don't agree with it, but what does this mean?

That's my question too. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that churches don't cause problems, but they do a lot of good too, so to say they don't help the country is a bit inaccurate. They're no different than other charities like Peta or MADD in that regard.

Also, remember the reason the U.S. was created? No taxation without representation. If we tax churches, they will (rightly) demand representation in government. That will be dangerous.

Borg has a good point. That would be a very scary thing.

A church is not an individual. A church is an organization and organizations do not have representation. This country wasn't formed to protect organizations, it was formed to protect its citizens. Companies are taxed and have no representation because they are not citizens, churches are not taxed because of the historical influence of religion in this country's politics.

On that note, I do not believe that churches themselves should be taxed. However, any money raised for the sole purpose of supporting the church(and not for charity) should be taxed.

Originally posted by Blibblob
A church is not an individual. A church is an organization and organizations do not have representation. This country wasn't formed to protect organizations, it was formed to protect its citizens. Companies are taxed and have no representation because they are not citizens, churches are not taxed because of the historical influence of religion in this country's politics.
That's true, but it isn't what I meant. Of course organizations can't vote, but they do get representation in government in other ways. Donations are what I was thinking of, as non-profit, tax-exempt organizations cannot support a particular politician or political party financially.

That's true, but it isn't what I meant. Of course organizations can't vote, but they do get representation in government in other ways. Donations are what I was thinking of, as non-profit, tax-exempt organizations cannot support a particular politician or political party financially.
And corporations have limits. Something unconstitutional to do to individuals but it is perfectly acceptable to do to an organization. Churches do a lot of helping of themselves, whereas non-profit organizations don't.

Originally posted by Blibblob
On that note, I do not believe that churches themselves should be taxed. However, any money raised for the sole purpose of supporting the church(and not for charity) should be taxed.

Should money raised to support the home office of the Red Cross be taxed as well?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Should money raised to support the home office of the Red Cross be taxed as well?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Should money raised to support the home office of the Red Cross be taxed as well?

You know, sometimes you ask the most annoying questions Lionel..just when I was feeling anti-religious you ask this poignant question...No...they shouldn't be taxed...Then again, no one should :D

Should money raised to support the home office of the Red Cross be taxed as well?
I feel that's an entirely different situation. Churches raise money to expand and to pay for nice fancy things. Especially Catholic churches who raise money from parishioners and then spend it on a brand new gold statue. The Red Cross collects money and any money spent on the home office is used to expand for efficiency's sake in their non profit endevours. Chuches raise that money for themselves, not to help unfortunate people better.

Originally posted by Blibblob
I feel that's an entirely different situation. Churches raise money to expand and to pay for nice fancy things. Especially Catholic churches who raise money from parishioners and then spend it on a brand new gold statue. The Red Cross collects money and any money spent on the home office is used to expand for efficiency's sake in their non profit endevours. Chuches raise that money for themselves, not to help unfortunate people better.

Oversimplification and generlization of motivations, those things do not "fly". That is not a very good argument to use just to be in favor of taxing Churches.

Oversimplification and generlization of motivations, those things do not "fly". That is not a very good argument to use just to be in favor of taxing Churches.
What the hell are you talking about? That was explaining the difference between taxing money raised by the Red Cross for their home office and money raised by churches to support the church. So firstly, I have never argued that churches themselves should be taxed, secondly you are referencing incorrect explainations to attempt to half-assly disprove my assertion that money raised to support the church itself should be taxed. I have neither oversimplified nor generalized motivations, I have merely pinpointed a source of income that simply cannot be considered for non-profit endevours, for that money is going into the church's spending and the diosce's(or priest himself it is not a Catholic church) coffers and not back out for charity. Non profit organizations spend only enough money on themselves to provide efficiency to assist others, Churches spend money on themselves to help preach better, and since when was preaching a charity?

It's edification of it's members - it's teaching and mineristing to the congregation - the Word will renew your mind.

That gold statue you are talking about can be considered an integral part of the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholics believe those statues, statues of Saints and the Holy Family assist in worship. They aren't simply placed around the area to make it pretty.

Once you start taxing certain churches because you think they spend money in ways you don't like you begin your slide down the proverbial slippery slope. Should churches that are plain, with little or no ornamentation be taxed? How about churches that have no regular meeting house? Do you tax just the statues or do you tax the entire building. What about statues placed outside the building on the grounds, like the Stations of the Cross? Do you tax the entire property? Who will pay the taxes? Will a portion of each church member's assests be taken away? Will the church have to add a surtax to offerings?

It is best to not tax churches and to overlook their occasional forays into politics just as we ignore it when historically black churches invite Democrat candidates to speak or when people who claim the title Reverend like Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton speak about politics or even run for office.

Blib, Churches should not be taxed for the simple reason that they are essentially a non-profit organization. Their administrative fees to pay the magisterium and other workers, their costs of buildings and adornments, supplies, missionary work, utilities, etc etc. all do not amount to "profit"...the fact that the money is going to a place of worship means it should be left untouched. Taxing the Church could lead to (more) involvement in our government, or it could restrict many communities abilities to get by and support themselves. Both of which are not exactly desirable effects. Congress shall make no law respecting religion, and effecting their ability to do their deeds and afford the costs of their worship could be construed as such.

Not to mention you are in no position to tell them how and why to worship. Their possession of "gold statues" in a faith may be important or meaningful artistry with a purpose to the churchgoers. Just because of the way they worship does not justify you to make a judgment on whether or not they should get tax, how much, and why. If i ruled India, would it be fair to tax Hindus for not eating the cow?

