How? You have to allow them to deduct expenses just like I can or anyone can. The expenses of churches are huge. Not sure what is hard to understand, when I asked you several times where is this leftover money?
How? You have to allow them to deduct expenses just like I can or anyone can. The expenses of churches are huge. Not sure what is hard to understand, when I asked you several times where is this leftover money?
You mean to tell me that the likes of Scientology are spending all of their money on "churches", and that it's "stretched to its limits"?
It's not discrimination. If you do it with secular non-profits, what's the discrimination there?
You mean to tell me that the likes of Scientology are spending all of their money on "churches", and that it's "stretched to its limits"?
It's not discrimination. If you do it with secular non-profits, what's the discrimination there?
Well now you've switched from the Christian churches we were discussing, to Scientology, that's on the fringe.
Is that because you couldn't find an example of a church that doesn't give back?
Scientology had to fight for, and some say, even coerce the IRS into getting its non profit status. It already operates like a small business in that it has real estate holdings.
Many of their buildings are used for non religious purposes, so they are big taxpayers in some cities.
The problem is that even if Scientology was turned into a for profit, it could put its money into real estate, then deduct the depreciation.
And that as I said, is why turning religious institutions into for profits doesn't mean the government will get more money. They could get less. In some cases it's not worth the fight.
That's the thing you don't understand. The government can't discriminate and let one for/ profit take deductions, but not another. A for profit is a business and has the benefits of one.
Well now you've switched from the Christian churches we were discussing, to Scientology, that's on the fringe.
Nope, you assumed that we were only talking about Christian churches. That's why I only acknowledged what you wanted to hear. Scientology - I argue strongly - is a religious organisation which has taken advantage of its religious status.
You can't choose to ignore churches like that...
Is that because you couldn't find an example of a church that doesn't give back?
Scientology had to fight for, and some say, even coerce the IRS into getting its non profit status. It already operates like a small business in that it has real estate holdings.
Many of their buildings are used for non religious purposes, so they are big taxpayers in some cities.
The problem is that even if Scientology was turned into a for profit, it could put its money into real estate, then deduct the depreciation.
And that as I said, is why turning religious institutions into for profits doesn't mean the government will get more money. They could get less. In some cases it's not worth the fight.
That's the thing you don't understand. The government can't discriminate and let one for/ profit take deductions, but not another. A for profit is a business and has the benefits of one.
Last paragraph: you keep using this word 'discriminate'. It's a useless word here. It's not discrimination. There's nothing to prevent countries enacting laws that are specifically for non-profits... It's really strange how you can't acknowledge that.
Nope, you assumed that we were only talkabout Christian churches. That's why I only acknowledged what you wanted to hear. Scientology - I argue strongly - is a religious organisation which has taken advantage of its religious status.
You can't choose to ignore churches like that...
Last paragraph: you keep using this word 'discriminate'. It's a useless word here. It's not discrimination. There's nothing to prevent countries enacting laws that are specifically for non-profits... It's really strange how you can't acknowledge that.
It's not a Christian church so it doesn't have the mission of feeding the poor. The government can't force it to feed the poor (what we've been talking about) any more than it can force Camp Quest to give a third of its income to the poor.
Charity has different definitions, could be education or counseling. The government only has to be satisfied that it's meeting its mission.
Discrimination does of course have a meaning if you treat one group of people different than another. If Scientology were made a For profit tomorrow, it would have all the benefits of any other For profit. You can't discriminate.
How much of the Whitney Museum's 3.6 million tax exemption do you want to take back?
You mean to tell me that the likes of Scientology are spending all of their money on "churches", and that it's "stretched to its limits"?
It's not discrimination. If you do it with secular non-profits, what's the discrimination there?
Scientology, which has been mentioned once before, is a cult. Cult's are one of the manifestations that can lead from religious belief I'll grant you, but then nihilism is something that can lead from non belief and we all know how claims that atheists are nihilists goes down. probably better not to use extreme examples as working examples IMO.
A lot of church bashing, but ignoring the measly 4% of giving that businesses do. Or Eric Trump's foundation that spent over $800 million at family golf resorts:
Scientology, which has been mentioned once before, is a cult. Cult's are one of the manifestations that can lead from religious belief I'll grant you, but then nihilism is something that can lead from non belief and we all know how claims that atheists are nihilists goes down. probably better not to use extreme examples as working examples IMO.
It's all well and good passing Scientology as a "cult", but in all honesty, it really is every bit a religion as any other. I definitely wouldn't call it an "extreme" example...
