|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 7:18:39 PM
|
|
|
ianz
Posts: 271
Joined: 12/22/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Somebody has to pay for that free ride, and that somebody is the other taxpayers. We are forced to pay for churches.
Well, obviously not - if churches didn't exist at all, taxes wouldn't be any lower.
At the risk of being nit-picky:
Anything which is tax-payer funded ultimately costs the state and therefore the taxpayer. The tax-free status of churches does cost the state; of course it does. If the tax-free status was abolished (which, incidentally, I wouldn't support), the tax funds released could be used for something else.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 7:29:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
At the risk of being nit-picky:
Anything which is tax-payer funded ultimately costs the state and therefore the taxpayer. The tax-free status of churches does cost the state; of course it does. If the tax-free status was abolished (which, incidentally, I wouldn't support), the tax funds released could be used for something else.
Not to be even more nit-picky, but the tax free status doesn't 'cost' us anything - if churches suddenly ceased to exist, there would be no windfall. Concievably there would be a gain if we began to tax churches, but the same would be true if we taxed all organizations and people currently exempt for whatever reason.
However, if schools went away (not a wish, just a fact) in our state we would save 50% of the budget.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 8:27:32 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
if churches suddenly ceased to exist, there would be no windfall.
Churches, I hope, don't just print money. Church money comes from people and organizations who are entitled to deduct their donations from their taxes - not just as an income adjustment, but as a 1-1 deduction from taxes. Not everyone takes the deduction, I'm sure, and if churches vanished, some would donate that money to charitable organizations, but I expect tax revenues would increase. Of course, there would be losses as well, since many religious people would be hypothetically 'unemployed', but since these people are only paying a part of their income as taxes, there must still be an overall gain.
ETA: the 1-1 deduction only applies to returns with itemized deductions (on the federal income tax anyway), which represent 35.5% of returns (and 65.9 percent of the total deduction amount): "The third largest itemized deduction, charitable contributions, increased 10.8 percent for 2005, to $183.4 billion," though this does not specifically pick out contributions to churches.
Charitable giving to religious organizations is estimated at nearly $100 billion.
"U.S. charitable giving reached a new record in 2006, an estimated $295.02 billion"
"Charitable gifts benefit at least nine different types of charities, with religious congregations receiving an estimated 32.8 percent of the total."
< Message edited by essentialsaltes -- 7/13/2008 8:39:17 PM >
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 9:02:51 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
At the risk of being nit-picky:
Anything which is tax-payer funded ultimately costs the state and therefore the taxpayer. The tax-free status of churches does cost the state; of course it does. If the tax-free status was abolished (which, incidentally, I wouldn't support), the tax funds released could be used for something else.
Not to be even more nit-picky, but the tax free status doesn't 'cost' us anything - if churches suddenly ceased to exist, there would be no windfall. Concievably there would be a gain if we began to tax churches, but the same would be true if we taxed all organizations and people currently exempt for whatever reason.
However, if schools went away (not a wish, just a fact) in our state we would save 50% of the budget.
You can't have it both ways. You said if churches ceased there would be no windfall, then immediately say there would be a gain if we began to tax churches.
Actually, you are correct when you say there would be no windfall, but incorrect when you say there would be a gain if we began to tax churches. What should happen is the tax rate for the individual tax-payer would go down because there are more tax-payers on the rolls to share the burden for the services they all receive.
Yes, a large portion of our taxes go to the schools. This is a good thing. The schools are an investment in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 9:17:40 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
At the risk of being nit-picky:
Anything which is tax-payer funded ultimately costs the state and therefore the taxpayer. The tax-free status of churches does cost the state; of course it does. If the tax-free status was abolished (which, incidentally, I wouldn't support), the tax funds released could be used for something else.
Not to be even more nit-picky, but the tax free status doesn't 'cost' us anything - if churches suddenly ceased to exist, there would be no windfall.
Actually, there would be. The property currently owned by the churches would presumably go into private hands and become taxable.
btw I am not advocating any change in the tax-exempt status of churches and religious institutions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 9:33:52 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
You can't have it both ways. You said if churches ceased there would be no windfall, then immediately say there would be a gain if we began to tax churches.
I am not having it both ways - those are two different scenarios.
quote:
Actually, you are correct when you say there would be no windfall, but incorrect when you say there would be a gain if we began to tax churches. What should happen is the tax rate for the individual tax-payer would go down because there are more tax-payers on the rolls to share the burden for the services they all receive.
Actually, you are simply double taxing church goers.
quote:
Yes, a large portion of our taxes go to the schools. This is a good thing. The schools are an investment in the future.
But not all of us send our kids to tax-funded schools - why should I pay for other children's futures at the expense of my own?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 9:39:40 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Churches, I hope, don't just print money. Church money comes from people and organizations who are entitled to deduct their donations from their taxes - not just as an income adjustment, but as a 1-1 deduction from taxes. Not everyone takes the deduction, I'm sure, and if churches vanished, some would donate that money to charitable organizations, but I expect tax revenues would increase. Of course, there would be losses as well, since many religious people would be hypothetically 'unemployed', but since these people are only paying a part of their income as taxes, there must still be an overall gain.
ETA: the 1-1 deduction only applies to returns with itemized deductions (on the federal income tax anyway), which represent 35.5% of returns (and 65.9 percent of the total deduction amount): "The third largest itemized deduction, charitable contributions, increased 10.8 percent for 2005, to $183.4 billion," though this does not specifically pick out contributions to churches.
Charitable giving to religious organizations is estimated at nearly $100 billion.
"U.S. charitable giving reached a new record in 2006, an estimated $295.02 billion"
"Charitable gifts benefit at least nine different types of charities, with religious congregations receiving an estimated 32.8 percent of the total."
Well, as you pointed out, people could simply give their money to some other charitable organization. Though one wonders, if there were no tax deduction, how many people would give to anything charitable - and if not, what effect that would have on our society.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 9:40:46 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7784
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Actually, there would be. The property currently owned by the churches would presumably go into private hands and become taxable.
btw I am not advocating any change in the tax-exempt status of churches and religious institutions.
Sure, and this is often the reason cities are reluctant to allocate land for churches - and schools, incidentally.
Of course people often come to live in a city for the churches and schools.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Scientific Challenges to Christianity. - 7/13/2008 10:55:13 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
You can't have it both ways. You said if churches ceased there would be no windfall, then immediately say there would be a gain if we began to tax churches.
I am not having it both ways - those are two different scenarios.
If churches ceased, we would tax whatever person or organization used their properties. The result would be exactly the same as if we bagan to tax churches. I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make here.
quote:
quote:
Actually, you are correct when you say there would be no windfall, but incorrect when you say there would be a gain if we began to tax churches. What should happen is the tax rate for the individual tax-payer would go down because there are more tax-payers on the rolls to share the burden for the services they all receive.
Actually, you are simply double taxing church goers.
No more than if you tax a person and tax a club he belongs to.
quote:
quote:
Yes, a large portion of our taxes go to the schools. This is a good thing. The schools are an investment in the future.
But not all of us send our kids to tax-funded schools - why should I pay for other children's futures at the expense of my own?
And not all of us have children. At least you have a choice. It is your choice whether to take advantage of that service. Some parents are unable make that choice. As a society, it is to our advantage to see that every child has access to a quality education, because the children are the future.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