Also, the Church or other churches are supported by the CHURCH (Read: the people who attend), that means they are getting taxed for attending and having a religion...while those with other faiths or no faith get by. That is whollly unacceptable and unfair treatment.

Evakian,

It may be unfair but that is almost exactly what is done in Germany. If you belong to a church you have to pay a tax. That is one of the reasons there are so few church goers in Germany.

Originally posted by Frogger
It may be unfair but that is almost exactly what is done in Germany. If you belong to a church you have to pay a tax. That is one of the reasons there are so few church goers in Germany.

I am aware of such practices in Germany and other spots across Europe, all the more reason to love being an american. Take the Power back (http://www.ratm.net/lyrics/tak.html) was an older song by "Rage against the Machine", definitely some anti Eurocentric ideals sentiment in there. I believe America should do what is best for the American people...we are not European, we are much different, and should never govern our country the same as say France or Germany because they do it also.

Originally posted by Frogger
Should churches that are plain, with little or no ornamentation be taxed? How about churches that have no regular meeting house?

Exactly. Not all churches have elaborate ornamentation. And neither are all charities as minimalist when it comes to office expenses as the Red Cross. Some charities are exceptionally bad, in fact.

I see what you're getting at Blib, but it's not something you'd ever be able to enforce.

Originally posted by Frogger
what does this mean?

I didn't use the best wording, my point is what or why should a church get a tax break but a vet. who fought for the country doesn't? The church seems to want to be perfect, but they hide behind laws, what good are they?

Many interesting thoughts/replys, thanks.

I noticed the charity replys. Lets meet Joe he is poor as dirt doesn't have much food no medical etc.... Joe finds a winning lottery ticket he cashes it in so he can eat get a house medical etc... Joe will get taxed out the waazooo even though he was a simple charity case. The church may do some good, but they also make money. I would love to be able to put up a house have a car and a business and not be taxed. A church is a business 1st, the charity comes after. Lets let walmart slide on the tax deal after all they do alot of fund raising???? Sears gives money to CMN{and other needy things} maybe they're just a big chairty. A church wants to fund raise fine don't tax the charity a church forms a business it is time for tax.

Originally posted by mad dog
Many interesting thoughts/replys, thanks.

I noticed the charity replys. Lets meet Joe he is poor as dirt doesn't have much food no medical etc.... Joe finds a winning lottery ticket he cashes it in so he can eat get a house medical etc... Joe will get taxed out the waazooo even though he was a simple charity case. The church may do some good, but they also make money. I would love to be able to put up a house have a car and a business and not be taxed. A church is a business 1st, the charity comes after. Lets let walmart slide on the tax deal after all they do alot of fund raising???? Sears gives money to CMN{and other needy things} maybe they're just a big chairty. A church wants to fund raise fine don't tax the charity a church forms a business it is time for tax.
===================================
Mad dog, maybe instead of fight them we should join them.
I see where you can start a church of your choice for a few bucks, mail order.
File for tax exempt.
Build you a fine place, get that lemo, have Bingo, soup kitchen(where you and the family eat free), plus write off anything else you wish to have-trips, etc.

Call it the Mad Dog House of Interplanitary Worship. ;)

If I remember correctly all you have to give away is 12% to qualify as a charity.

Originally posted by mad dog
A church is a business 1st, the charity comes after. Lets let walmart slide on the tax deal after all they do alot of fund raising???? Sears gives money to CMN{and other needy things} maybe they're just a big chairty. A church wants to fund raise fine don't tax the charity a church forms a business it is time for tax.

Essentially what you're getting at here is deciding what is a worthwhile charity and what isn't. Building a house of worship for people - not. Giving money to feed the homeless - yes. Which is fine if you want the government involved in deciding what charity is good and what charity is bad, just don't complain to me when the Republican congress decide that AIDS charities aren't worthy and therefore should pay taxes.

Lionel;

What I am getting at is that a church is a business not a charity. People send Bob the preacher 10%+ of their income, Bob goes out and buys a limo, house etc.. no tax. Now what part of charity did that money go to, save the Bob fund? Government is allready involved they're letting the church business get away without paying taxes.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell

Mad dog, maybe instead of fight them we should join them.
I see where you can start a church of your choice for a few bucks, mail order.
File for tax exempt.
Build you a fine place, get that lemo, have Bingo, soup kitchen(where you and the family eat free), plus write off anything else you wish to have-trips, etc.

Call it the Mad Dog House of Interplanitary Worship. ;)

If I remember correctly all you have to give away is 12% to qualify as a charity.

:D I would have folks going around knocking on doors and telling people join or go to hell. Once I scared all the people into my house of Interplanitary Worship, I could rule the world. Everyone could give me 33.333333% of any money they have. I would tell them about a God that I never met or have any proof of, but they would still believe{hey it's better then going to hell}:)

Originally posted by mad dog
Lionel;

What I am getting at is that a church is a business not a charity. People send Bob the preacher 10%+ of their income, Bob goes out and buys a limo, house etc.. no tax. Now what part of charity did that money go to, save the Bob fund? Government is allready involved they're letting the church business get away without paying taxes.

I have already spoken my views on this, as seen above, but let me restate.
A church is not a business, and it may do charitable deeds or manage charity leagues, it is not a charity either.
It is a service, an organization supported by those who partake in it. Forcing churches to pay taxes means you are taxing the churchgoers. Government shall make no law respecting religion and taxing the church means that are interrupting the Church or a church's ability to worship how they please, and giving them another tax for having a religion. These actions could easily be construed as effecting freedom of religion.

Also, you cannot tax them because of what you deem as being unnecessary. Just because you see their lavish buildings or many community activities as unneeded extras, they do not and have the freedom to do them if they want. Not to mention the Church and other churches are backed up by the finances of the association's populace.