A lot of church bashing, but ignoring the measly 4% of giving that businesses do. Or Eric Trump's foundation that spent over $800 million at family golf resorts:
Church bashing yes. Which is the interesting part of this whole discussion. What's the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. I'd say the atheists is someone who's worldview is based on empirical research, reason and logic. An anti-theist may claim the same but will happily drop those when and as it suits as long as they can make an attack against theism.
A lot of church bashing, but ignoring the measly 4% of giving that businesses do. Or Eric Trump's foundation that spent over $800 million at family golf resorts:
Scientology, which has been mentioned once before, is a cult. Cult's are one of the manifestations that can lead from religious belief I'll grant you, but then nihilism is something that can lead from non belief and we all know how claims that atheists are nihilists goes down. probably better not to use extreme examples as working examples IMO.
It really does operate like a business also, in that there's often fees to take part in one of their trainings or activities. It then appeals mostly to the wealthy and celebrities. Another reason I think it's wrong to charge fees to go to church.
It's all well and good passing Scientology as a "cult", but in all honesty, it really is every bit a religion as any other. I definitely wouldn't call it an "extreme" example...
Is it, or is it an easier target and can therefore, by extension be used to attack all religious practice.
And by extension I can use that to flag up extreme examples of atheist practice and make them equal to yours or anyone else's atheism.
Tax exemption is just one factor in the whole picture.
What the churches do is more like bartering. They don't pay the government cash, but they give back in goods and services.
No, really? Who'd a thunk it!
For the umpteenth time, some of them also amass and sit on vast wealth while they do their, much less than they could, giving back and leave God's people to suffer. As you don't appear to grasp the basic function of Churches, which is to serve God by serving the community, what is the point of trying to discuss anything in relation to that simple fact.
I mentioned businesses, Camp Quest and those that only account for a measly 4% of all giving. I haven't seen you bashing anything but churches.
I asked how much of the Whitney Museum's tax exemption do you want to take back?
And didn't get an answer.
And while you're at it, why should individuals be able to amass great wealth and not share more of it?
Why should atheist spokespersons sit on multimillions?
You actually have a real problem with comprehension, don't you? Either that, or you really are so blindly defensive of religion (to the point where it's scary, and I dread people like you being in politics because it lacks any sensibility).
If the Whitney Museum, or a church, or any other religious organisation is sitting on huge investments and taking in substantial financial gains that aren't being spent on the genuine remit of that non-profit (e.g. art), then those gains should be taxed. The state receives a small percentage of that surplus.
And yes, I miss think people who amass great wealth should - at the very least - pay a little more tax than the rest of us, and failing that should at least have a moral obligation.
As for "Atheist spokespeople sitting on millions" - well again, it's hardly as if the religious can claim any superior morality on that line...
I give it another a page before I have to repeat it again. Try reading posts word for word.
You actually have a real problem with comprehension, don't you? Either that, or you really are so blindly defensive of religion (to the point where it's scary, and I dread people like you being in politics because it lacks any sensibility).
If the Whitney Museum, or a church, or any other religious organisation is sitting on huge investments and taking in substantial financial gains that aren't being spent on the genuine remit of that non-profit (e.g. art), then those gains should be taxed. The state receives a small percentage of that surplus.
And yes, I miss think people who amass great wealth should - at the very least - pay a little more tax than the rest of us, and failing that should at least have a moral obligation.
As for "Atheist spokespeople sitting on millions" - well again, it's hardly as if the religious can claim any superior morality on that line...
I give it another a page before I have to repeat it again. Try reading posts word for word.
I didn't ask you that though, so nice dodge. I read the above already.
I asked you how much of the Whitney Museum tax exemption do you want to take back?
I keep asking you for the names of those institutions that are sitting on wealth and where it would be better for the government to seize that. And what would the government do with the money then.
Once again you make vague statements about IF....but there's no specifics. And I'm skeptical of your claim, without details.
Both fz and I pointed out the substantial expenses of non profits.
You did answer about the wealthy and I agree Dawkins shouldn't sit on his.
Your position is very aggressive toward the churches or at least they're the only ones you bring up.
I asked you how much of the Whitney Museum tax exemption do you want to take back?
I keep asking you for the names of those institutions that are sitting on wealth and where it would be better for the government to seize that. And what would the government do with the money then.
Once again you make vague statements about if....but there's no specifics. And I'm skeptical of your claim, without details.
Both fz and I pointed out the substantial expenses of non profits.
You did answer about the wealthy and I agree Dawkins shouldn't sit on his.
Why would I want to take tax exemptions from there? It's not dodging, bolly, you're just asking stupid questions.
