That's one of the most powerful arguments I have against religious "stylists" - the people who go through some motions, like attending Sunday Morning Theater, but don't act well the rest of the week: "Why do you think a big, rich church is good when so many passages in the Bible advocate poverty?"

Another good one is, "Who told you that mowing five acres of God's creatures down for a parking lot and a building was His idea?"

But, as I have noted, people are naturally schizophrenic. They'll argue that Bill Gates - or Metallica - has "too much money" while they sit in a tax-sheltered multimillion-dollar complex.

Yes, unless you want to get rid of all tax-exempt status groups. ANd since a lot of groups helping women get prenatal care, BC, and abortions are nonprofit, I imagine you don't. Churches-whether you agree with them or not-do LOTS of charity. They run the hospitals, the soup kitchens, the job training programs and shelters. Well over half, of all of the above, in fact. Someone who wants less government should be happy when nongovernmental groups step up to the plate, no?

Tax them, and they go away. And government-that great bastion of competence and ability-has to take over their functions.

Sounds like someone hates the Christian Religion. I am assuming it because he specifically used the work Church. Notice he did not say "Mosque". Bit of a coward he is. Using his problems with religion to want to yank tax exemption from an organization that does so much good in spite of its problems. I don't think Maher gets this much up in arms about Islam. That diagonally cut compensator on the end of the AK-47 barrel doesn't feel too good going up yout ass. Hence the cowardice.

While I am normally in agreement with our lady of advice, and find her both well versed and well educated in the subjects she chooses to address, in this instance, she displays a very common lack of knowledge on the why of why.

Its not rare really, human society consistently suffers from CRS syndrome. (Can't Remember Shit)

What I mean is that as a generation ages and dies and is replaced by succeeding generations, the knowledge & experience of trial and error from the previous generations is lost, and bad ideas which were tossed aside gain new adherents in the next generation.

But to address the point specifically raised in this entry, the answer lies in an understanding that dates back many generations.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." First said by Justice Marshal in the 1850s in a ruling McCulluch v. Maryland on a case involving taxation, it was also traditionally applied for centuries before that to churches to minimize the involvement of government in religious affairs.

This was reemphasized in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York when the court ruled that:
a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

----------------------------------------------

I'm sure Miss Alkon & Mr. Maher think they'd see some great social good come of generating income by invoking taxation on churches.

But in fact they would begin undermining the very principle they obviously fervently believe in, the importance of separation between church and state.

Whatever the state taxes, it regulates, whatever it regulates, it by definition controls, (however loosely)...I DEFINITELY don't care for the idea of government involvement in religious exercise, let alone an interest in its being profitable by being taxable.

There is really no such thing as a "non-profit" institution. All entities make money or they would cease to exist. So called "non-profits" simply do not return their profits to investors. They use the money to expand or run their business. The answer is to tax or not tax all businesses/institutions the same.

Yes, unless you want to get rid of all tax-exempt status groups. ANd since a lot of groups helping women get prenatal care, BC, and abortions are nonprofit, I imagine you don't. Churches-whether you agree with them or not-do LOTS of charity. They run the hospitals, the soup kitchens, the job training programs and shelters. Well over half, of all of the above, in fact. Someone who wants less government should be happy when nongovernmental groups step up to the plate, no?

Awesome. Then let's get rid of welfare and let the tax-exempts take care of the poor. I'd call that fair.

The thing I loved about roberts post was his mention of seperation of church and state. Odd how the religious who feel nothing about using their religous morals to dictate to others how to behave jump on the seperation bandwagonthe moment the churches might get taxed.

Churches are a buisiness, those charites, soup kitches, used good stores, schools and hospitals

They get shut down of they dont make enough money to offset the expense of running them.

Hell they shut down local churches that dont bring in enough cash.

I have yet to met anyone who can explain to me why their religon is more valid that the millions of others that have sprung up on this planet.

And I have yet to meet any christian who can explain why their brand of christianity is better or more correct than the thousands of other christian denominations.

