Are churches looking for a showdown with the IRS?

[Sheik Yerbouti]

By all means post up the threads you think are dumber because I don't remember anything this stupid.

Submitted for your (dis)approval
Some top hits for 2014

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2402866
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2385915
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2406034
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2402028
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2399907
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2382070

And that's just back to May

 

[artvscommerce]

I vote this thread as the dumbest thread for 2014! All those in favor say, "yea".

yuuuuup.

On one hand, i wish people would not post in threads like this because it takes away from the other less dumb threads, but I always find it entertaining to see some of the intelligent individuals around here identify the never ending stream of logical fallacies.

You could use a collection of TH threads as a substitute for a textbook if you were teaching a college course in Logic or critical thinking. I think you would find brilliant and clever examples of every known logical fallacy being committed.

 

[Texashiker]

Wait...

You don't get taxed if you're gay?

:hmm:

Gays pay taxes, but at the same rate as everyone else.

We need to tax gays at a higher rate.

You could use a collection of TH threads as a substitute for a textbook if you were teaching a college course in Logic or critical thinking. I think you would find brilliant and clever examples of every known logical fallacy being committed.

I would like to know your opinion on issues such as natural rights, common law rights and rights that the government takes from us.

We have certain natural rights that we inherited from our ancestors, such as hunting, farming, fishing. The existence of those activities predate any known government. What should we do when the government criminalizes certain activity that our ancestors enjoyed? Our ancestors fished and hunting 50k years ago. But yet that same activity today is illegal without a license.

Common law rights, such as the right to no taxation without representation granted to us by the magna carta.

Churchs have always enjoyed a tax exempt status. The major religions predate the united states by a least a 1,000 years.

What right does the government have to tax and regulate something that existed before the government?

 

[Uppsala9496]

Read up on the social contract. I listed 3 good authors earlier.
Once you comprehend those works, then you will have your own answer regarding why you need a license to hunt, why taxes are paid, etc.

 

[Texashiker]

Read up on the social contract. I listed 3 good authors earlier.
Once you comprehend those works, then you will have your own answer regarding why you need a license to hunt, why taxes are paid, etc.

I read the wikipedia page, may read further.

The wiki page referenced common law, which is like common knowledge.

It is common knowledge and common law that churches are tax exempt. This has been the rule of thumb for 1,000+ years.


EDIT

As for your social contract, sounds like a way to justify enslavement. Men are born free, enslaved by the government, and no way to win our freedom again.

We have no choice but to live by the governments rules. So therefor we shall never be free.

 

[brycejones]

I read the wikipedia page, may read further.

The wiki page referenced common law, which is like common knowledge.

It is common knowledge and common law that churches are tax exempt. This has been the rule of thumb for 1,000+ years.

Did your mother drink like a fish while she was pregnant with you or just drop you on your head repeatedly?

 

[sandorski]

Did you mother drink like a fish while she was pregnant with you or just drop you on your head repeatedly?

He must be right. The word "common" is in both!

 

[Texashiker]

Did you mother drink like a fish while she was pregnant with you or just drop you on your head repeatedly?

I think it was the lead toys from the 1970s.

 

[brycejones]

I think it was the lead toys from the 1970s.

And you liked the taste of paint chips right?

This may be the first logical thing you've said in this thread.

 

[alzan]

ahhh poor, poor deluded, dehydrated (get that tugging job), deliberately dense toothless hiker.

Throwing strawman after strawman at the logical, and legal reasoning why a religious entity needs to refrain from entering into the political foray, yet, confoundingly, and willfully ignorant in understanding why it is.

Again, it needs to be said, it is a crime against humanity that you have procreated and spread your 'intellect' onto your offspring. Hopefully they are smarter than a box of crackers and realize how fucking stupid and innane your 'logic and reasoning' is.

Go play in traffic toothless, go taunt a den of rattlesnakes, test your balance skills on the south rim of the Grand Canyon, do anything but post here.

I'm not holding out a lot of hope on that prospect.

 

[kotss]

Licenses and alcohol are a privilege.

You have hit the nail upon the head when you stated Licenses and alcohol are a privilege.
The same goes for tax exempt status it is a privilege and not a right.
The government will not take away a church's right to enter into political speech it should just remove it's privilege of tax exemption if the church decides to enter into political speech. Does that make it more clear.

 

[WelshBloke]

Gays pay taxes, but at the same rate as everyone else.

We need to tax gays at a higher rate.

So exactly like churchs, but totally different?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You have hit the nail upon the head when you stated Licenses and alcohol are a privilege.
The same goes for tax exempt status it is a privilege and not a right.
The government will not take away a church's right to enter into political speech it should just remove it's privilege of tax exemption if the church decides to enter into political speech. Does that make it more clear.

Yea but what about Amenhotep and Quetzalcóatl? They both had things to say about religion and free speech!

(Amenhotep I not III; III was a free thinking radical progressive, not a "Bull who conquers lands")

 

[Texashiker]

So exactly like churchs, but totally different?

Yep.

Even though you have rights, you will be punished for exercising said rights.

Preachers speak out on political opinions, the church loses tax exemption.

Woman has abortion, her income tax goes up 1,000%.

Gays be gay (women excluded), their income tax goes up 10,000%.

Sounds like a plan to me.

 

[OutHouse]

Yep.

Even though you have rights, you will be punished for exercising said rights.

Preachers speak out on political opinions, the church loses tax exemption.

Woman has abortion, her income tax goes up 1,000%.