Plus, your example of the vain minister spending on such affectations does not give you the right to punish all religious institutions in that way.

Not only that, but it is not your place to judge what is a worthwhile charity organization and what is not.

As long as the government is not involved in the funding of such places and groups, and that they are solely supported by the congregation's donations and/or fees, there is no problem and it should be left alone.

Originally posted by mad dog
Lionel;

What I am getting at is that a church is a business not a charity. People send Bob the preacher 10%+ of their income, Bob goes out and buys a limo, house etc.. no tax. Now what part of charity did that money go to, save the Bob fund? Government is allready involved they're letting the church business get away without paying taxes.

Bob,

I think you are a little mixed up. If Bob gets a salary he has to pay taxes on it. He can't just go out and buy himself a limo or house. On the other hand, he can use the church's car and live in the church's house. That is not quite the same thing since he doesn't own them and cannot sell them. If the house goes up in value Bob gets none of that increase.

Originally posted by Frogger
Bob,

I think you are a little mixed up. If Bob gets a salary he has to pay taxes on it.

he also can write everything off as a church expense, you are correct if he claims a salary he will get taxed.

He can't just go out and buy himself a limo or house. On the other hand, he can use the church's car and live in the church's house. That is not quite the same thing since he doesn't own them and cannot sell them.

Let me ask if you work where you could use the house and a car would you be silly enough to go buy a car or house?

Originally posted by Evakian

A church is not a business, and it may do charitable deeds or manage charity leagues, it is not a charity either.

I disagree churches have changed and they are run like any other business, it's called the business of getting followers. A bar likes to sell beer in order to sell their product they need followers. Bars have also done many charitys etc... in all reality a bar is not much different then a church, they're just selling a different line of entertainment.


It is a service, an organization supported by those who partake in it. Forcing churches to pay taxes means you are taxing the churchgoers.

SO WHAT

Government shall make no law respecting religion and taxing the church means that are interrupting the Church or a church's ability to worship how they please, and giving them another tax for having a religion. These actions could easily be construed as effecting freedom of religion.

How would taxing them change the way they feel about how they worship? Tax on a building goes to help that township etc... If Joe belongs to blau blau church but I don't and would rather see a gas station instead of a church because the tax money that could go back to everyone then why shouldn't Joe's little bar of worship be taxed? If there are 2000 people in a town and 100 of them want to put up a church hows is this fair for the other 1900 that want the station?

Also, you cannot tax them because of what you deem as being unnecessary. Just because you see their lavish buildings or many community activities as unneeded extras, they do not and have the freedom to do them if they want.

I'm confused at to what you are saying here sorry, are you saying without a church a group of people can't worship what they believe?

Not to mention the Church and other churches are backed up by the finances of the association's populace.

Yes correct and it amounts to big dollars$$$$$$$$$$

Plus, your example of the vain minister spending on such affectations does not give you the right to punish all religious institutions in that way.

sorry that was a little joke between me and Dan, BUT even though it was a joke it still does holds truth.

Not only that, but it is not your place to judge what is a worthwhile charity organization and what is not.

show me one place where I have judged a charity unless of course you are saying a church is a charity?

As long as the government is not involved in the funding of such places and groups, and that they are solely supported by the congregation's donations and/or fees, there is no problem and it should be left alone.

I disagree, the church has turned into a big money making business that hides behind a God/religion.

Evakian;

Lets say a guy does wood carvings, and alot of his carvings are based on spiritual things. example he can carve an angle with a chainsaw into a tree or a giant cross etc.... Because he is doing religious carvings should he get taxed when he sells something? After all lets keep government out of religion. His creations are something that comes from the heart and they are spiritual/religious. If it is okay to tax him on religious stuff why isn't it okay to tax a church?

Maybe ya'll ahould read the IRS forms for churches - they do pay taxes - not like a regular business but they do pay taxes.

Originally posted by mad dog
If it is okay to tax him on religious stuff why isn't it okay to tax a church?

Churches aren't selling anything - he is.

sure they are their selling their idea about how life should be lived. Their selling their beliefs.

Some of the things that go on in churches are interesting.





http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines


http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/religion/churches/baptist_temple/tax_dispute.html

Originally posted by mad dog
Evakian;

Lets say a guy does wood carvings, and alot of his carvings are based on spiritual things. example he can carve an angle with a chainsaw into a tree or a giant cross etc.... Because he is doing religious carvings should he get taxed when he sells something? After all lets keep government out of religion. His creations are something that comes from the heart and they are spiritual/religious. If it is okay to tax him on religious stuff why isn't it okay to tax a church?

Churches aren't selling anything - he is.

Lionel beat me to it.

sure they are their selling their idea about how life should be lived. Their selling their beliefs.

No, that is not right. A church is supported by donations given by those who believe in the practice. Sure, people who like Coca-Cola buy it...but they are paying up front to buy a product, a trade off. Religion is not a trade off, the congregation merely donates to support the community's costs.

I disagree churches have changed and they are run like any other business, it's called the business of getting followers. A bar likes to sell beer in order to sell their product they need followers. Bars have also done many charitys etc... in all reality a bar is not much different then a church, they're just selling a different line of entertainment.

Well, they have been doing it for quite some time...this is not a "change", they always went after getting new followers. They believe Jesus is the way to "eternal salvation", and want everyone to benefit from his teachings and love...to not be shut out on the supposed "judgment day". It is not a crime to evangelize, nor should it ever be treated as such.
Sometimes churches have to do activities or services to attract members and get them intrigued in joining, it is advertising...sometimes it is not a very good thing for them to engage in, but other times when new followers come to their church, certain good things do come.