My aunt is a babtist - she has been all her life, she has no clue what differences there are between her faith and methodists, or episcopalians. But she KNOWS they are wrong.

Let me ask you religious folks something. Assuming "GOD" is perfect, all powerful and all knowing that would logically imply he is unchanging. After all if your perfect you whould have no reason to change.

And yet "GOD" has changed, we hare no longer commanded to kill unbelivers, or those sick fucks who dare to wear clothing that mix cotton and polyester. We no longer have muliple wives and gods blessing to fuck house keepers or to kidnap and rape virgins captured in war.

We no longer have prophets calling down plauges or healing the sick or raising the dead, and I've never seen anyone part a river by slapping it with their jacket, Have any of you?

So here is my question to you religious folk.

From the time of "adam" on down god talked to men, punished mankind, showed his power on a regular basis - so why did this perfect being, incapable of making mistakes, someone who can never do aything wrong suddenly change?

I agree, Jay. Think of the vast tax dollars we working people and secular businesses are paying to make up for those not paid by religious institutions; specifically, the wildly wealthy Catholic church."

Oh please, do you think your taxes would get lowered? Do you think they're higher because teh church doesn't pay? Get real.

Not for profit means no one makes a profit off them. Salaries for them tend to be much lower than an equivalent job in the for-profit sector. The money goes into that organizations goal-which is always providing some service for people for free. That's how they get their status.

All this great wealth you think would come from taxing them, where would it go? Since you agree with few if any programs that are funded by taxes. Do you think it'd be refunded to you?

If you think that the church has too much influence on politics now, you'll just LOVE how active they are after they are taxed.

I think there should be some investigations into alleged politicking by tax-exempts (religious and non) and some punishment meted out.

But if you don't want the church to be an active participant (right now, the best they can do is whine publicly and threaten politicians with "we won't let you receive communion") then you oughtn't agitate for taxing them.

Remember, no taxation without representation.

Yes momof3, my taxes are higher because religious institutions don't pay. Property taxes are a perfect example of this. By exempting such entities the other property owners must pay a higher share of the total collected. If you truly believe in and support your particular religious organization than you should be willing to make the sacrifice of paying for it. Don't ask me to pay more in taxes to indirectly support your beliefs.

Jay -

If you are willing to tax the church, you are disallowed from complaining when the church starts sending priests to lobby the Congress, or even run for office.

Heh, I may have been raised a Southern Methodist, but if you're familiar with my occasional commentary you'd know that I am ANYTHING BUT religious. I'm not an atheist either, more of an agnostic or a deist.

"I have yet to met anyone who can explain to me why their religon is more valid that the millions of others that have sprung up on this planet."

Interesting statement...I wonder though, have they never given you an answer...or never given you one that YOU would accept? After all, there is a very big difference between those two possibilities. The chief one being that if there is no explaination that you would accept, what you ask is an impossibility.

That is rather like me saying, "Prove to me that the sky is blue." but then saying I won't accept visual evidence. It may be your terms, not theirs, which are unreasonable. Just something to ponder.

Do regular nonprofits pay property taxes for their offices,etc? It would make sense to me that money that a church uses for charitable activities (hospitals, soup kitchens, etc.) wouldn't be taxed, but that real estate holdings could be fair game. I appreciate the big, pretty church buildings and all, but they aren't necessary for worship or charitable activity.

Brian- I have no problem with religious leaders or any one else running for office or lobbying government officials. It is called freedom of speech. Any tax paying citizen has the right to participate in our government. Just because they have chosen a religious occupation should not preclude them.

Since most churches outside of big cities rely entirely on tithes and offerings, which are small in more rural areas, they should remain tax free. I also believe that temples and mosques should be tax free. These establishments provide many services to their communities free of charge. They do not make a profit, they simply sustain their existence. However, I do see the point, though, with wishing to tax mega-churches. They have the funds to pay taxes and thusly should contribute to the community.