Gays be gay (women excluded), their income tax goes up 10,000%.

Sounds like a plan to me.

fuck off.

 

[fskimospy]

Seriously, can we just ban this idiot?

 

[soulcougher73]

Gays pay taxes, but at the same rate as everyone else.

We need to tax gays at a higher rate.





I would like to know your opinion on issues such as natural rights, common law rights and rights that the government takes from us.

We have certain natural rights that we inherited from our ancestors, such as hunting, farming, fishing. The existence of those activities predate any known government. What should we do when the government criminalizes certain activity that our ancestors enjoyed? Our ancestors fished and hunting 50k years ago. But yet that same activity today is illegal without a license.

Common law rights, such as the right to no taxation without representation granted to us by the magna carta.

Churchs have always enjoyed a tax exempt status. The major religions predate the united states by a least a 1,000 years.

What right does the government have to tax and regulate something that existed before the government?

You mean like your ancestors who owned and lynched slaves? Youre on to something. We should bring back things people have enjoyed at one time or another throughout human history. Im sure we can come up with other good ones that were at one time a "right".

 

[Texashiker]

Seriously, can we just ban this idiot?

Please explain why you are all for protecting vial acts, but when it comes to conservatives you change your tone.

Any other time you would have been all for protecting freedom of speech.

No voter id, no problem.

Preacher talking about politics, oh noooz.

 

[fskimospy]

Please explain why you are all for protecting vial acts, but when it comes to conservatives you change your tone.

Any other time you would have been all for protecting freedom of speech.

No voter id, no problem.

Preacher talking about politics, oh noooz.

I can see three possibilities:

1. You are really, really stupid and so you can't comprehend what others are telling you.
2. You are suffering from some sort of mental illness so you enjoy the negative attention.
3. You're trolling.

If it's #1 or #2 it's wrong of us to keep picking on you because you can't help it. If it's #3 you're an asshole. So either we should ban you for your own good or we should ban you for ours.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Please explain why you are all for protecting vial acts, but when it comes to conservatives you change your tone.

Any other time you would have been all for protecting freedom of speech.

No voter id, no problem.

Preacher talking about politics, oh noooz.

It's VILE, not vial, you fucking idiot. And secondly, do an hours worth of research and you will find out exactly why a preacher cannot politic from the pulpit. Sorry if it doesn't fit into your 'xtian only nation' dynamic, for that type of mentality, feel free to try Iran or any other theocratic society.

You are truly a moron of epic proportions.

 

[thraashman]

I want to make sure I got this right.

Tax exemption is NOT A RIGHT

Well, you're not whom I was trying to reach. But, yes you have the idea down solidly.

Wait...

You don't get taxed if you're gay?

:hmm:

Dude, I might be willing to suck a dick to avoid paying taxes.

Please explain why you are all for protecting vial acts, but when it comes to conservatives you change your tone.

Any other time you would have been all for protecting freedom of speech.

No voter id, no problem.

Preacher talking about politics, oh noooz.

What acts are you doing with small, glass containers?









Why do we choose to torture ourselves replying to this nitwit anyway? He's proven himself beyond help so many times. I need to turn that block of him back on.

 

[brycejones]

Reading TH's posts is like listening to Joe Buck.

 

[Texashiker]

It's VILE, not vial, you fucking idiot. And secondly, do an hours worth of research and you will find out exactly why a preacher cannot politic from the pulpit. Sorry if it doesn't fit into your 'xtian only nation' dynamic, for that type of mentality, feel free to try Iran or any other theocratic society.

You are truly a moron of epic proportions.

I know full well that congress passed a law saying preachers are not supposed to get involved in politics.

That is why I suspect churches and the irs are headed for a showdown at the supreme court.

Some church is going to challenge that law, and the supreme court is going to strike down the law as being unconstitutional. The government can not infringe on political speech.

I can see three possibilities:

In other words, you are not really interested in equal rights.

You have a double standard. As long as you are not a conservative you deserve equal rights. When it comes to conservatives and religion, they need to keep their mouth shut?

Am I right?

 

[Fern]

Lots of misunderstanding and confusion in this thread. Not to pick on anybody, but the below post is an example.

No tax exempt organization is allowed to interfere with politics, its not just churches.

Please be aware that political activity is TAX EXEMPT.

When a candidate's campaign receives a contribution, it is NON TAXABLE.

Political PACs, Super PACs and the like are TAX EXEMPT (under section 527).

The below post gives a hint as to the correct answer:

Congress passed the laws over 50 years ago. 10 second Google search:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Charities,-Churches-and-Politics


From the link, prime example:

A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti. In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church's allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.
The court wrote: "The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose."

The poster even bolded the most relevant part.

What would happen to churches that campaign for a specific candidate is that donations to them would not be deductible by the donor. The church, like any PAC or campaign, would still be tax exempt.

The point here is to NOT allow churches to become a PAC or campaign where the donor gets a deduction for his/her contribution. If we allowed that we'd have to allow contributions to PACs and campaigns. And so far Congress has decided that such political contributions shall not be deductible.

(There is nothing in the Constitution, or common sense, that says non-business expenditures, such as political contributions, must be allowed as a deduction for computing income tax. For whatever public policy, or other reasons, Congress has decided that some non-business expenditures may be deducted for income tax. E.g., real estate taxes, mortgage interest and medical expenses.)

Fern

 

[TheSiege]

Gays are taxed, so are straight people and every other person who votes