Whatever your conflict with religious institutions, I've stated my rebuttal to your argument of taxing churches...and I've made it quite clear that it is wrong, you've no place judging how religious institutions should be treated, worked, or otherwise.

SO WHAT

So what?!!?!!?!

You do realize that taxing people for having a religion and attending its ceremonies is against constitutional values, don't you? That is wholly unfair treatment to those who have faith as compared with those of differing faiths or those of no faith.

A church is not a business, it does not sell its goods and services...it is supported by charity. A church is also not a charity, whether it involves itself in such activities or not the basic premise of a church is for the community to practice their faith...there is no charitable deed there necessarily.

How would taxing them change the way they feel about how they worship?

It would effect their ability to pay for their faith, which restricts their ability to practice their faith because they have to unjustly pay the government for having a religion.
It is not about "feelings", it is about capabilities.

If there are 2000 people in a town and 100 of them want to put up a church hows is this fair for the other 1900 that want the station?

The 100 shall be required to pay for the land, construction, and maintenance of the property after they obtain it. If the other 1900 members of the town beat them to it, or a city ordinance decrees the land for a building that is of the good of the general welfare, or the 100 are unable to meet the financial burdens...then by all means, no one needs suffer here.

I'm confused at to what you are saying here sorry, are you saying without a church a group of people can't worship what they believe?

I am saying that is it not your place to tell them they can't have a church even if they want one. You may think, "Oh, they can worship with a massive cathedral filled with mosaics", and that is true...but is that what the congregation wants? Is that how they want to express their faith? No. That is their choice, not your decision.

You cannot tell them how they can and cannot worship.

Yes correct and it amounts to big dollars$$$$$$$$$$

Yes, that is their money that the congregation wants to see fit spent on their community and place of worship, not the government. It is not right to capitalize on someone else's faith just because they have money available.

BUT even though it was a joke it still does holds truth.

As does my counter-argument.

show me one place where I have judged a charity

The humorous situation with the preacher who indulges himself, although i disagree with the immoral practices of the minister...I am not going to tell them that their church is doing wrong and then step in to stop it. Their choice, their money, their sanctuary, their practice, their beliefs.

I disagree, the church has turned into a big money making business that hides behind a God/religion.

Then i shall proceed to call you a liar in this respect. The Church, and other churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and so forth are "propped up" by charitable funding by their followers to support the charities, buildings, activities, and magisterium. In this modern world, banking and finances have to take root and they need to be proper holders of their wealth fiscally so they can spend and maintain themselves wisely.
Some religions may be out there to steal money, but the majority provide services and charitable deeds. And that is not of your concern, nor right, to step in.
Have you no respect or decency? "Look at that church, they've all that money they aren't yet using and i need some, let's tax it to get it out of them!"

The proposal for taxing religious institutions/communities is a foolish, absurd idea to take from religions; you do not partake in them, but that gives you no place to decide that or restrict their practices.

I suspect Mad Dog doesn't really understand the tax structure as it pertains to churches and church employees. Churches are exempt from taxes but church employees are not. If they earn a salary they must pay taxes on that salary. The goods and chattels and real property of churches are exempt from taxes, not those who work for the church.

I can start a church, live there, eat there, drive a church vehicle, swim in the church pool, watch the church t.v.,play on the computer, enjoy any thing I purchase under the church title, and pay no taxes. I would need no reportable income.

So long as the church owned everything and not you, you might be able to do it. Then again, you might not. There have been test cases where people have tried to do exactly what you described and they lost to the I.R.S.

Churches are in the business of recruting followers. They have also evolved into political comunities. They should be taxed for every dime they collect that is not spent on DIRECT charity.

Yes, even churches evolve. Bwahahahahahah

Echo,
You seem to be laboring under the misconception that churches exist only to dispense alms. There are other missions of the church other than giving away money.

Originally posted by mad dog
sure they are their selling their idea about how life should be lived. Their selling their beliefs.

No, they give that away for free to anyone that wants it.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I can start a church, live there, eat there, drive a church vehicle, swim in the church pool, watch the church t.v.,play on the computer, enjoy any thing I purchase under the church title, and pay no taxes. I would need no reportable income.

Of course you'd have to convince someone to donate to your church, first. I wonder if pastors/priests that live in church housing have to pay imputed income on the fair market value of the rent. You certainly would if you weren't a pastor.

Originally posted by Echo2
They should be taxed for every dime they collect that is not spent on DIRECT charity.

Your challenge then is to define charity in such a way that you don't end up with politicians deciding what is a worthy charity and what isn't.

And of course it should be mentioned that under your standard, your former employer would have been taxed on any money it took in that went to pay your salary or for the building you worked in.

God had called me and then stopped by
And he told me you're gonna die
Unless you buy my holy water
Check, cash, or a money order
This is true, don't question me
I'll even send you shit for free
It's only ten bucks for the call
And I'll send a prayer, no charge at all
Put your lips up to the screen
Close your eyelids and intervene
Your lips to mine, now send the cash
And while you're there, you can kiss my ass
Take your paycheck and send me half
And I'll send you God's autograph
I'll get Allah's and Buddha's too
Even Zeus, I don't give a fuck who
Just send me that money

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by LionelHutz
I wonder if pastors/priests that live in church housing have to pay imputed income on the fair market value of the rent. You certainly would if you weren't a pastor.
=============================

Turbo Tax says, "Rental value of the parsonage is subject to social security tax only." Unless the minister files form 4361 in triplicate which states that his faith prevents him from paying or receiving social security.

