Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's time to tax religion

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Modem Butterfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:30 PM
Original message
It's time to tax religion
Religion has demanded (and received) a seat at the table of American politics. It is time to drop the pretense of the separation. Let's tax religion. Property tax, income tax, sales tax. Allow them to take the standard business and charitable deductions, if they qualify. But let's drop the special exemptions because they are religious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ChairmanAgnostic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. damned straight!
a b s o l u t e l y !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nonconformist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Absofreakinglutely.
Couldn't agree more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Finder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
3. Amen...
should have been taxing them for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. "Ramen" as we Pastafarians say. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Time for Uncle Sam to take a pound of flesh from the noodly appendage!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sabriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
28. No tax on food items
Edited on Fri Sep-16-05 01:16 PM by Sabriel
You can't really count pasta as a luxury food item. I believe Its Essence is untaxable.

(edit: change His to Its, since there is little concrete evidence that the FSM is gender-specific.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
4. Been tried before, tough to do, but
you could get them to pay for local services, ie a "contribution" towards fire, police protection. That would help lower local taxes.

But to do away with the tax exemption for churches, charities, etc. would require a strong anti-religious movement in this country, something that is quite the opposite than what we have in America today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modem Butterfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Maybe we could frame it as a civic duty...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Some localities have tried it.
depends on the strength of the community in favor and how much pressure can be put on religious leaders. Has worked for some towns, but mostly not for others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flubadubya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. They don't have "civic duties"...
they have "celestial duties". :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. I agree. I believe a tax exempt status should be granted only
if they honor the Constitutional provision for the separation of church and state. When they start meddling in politics, it's time for them to pay taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. According to IRS regs
that is EXACTLY when they DO loose that status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. So maybe it's time to send the IRS after the likes of
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. There is plenty of proof that they have been more than meddling in politics but even influencing the outcomes of elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. Or another approach
Any preacher who actively works for a political agenda is no longer doing so as the head of a church, but rather as a Political Action Comittee.

And PACs are not tax exempt.

But Churches can do this without violating any laws or committing tax fraud, apparently. That's how the supposed "moral majority" gets energized behind the GOP.

So what if a Dem candidate had some of his supporters set up and register "Churches", and then use the tax-exempt status to campaign for Liberal candidates and liberal issues?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Exactly, what is the IRS definition of a "Church"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Well, Pat Robinson has had "problems" in the past.
Think he ended up paying something, but the details escape me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beam me up scottie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hear hear !!!
You can start with the ones that put Catkiller's self righteous mug up on giant tv screens a few months back.

Those ritzy McChurches don't look "non-profit" to me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why is the IRS all over me for a $1000 mistake on my taxes, but
they can't seem to figure out that Robertson, Falwell, et al, have drivers for their limosines and live in mansions the size of the Hilton hotel. WTF is that about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Az Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
17. We do not want them at the political table
Taxing them gives them the right to be there. This is not a case of going after them cuz they are already at the table. They should not be there period. Mixing politics and religion has always proven to be dangerous.

Do not fight to tax them. Fight to drive them away from the table. If threatening their tax exempt status helps this then use it. But recognise that taxes are the price we pay to have a voice in this government. Tax the churchs and they officially have a right to a voice in the government. And that is far more dangerous than missing out on some tax revenue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
18. I agree
and it should be demanded of our elected representatives unless religion wants to go back from where it came from (previous status).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maine_raptor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
19. There is a way to do it.
As I said before:

To do away with the tax exemption for churches, charities, etc. would require a strong anti-religious movement in this country, something that is quite the opposite than what we have in America today.

But we can, as citizens, demand that our representives go after both those who abuse the system and change the damn law!

Tighten the regs, more inspection, and better accountablity. Let the State and Local tax folk know when a group or individual has abused the rules. Demand, don't just complain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
20. You can't tax "religion"
You could tax churches, religious schools, TV stations owned by preachers, etc.