It's not "seizing wealth" either. I'm not sure if this is just that stereotypical American paranoia towards anything to do with taxes and wealth that's making you think that. It's tax. It's necessary to pay, and a great number of people think churches (and non-profits) should do their share IF THEY ARE ABLE.
And YET AGAIN - it's hard to determine because CHURCHES ARE NOT FORTHCOMING WITH THEIR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS/INVESTMENTS/GAINS, ARE THEY, BOLLY?
"Dodge". No, bolly. It's just trying to figure out what you're getting at, because half the time you're plucking ideas out of nowhere and then complaining about 'church-bashing'.
This continues to go around and around with you, it's becoming very tedious.
Lots of businesses do charity work. There's many that donate a huge percentage of their profits to such things.
Here you're defending businesses over churches. They still give a measly 4% of the total philanthropy budget. And they benefit a lot from their charity in terms of advertising, invites to society charity galas and such.
Here you're defending businesses over churches. They still give a measly 4% of the total philanthropy budget. And they benefit a lot from their charity in terms of advertising, invites to society charity galas and such.
You see this is exactly what I'm talking about - you read what you want and make incorrect insinuations.
"Defending businesses OVER churches". Well no. I'm saying there ARE plenty of businesses who do. Doesn't mean all businesses do, or that businesses as a whole are doing enough - but hey, they DO pay taxes. Some businesses pay taxes AND do charity work.
And you don't think churches benefit from their 'charity'? Come on, bol. Don't be so naïve. There's a reason why many churches go out with a box full of bibles and leaflets when they go doing "charity".
Why would I want to take tax exemptions from there? It's not dodging, bolly, you're just asking stupid questions.
It's not "seizing wealth" either. I'm not sure if this is just that stereotypical American paranoia towards anything to do with taxes and wealth that's making you think that. It's tax. It's necessary to pay, and a great number of people think churches (and non-profits) should do their share IF THEY ARE ABLE.
And YET AGAIN - it's hard to determine because CHURCHES ARE NOT FORTHCOMING WITH THEIR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS/INVESTMENTS/GAINS, ARE THEY, BOLLY?
"Dodge". No, bolly. It's just trying to figure out what you're getting at, because half the time you're plucking ideas out of nowhere and then complaining about 'church-bashing'.
This continues to go around and around with you, it's becoming very tedious.
That's because it is church bashing. You just defended businesses, above, that give much less than churches. Why?
The churches are audited so they are forthcoming. They just don't have to disclose donors, and I know wealth people who prefer to donate anonymously. But they are still audited.
Further, we know from studies (as well as observation) that churches are doing what they say they are doing. I know from observation that many are, whereas I can see that businesses, are not.
So unless it's more than some atheist's suspicion or a rumor that all these churches are sitting on wealth that they don't use for their substantial expenses and charity work, then I consider it a non issue.
You want us to hire thousands of new IRS staff to look into churches when we have no reason to think they're hiding anything.
The money that businesses give in taxes isn't necessarily used on the poor. And we can see it's not, why church volunteers pick up the burden.
You see this is exactly what I'm talking about - you read what you want and make incorrect insinuations.
"Defending businesses OVER churches". Well no. I'm saying there ARE plenty of businesses who do. Doesn't mean all businesses do, or that businesses as a whole are doing enough - but hey, they DO pay taxes. Some businesses pay taxes AND do charity work.
And you don't think churches benefit from their 'charity'? Come on, bol. Don't be so naïve. There's a reason why many churches go out with a box full of bibles and leaflets when they go doing "charity".
They don't benefit in the way that businesses do, no. Most churches don't have high society galas. I don't know what idea you have of churches. Maybe think they are all in Beverly Hills?
You're going to compare a box of Bibles to millions in advertising...
Once again, businesses pay taxes AFTER they deduct a multitude of expenses, just like churches would be allowed to do if we made them For Profits.
I know you keep denying that or thinking that there could be some law that allows some For Profits to deduct expenses, and others cannot. That would be an instant lawsuit, and for good reason.
Can't actually believe you're defending corporate giants over churches.
Church bashing yes. Which is the interesting part of this whole discussion. What's the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. I'd say the atheists is someone who's worldview is based on empirical research, reason and logic. An anti-theist may claim the same but will happily drop those when and as it suits as long as they can make an attack against theism.
Yes, I haven't seen any businesses bashed. They can hide their assets, have a gazillion tax breaks, compared to churches.
No, really? Who'd a thunk it!