According to IRS a minister has "duel tax status", he files both as an employee and self-employed. With the benifits of each.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
I can start a church, live there, eat there, drive a church vehicle, swim in the church pool, watch the church t.v.,play on the computer, enjoy any thing I purchase under the church title, and pay no taxes. I would need no reportable income.

Thank you Dan this is my point and it does happen

Please name one person who is living this life of luxory by starting his own church.

Originally posted by Evakian
No, that is not right. A church is supported by donations given by those who believe in the practice. Sure, people who like Coca-Cola buy it...but they are paying up front to buy a product, a trade off. Religion is not a trade off, the congregation merely donates to support the community's costs.

support community costs HA! Once again they are selling, selling ideas, no different then a politicain sellings his/her idea.



Well, they have been doing it for quite some time...this is not a "change", they always went after getting new followers. They believe Jesus is the way to "eternal salvation", and want everyone to benefit from his teachings and love...to not be shut out on the supposed "judgment day".

the church sold their ideas for power, Jesus was just a way to make it look like compasion. You are correct they have been doing it for sometime, times need to change.......

It is not a crime to evangelize, nor should it ever be treated as such.

I agree stand on a street corner and preach, free religion.


Sometimes churches have to do activities or services to attract members and get them intrigued in joining, it is advertising...sometimes it is not a very good thing for them to engage in, but other times when new followers come to their church, certain good things do come.

especially more money

[quote]Whatever your conflict with religious institutions, I've stated my rebuttal to your argument of taxing churches...and I've made it quite clear that it is wrong, you've no place judging how religious institutions should be treated, worked, or otherwise.

And a religion has no right to tax freedom when I as a vet{along with others} served this country, but we do get taxed.



You do realize that taxing people for having a religion and attending its ceremonies is against constitutional values, don't you?

Very interesting how you twisted my meaning. I have a very strong spiritual belief system. I am not taxed for believing nice try :)

That is wholly unfair treatment to those who have faith as compared with those of differing faiths or those of no faith.

faith is faith it has nothing to do with money, well in some cases anyway.

A church is not a business, it does not sell its goods and services...it is supported by charity.

I still disagree churches are big business, a charity should help others not make them rich. Just because folks decide to label something a charity does not mean it is. I'll take the United Way as an example why does the head of that company make millions.


A church is also not a charity, whether it involves itself in such activities or not the basic premise of a church is for the community to practice their faith...there is no charitable deed there necessarily.

fair enough now lets say I want to open up a dance studio, remember it just folks wanting to dance. I would bet I'ld be taxed and watched very close even if I said I only work off of donations, especially when they saw I owned a limo.



It would effect their ability to pay for their faith, which restricts their ability to practice their faith because they have to unjustly pay the government for having a religion.
It is not about "feelings", it is about capabilities.

WOW So you can't have faith unless you make money no wonder the church seems so full of bull. The truth is without the money they might lose power, without the power they definintely will lose money. If a person TRUELY believes in their faith then money should not have anything to do with it????



The 100 shall be required to pay for the land, construction, and maintenance of the property after they obtain it. If the other 1900 members of the town beat them to it, or a city ordinance decrees the land for a building that is of the good of the general welfare, or the 100 are unable to meet the financial burdens...then by all means, no one needs suffer here.

I agree with what you said, but now I am going to throw a twist in. Wouldn't it be better to have a building that helps everyone not just the 100 believers?



I am saying that is it not your place to tell them they can't have a church even if they want one.


You love to twist, damn I think I'm almost in a knot, I NEVER SAID THERE COULD BE NO CHURCHES

You may think, "Oh, they can worship with a massive cathedral filled with mosaics", and that is true...but is that what the congregation wants?

hmmmm, well maybe everyone that uses a mechanics garage should have what they "want". You can pray get together in a persons yard etc..., but there should be no free rides if it is not good for one then it shouldn't be for another.

Is that how they want to express their faith? No. That is their choice, not your decision.

I don't care how they express their faith stand naked on the interstate for all I care.

You cannot tell them how they can and cannot worship.

I think you should change your title to twisty, ONCE AGAIN I am not telling anyone how to worship. Stand upside down and kiss tree trunks for all I care.



Yes, that is their money that the congregation wants to see fit spent on their community and place of worship, not the government. It is not right to capitalize on someone else's faith just because they have money available.

Proven charity no tax, preacher Bob porche tax the waazoo!!!



I am not going to tell them that their church is doing wrong and then step in to stop it. Their choice, their money, their sanctuary, their practice, their beliefs.

Again I am not stopping a church, just trying to make a business come out from hiding behind a religion.



Some religions may be out there to steal money, but the majority provide services and charitable deeds. And that is not of your concern, nor right, to step in.

Chairty no tax, porche limo etc.. tax, very simple....


Have you no respect or decency? "Look at that church, they've all that money they aren't yet using and i need some, let's tax it to get it out of them!"

Now you think it is about me wrong, it is about everyone, one busines pays a tax the other should also.

The proposal for taxing religious institutions/communities is a foolish, absurd idea to take from religions; you do not partake in them, but that gives you no place to decide that or restrict their practices.

I could be wrong but I think you are to emotionaly attached to your church{not faith}? You are afraid if the church goes then your faith will go? You are on a high defence if anything might effect your religion, so instead of seeing the truth you get upset at anyone that may disagree with your standing. I understand your point of view and you have made good arguments but the truth doesn't care about arguments it cares about power and money. No one today wants to give up a dime but when society is being screwed things should be changed. This doesn't just go for churches it goes for any organization that is making money off the system. If the church was not a business and ran like you try to make it sound then fine, but this is not the case so something should be done. Keep religion with religion but at the same time don't turn religion into what it is a money making machine{business}.

