158
What is something that definitely should not exist?
(endlesstalk.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
158 points (97.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44183 readers
1144 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Taxing religious organizations gives them official representation in government affairs which is just as bad, if not worse.
Definitely not how that works. All companies are taxed and they don't get any special representation outside lobbying that they were going to do either way and churches do in fact put a lot of the money they should have payed in taxes into lobbying.
You don't think certain companies get favorable treatment via tax code and lobbying?
I think certain companies don’t pay any taxes at all.
Lmao
Their paying taxes is not what gets them special treatment.
No, but well-connected companies use regulatory capture to structure taxes as a burden on their competition.
Consider for a moment how churches would be taxed. Maybe they are taxed on their assets. That would disproportionately affect larger churches with valuable real estate holdings, like the Catholic and Mormon churches. Maybe the donations they receive are taxed. That disadvantages newer churches which don't have corporate investments or endowments. Tax land? Hurt cemeteries. Tax salaries? Favor Quaker meeting houses where there is no specific pastor.
Look, I don't think churches should be involved in politics. Any that donate to candidates or endorse a party should lose their tax exempt status, because they are no longer churches. But a blanket removal of all tax exemptions for religious organizations is a threat to religious freedom. It would allow the religious leaders in government to play favorites and pick winners, kind of like they do now already.
yes, freedom of religion can only exist with in perpetuity tax free landownership
hahaha
Is that what I said?
Tax code is applied by politicians. Do you really expect Christian Conservatives to fairly tax Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus at the same rates as their own churches? Freedom of Religion cannot exist when political leaders are able to tax competing religions into oblivion.
To some degree, agreed, but your original assertion is still wrong. Unless you count all the devoutly religious people in Congress, and they already have that representation.
Not taxing them hasn't kept their fingers out of the American government.
Far from it.
Hell, the current speaker is trying to convince everyone that the government was always intended to be based on religious dogma.
Please elaborate...
Like, do you think McDonald's as a corporation gets to vote?
Do you think priests and preachers don't get to vote now?
I'm guessing the way its suppose to work is tax exemption means you should apolitical like a think tank lol