For the umpteenth time, some of them also amass and sit on vast wealth while they do their, much less than they could, giving back and leave God's people to suffer. As you don't appear to grasp the basic function of Churches, which is to serve God by serving the community, what is the point of trying to discuss anything in relation to that simple fact.
If you think that, then show the churches that are sitting on great wealth, and don't give back as much as they would if they paid taxes, then show it.
Churches do serve the community, in education, NA and AA groups, food banks, clothes, health fairs, after school activities, all gratis. Not sure why you think I don't grasp that and can even demonstrate it.
Comments
How? Discrimination against what exactly?
How? You have to allow them to deduct expenses just like I can or anyone can. The expenses of churches are huge. Not sure what is hard to understand, when I asked you several times where is this leftover money?
You mean to tell me that the likes of Scientology are spending all of their money on "churches", and that it's "stretched to its limits"?
It's not discrimination. If you do it with secular non-profits, what's the discrimination there?
Well now you've switched from the Christian churches we were discussing, to Scientology, that's on the fringe.
Is that because you couldn't find an example of a church that doesn't give back?
Scientology had to fight for, and some say, even coerce the IRS into getting its non profit status. It already operates like a small business in that it has real estate holdings.
Many of their buildings are used for non religious purposes, so they are big taxpayers in some cities.
The problem is that even if Scientology was turned into a for profit, it could put its money into real estate, then deduct the depreciation.
And that as I said, is why turning religious institutions into for profits doesn't mean the government will get more money. They could get less. In some cases it's not worth the fight.
That's the thing you don't understand. The government can't discriminate and let one for/ profit take deductions, but not another. A for profit is a business and has the benefits of one.
Nope, you assumed that we were only talking about Christian churches. That's why I only acknowledged what you wanted to hear. Scientology - I argue strongly - is a religious organisation which has taken advantage of its religious status.
You can't choose to ignore churches like that...
Last paragraph: you keep using this word 'discriminate'. It's a useless word here. It's not discrimination. There's nothing to prevent countries enacting laws that are specifically for non-profits... It's really strange how you can't acknowledge that.
It's not a Christian church so it doesn't have the mission of feeding the poor. The government can't force it to feed the poor (what we've been talking about) any more than it can force Camp Quest to give a third of its income to the poor.
Charity has different definitions, could be education or counseling. The government only has to be satisfied that it's meeting its mission.
Discrimination does of course have a meaning if you treat one group of people different than another. If Scientology were made a For profit tomorrow, it would have all the benefits of any other For profit. You can't discriminate.
How much of the Whitney Museum's 3.6 million tax exemption do you want to take back?
Scientology, which has been mentioned once before, is a cult. Cult's are one of the manifestations that can lead from religious belief I'll grant you, but then nihilism is something that can lead from non belief and we all know how claims that atheists are nihilists goes down. probably better not to use extreme examples as working examples IMO.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/30/eric-trump-charity-spent-880k-at-family-owned-golf-resorts.html
It's all well and good passing Scientology as a "cult", but in all honesty, it really is every bit a religion as any other. I definitely wouldn't call it an "extreme" example...
Church bashing yes. Which is the interesting part of this whole discussion. What's the difference between an atheist and an anti-theist. I'd say the atheists is someone who's worldview is based on empirical research, reason and logic. An anti-theist may claim the same but will happily drop those when and as it suits as long as they can make an attack against theism.
Trump? Right.
In order to look good, you need to compare churches to Trump?
And here we go again with the arbitrary claims of "church bashing". Yawn!
It really does operate like a business also, in that there's often fees to take part in one of their trainings or activities. It then appeals mostly to the wealthy and celebrities. Another reason I think it's wrong to charge fees to go to church.
Is it, or is it an easier target and can therefore, by extension be used to attack all religious practice.
And by extension I can use that to flag up extreme examples of atheist practice and make them equal to yours or anyone else's atheism.
I mentioned businesses, Camp Quest and those that only account for a measly 4% of all giving. I haven't seen you bashing anything but churches.
I asked how much of the Whitney Museum's tax exemption do you want to take back?
And didn't get an answer.
And while you're at it, why should individuals be able to amass great wealth and not share more of it?
Why should atheist spokespersons sit on multimillions?
No, really? Who'd a thunk it!
For the umpteenth time, some of them also amass and sit on vast wealth while they do their, much less than they could, giving back and leave God's people to suffer. As you don't appear to grasp the basic function of Churches, which is to serve God by serving the community, what is the point of trying to discuss anything in relation to that simple fact.