DEATH SENTANCES OF THE BIBLE
Exodus 19:12
Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death.
Touching a 'holy' mountain

Exodus 21:12
Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.
Accidental deeath

Exodus 21:15
Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
Assult

Exodus 21:16
Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
Selling someone elses slave

Exodus 21:17
Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Swearing at your parents

Exodus 22:19
Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death.
Beastiality

Exodus 31:14
Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath

Exodus 31:15
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #2

Exodus 35:2
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #3

Leviticus 10:1
[ The Death of Nadab and Abihu ] Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the LORD, contrary to his command.
Making an offeering to god incorrectly

Leviticus 16:1
[ The Day of Atonement ] The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the LORD.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #4

Leviticus 20:9
If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his own head.
Swearing at parents #2

Leviticus 20:10
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
Adultery

Leviticus 20:11
If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Adultery #2

Leviticus 20:12
If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
Adultery #3

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Homosexuality

Leviticus 20:15
If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
Beastiality #2

Leviticus 20:16
If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Beastiality #3

Leviticus 20:27
A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
Thinking your psycic

Leviticus 24:16
anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Kind of an odd on given the lords acctual proprer name appears nowhwere in the bible

Numbers 1:51
Whenever the tabernacle is to move, the Levites are to take it down, and whenever the tabernacle is to be set up, the Levites shall do it. Anyone else who goes near it shall be put to death.
Going to chuch on any day but the sabbath

Numbers 3:10
Appoint Aaron and his sons to serve as priests; anyone else who approaches the sanctuary must be put to death."
Wanting to be a preist

Numbers 3:38
Moses and Aaron and his sons were to camp to the east of the tabernacle, toward the sunrise, in front of the Tent of Meeting. They were responsible for the care of the sanctuary on behalf of the Israelites. Anyone else who approached the sanctuary was to be put to death.
Wanting to be a preist #2

Numbers 15:32
[ The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death ] While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day.
Not going to chuch, or working on the sabbath #4

Numbers 18:7
But only you and your sons may serve as priests in connection with everything at the altar and inside the curtain. I am giving you the service of the priesthood as a gift. Anyone else who comes near the sanctuary must be put to death
Wanting to be a preist #3

Numbers 25:5
So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your men who have joined in worshiping the Baal of Peor
Idolitry

Deuteronomy 13:5
That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.
Idolitry #2

Deuteronomy 13:9
You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.
Idolitry #3

Deuteronomy 13:10
Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Idolitry #4

Deuteronomy 17:5
take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death
selling "flwaed" animals for sacrifice to the lord

Deuteronomy 17:12
The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the LORD your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel.
Showing contempt for church officals

Deuteronomy 18:20
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
Being a missionary for a different religion

Deuteronomy 21:21
Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid
Disobeying your parents

Deuteronomy 22:21
she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you
Sex before marrige

DeuDeuteronomy 22:24
you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help,
Being raped

Deuteronomy 22:24
you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death. . , and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
Rape of a 'married' woman

Judges 6:31
But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, "Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."
Defending the life of someone who whorships a different god
And as a side note when did god ever stop someone from burning a church down?

These are the weird times when I don't know what to say. I am an Atheist and I am against taxation on philosophical grounds (Objectivism).

This being said, I see only one solution for me: Starting my own religion! It would be the "No God" religion! My house will be my temple and my work will be totally dedicated to the people in need (Namelessly, myself).

Yup, looks like I have found the perfect solution.

Robert some one saying they belive is not a valid reson as to why their religion is better.

Now if you were to say that christianinty is better than the aztec worship of tezcatlipoa because we dont sacrifce humans that would be a valid argumnet.

But like I've said I've never had anyone give me a rational reason for baptists being better than puritians.

And how is proving the sky being blue related ina ny way as to wherether it is more correct to worship god v2.0.194 vs worshiping god v2.1.057?

FYI if you dont beilve your eyes take a look at the waveleanths mathmatical equvialnat scale.

As light passes theru the atmosphere it is bent, given the majority of our atmosphere is nitrogen the waveleangth bent furthest is 'blue'

You get the same results in a lab by firing light thru tube filled with various gases.