Originally posted by Frogger
Please name one person who is living this life of luxory by starting his own church.

Frogger turn on the TV, also I can't remember his name but years back there was a preacher even buying hookers{maybe someone can help}.

Originally posted by Frogger
Please name one person who is living this life of luxory by starting his own church.
============================
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker did for quite a while. Made millions.
Jim finally got stupid and did a little time in jail.(collected millions for a christian theme park and spent the money on other things).
Now has a string of chunches. One only 10 miles from me.$$$$$

Originally posted by mad dog
Frogger turn on the TV, also I can't remember his name but years back there was a preacher even buying hookers{maybe someone can help}.
=======================================
That was Jerry Lee Lewis's cousin, Remember he cried on t.v., and said if people would send him money he would never sin again and they did. Then he got caught buying hookers again.
Repented again and people are still sending him money.
Made millions.

Rev.Jimmy Swaggert

Then, theres Benny Hinn the millionaire.
Billy Graham, Robert Tilton,Rex Humbard, Frederick Eikerenkoetter(Rev. Ike),Don Stewart, W.V. Grant Jr., Oral Roberts.
Just to name a few.

Originally posted by mad dog
fair enough now lets say I want to open up a dance studio, remember it just folks wanting to dance. I would bet I'ld be taxed and watched very close even if I said I only work off of donations, especially when they saw I owned a limo.

You're ignoring the obvious, which is that it's not at all hard to figure out whether or not you're really a charity in that case. If you have to "donate" in order to get lessons, you're not a charity. If you give lessons for free from anyone that wants them, and solicit donations from the community at large, then you've got a much better case. And I'd argue that churches by and large follow the second situation.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No, they give that away for free to anyone that wants it.[b]

and in addition to giving it away to anyone that wants it, they are also trying to make their beliefs into law that will force the rest of us to live by their sstandards.

[b]Of course you'd have to convince someone to donate to your church, first. I wonder if pastors/priests that live in church housing have to pay imputed income on the fair market value of the rent. You certainly would if you weren't a pastor.

And here is the crust of the matter, what you call "giving away their religion to anyone that wants it" is essentially convincing people to join their church and donate money. A business - sell religion to people so they will donate to our church.

Your challenge then is to define charity in such a way that you don't end up with politicians deciding what is a worthy charity and what isn't.

Anything given away to a for profit isd not charity, anything given away with a loophole of having to do something for the church is not charity, anything invoveing a political issue is not charity.

And of course it should be mentioned that under your standard, your former employer would have been taxed on any money it took in that went to pay your salary or for the building you worked in.

EXACTLY! Churches should be taxed.

Accept I worked on the BioMedical side of the Red Cross and they don't accept donations. They collect blood and sell it to hospitals to cover the cost of collection. No profit is made and no money is donated to the Biomedical side of the RC.

Originally posted by mad dog
support community costs HA! Once again they are selling, selling ideas, no different then a politicain sellings his/her idea.

Do they have to pay to believe? Do they have to pay to join? Do they get taxed for this inside the Church structure? No...it is charitable donation that supports that particular church in that particular diocese to better the faith-based activities, charities, and pay the bills. It is not a trade-off business where they are required to pay.

the church sold their ideas for power, Jesus was just a way to make it look like compasion. You are correct they have been doing it for sometime, times need to change.......

Where is it that you get these ludicrous positions?
Conspiratorial conjecture...nothing more. Quite wrong, quite impossible, quite improbable.

I agree stand on a street corner and preach, free religion.

That contradicts a point you made earlier.

And a religion has no right to tax freedom when I as a vet{along with others} served this country, but we do get taxed.

Thank for for serving this country, you've helped us protect our freedoms and perpetuate our liberties and way of life. But why is it you are here crusading against them?
Taxing a church is wholly wrong for many reasons. Constitutional, moral, and otherwise.

Very interesting how you twisted my meaning. I have a very strong spiritual belief system. I am not taxed for believing nice try

Nice try?
What are you talking about?

You are unfairly taxing people for practicing their religion by enforcing taxes on the establishment and community that attends while giving other religions, or those of no affiliation, get a free ride. Practice, not belief, but the two do coorelate quite a bit.

I did not twist your meaning, you are discussing why you want to tax churches and i am presenting points as to why that is inappropriate.

faith is faith it has nothing to do with money, well in some cases anyway.

What pertinence does this have to the quote you were commenting on?

And, to address this point...faith has alot to do with money. When religions are forced to cooperate with the systems and values of the modern world, things such as land and utilities must be paid for. Money must be given out to the workers, charities, activities and so forth if the congregation chooses to do them. If they don't, which yes they have the option to, then there is no money put into it.

I still disagree churches are big business

Affluence and influence in an establishment do not a business create.

a charity should help others not make them rich.

The people of a church donate their money and manpower to the church to make it an active enviroment in their faith. Therefore it is supported by charity, there is no profit to get rich on...just taken what is needed or saved up for future expenditures. Some ministers may get rich, or the magisterium of The Church may lead comfortable lives, but that is an abnormality.
Few, if any, truly "get rich" off of the fund raising, and that is misuse. That is like taxing a corporation like Tyco extra because of what happened in their upper halls of leadership not long ago.

fair enough now lets say I want to open up a dance studio, remember it just folks wanting to dance. I would bet I'ld be taxed and watched very close even if I said I only work off of donations, especially when they saw I owned a limo.

Is this dance studio of house of worship? No.
It is a business, unless you are giving out free and live solely on donations to run the school, in which case...you are in trouble.

