The Defecit!

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones

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.
"endorse" and "respect" are interchangeable in this discussion, not "endorse" as in "placing a stamp of approval on", because in that respect, the gov't could probably not care less about your personal beliefs. but yes, the government "respects" or "endorses" any lawful endeavor or belief that you hold.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
"endorse" and "respect" are interchangeable in this discussion, not "endorse" as in "placing a stamp of approval on", because in that respect, the gov't could probably not care less about your personal beliefs. but yes, the government "respects" or "endorses" any lawful endeavor or belief that you hold.

Well, in those regards, they "respect" any lawful endeavor that any religion chooses, but they don't officialy "endorse" them, just as they don't endorse all of my ideologies, not even with me being a tax payer.
By the way, I also am not a religion or church hater, I think more times than not they provide a valuable service for people. Just for the record.

 

[jones]

Trust me Pontius, I understand what you're getting at when you say that religions are special circumstances because stipulations have been made that exclude them from endorsement from the government. Although some will argue that those stipulations don't really exist. I just don't believe that taxation would automatically bring that endorsement into being. It would if certain religious groups were taxed but not others, but not if it were inclusive of any and all religious organizations.
Not to mention if tax "breaks" were no longer given to those who financially support religious organizations.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
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?
No, never said that either as well. Read what I said, I said I ' dont ' think charities should be taxed.
You and I pay taxes on income and things we buy. Fine.
Money that people give to a charity is money that was the individual's money that they can do as they wish. I have not said that the individual should be taxed 'extra' for a donation, I ' dont ' think they should and I ' dont ' want charities to have to pay taxes on money that they get as well.
But what I have said is that you and I should ' not ' be allowed to write off/deduct the donations that we give to charities from the taxes that we have to pay.
Speaking of the defecit, if the gov. did not allow such write offs, then on paper that should help reduce it some too.
Of course one can argue that this will stop people from donateing and then the gov. will have pick up the slack with programs for the needy but if they let people write of the taxes then its like the gov. is paying for the sevices anyway. And if the donations that the Gov. lets people write off is going to religious institutions then that like the Gov. supporting them with my tax money.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
But what I have said is that you and I should ' not ' be allowed to write off/deduct the donations that we give to charities from the taxes that we have to pay.
Speaking of the defecit, if the gov. did not allow such write offs, then on paper that should help reduce it some too.
Of course one can argue that this will stop people from donateing and then the gov. will have pick up the slack with programs for the needy but if they let people write of the taxes then its like the gov. is paying for the sevices anyway. And if the donations that the Gov. lets people write off is going to religious institutions then that like the Gov. supporting them with my tax money.
children and daycare are tax deductible. not all people have children, why should they get write offs?
interest paid towards a

[hr]
is deductible, not all people own their own homes so why do homeowners get write offs?
interest paid toward student loans is deductible, not all people go to college, so why do college graduates get write offs?
state and federal workers are allowed to write off $5 per day for food, not all people are state and federal workers so why do they get write offs?
the list goes on and on and on, so are you saying that all write offs should be done away with? because this would hurt the economy in a major way. it would not affect churches much at all though, because people who are truly religious aren't donating money so they can get a write off, they're doing because they care about the church. but it would definitely affect the homeowners market.
as far as your last sentence, no, it's not the government's money and it's not your tax money. the government has no right to this money. the amount that you are taxed is not affected by how much I pay or how much I get written off. you are taxed a percentage based on what tax bracket you fall in, not how much someone in the same bracket gets written off their taxes.

 

[dogstar]

Did I say ALL writes offs ?
I dont know why but you keep putting words in my mouth that I havent said.
I understand that everyone is charged according to the bracket there in. If you owe so much but dont pay it because your allowed to write it off ( chariable donations only here so your clear ) then the gov. has to make it up from somewhere else. I dont agree with the gov's/my/your/everyones tax money going to support a charity that I or someone else may or may not want to support. If I donate and get to write it off then Im not paying my fair share the way I see it. If your fine with that then thats how you feel and that fine. Im not for the reasons I have said.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
Did I say ALL writes offs ?
I dont know why but you keep putting words in my mouth that I havent said.

I'm doing it to try to give your argument some logic. so now you're saying that some write offs should be allowed and some should not be? no logic whatsoever. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of tax write offs and religion is only one of them. again, answer with some logic on why a church donation should be taxed, but the examples I mentioned above should not be?