But then that the thing about scientific findings, they are reaptable and verifyable.

I ran across a website a while back. Some guys recoreded a pentocstal preist "speaking in tounges".

They played it back for the preist and got a translation, thay palyed it for other pentocastal preists and got different translations from each one. They went back to the original preist 6 moths later and had him translated it again and got, once more, and new translation.

But I'd be willing to bet that had they asked each of those preists what the answer to 2+2 was thay all would have gotten 4

Now, how does said taxation involve destruction?

If those examples were not obvious enough, let me pose a question.

Why is it that activist organizations with political or social aims are not taxed?

The answer is simple, because then those groups with poor members or few members, would lose what voice they have in the political progress and be silenced by society at large. Yes individuals could still speak up, it would not interfere with their right to speak freely...however the loss of a group voice IS significant, and if we did not think it was, then we would not hold parties or elections or have supporting organizations for this or that law or candidate. One individual is not worth so much as a thousand. IF we were to impose taxes on those organizations, then we silence whole parts of the population. Atheists have little pull in the U.S. and are few in number world wide compared to the numbers who adhere to one faith or another as it is...how could an organization like say...American Atheists...survive if it were forced to pay taxes on its donations? It likely would not...and if it DID, it would be forced to consider only the views of those who were wealthy contributors in order to keep the funding up to continue its activities. If it did not, then taxation would destroy that organization as surely as if a law were passed outlawing their organized speech.

Now, consider churches. Miss Alkon makes a valid point about their vast wealth...however she does not mention the degree to which their activities offset the costs to government in other areas. As was previously mentioned, such as healthcare, food, shelter, seeing to the homeless or the destitute. Those of you who think your taxes would go down...no, perhaps at first, but you would be borrowing from peter to pay paul, the demands for services from citizens would rise accordingly as the social contributions of charitable churches deteriorated.

But I digress...that deals only with the wealthy churches which at least...would survive taxation through their vast adherents and well established wealth. But what of small churches, those with few members or lacking well established vast wealth? What will taxation do to churches whose members are poor, but who depend upon their church for solace, comfort in hard times, fellowship, and yes, some of those very charitable services which have already been mentioned that the government does not provide in adequate sum? Because we would be taxing ALL churches, mosques, shrines, & temples, our end result would be that those faiths with few or scattered adherents would cease to be able to exist, and we would end up with a defacto endorsement of just a few denominations of Christianity in the U.S. holding a monopoly upon the moral & political discourse. And yes, I did say political...because when you start taxing religious institutions, you must ALSO allow them full representation on the national political stage.

Its not just smaller religions you would be imposing a crushing burdon upon Miss Alkon, no far from it, the larger and wealthier ones would essentially become the only "legitimate" (for lack of a better word) faith, because they are the only ones that could pay the price of existence as an organized faith, if that is not a defacto establishment of religion, I do not know what is.

Now ask yourself then once you have a situation like that...within a generation or two, the seperation of church & state has each one shut out of the other, taxation does not just put government in with religion, it puts religion in with government.

I suppose you could say its like pouring cream into your coffee, once it is in there...its there, there's no separating it, and you've undone all the work our founding fathers sought so hard to lay down.

(I revised all of the above 2 or 3 times to attempt brevity, and cut out several points as a result, hope I did not lose clarity of thesis idea in the doing)

One more final statement to round it all out:

Everything the government taxes...it has a direct say in and oversight of...or the biases of an irs agent who say...dislikes atheists or dislikes hindus, deciding whom should be audited? Consider carefully all that you ask and all that you desire, there are no consequences so grave as the ones unforeseen.

People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is just common sense to me, since it stands to reason that voters on welfare will always vote for more welfare, at taxpayer's expense. The Founding Fathers saw it that way too. In their view, the beggars in the poorhouse were incapable of exercising the duties & responsibilities of citizenship, so they were not entitled to vote for more alms, or anything else. But if the poorhouse caught fire, the state should still go to the trouble & expense of putting the fire out, since otherwise the fire could spread to taxpayer's property, and the state would be stuck with the expense of building a new poorhouse if the old one burned down. So Maher's "you can pray for rain" argument is nonsense. It would make more sense to take away a priest's right to vote than to deny him public services that even welfare bums get for free.

