Should churches pay taxes?

Page 5 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Peejay
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: UK

06 Sep 2015, 1:35 pm

glebel wrote:

luan78zao wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

The Vatican ain't no shack, and when the Pope flies to Philadelphia I bet he won't ride in coach with the proles. So you'd tax the Roman Catholic Church?

How many major religions, sects, or denominations are there, whose top leaders live in modest apartments and get around by Greyhound bus? Not many, I'll bet.

Actually, I think you would find that many live modest lives. A lot of the people that have advocated taxing religious institutions are judging all religions by looking at a selected minority. The particular Lutheran synod (AALC) that I belong to has no rigid hierarchy. Our Presiding Pastor leads a congregation, and also administers the synod. The pastor in my local church is a seminarian and does pastoral support, so he flies around the country a lot, and I know we don't pay him much money. I know of one pastor in Colorado who shepherds a congregation for free. Most are not like these televangelists.

This is a fair point and can sometimes be true for sincere individuals;
however that appearance is also the big con and is a fantastic front and a distraction to the main event which is power building by the organisation itself... which is usually by increasing converts (and thereby acquiring their wealth..... that is why Catholics banned contraception to increase numbers to fight in the war against the `ungodly` other religions.

These well doing people provide the veneer of respectability to a power massive grabbing scheme......It is a superb advertising campaign.

Individuals may wear the robes of poverty (and actually may be sincere) whilst the `machine` ie. the organisation itself accrues vast wealth and influence.
That is why I respect peoples right to believe in what ever but I am very critical of organised religion.
(check out the current parallel thread on how Abrahamic (all organised religions in my opinion) religions treat women)

The money religions crave is only so they have a conduit to power and influence.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,127
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2015, 3:30 pm

glebel wrote:

luan78zao wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

I'm a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod guy, and I can attest that Lutheran ministers are hardly rolling in the dough. I personally know one Missouri Synod pastor who fills in as a substitute Pastor, and who had formerly been with Lutheran Social Services, who currently works in an injection mold shop.
I suppose that's why I become so incensed when I see clergy getting rich instead of living a humble Christian life.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

diminished57
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 28 Feb 2015
Posts: 45
Location: PA

07 Sep 2015, 12:43 am

I simple tax is the least religion owes humanity.

glebel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 63
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

07 Sep 2015, 10:00 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

glebel wrote:

luan78zao wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

I often wonder if these televangelists really can be considered clergy. The nonsense that they claim to derive from the Bible isn't scriptural at all. They seem to be more adept at separating people from their money then they are at proclaiming the Gospel. I would be willing to bet that few of them have legitimate (non-diploma mill) credentials.

_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,127
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Sep 2015, 11:31 am

glebel wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

glebel wrote:

luan78zao wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

When you get down to the reality of the situation, that's probably true. In particular is the nonsense of the "prosperity gospel," with which they bilk literally millions out of followers, using the promise that God favors the faithful with personal wealth - which invariably means sending money to whichever huckster, then reaping the rewards.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Peejay
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: UK

07 Sep 2015, 3:29 pm

I personally would be happy to pay more in tax

to get,,,, for example a better health service, better pension provision better mental health support, better schools, better Public transport system etc....
In our country I don`t think we pay enough in tax..... is this weird to want everyone to be better off?

Charitable status is akin to off shore banking for churches.

Grebels
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2012
Age: 85
Gender: Male
Posts: 545

07 Sep 2015, 3:39 pm

I seem to recall a tabel of money charities actually gave to the claimed cause. I percent was pretty well usual. Would you buy shares in a company like that. How can they be that ineffcient? By what means is that is that 1 percent arrived at? They are big business. And I think Kenneth Copeland is big business.

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

07 Sep 2015, 3:51 pm

Peejay wrote:

I don't have the stats immediately available, but I've read and heard from trusted people that we currently are at historically low levels of taxation. We certainly don't pay as much as most industrial countries...

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Sep 2015, 4:11 pm

pcuser wrote:

Peejay wrote:

Part of that is because they have a VAT. If you want to pay more in taxes, just introduce a VAT and in a few years you'll be paying as much as the rest of the world.

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

07 Sep 2015, 5:20 pm

eric76 wrote:

pcuser wrote:

Peejay wrote:

Part of that is because they have a VAT. If you want to pay more in taxes, just introduce a VAT and in a few years you'll be paying as much as the rest of the world.

You're right about the VAT. However, I wasn't suggesting that we should necessarily pay more tax. However, we have severe problems with our infrastructure with no way to pay for it. We need to do something other than 'cut taxes' to solve these problems. And, fixing the infrastructure is a capital investment that would benefit all of us. It would benefit businesses even more...

SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

07 Sep 2015, 10:07 pm

Peejay wrote:

We pay enough in taxes. The problem, is that the money we send in, goes to the wrong places.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Sep 2015, 11:00 pm

pcuser wrote:

eric76 wrote:

pcuser wrote:

Peejay wrote:

Part of that is because they have a VAT. If you want to pay more in taxes, just introduce a VAT and in a few years you'll be paying as much as the rest of the world.

Fixing the infrastructure may be helpful, but it is hardly a capital investment.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,127
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

07 Sep 2015, 11:03 pm

SilverStar wrote:

Peejay wrote:

We pay enough in taxes. The problem, is that the money we send in, goes to the wrong places.

What are wrong places? I see money going to people in desperate poverty, or with disabilities, or are retired, or to pregnant mothers/ and their children after birth. Not to mention, tax money goes to the infrastructure, and scientific/medical research. Sounds like good causes to me.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Peejay
Deinonychus

Joined: 23 Oct 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: UK

08 Sep 2015, 3:36 pm

SilverStar wrote:

Peejay wrote:

We pay enough in taxes. The problem, is that the money we send in, goes to the wrong places.

Yes, this is a fair point.
I would still pay an extra penny in every pound (UK) to ensure our national health system survives and is fit for purpose.

perhaps by taking charitable staus off the Church their taxes would pay for this!

pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

08 Sep 2015, 4:26 pm

Peejay wrote:

SilverStar wrote:

Peejay wrote:

We pay enough in taxes. The problem, is that the money we send in, goes to the wrong places.

That's a good idea. It should be called their charitable contribution to the people of the country...

wowiexist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 659
Location: Dallas, TX

08 Sep 2015, 8:19 pm

If you say a church should not have tax exempt status, then what is the criteria that a non-profit must have to receive tax-exempt status? There are atheist organizations that have tax-exempt status that don't do any more charitable work than an average church. Should they lose their tax exempt status? These organizations are tax-exempt not necessarily because the government is trying to subsidize what they do, but because they operate as a non-profit. They rely on donations instead of selling a product or service.

Page 5 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Should churches pay taxes? Post Reply New Topic

Should churches pay taxes?