But religion itself is beyond your reach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueEyedSon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. "religion itself", as a concept has no income, so no tax necessary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_invader Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #23
38. No Religion shouldn't be taxed but their property should be!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. Sure you can
0.5 cents per rosary bead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. That's an enormous per unit tax.
A rosary bead probably costs like, .2 cents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. What would a bottle of booze cost without the taxes?
$2.00?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. I'm all for this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
back2basics909 Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
22. Can we not do it one chruch at a time?
You cannot be an advocacy group and also be zero tax rated. So any church that speaks up in favor of Bush or certain policies, can we not ask for an investigation by the IRS? We only need a few successes and other churches would think twice before preaching politics from the pulpit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Hmm, sounds like a project to form an organization to pursue
this, kind of like MADD. Keep those turkeys in their churches talking about the kingdom of God, not this earthly nation. The minute they mention voting for this or that. Poof, no more tax free status.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
back2basics909 Donating Member (438 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Doing some research now...
<blockquote>Under Sec. 501(c)(3) of the tax code, charities are absolutely prohibited from intervening in political campaigns by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. This bar against campaign activities applies with full force to churches. There is no Supreme Court authority, under either the Religion Clauses or the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, that confers on churches a blanket exemption from tax-law requirements, such as the prohibition against political intervention, that apply even-handedly to churches and other charities.

IRS rules permit charities, including churches, to engage in nonpartisan voter education activities. As Election Day approaches, the Christian Coalition and other groups may ask churches to distribute "voter guides" to their members, contending that this is a permissible type of voter education. Churches should approach distribution of such voter guides with extreme caution.

Before agreeing to distribute a voter guide prepared by another organization, a church must ensure that the guide is truly nonpartisan and does not endorse or oppose any candidate, either explicitly or by implication. It does not matter that the church may not intend any political intervention. The IRS and the courts do not look to the church's motive, but to whether the voter guide in fact favors one candidate over another.

Election activity by charities, including churches, is currently a subject of intense IRS interest. The IRS recently said that it will have "zero tolerance" for violations, noting that the law "prohibits all forms of participation or intervention in any political campaign," even if the charity's involvement is "subtle" or "inadvertent." Several charities recently lost their tax exemptions for making implied endorsements of political candidates. And in delivering its recent warnings, the IRS specifically cited a case where a church had its exemption revoked for political activity in the 1992 campaign. The consequences of an IRS audit can be severe: even if a church does not lose its exemption and ability to receive deductible contributions, the IRS can impose monetary penalties against the church and its officials.

If a church distributes a partisan voter guide, it will constitute improper political activity by the church, even though someone else prepared the guide. In a recent speech, a high- ranking IRS official warned that the Service will examine all aspects of voter guides for signs of bias, including the array of questions presented, the size of type used for different candidates, and the photographs of candidates themselves. Thus, it is essential that churches consult their legal advisors and carefully review any voter guide before agreeing to distribute it. The fact that the Christian Coalition prepared a voter guide does not ensure that it is nonpartisan. The Christian Coalition is not a Sec. 501(c)(3) charity, and IRS rules thus allow it to engage in some political activity, such as disseminating voter guides that endorse or oppose candidates. By contrast, IRS rules absolutely prohibit a church from distributing a partisan guide.

In the past, the Christian Coalition has reportedly withheld distribution of its voter guides until the last Sunday before the election in order to maximize their impact. This mode of distribution could jeopardize a church's tax-exempt status if it prevents meaningful review of the guide before it is disseminated. Unless a church's legal advisors are given sufficient time to review the voter guide in advance of its distribution, the church will have no way of knowing whether the guide is truly nonpartisan and thus permissible for it to distribute.

The Christian Coalition has not as yet distributed its voter guides for the November 1996 election, and it has refused requests to release them earlier than in past years. Thus, it is not possible to advise pastors now whether these guides will comply with IRS requirements. The Coalition's publication of voter guides in prior elections, however, counsels careful scrutiny of the November 1996 guides when they finally appear. The Federal Election Commission has determined that the Coalition improperly engaged in partisan political activity when distributing voter guides during the 1990, 1992, and 1994 campaigns. Litigation on that subject is now pending in federal court.

The Christian Coalition contends that its voter guides are nonpartisan because they do not expressly endorse candidates and are based on candidates' responses to questionnaires. In fact, the tax rules are not so simple. A voter guide may implicitly favor a candidate even though it does not tell people how to vote or evaluate candidates with "plus" or "minus" signs. The overall content and presentation of the guide must be considered in order to determine whether it is even-handed, neutral, and objective in portraying candidates' positions.