Jefferson & company saw the separation of church & state as being vital to the health of the Republic, and the tax-free status of the church as being a vital component of that separation. They were wiser than you are, and you haven't convinced me that they were wrong.

Interesting point regarding light wavelengths & the like, but it seems I was a wee bit to subtle for my own good there. When I said visual evidence I was being a wee bit facetious. After all the experiments you describe would be "visual" evidence, my point was that if the one who frames the debate often does so in such a way that no answer to his point is considered to be acceptable.

The interesting thing you point out with regards to science is absolutely correct though, it is repeatable and verifiable, but this is the very reason why evolution itself is still little more than a hypothesis...evolution cannot BE laboratory tested, yet it is accepted as scientific fact based on logic...but since logic can be flawed or data for conclusion incomplete, acceptance of it as cardinal truth (pun intended) is no less a matter of faith.

Moreover regarding your argument of superiority through values, christianity v. the worship of tezcaltipoa, while reasonable as far as it goes for someone like me, who does not ascribe to the relative morality school of thought, is not applicable to those who do consider cultures & values to be universally equal.

and lujlp, remember the big C, that bit about not killing.
Someone above said something about how taxed churches (i mean all religious organisation not just so called christains) would start lobbying, I think it is fairly obvious they already are pressuring politicians. Didja happen to notice all those people in that big anti-abortion prayer demonstration in DC last week?

I understand the reasoning for stating that those who are on the public dole should not be able to vote...but considering the abuses possible on those who have no say in the political process...I must in good conscience oppose that idea.

Way ahead of you Jim, why do you think I posted the list of biblical death decrees?

Next time you hear some fundie saying abortion is a sin asked them when the last time they killed a missionary was, because god decreed that missonaries not of your faith sare to be stoned.

And not killing them is a sin

I suspect you would not like an activist Catholic Church telling its faithful for whom to vote from the pulpit, which is what you get when you dissolve the separation between church and state.

Think demographics for a second. Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the population and largely Catholic. Catholics already make up the largest single religion in the US. Toss in Evangelical Christians and Social Conservatives and you would have a sizeable majority. Right now you have many Catholics divided between Democrats and Republicans based on voting their consciences with respect to "social justice" versus "morality."

The government would get more revenue. It would not be the government you have today. The word is Pyrrhic victory.

"the comment by Robert about the government controlling through taxation (via Justice Marshall's opinion), please give some examples of how that could happen."

Ach, Amy, that's too easy. Look at your tax forms this year: exemptions for this, refunds for that. If you are lucky, you have only dozens of pages to wade through; if you are unlucky, hundreds of special rules.

Then look at the business tax code: there are thousands - tens of thousands - of pages of regulations, special exemptions, special fees and surcharges. Are you a business selling childrens toys? Do you sell bows and arrows? Are the arrows made of wood? If yes, Congress has passed a special tax rule just for you.

That is how the power to tax is the the power to control. I would agree with the idea of taxing churches if - and only if - all business taxes were a simple flat rate with no special treatment for anyone...

So the church shouldn't be tax exempt because they are rich? Which church? Catholic? Missionary Baptist? Episcopal? Have the government get into which denominations are tax exempt? Nah. What happens if they are using their "wealth" to finance good works? If organized religion is going to be examined then every tax exempt organization that is 501c3 exempt gets the same scrutiny. Islam, gay rights, planned parenthood, Hindu, etc. The advantage to the church if they are revoked is that they can weigh in on the issues of the day. You cannot treat the church as any different that any other organization just because they are the church.

"Oh, and regarding the comment ... about government controlling through taxation..., please give examples of how that could happen. The government doesn't really destroy me by taxing me, it just makes my business less profitable..."

On the most theoretical plane, one way to think about it is if the government can tax an activity, government has the means to take away a person's marginal incentive to engage in that activity at any particular point along the demand (or supply) curve. A tiny tax on a large transaction with a fat margin of profit will deter relatively few transactions. But a gross income tax of 300% on a transaction or activity will generally destroy the incentive to engage in that activity. So if the IRC imposes a 3% tax on your net income from blogging, you will likely pay little attention to the matter. If the IRC taxes your writing-related gross income at 300%, my guess is your blog will go away pretty quickly. The power to destroy via incentives.

I note that taxing (or not taxing) activity is one way that big government types often want to encourage or discourage some supposedly "good" activity. Think home mortgage interest deduction or childcare tax credits.

Moving from the individual level to the inter-government level, I am sure you can see why we do not allow states or cities in America to tax federal property in the relevant jurisdiction. If, say, San Francisco could assess the federal government $55 billion in annual property taxes for each acre of military base within the city's jurisdiction, how long would our nation survive?

Similarly, if the federal government could tax the State of New York on New York's state income tax receipts, how long would New York survive as an independent governing entity? (And we are a united nation of *states*, still, not people.)

IIRC, Marshall's opinion simply took notice of this obvious fact of governmental power to tax, before using declaring federal (?) lands exempt from taxation by states. I am too lazy to look it up, though, so don't hold me to that.

"in turn keeping money out of the general economy..."

Nah, the money is still in the economy, the problem is each marginal dollar spent by the government beyond some base level offers less benefit than the same dollar typically would have if the government left that money in the relatively far more effecient private sector. (Efficient in the sense that the private sector is often better at allocating economic resources in a manner that maximizes utility, etc.)

"Awesome. Then let's get rid of welfare and let the tax-exempts take care of the poor. I'd call that fair."

scoff. Why cut off money to dumb young women who had kids they cannot support? You will get at least one generation of underfed kids who end up with lower IQs due to nutritional deficiency and learned behavior like something out of lord of the flies. Great policy...if you want to recreate the Middle East.

I would rather see all the nice-car-driving, hill-hiking, golf-playing retirees get their asses back to work rather than spending decades in warm climates cashing social security and pension checks forcibly taken from young people who have nothing.

(deep breath, index finger raised up again)

I am okay with society helping the destitute young make it through childhood, since society will benefit from that much more than the cost involved. But funding a second childhood for able-bodied adults via social security et al!?

(waving arms, full throated whooping)

What the hell is up with that? Our retiree class is among the richest group of people who ever lived, and we send them yet *more* money!?

It seems to me that taxation on church PROFITS would be reasonable. Our tax codes are thousands of pages long, I'm sure the IRS could come up with something along these lines:

Church reasonable and customary expenses are tax deferred. Expenses over and above reasonable and customary (someone else can define that) are taxed. Expenditures of a charitable nature are tax free. Some middle ground between taxed and not for profit. The "reasonable and customary" (typical IRS wording) might help to leash the monster churches like Crystal freaking Cathedral.

One other comment: Momof3, I have a distant relative who is a Lutheran minister. He makes over $70k a year, lives in a house three blocks from the beach in Manhattan Beach, owns a house in WA state, property in Wyoming, and two brand new cars. I call that a pretty good living.

Well, there's more natural schizophrenia: taxes will shut down non-profits (size not noted) but are too low on corporations (which count them as a business expense, too).

-And-

Religious institutions actually, and legally, communicate to their members how to vote today. Obviously, you could not see the minister delivering an invocation at the Inauguration, nor could you remember the furor over what "Reverend" Wright's influence on President Obama is.

-And-

It's long past time you looked at the actual IRS rule about 501c organizations.

I used to live in a "major" Southern city. The local Baptist churches owned much of downtown areas.

Imaginary Friend help you if you parked in one of their lots or in a spot near one of their buildings. But when church was in session (when is it not for Baptists?), they'd park in any spot available as if that spot was their birthright.

Local merchants were too afraid of a boycott to raise much of a stink as their customers were driven away to the malls where they could at least park within hailing distance of the store they were trying to patronize.