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
again, answer with some logic on why a church donation should be taxed, but the examples I mentioned above should not be?
Maybe because the other tax write offs are given to encourage growth or improvement of some sort that is felt to directly or indirectly benefit our society as a whole. Maybe some people believe that, while the charitable social contributions that churches perform do benefit society, the spreading of religious propoganda and the lobbying of the government (trying to get special favors and concessions, by the way) are not of such a nature that they benefit the whole of society inclusively. Maybe the socially charitable actions of the churches should enjoy the same tax free status as all the other charaties. However, maybe, that should be kept seperate from what goes toward simple religious propoganda. Maybe they should no longer be allowed to lobby the government, looking for special favors, when other groups that lobby the government have at least had to pay taxes on the money they use. If you stand by your idea that taxation is what creates a link to and creates rights to have a say in what happens with the government, then maybe you also believe that their tax free money shouldn't be used to try to influence the government. Currently, a great deal of it is. Maybe they shouldn't enjoy the tax free benefits if they continue to preach politics from the pulpit, which many certainly do, and is already supposed to be forbidden under the tax free status. I think that's pretty logical.

 

[pontius]

what church money is being used to lobby for certain things? some halfwit that stands on a street corner with a noose around a doll's neck preaching against abortion is not speaking on behalf of a church. a city councilman that puts a statue of Jesus on the front lawn of the council chambers isn't doing this on behalf of a church. what money is being used and what are they lobbying for? give examples.
and using your own logic about what's "official" and "unofficial", is there anything that officially says that parents or homeowners are adding anything special to society and therefore deserve a tax break? and I certainly can't see how a real estate agent that gets client meals and gasoline written off his taxes is doing anything special for society.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
what church money is being used to lobby for certain things? some halfwit that stands on a street corner with a noose around a doll's neck preaching against abortion is not speaking on behalf of a church. a city councilman that puts a statue of Jesus on the front lawn of the council chambers isn't doing this on behalf of a church. what money is being used and what are they lobbying for? give examples.
***Gerald D'Avolio, executive director of the Church lobby group the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said the Church has sent out mailings, advertised in newspapers, met with Catholic legislators on Beacon Hill and had priests encourage parishioners during Mass to contact their legislators about the issue. D'Avolio estimated the conference has spent more than $50,000 to lobby for a constitutional amendment - a right he said they have just like any gay, lesbian or non-religious organization.***
there's $50,000.00 from one organization lobbying against gay marriage. It's not the only religious group lobbying, and not the only issue.
Originally Posted by Pontius
and using your own logic about what's "official" and "unofficial", is there anything that officially says that parents or homeowners are adding anything special to society and therefore deserve a tax break? and I certainly can't see how a real estate agent that gets client meals and gasoline written off his taxes is doing anything special for society.
Well, I agree that real estate agents who save up their meal reciepts shouldnt be able to write them off. But I certainly never said that there weren't silly loop holes all through the tax laws that should be closed up. There are many.
As far as the "official" and "unofficial" logic is concerned, read your own posts here, you're the one who kept bringing that up. Your logic, not mine. Remember? You were trying to argue that a taxed church should get the same concessions that a corporation gets, your argument was that even if corporations weren't "officially" "endorsed" by the government that they "unofficially" are supported and "respected" by the government, and that if a church were taxed then they would be "endorsed" or at least "respected" by the government and should get the same "official" or "unofficial" treatment or they could revolt and declare themselves a seperate entity from the United States due to taxation without representation. Please don't pass your crazy, backward, false logic off on me.
As far as parents being given a small break to help raise their kids. You've got to be kidding me if you tell me that you can't see how encouraging a little help to raise a child helps society as a whole. And you really don't see how society is better off if more people can afford to actually own their own home, and that a little help there might encourage this a bit?
This is just getting to be a bit silly, to be frank. And you certainly are not keeping this in the realm of sound logical reasoning, so lets not pretend that you are.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
This is just getting to be a bit silly, to be frank. And you certainly are not keeping this in the realm of sound logical reasoning, so lets not pretend that you are.

