The Defecit!

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Im against taxeing churches because of the bill of rights that I believe is right. The buildings Im refering too are Gov. buildings. Courthouse, public schools, ect.
if you are against taxing the church, then we agree. and I don't really think that the Bible should be taught in school or a statue of Moses built at the courthouse. what I'm arguing is that people can't have it both ways....either there's a separation or there's not, you can't say tax the church and then give them no say in how the government is run, that's my point.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
I was only applying your logic as you stated it. Ofcourse it doesn't make sense.
my logic is the logic of the US Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. If you don't agree with that, you should run for Congress to the the Constitution amended.
Originally Posted by jones
But I was reffering to your claim that if something is taxed then it is inherently link to, and sanctioned by the government. Hence, if religions were taxed they would all suddenly become nationalized. I was pointing out the absurdity of the argument, not claiming that corporations are like churches or compairing the two.
I've not stated a "claim", I've stated FACT......a large corporation that pays millions or billions to the government gets concessions from the government.....concessions that church could not be given due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment. and the government cannot take from the church without making such concessions back to the church, due to taxation without representation, which would be grounds for the church to declare war on the US government....that's not a claim either, that's FACT, as evidenced by US history.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
you can't say tax the church and then give them no say in how the government is run, that's my point.
Ofcourse we know that the churches will not be taxed, no point in arguing that.
All I'm trying to say is that this above statement is incorrect. Ofcourse you could tax them and not let them have any say in how the government is run. Just as corporations are taxed and have (officially) no say in how the government is run. Except in the case of lobbyists, which, in my opinion is unethical.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
I've not stated a "claim", I've stated FACT......a large corporation that pays millions or billions to the government gets concessions from the government.....concessions that church could not be given due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
You're not talking about FACT. Being given concessions does not equate to policy writing and sanctioning, such as you're talking about with putting curriculum in schools, and erecting statues and plaques in goverment buildings to sanction one thing in particular.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
Ofcourse we know that the churches will not be taxed, no point in arguing that.
All I'm trying to say is that this above statement is incorrect. Ofcourse you could tax them and not let them have any say in how the government is run. Just as corporations are taxed and have (officially) no say in how the government is run. Except in the case of lobbyists, which, in my opinion is unethical.

wrong. the "religious right" is the largest voting block in the country. if the church is taxed by the government that this voting block had a major part in electing, you are pretty naive to think they won't get their say in government. they would be able to elect who they want and therefore do what they want. it's this way already to an extent, but it would be expected then.
has the government come out with an official statement saying that they "sponsor" large corporations? no. but they do. every concession they make to a large corporation is a sponsorship. and they would owe the church these same concessions if the church were a taxpayer.

 

[37g joe]

Originally Posted by Pontius
if you are against taxing the church, then we agree. and I don't really think that the Bible should be taught in school or a statue of Moses built at the courthouse. what I'm arguing is that people can't have it both ways....either there's a separation or there's not, you can't say tax the church and then give them no say in how the government is run, that's my point.
pontius I aggree with you that churches should not be taxed but if they where taxed that does not mean they are edorced by the goverment

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
has the government come out with an official statement saying that they "sponsor" large corporations? no. but they do. every concession they make to a large corporation is a sponsorship. and they would owe the church these same concessions if the church were a taxpayer.
But you talk as though these concessions are owed or mandated. They simply are not. They are given to encourage the business world to expand. Nowhere is it mandated the the government has to "give back" to the corporations in the form of concessions. If you insist on claiming that it's "fact" that they do, then simply bring the legislation, or the part of the constitution that you claim your using the logic of, that states this.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
You're not talking about FACT. Being given concessions does not equate to policy writing and sanctioning, such as you're talking about with putting curriculum in schools, and erecting statues and plaques in goverment buildings to sanction one thing in particular.

are these concessions written policy? no. but we all know that the economy of this country would collapse if these corporations and the government could not cooperate with each other and as of now, these concessions are not illegal (though arguably unethical). the only such concessions that the government could make to the church would be unconstitutional. and if the church gets nothing out of the deal, it's taxation without representation, which is cause for the church to separate itself completely from the US.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by 37g Joe
pontius I aggree with you that churches should not be taxed but if they where taxed that does not mean they are edorced by the goverment
"endorsed", "respected" (from the Constitution), "established"....whatever. it does mean exactly that. everyone taxed by the US government has rights and acknowledgements (endorsements) from the government. corporations don't "officially", though we should be able to agree that they do. the church does not officially or unofficially, and could not due to the 1st amendment..