"I have a distant relative who is a Lutheran minister. He makes over $70k a year, lives in a house three blocks from the beach in Manhattan Beach, owns a house in WA state, property in Wyoming, and two brand new cars. I call that a pretty good living."

He's doing really good to do that on $70k. I imagine his church owns the rectory where he lives. If he's been frugal and bought the rest, he must not have kids. Did he inherit the house? How expensive of cars? I think the anecdote is thin on info. And living in Manhattan beach, 70K goes not far at all. Not that it really matters. Some ministers make more, some qualify for food stamps. Like the rest of us. And it largely depends on where they live/work, like the rest of us.

One would assume he's done more good in his professional life than, say, an accountant, as far as helping people.

A quick google search of 501(c) atheist groups brought up 10 separate tax-exempt ones on the first page alone. Should we tax them? Or do they not own enough? What's the "rich level" cut-off for taxation? Amy?

WHy shouldnt churches have to pay propety tax at least?

As was mentioned should the building catch fire taxpayer funded fire fighters show up. As do tax payer funded cops.

I dont get to use service I dont pay for, why should a corperation that sells mental crutches, emotional filler, and justification for bigotry?

And as I already mentioned, though most people ignored it, churches dont run charites at a major loss. Most homless shelters, even those run by churches are subsidised with government funds.

Perhaps the real key would be to revoke the tax breaks people get for tithing to their churches.

The tax law is far too complicated as it is, make it a simple 10% of earnings, no exceptions, no deductions, no write offs for donations.

One would assume he's done more good in his professional life than, say, an accountant, as far as helping people.

Speak for yourself! I can't think of a more noble cause than keeping money out of the hands of my government. If there's a more powerful force for evil in this world, I don't know what it is.

"People on welfare shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is just common sense to me, since it stands to reason that voters on welfare will always vote for more welfare, at taxpayer's expense. The Founding Fathers saw it that way too."

Seriously? You realize this bank bailout is partly the result of rich people lobbying to get themselves more dough, right? So...it's only poor people that shouldn't be able to participate in our democracy and look out for their own interests because.... what, exactly?

You know the Founding Fathers didn't want women voting either, right? Should we go back to only male landowners having a vote?

"You realize this bank bailout is partly the result of rich people lobbying to get themselves more dough, right?"

Way to partially address the problem. Don't forget who got loans they couldn't pay, and how. "franko," says the Fed (who controls the currency), "if you don't load money to people who can't afford it, we're going to label you 'discriminatory'". So you do. And it doesn't work. What do you do?

"You know the Founding Fathers didn't want women voting either, right? Should we go back to only male landowners having a vote?"

Can you find a quote that says that directly - or did the Founders merely follow the current custom? And for "male landlowners": that is a measure of performance and an indicator that the voter has something at stake. It may be impossible to see by someone not used to dealing in logic, as opposed to feeding an emotional need to think one person is actually the equal of another, but gender is not the issue: people voting themselves largesse is.

My mom, who lives in Boston, makes the same argument about Harvard. She keeps getting quoted in articles, saying Harvard should get taxed, and how scandalous it is that they aren't taxed, and how people shouldn't contribute to alumni funds. She's going to make a lot of enemies in Boston, but I digress...

I think that most people, when they think about a tax-free non-profit, think about a small little office staffed by a few employees making $30k a year and a team of volunteers who are dedicated to the cause, on broken-down computers, surrounded by piles of paper. And most people react negatively when they see a non-profit rakin' in the dough. I think there is a public perception that the tax-free status exists to help struggling agencies do good works.

You know the Founding Fathers didn't want women voting either, right? Should we go back to only male landowners having a vote?

Yes.

Or at least "landowners".

This country started its long march toward socialism the day after women's (universal) suffrage became the law of the land. The moment that the franchise was established as a "right" to be extended to all citizens rather than a right for those who had something to lose to exercise in controlling their government, this country was doomed to fail.

I'm surprised we held it together this long, frankly.

Yes, employed landowners! They probably would vote for some welfare, people aren't monsters, but it wouldn't be the easy free ride through life it currently is.