You actually have a real problem with comprehension, don't you? Either that, or you really are so blindly defensive of religion (to the point where it's scary, and I dread people like you being in politics because it lacks any sensibility).
If the Whitney Museum, or a church, or any other religious organisation is sitting on huge investments and taking in substantial financial gains that aren't being spent on the genuine remit of that non-profit (e.g. art), then those gains should be taxed. The state receives a small percentage of that surplus.
And yes, I miss think people who amass great wealth should - at the very least - pay a little more tax than the rest of us, and failing that should at least have a moral obligation.
As for "Atheist spokespeople sitting on millions" - well again, it's hardly as if the religious can claim any superior morality on that line...
I give it another a page before I have to repeat it again. Try reading posts word for word.
Yes, and by the same token I can mention atheist cults and those who get obscenely wealthy running them:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/
I can't say that he does any more good than Scientology for society.
I can't see where Camp Quest is more than a cult or that it has any benefit to society that a privately run camp does.
But there's always an exception for them.
I didn't ask you that though, so nice dodge. I read the above already.
I asked you how much of the Whitney Museum tax exemption do you want to take back?
I keep asking you for the names of those institutions that are sitting on wealth and where it would be better for the government to seize that. And what would the government do with the money then.
Once again you make vague statements about IF....but there's no specifics. And I'm skeptical of your claim, without details.
Both fz and I pointed out the substantial expenses of non profits.
You did answer about the wealthy and I agree Dawkins shouldn't sit on his.
Your position is very aggressive toward the churches or at least they're the only ones you bring up.
Why would I want to take tax exemptions from there? It's not dodging, bolly, you're just asking stupid questions.
It's not "seizing wealth" either. I'm not sure if this is just that stereotypical American paranoia towards anything to do with taxes and wealth that's making you think that. It's tax. It's necessary to pay, and a great number of people think churches (and non-profits) should do their share IF THEY ARE ABLE.
And YET AGAIN - it's hard to determine because CHURCHES ARE NOT FORTHCOMING WITH THEIR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS/INVESTMENTS/GAINS, ARE THEY, BOLLY?
"Dodge". No, bolly. It's just trying to figure out what you're getting at, because half the time you're plucking ideas out of nowhere and then complaining about 'church-bashing'.
This continues to go around and around with you, it's becoming very tedious.
Here you're defending businesses over churches. They still give a measly 4% of the total philanthropy budget. And they benefit a lot from their charity in terms of advertising, invites to society charity galas and such.
You see this is exactly what I'm talking about - you read what you want and make incorrect insinuations.
"Defending businesses OVER churches". Well no. I'm saying there ARE plenty of businesses who do. Doesn't mean all businesses do, or that businesses as a whole are doing enough - but hey, they DO pay taxes. Some businesses pay taxes AND do charity work.
And you don't think churches benefit from their 'charity'? Come on, bol. Don't be so naïve. There's a reason why many churches go out with a box full of bibles and leaflets when they go doing "charity".
That's because it is church bashing. You just defended businesses, above, that give much less than churches. Why?
The churches are audited so they are forthcoming. They just don't have to disclose donors, and I know wealth people who prefer to donate anonymously. But they are still audited.
Further, we know from studies (as well as observation) that churches are doing what they say they are doing. I know from observation that many are, whereas I can see that businesses, are not.
So unless it's more than some atheist's suspicion or a rumor that all these churches are sitting on wealth that they don't use for their substantial expenses and charity work, then I consider it a non issue.
You want us to hire thousands of new IRS staff to look into churches when we have no reason to think they're hiding anything.
The money that businesses give in taxes isn't necessarily used on the poor. And we can see it's not, why church volunteers pick up the burden.
They don't benefit in the way that businesses do, no. Most churches don't have high society galas. I don't know what idea you have of churches. Maybe think they are all in Beverly Hills?
You're going to compare a box of Bibles to millions in advertising...
Once again, businesses pay taxes AFTER they deduct a multitude of expenses, just like churches would be allowed to do if we made them For Profits.
I know you keep denying that or thinking that there could be some law that allows some For Profits to deduct expenses, and others cannot. That would be an instant lawsuit, and for good reason.
Can't actually believe you're defending corporate giants over churches.
Yes, I haven't seen any businesses bashed. They can hide their assets, have a gazillion tax breaks, compared to churches.
If you think that, then show the churches that are sitting on great wealth, and don't give back as much as they would if they paid taxes, then show it.
Churches do serve the community, in education, NA and AA groups, food banks, clothes, health fairs, after school activities, all gratis. Not sure why you think I don't grasp that and can even demonstrate it.