 

[37g joe]

I have three books for you to read (the politically Incorrect Guids to American History) (disinformation BY Richard Minter) and (If it not close the cant Cheat) these are great books and they give you tons of info

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
"endorsed", "respected" (from the Constitution), "established"....whatever. it does mean exactly that. everyone taxed by the US government has rights and acknowledgements (endorsements) from the government. corporations don't "officially", though we should be able to agree that they do. the church does not officially or unofficially, and could not due to the 1st amendment..
But you have to understand that these rights and protections provided by the government to tax payers, even corporate tax payers, do not come in the form of sanctioning any particular cause, brand, or ideology.
I pay taxes, and have many ideologies, I don't expect the government to "endorse" "respect" or "establish" any of them.

 

[37g joe]

Prime example of how your argument is not backed up look at microsoft they paid tons of taxes and they got skrewed by the goverment when thier was no monoploy

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
But you talk as though these concessions are owed or mandated. They simply are not. They are given to encourage the business world to expand. Nowhere is it mandated the the government has to "give back" to the corporations in the form of concessions. If you insist on claiming that it's "fact" that they do, then simply bring the legislation, or the part of the constitution that you claim your using the logic of, that states this.
ok. these corporations don't get concessions, they outsource all the jobs, the US economy collapses, the country goes into a depression, the people starve, there is no more US. mandated or not, that's how it works. official or unofficial, it's a concession, so officially or unofficially, these corporations are "sponsored" by the government. the government cannot make any concession official or not to churches due to the constitution.
basically, one of two things would happen by taxing the church:
1. the concession that the church gets is to have more say in government.
or
2. the church would point out, and prove, that other taxed corporations DO get concessions from the government. the government would have to either give the church concessions or stop with the corporations. if it's the latter, the corporations would outsource and the government would collapse.
whether you're religious or not, religion is one of the major things that hold this country together. the government is smart enough not to make the church angry, and they should be.

 

[dogstar]

I have never said that I am for taxing The Church, whatever that is, or any other religious institution.
I think that the churches get just as much representation as I do, police protection, military, streets, all for free.
If they were taxed then the people can still vote just like I do. They can make political contributions now to get their beleifes in to law just as corps. do.
37, taxing them IMO would be prohibiting the free exercize there of. I wonder if the press is taxed ?

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I have never said that I am for taxing The Church, whatever that is, or any other religious institution.
I think that the churches get just as much representation as I do, police protection, military, streets, all for free.
If they were taxed then the people can still vote just like I do. They can make political contributions now to get their beleifes in to law just as corps. do.
37, taxing them IMO would be prohibiting the free exercize there of. I wonder if the press is taxed ?
the people who go to the churches pay the taxes. the streets, police, etc are paid for just as much by the religious as they are from anyone else. if you are angry that they get a tax write off, you have just as much right to make a contribution to any other non-profit organization. the church is officially a non-profit organization, if a church goes out and opens it's own movie theatre I'd be all for taxing it.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by 37g Joe
Prime example of how your argument is not backed up look at microsoft they paid tons of taxes and they got skrewed by the goverment when thier was no monoploy

whether or not they were screwed by the government, they still get the unofficial concessions that other corporations get, so it's not the same.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
But you have to understand that these rights and protections provided by the government to tax payers, even corporate tax payers, do not come in the form of sanctioning any particular cause, brand, or ideology.
I pay taxes, and have many ideologies, I don't expect the government to "endorse" "respect" or "establish" any of them.
written law or unwritten law is still law. unethical or not, it works between the government and corporations but it wouldn't work between the government and the church due to the constitution. there is no amendment governing the relationship between corporation and gov't, but there IS an amendment written specically to govern the relationship between church and state. so all the church would have to do would be to challenge this in court, and they'd be right for it. so then they'd get their way with the government, or force the gov't to get out of the corporations' pockets which would ruin the economy.
if your ideologies are lawful, then they ARE endorsed and respected by the government.

 

[dogstar]

I never said I was angry either.
I know the members pay their own personal taxes but thats not what where talking about. I said if they were taxed they could still do all that. shhezzzz
The tax write off was with all charities and I didnt say I was angry about it, its just the way I feel.
I not against churches or religion, what did I say that makes you think that.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I never said I was angry either.
I know the members pay their own personal taxes but thats not what where talking about. I said if they were taxed they could still do all that. shhezzzz
The tax write off was with all charities and I didnt say I was angry about it, its just the way I feel.
I not against churches or religion, what did I say that makes you think that.
so the individuals should be taxed and then the non-profit organization should be taxed again? so you are saying that you're in favoring of taxing charitable people twice? cars, houses, land, etc etc are financial investments, that's why they are taxed. there's no financial investment in giving to a church or any other non-profit organization, so why should they be taxed?

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
if your ideologies are lawful, then they ARE endorsed and respected by the government.

My ideologies are lawful. But no they certainly aren't all endorsed by the government. And my paying taxes doesn't mean that they should be. There are many other people who pay taxes and disagree with my ideologies. Even if I were the largest tax payer in the country, it still wouldn't be right for them to automatically endorse my ideologies.