And for a note: I and would are contracted into the form I'd, subtract the L.

WOW So you can't have faith unless you make money no wonder the church seems so full of bull. The truth is without the money they might lose power, without the power they definintely will lose money.

You need money for building a sanctuary, running activities, classes, charities, utilities, land, maybe even sometimes paychecks.

These things are not necessarily absolutely needed for a religion, but they enable the people to practice together in a meaningful way. It is their decision to give up their money to have those things. You've no place to restrict that.

You love to twist, damn I think I'm almost in a knot, I NEVER SAID THERE COULD BE NO CHURCHES

If they have to pay taxes, it creates another burden on which a non-profit religious institution must take up...that can lead to churches shutting down, or some unable to get founded because of financial complications created by those who share your viewpoint. Not a twist.

hmmmm, well maybe everyone that uses a mechanics garage should have what they "want".

If the mechanic amasses the necessary finances, so be it, without money...he cannot have that. If he manages to get it, it is his choice to spend it as he sees fit, not yours.

You can pray get together in a persons yard etc..., but there should be no free rides if it is not good for one then it shouldn't be for another.

You are not entitled to tell people how to worship, perhaps they want a chapel...not a yard?
Also, a mechanic's shop is his private business. A church is a publicly owned institution supported by the community who pays into and uses it.

I don't care how they express their faith stand naked on the interstate for all I care.

Telling them they have to pay you money because they have too much that you think they shouldn't is telling them how they can worship---as it interferes with their expenditures to have ceremonies/activities.

I think you should change your title to twisty, ONCE AGAIN I am not telling anyone how to worship. Stand upside down and kiss tree trunks for all I care.

What twist?
Enforcing taxation upon them indirectly effects their ability to practice, and therefore is a way of "telling them how to worship".

Say 'twisting my words' all day, that does not make it so.

Proven charity no tax, preacher Bob porche tax the waazoo!!!

If a preacher is going to personally buy a Porsche with the funds granted him by the congregation, he will still pay tax on the purchase.

Now you think it is about me wrong, it is about everyone, one busines pays a tax the other should also.

A church is not a business. You can say it all day, but once again...that does not make it so.

I could be wrong but I think you are to emotionaly attached to your church{not faith}? You are afraid if the church goes then your faith will go?

The faith of the followers may be somewhat affected, shrink, grow, disappear, but having no place of worship because of fiscal problems caused by the government is not acceptable.
Do not tell people of faith that they can still have faith without their funds, it is not about them having faith, but their ability to express it the way they choose.

And yes, you were wrong in the reference to the first question.

You are on a high defence if anything might effect your religion, so instead of seeing the truth you get upset at anyone that may disagree with your standing.

Also, this too is mistruth.
And if i have expressed any rage or frustration in my postings, forgive me, as i do not mean to come across that way.

I am not disagreeing with this out of emotional reasons, but the logical reasons you are ardently refusing to accept.

I understand your point of view and you have made good arguments but the truth doesn't care about arguments it cares about power and money.

Care to clarify this statement you've made?
I am making these arguments out the reason that your proposal to tax churches is fundamentally wrong and very flawed in other respects also.

If the church was not a business and ran like you try to make it sound then fine, but this is not the case so something should be done.

But it is the case, that is a major flaw in your viewpoint.

Keep religion with religion but at the same time don't turn religion into what it is a money making machine{business}.

From the ziggurat to St. Peter's, all religious establishments over time have needed funds to support themselves, practices, and charities. There is no money made, but accumulated. There is cash flow, but it is spent...as that cash flow is not risen to a point where there will be surplus. There is no favorable balance of trade, merely charitable fundraising to support services.

Originally posted by Echo2 and in addition to giving it away to anyone that wants it, they are also trying to make their beliefs into law that will force the rest of us to live by their sstandards.[/B]

Some do, but that's not really relevant.

Originally posted by Echo2 And here is the crust of the matter, what you call "giving away their religion to anyone that wants it" is essentially convincing people to join their church and donate money. A business - sell religion to people so they will donate to our church.[/B]

The crux of the matter. Anyway, if the donation isn't mandatory, then it's not really selling, is it? It's like a museum - they'd really like to have some of your money, but you don't have to give. Maybe we should tax musuems.

Your challenge then is to define charity in such a way that you don't end up with politicians deciding what is a worthy charity and what isn't.

Originally posted by Echo2 Anything given away to a for profit isd not charity, anything given away with a loophole of having to do something for the church is not charity, anything invoveing a political issue is not charity.[/B]

What loophole? There's no loophole.

Originally posted by Echo2 Accept I worked on the BioMedical side of the Red Cross and they don't accept donations. They collect blood and sell it to hospitals to cover the cost of collection. No profit is made and no money is donated to the Biomedical side of the RC. [/B]

Except for perhaps Benny Hinn, churches don't make a profit. But since the RC is selling something, I think they should be taxed.

Originally posted by mad dog
Frogger turn on the TV, also I can't remember his name but years back there was a preacher even buying hookers{maybe someone can help}.

Jimmy Swaggert paid taxes, mad dog.

Originally posted by Evakian
Do they have to pay to believe? Do they have to pay to join? Do they get taxed for this inside the Church structure? No...it is charitable donation that supports that particular church in that particular diocese to better the faith-based activities, charities, and pay the bills. It is not a trade-off business where they are required to pay.

They are also brained washed in many churches that 10%+ should go to the church. There are many little old ladies that don't have heat, food etc... but they still believe they owe the church. Because the church is power and it uses that power to make money. Church, "Buy from us, don't go to hell we'll try to beat everyone elses price. Better to send us money, show your faith, then go to hell!!!