If a voter guide exhibits bias in favor of or against any candidate, the IRS will treat it as electioneering activity, even if the guide disclaims any intent to make endorsements. Whether a voter guide is biased depends on all the facts and circumstances. The following "red flags" may indicate that a voter guide will be viewed as partisan by the IRS:


Focus on issues tracking an organization's known agenda. Nonpartisan voter guides usually describe candidates' positions on a wide range of issues important to the voting public. If the issues presented appear to have been selected to encourage readers to compare candidates' positions with those of the entity publishing the guide, the IRS may find an implied endorsement of the candidate whose position tracks the entity's own position. For example, in 1989 the IRS proposed to revoke the exemption of a foundation established to promote conservative Christian values in part because of voter guides it distributed during an election campaign. Because the guides identified the foundation's religious focus and emphasized issues on which its position was readily apparent -- parents' rights, abortion, ERA, homosexual rights, church school freedom, evolution, creationism, nuclear freeze, state lottery, and legalized prostitution -- the IRS saw the guides as an attempt to influence the election.

Unfair description of candidate's position. A voter guide based on candidate responses to questionnaires must report those responses accurately, with no editorial changes. If a voter guide misrepresents a candidate's responses in an effort to make the candidate appear extreme or radical, such bias may constitute implied opposition to that candidate and implied endorsement of his or her opponent. For example, the Christian Coalition typically asks candidates to complete questionnaires containing almost 100 questions, but it selects for inclusion in the voter guide only 6-10 responses that often vary from one electoral district to another. If these responses are chosen with a view to unfairly polarizing the candidates in order to make one candidate appear unacceptable, that would create a serious risk of bias. Bias may also occur if the voter guide omits key qualifying language from a candidate's questionnaire response, portraying the candidate as wholeheartedly "supporting" a position whereas his or her stance is actually more complex.

Unfair summary of candidate's voting record. A voter guide must be objective and even-handed in stating whether a candidate "supports" or "opposes" a particular position. For example, a voter guide could not fairly say that a candidate "supports" federal funding for indecent art on the basis of one legislative vote, if that candidate had opposed such funding in other legislative votes. Similarly, a voter guide could not fairly say that a candidate's position is "unclear" on federal funding for abortion, if the candidate had voted against such funding at every available opportunity.

Wide distribution close to election. When so-called "voter education" material is distributed widely on the eve of the selection, the IRS is more likely to regard it as political intervention designed to affect election outcomes.
</blockquote>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Uh Oh!
Looks like they have a big loophole here:

IRS rules permit charities, including churches, to engage in nonpartisan voter education activities. As Election Day approaches, the Christian Coalition and other groups may ask churches to distribute "voter guides" to their members, contending that this is a permissible type of voter education. Churches should approach distribution of such voter guides with extreme caution.

Before agreeing to distribute a voter guide prepared by another organization, a church must ensure that the guide is truly nonpartisan and does not endorse or oppose any candidate, either explicitly or by implication. It does not matter that the church may not intend any political intervention. The IRS and the courts do not look to the church's motive, but to whether the voter guide in fact favors one candidate over another.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gildor Inglorion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
24. It's heartbreaking...
most of you aren't old enough to remember when it was the CHURCHES in this country that stood up and demanded equal rights for blacks (and others) in the south; when it was the righteous power of preachers like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sr., and Ralph David Abernathy that inspired the revolutions of the 1960's...and just look to what sorry condition the church has deteriorated. They preach nothing but hatred and vitriol, with smug, sleek televangelists demanding money and defending the downtrodden rich. Yet even whisper "tax the church" and they shriek "PERSECUTION!" I wish America would awaken from its stupor, but I don't foresee it anytime soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr Rabble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
26. I agree 100%. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ernstbass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:16 PM
Response to Original message
29. Yes - it's long overdue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
31. The NAACP is getting hounded for being "too political"
I recall some republicans are going after them for "only inviting Democrats" to speak at their conventions, or a similar reason. I believe that they are attacking their tax free status.