And how, exactly, is it that I have to show ID to buy cold medicine but not to vote???? That makes sense how?

Technically speaking, you won't get high by voting.

Of course, the whole "set up a database to track purchases of pseudoephedrine" thing hasn't worked. Meth use is up,not down. Sure, there might be fewer people blowing up meth labs, but is that really worth the loss of freedom?

I am sick of being inconvenienced to keep the shallow end of the gene pool well stocked.

I agree with brian, I think we should leagalise drugs, not only that but give them away for free.

Put up a few buildings in every city, you want drugs you go down pick up as much as you want and lock yourself in a room until you come down or die

"Yes, employed landowners!"

A little-known tidbit from American history: women with property had the right to vote in local & state elections in New Jersey after the Revolutionary War. The State Constitution awarded the franchise to "all free inhabitants" who owned a certain amount of property. This included some women, & even some free blacks. The good times ended after 1806, when an outraged state legislator found out that most of the women in his district had voted for his Federalist opponent, and demanded that the franchise be restricted to free, white, male citizens with property.

In 1995, just after Giuliani got into the Mayor's office & just before Clinton signed his welfare reform bill, the number of NYC residents on the welfare rolls was 1.2 million, and rising. I agree that corporate welfare is more damaging, but I can't help thinking that things should have never been allowed to reach that point. Neither the poor or the rich should be able to vote themselves largesse.

Yes, employed landowners!

Won't work. ACORN will start making the homeless "owners" of the shelter and giving them a "job" so they qualify to vote.

I am sick of being inconvenienced to keep the shallow end of the gene pool well stocked.

Well said. Although, your views on health insurance mean we're going to be inconvenienced and paying for you someday.

Conan -

Keep the snark to yourself. If my need for care gets to that point, I'll have exhausted lifetime maxima for insurance and end up on your dime anyhow.

Besides, have you ever wondered why your insurance premiums are your largest expense only behind your taxes?

It's because there is no actual insuring going on here, it's a cost-hiding scheme. Drug stores are making 1000% margins on prescription drugs because the prices they charge are hidden behind co-pays. The entire medical industry is devoid of transparency and competition, which is why medical care costs are increasing at 9 times inflation.

When someone offers me actual INSURANCE (which I'm in the process of evaluating now), I'll buy it.

brian, it doesn't matter. The way things are going, twelve of us are going to end up paying for everyone some day soon.

Cost markups are indeed one of the biggest frauds in health insurance these days. Part of that stems from healthcare providers being able to "write off" unpaid bills or bill the government for a percentage.

I saw the same cost inflation when I worked in student lending. Funny how a term at a "college" just happens to cost the federal maximum student loan amount - no matter how many times the government raise the limit.

Same thing happens in Section 8 housing, where the amount of the "rent" percentage covered by the government just happens to be the full amount - so that the landlord isn't left holding the bag when the "tenant" doesn't pay his or her share.

Anyway, I'm just messin' with you.

With regard to my minister relative...

The house in Manhattan Beach is owned by the church, as all the houses he's lived in all his ministerly life are owned by the church. So, add the calculated "rent" to his $70K salary. The house in Washington was purchased as an investment. The land in Wyoming as well. Hm. Tax shelters. Almost amusing, isn't it? He has two adult children and he put both through college. Yes, on his salary, and probably a good chunk of "scholarship contribution" from the Lutherans, another un-taxed income source.

The cars are new, one is a big truck of some sort and the other is an SUV. So they're not worried about the cost of gas (or the environment for that matter).

I understand that this is anecdotal and I appreciate all that that means. But I am rebutting your suggestion that clergy are poor. That is not always the case.

Your assumption that he's doing more good than, say, an accountant, is a funny comparison. I'm an accountant. I help people every day. The fact that it's not in a spiritual way doesn't make it any less help (in fact, in my opinion it's more - but I see spirituality as voodoo science). If HELPING people is our requisite for being non-profit, then I'll petition the courts for my 501c status.