actually, I'm the one using the logic concerning separation of church and state. my belief on this subject is the law, so I'm really the one that's being logical here.
Originally Posted by jones
As far as parents being given a small break to help raise their kids. You've got to be kidding me if you tell me that you can't see how encouraging a little help to raise a child helps society as a whole. And you really don't see how society is better off if more people can afford to actually own their own home, and that a little help there might encourage this a bit?
is this official or unofficial? I don't know of any written law that says that bearing a child is a socially responsible thing to do. if anything, this country is already becoming very overcrowded and one of the things that suck your taxes dry more than any religious donations are the handouts that parents get for their children. ever heard of welfare?
Originally Posted by jones
As far as the "official" and "unofficial" logic is concerned, read your own posts here, you're the one who kept bringing that up. Your logic, not mine. Remember? You were trying to argue that a taxed church should get the same concessions that a corporation gets, your argument was that even if corporations weren't "officially" "endorsed" by the government that they "unofficially" are supported and "respected" by the government, and that if a church were taxed then they would be "endorsed" or at least "respected" by the government and should get the same "official" or "unofficial" treatment or they could revolt and declare themselves a seperate entity from the United States due to taxation without representation. Please don't pass your crazy, backward, false logic off on me.
If you tax a church, then they become a corporation no different than Walmart or GM. the "official" or "unofficial" concessions make no difference, just know that these concessions can be proven in court. example: I live about as far east as you can get in this country. the only industry here is tourism. now, there is an interstate connector coming here that is going to cost millions and millions of dollars. why would the federal and state government build such a road that leads to a large body of water and nothing else? answer: they are making a concession to the growing tourist industry. so all the church has to do is prove in court that they are taxed like any other corporation, but are not receiving the benefits that other corporations receive. and they CAN'T because there is a Constitutional amendment that outlaws it. so taxing the church is a constitutional catch 22 that cannot work.
as far as my crazy, backward, false logic concerning taxation without representation, I think you're the one the needs to read up on American history and how we actually came to revolt again Britain. you're the one here using crazy logic, not me.
the $50,000 you're talking about (which I'd say is pretty insignificant considering the billions that churches bring in each year), is this money being used for political donations, or paid to church members to do it? there's a difference there. but either way, it's not illegal. and either way, the church isn't seeking any financial gain off what they're doing, which is what most lobbyist groups seek to do.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
If you tax a church, then they become a corporation no different than Walmart or GM.
Really? I'm taxed, many times. I'm not a corporation. I thought one had to become incorporated to become a corporation. Not just be taxed.
And we're not talking about taxation without representation anyway, that's one part of your crazy logic that doesn't pan out. The argument here is whether taxation equates to "official" "endorsement". Which it does not. You can be taxed and enjoy the benifits of being a law abiding member of this society without being "endorsed". I don't care about your supposed unofficial concessions with roads being built to support a tourist industry, that has nothing to do with this topic. Churches benefit from these things in society as well. Do the police and firefighters ignore churches because they don't pay taxes? Is a churches garbage left to accumulate outside the building? Do they decide not to plow the roads in front of churches or repair them? They do enjoy protections and services from the government without paying taxes. And taxing them would make them no more "endorsed" by the government than I am endorsed. You act as though right now churches are not even accepted as a part of this society. Even if you want to argue that taxing them would put them in the same incorporated ball park as walmart, which it wouldn't, walmart is NOT the national discount retailer of the united states. You started this whole thing off by saying that churches, if taxed, would be endorsed by the government, which would allow them to make sweeping decisions on how the government is run, shool curiculum, and religious propoganda in public buildings. This is just garbage thinking. Of the many, many vastly different religions out there, which one would become the heirarchy in the U.S. making these decisions? Yours I suppose?
I know my American history well enough thank you. If and when church rights are what you would call infringed upon, feel free to lead your revolution that you speak of, and create your little nation outside of the U.S.

 

[jones]

Originally Posted by Pontius
is this official or unofficial? I don't know of any written law that says that bearing a child is a socially responsible thing to do.
I'm not even going to respond to this nonsense.
Ciao

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
Really? I'm taxed, many times. I'm not a corporation. I thought one had to become incorporated to become a corporation. Not just be taxed.
you are an individual. a church and a corporation are not. but a church would be entitled to the same rights as any other corporation if they were taxed, which the government has no right to do.
Originally Posted by jones
I kow my American history well enough thank you. If and when church rights are what you would call infringed upon, feel free to lead your revolution that you speak of, and create your little nation outside of the U.S
you've become increasingly hostile, and I think it's due to the fact that you've learned that I'm right. how do I make such a lofty claim? because the US Constitution, the president, the congress, the supreme court ALL say I'm right. I'm not bothering arguing with your faulty mixed up "logic" any more, because there is no logic. you keep comparing yourself, an individual, to a religious organization with millions of people. you keep comparing a church to any corporation. that backward logic. just know that when you wake up in the morning, I'll still be right because there'll still be a separation of church and state and churches will still not be taxed. and when you wake up 50 or 100 years from now, I'll still be right. even the ACLU is not stupid enough to try to take up your argument, because they understand the separation of church and state too.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by jones
I'm not even going to respond to this nonsense.
Ciao

yeah, I just made my last post to you as well and won't be reading anything else you post here because you display an absolute ignorance of the constitution

 

[jones]

:hilarious
Ok, you got me. You're right, taxation equates to "endorsement" by the government allowing that organization that's taxed to make governmental decisions. And if they can't make sweeping decisions then they are being taxed without representation. Why ofcourse, it's because the constitution says so, and you really do understand it. Gosh, the folly, I don't see how I've failed to see your logic thus far. Please pardon.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
I'm doing it to try to give your argument some logic. so now you're saying that some write offs should be allowed and some should not be? no logic whatsoever. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of tax write offs and religion is only one of them. again, answer with some logic on why a church donation should be taxed, but the examples I mentioned above should not be?
I dont know how I can answer that with any logic. You sure got me there. Im speechless.
Maybe if I felt/said that churches should be taxed and the examples you mentioned should not be, then maybe I could explain it to you in a way that you would understand. But because you dont seem to understand that thats not what I said and that I dont think they should be taxed then I dont think that you will even understand what I just said.
I have said time and time again that they should not be taxed but you keep saying I said something esle. Now thats logic that I dont understand. I cant explain it to you because I dont understand your logic.
BTW, there are many reasons to tax, a Gov. needs taxes to operate. How the Gov. spends the money is my issue and spending it ( cash, directly into their pockets ) to support religion and privately ran charities is not proper IMO. There are alot of other ways/things that that are and are not taxed that I dont agree with but thats another thread.
You dont have to agree with me on the charity/church issue and if you dont even see any logic in my thought, then thats fine too.

 

[pontius]

Originally Posted by Dogstar
I have said time and time again that they should not be taxed but you keep saying I said something esle. Now thats logic that I dont understand. I cant explain it to you because I dont understand your logic.
How the Gov. spends the money is my issue and spending it ( cash, directly into their pockets ) to support religion and privately ran charities is not proper IMO.
.

where did you say that the church should not be taxed? all I've seen is that you don't like YOUR tax money supporting the church, even though it doesn't. also, government doesn't put money into the church's pocket, the church gets nothing from the government.
this is NOT the government's money or your money. there is a SEPARATION of church and state, therefore the state has no right to it. I don't know how it could be any clearer than that.

 

[pontius]

just a note here:
much further back in this thread, someone made the claim that ministers don't pay income taxes. wrong. I checked, they DO pay income taxes. they are given a housing allowance write off that is up to 25% of their taxable income, but they still pay taxes. this housing allowance is no different than any allowance than anyone else gets. so the claim about ministers getting to spend their tax free money on big screen tv is hogwash.

 

[dogstar]

Originally Posted by Pontius
where did you say that the church should not be taxed? all I've seen is that you don't like YOUR tax money supporting the church, even though it doesn't. also, government doesn't put money into the church's pocket, the church gets nothing from the government.
this is NOT the government's money or your money. there is a SEPARATION of church and state, therefore the state has no right to it. I don't know how it could be any clearer than that.
You can go back and read the thread. Maybe your getting me confused with someone else.
One last time. Im sure you know why and how write offs work, but Ill try. If you normaly owe $10,000 in taxes and during the year you donated $1,000 to a charity.
Im not sure of the percentages but lets just say the law allows you to deduct 50 percent of charitable donations. Then you get to deducted $ 500 off your taxes that you would have normaly had to pay. And you only pay a total of $9,500. So your only out the $500 that the Gov. did not give back to you from the deduction for your original $1,000 donation to that charity.
But the charity has $ 1,000 in its pocket. So if your only out the $500 because you got to write off $500, and the Gov. is out the $500 because you would have normaly owed it on your taxes, then do you understand that the other $500 that the charity has in its pocket, because it has $1,000, came from the Gov. and not you.
If your fine with the gov. supporting charities this way, then thats how you feel and your right as an individual to think how you want too, but to say, if thats what your saying, that thats not whats going on just shows me that perhaps you dont understand how it works.