The Sierra Club lost its tax deductions for members contributions when they ran full page ads opposing building dams in the Grand Canyon in the 1960s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. That is a "kiss of death" issue to any candidate that tries it.
You will get lots of "Yay, Let's do it!" responses here at DU, but as soon as a candidate tries it on the general public, he has commited political suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_invader Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. 100% correct political suicide.. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. The DU certainly does not represent the religious leanings of the US.
Whether that is good or bad is an opinion, but the fact remains, as you said, that the DU is not in sync with the nation on this one and this issue would reduce the Democrats' vote share dramatically if they touched it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PsychoDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
36. I'm all for it...
As long as the tax is used in social programs and not to further an agenda of hate and slaughter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
political_invader Donating Member (575 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
37. The Catholic Church in Boston
Scituate levies tax on disputed church

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/07/29/scituate_levies_tax_on_disputed_church/
''My feeling is if they decided they no longer want to use it as a church, I would consider it a taxable property," board chairman Fred Avila said yesterday.

This is a small step I hope to see more!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-16-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
40. Naw.
Won't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-17-05 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
42. Might violate the "Free Exercise" Clause
Several state Supreme Courts have said that various schemes (sales tax, real estate tax on parsonage, Church, etc.( violate the "free exercise" clause.

Probably can tax the "non-religious" activities -- Taxing religion would be a field day for the "First Amendment Lawyers" -- this is about the only time Sekulow and the ACLU work together (other then Oregon v. Smith when even Rex Lee and Alan Dershowitz were on the same side).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ron Mexico Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
43. Tax the shit out of them especially the ones who endorse candidates.
I'm sure there weren't too many of them in November :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Right on Ron!
Tax the shit out of them if they even consider anything political. That'll bankrupt a bunch of those trying to mix with politics. They're just supposed to be the opiate, and not set some sort of agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
44. Right on Modem!
And write on as well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DanCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
47. It's time to attack religion
Edited on Mon Sep-19-05 12:52 PM by DanCa
I dont mean physically, or violence, and I dont mean the good practicing christians on this page. What I mean is that we start playing offesnse with the rw trash sucking, bottom feeding, embryo loving, bomb dropping, treasure hording, trash gays and women, and do things that the liberal Jesus Christ was against pretend "christians".

It's time to cut out the middle man with the facists and start picketing the catholic bishop council and the southren baptist convention. Again I am talking about the policiy makers not the people in the pews.

I want my country and my god - the prince of peace back. I dont know what this sick thing that Dubya worships but it aint Jesus Christ. It's time to play offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Meatwad Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
48. Ramen to that!
Since religion wants to get itself involved in politics, then they should be taxed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
49. there was a ballot initiative here in Colorado a few years back
to do just that...

It was defeated overwhelmingly.

I think it's a good idea, myself - but I don't know how you're going to get the American people to go along...

There are really more urgent things to do... and too many people see this sort of thing as a left wing attack on religion. You end up alienating a lot more voters than you convert.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
50. HOW ABOUT STARTING WITH THE "THINK TANKS"???
Pardon my shouting, but I think that being able to write off a "donation" to the Heritage Foundation is about as obvious an abuse of the intent of the tax code as you can get...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
51. So will you tax all non-profits and remove the deductibility of
donations to them, or do you just have it in for religion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Good call.
Edited on Mon Sep-19-05 01:32 PM by Heaven and Earth
Most, if not all, churches would probably still qualify for the exact same exemption on grounds that they are charitable organizations.

"The exempt purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

Also, to those of you who want to chase religion out of politics, think about this: Part of religion is criticizing society. Check out the prophets in the Old Testament. If someone does that and says something you don't like, is it playing politics, or free speech/free exercise? Its really hard to draw the line, and its probably the reason why the IRS focuses those who make specific endorsements for and against candidates, rather than churches who speak on political issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Modem Butterfly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I addressed this in my original post
Allow them to take the standard business and charitable deductions, if they qualify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
More Than A Feeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. 501(c)3 status is not a "standard deduction"
Edited on Mon Sep-19-05 01:36 PM by Heaven and Earth
and as I note in my post above, most churches probably could qualify for it anyway on charitable grounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-19-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
55. It's long overdue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC