Are churches looking for a showdown with the IRS?

[Jhhnn]

How about beer and cheese?




Any law that restricts political speech is wrong.

Explain to me why you support abortion rights, but approve of political speech being restricted?

It's not restricted. Tax paying organizations can politick all they want. Tax exempt status is conditional on not doing that.

Can't have it both ways, rightfully so.

 

[HTFOff]

I stand for TH.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3dbd2YyeN0

 

[Ryland]

During Katrina, it was Churches that delivered aid the fastest and with the least economical waste. Churches don't care about political affiliation.

What rock did you come out from under? They want the candidate who follows their letter of the law, as the church sees it, to be elected.

 

[Texashiker]

It's not restricted. Tax paying organizations can politick all they want. Tax exempt status is conditional on not doing that.

Can't have it both ways, rightfully so.

So if I give up my right to vote I do not have to pay taxes?

 

[lopri]

The Catholic church doesn't have a political agenda and they aren't trying to make any profit, so why should they be taxed?

The argument was raised whether churches can have it both ways.

During Katrina, it was Churches that delivered aid the fastest and with the least economical waste. Churches don't care about political affiliation.

I do not think anyone raised objections to what you describe here.

 

[xBiffx]

What about unions? They are 501c(5) organizations, not 501c(3) so the non-political rules dont apply to them.

So? Your original response was:

The federal government decided that ANYBODY who claims tax free status cannot talk about politics. This is NOT an anti-religion conspiracy.

They are still claiming tax exempt status, are they not?

 

[Ryland]

So? Your original response was:



They are still claiming tax exempt status, are they not?

And the whole discussion was around churches which are 501c(3) organizations thus the conversation wasnt talking about 501c(5) organization (or 1, 2, 4, etc). Try to stay on topic.

 

[BoomerD]

Would you support prohibiting people on welfare from voting?

Just the opposite, I would REQUIRE anyone receiving public subsidies to vote. It's their duty as American citizens to do so.

Churches on the other hand suck money from the US economy.

 

[PokerGuy]

Churches on the other hand suck money from the US economy.

That's simply not true. Churches get money from donations. People give money to the churches, they turn around and spend that money to buy goods and services for themselves and people in the community. That money is not by any means "sucked from the economy", it helps drive it forward.

 

[BoomerD]

That's simply not true. Churches get money from donations. People give money to the churches, they turn around and spend that money to buy goods and services for themselves and people in the community. That money is not by any means "sucked from the economy", it helps drive it forward.

And accumulate large sums of cash in the bank. (once again, NOT ALL churches are rich...but the ones that are...are mega-wealthy)

 

[PokerGuy]

And accumulate large sums of cash in the bank. (once again, NOT ALL churches are rich...but the ones that are...are mega-wealthy)

Even the ones that are mega-wealthy (and those are very few, far fewer than mega-wealthy businesses or individuals) are more likely to use that money and spend it in the economy than to just let it sit there forever. The point is that viewing churches as a drain on the economy makes no sense, even less than viewing any people or businesses are drains to the economy just because they have wealth. Also, churches get money from voluntary donations, they aren't a mandatory drain like taxes.

 

[Texashiker]

Churches on the other hand suck money from the US economy.

You have no idea how wrong you are.

The christus health network provides charity hospitals to rural areas where the typical for-profit hospital model can not function. There are not enough ensured people in rural areas to keep for-profit hospitals open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHRISTUS_Health

CHRISTUS Health is listed among the top ten Catholic health systems in the U.S., and provided more than $313.5 million in total community benefit in Fiscal Year 2011, which equates to more than $858,900 a day in community benefits.

Christus health gives out $858,900 a day in community benefits, but you think churches suck money from the economy?

If churches are taxed, where is replacement money going to come from? Is an atheist group going to step up and help rural and underserved areas?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You have no idea how wrong you are.

The christus health network provides charity hospitals to rural areas where the typical for-profit hospital model can not function. There are not enough ensured people in rural areas to keep for-profit hospitals open.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHRISTUS_Health



Christus health gives out $858,900 a day in community benefits, but you think churches suck money from the economy?

If churches are taxed, where is replacement money going to come from? Is an atheist group going to step up and help rural and underserved areas?

well if they're undeserved and ensured, what the fuck is the problem... Are you huffing paint again?

 

[Texashiker]

well if they're undeserved and ensured, what the fuck is the problem... Are you huffing paint again?

You do not what underserved means? Or maybe under-served, or under served?

Either way, come out to rural America where low income people need charity hospitals.

Liberals whine and complain about how there is not enough help for the poor, but then on the next breath talk about taxing churches? Sure thing, tax the catholic health network at 20%. Who is going to take up the slack?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

You know what. I made a mistake and misread that. You're right, under-served/under-represented <> undeserved. My mistake. I live in rural Illinois, pretty familiar with the needs and wants of the rural community, also spent a couple weeks at a reservation doing work for habitat for humanity.
Imagine that, an atheist doing work H4H work.

And tax the fuck out of ANY religious organization that chooses to dabble in politics. Not just christian, but buddhist, jewish, catholic, whatever.

 

[xBiffx]

And the whole discussion was around churches which are 501c(3) organizations thus the conversation wasnt talking about 501c(5) organization (or 1, 2, 4, etc). Try to stay on topic.

The discussion seems to be around tax exemption. So why is it wrong for churches to engage in political speech but its OK for unions. Both are tax exempt organizations. So either political speech is OK for the purpose of tax exemption, or it isn't. This is exactly why I think the IRS has sat idle. Even they can recognize the predicament.

Lets not even talk about 501c(4)'s here. :whiste:

 

[Texashiker]

You know what. I made a mistake and misread that. You're right, under-served/under-represented <> undeserved. My mistake. I live in rural Illinois, pretty familiar with the needs and wants of the rural community, also spent a couple weeks at a reservation doing work for habitat for humanity.
Imagine that, an atheist doing work H4H work.

Probably the most honest post you have ever made on this forum.

And tax the fuck out of ANY religious organization that chooses to dabble in politics. Not just christian, but buddhist, jewish, catholic, whatever.

The supreme court made two recent decisions giving companies the same rights as people.

Since companies have the same rights as a person, their right to political speech can not be restricted.

 

[smackababy]

Probably the most honest post you have ever made on this forum.




The supreme court made two recent decisions giving companies the same rights as people.

Since companies have the same rights as a person, their right to political speech can not be restricted.

Nobody is restricting their (churches) right to political speech. The government is restricting a tax exempt privilege of organization that wish to campaign or endorse candidates. These same laws and restrictions apply equally to all government sponsored organizations and individuals, such as military members.

If a church chooses to forgo their tax exception (government sponsorship), pay taxes on profits generated by the church, it may campaign however it pleases.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's amazing that other people on opposite ends of the political spectrum here can agree on this subject, but toothless is so ingrained in his opinion, he can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[ThinClient]

I wonder if Christians are looking for a showdown with the irs?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/03/pastors-endorsing-candidates-in-defiance-irs-rules/



Why should a government agency have the ability to restrict our rights? The IRS rules flies in the face of our right to political speech.

I figure christian organizations are looking for a showdown with the IRS. Which would end up at the supreme court, with the supreme court ruling a government agency does not have the ability to restrict speech.

You have the right to free speech. You don't have the right to not pay taxes. If you want to earn the privilege of not paying taxes, you mustn't talk politics.

Not hard.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Taxation can not be used as a tool to restrict constitutionally protected rights.

Agreed

The federal government decided preachers can not talk about politics. Which is a direct violation of the 1st amendment.

Not really. What Congress decided is that you can't use a church to make political donations tax deductible.

Yep, only takes one case to re-enforce the separation of church and state when it comes to politics. I'm sure that many will not want to lose their tax-exempt status.

Again, political campaigns and PAC's etc are tax exempt so I'm not sure what they would do with churches. They can't be a 501(c)(3) but cannot see another classification for them unless it is one reserved campaign/political orgs such as section 527.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

So if I give up my right to vote I do not have to pay taxes?

Double down on absurdity.

 

[Fern]

The federal government decided that ANYBODY who claims tax free status cannot talk about politics. This is NOT an anti-religion conspiracy.

This is completely wrong.

Political campaigns, PAC's etc are all tax exempt organizations.

Furthermore, what nonprofits, aside from campaigns and PAC's, cannot do is support specific candidates. Issue advocacy is permitted.

Fern

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Double down on absurdity.

More like septupling down

 

[Fern]

@fern: OK, so you were talking about statutory entitlements in the context of tax law. Not unlike the the entitlements guaranteed (access to contraceptives) to the Hobby Lobby employees by a statute but stolen by the employers under the claim of their religious beliefs.

That still makes little sense. Considering how you were using the terms in your previous post. You cannot pivot around the different meanings of a word to suit your arguments.

I don't understand? Does this have anything to do with post #152?

Your analytical framework here is that there is a right to be exempt from poll tax thus there is a right to tax exemption. This was what I criticized. And I say with confidence there is no right to be exempt from poll tax - But there is right to vote.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly. (I don't remember what I wrote.)

The point is that taxes cannot be used to abridge rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Fern