Where is it that you get these ludicrous positions?
Conspiratorial conjecture...nothing more. Quite wrong, quite impossible, quite improbable.

Come on Evakian, the church has used power all through history. The more followers the more power, form the holy army ;)

That contradicts a point you made earlier.

I'ld like to see where I have ever told anyone they couldn't have a certain belief, please show me?



Thank for for serving this country, you've helped us protect our freedoms and perpetuate our liberties and way of life. But why is it you are here crusading against them?
Taxing a church is wholly wrong for many reasons. Constitutional, moral, and otherwise.

I know certain churches that don't believe in this country or its military so why should they get a free ride?



Nice try?
What are you talking about?

You keep saying that by me asking for church tax I am trying to stop a belief, THIS IS NOT TRUE. I also have a belief but I don't go to church.

You are unfairly taxing people for practicing their religion by enforcing taxes on the establishment and community that attends while giving other religions, or those of no affiliation, get a free ride. Practice, not belief, but the two do coorelate quite a bit.

I am saying tax a business and alot of churches are business. I am not saying tax folks on a belief only on how they abuse money.

I did not twist your meaning, you are discussing why you want to tax churches and i am presenting points as to why that is inappropriate.

You twisted my opinion by trying to make it sound like I am trying to stop a religious belief, this is false.



And, to address this point...faith has alot to do with money. When religions are forced to cooperate with the systems and values of the modern world, things such as land and utilities must be paid for. Money must be given out to the workers, charities, activities and so forth if the congregation chooses to do them. If they don't, which yes they have the option to, then there is no money put into it.

"Faith has alot to do with money", I find this statement interesting and wonder if this is the reason churches are greedy and miss leading. If 100 people want to get together and worship there are a bunch of places to do it. Or like I said earlier form the church like it is suppose to be not form it to be a get rich business.


The people of a church donate their money and manpower to the church to make it an active enviroment in their faith. Therefore it is supported by charity, there is no profit to get rich on...just taken what is needed or saved up for future expenditures. Some ministers may get rich, or the magisterium of The Church may lead comfortable lives, but that is an abnormality.

I want to share a story with you about a person I personally knew. He formed a church in his back yard this gave him tax freedom for his house and his church. He made over 80,000 in the 1st year alone. He also bought many things under his churches business. This happened back in the late 80's I have not seen the guy since so I don't know if he still is running this business or not. This took place in Indiana

story 2 I now live in upstate NY in the wood country there is a new church forming up here. Once again same type of deal they even got a swiimming pool for getting baptised.

{3} When I drove tractor trailer over the road there where trucker churches they also made good money and got to travel and see the country tax free.


Few, if any, truly "get rich" off of the fund raising, and that is misuse. That is like taxing a corporation like Tyco extra because of what happened in their upper halls of leadership not long ago.

they may not get rich but it does help them get closer to easy street. I am not arguing the missuse I am just pointing out that it does and is happening.



Is this dance studio of house of worship? No.

this is interesting and brings up a thought what or who decides what is to be worshipped? if I don't believe in JW should there church be a house of worship? If JW doesn't believe in Catholics should their church be a house of worship? This is off topic sorry I just find it interesting.


It is their decision to give up their money to have those things. You've no place to restrict that.

You are correct but lets not forget about how the church sells there line. Donate and be saved.



If they have to pay taxes, it creates another burden on which a non-profit religious institution must take up...that can lead to churches shutting down, or some unable to get founded because of financial complications created by those who share your viewpoint. Not a twist.

well in business it is a dog eat dog world.



You are not entitled to tell people how to worship, perhaps they want a chapel...not a yard?

fine have a chapel, not a chapel disguised as a business.



Telling them they have to pay you money because they have too much that you think they shouldn't is telling them how they can worship---as it interferes with their expenditures to have ceremonies/activities.

If they used the money for the right purpose then no big deal but money tends to make people greedy. By taxing them I am not telling them how to worship I am sending the message that I am sick of certain places getting away with stuff while hiding behind a cause{in this case a faith}.



What twist?
Enforcing taxation upon them indirectly effects their ability to practice, and therefore is a way of "telling them how to worship".

Nope, a Christian is still a Christian even without the limo and fancy building, maybe even a better one

If a preacher is going to personally buy a Porsche with the funds granted him by the congregation, he will still pay tax on the purchase.

not true the preacher can put things under the church. All he has to do is say it is church expence



A church is not a business. You can say it all day, but once again...that does not make it so.

then why do people make money at it?




And if i have expressed any rage or frustration in my postings, forgive me, as i do not mean to come across that way.

I am not disagreeing with this out of emotional reasons, but the logical reasons you are ardently refusing to accept.

{A}I have away of upsetting folks by being blunt, you did not upset me but I felt that I may have gotten under your skin alittle.

{B}I quess we are both somewhat hard headed, or atleast not being as clear as if we were in person.



Care to clarify this statement you've made?
I am making these arguments out the reason that your proposal to tax churches is fundamentally wrong and very flawed in other respects also.

IF churches ran like you said then your arguments would be perfect. BUT the fact is that money talks BS walks and there are alot of churches taking advantage of religion to make big$$$$

Originally posted by Frogger
Jimmy Swaggert paid taxes, mad dog.
======================================
Swaggart lives in a home appraised at 4.2 million dollars.
Says he has had no income in past several years.
Irs records show his wife and son make 800,000 a year from the ministeries.

type in keywords....jimmy swaggart and taxes and you can see articles on such.
Like when he lost a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court where California was getting sales taxes on his books.

Or how he said he would kill any Gay that looked at him and then tell god he was dead.

Noone should pay taxes in my oppinion.