The Instigator
moneystacker
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
user_name
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
moneystacker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 63735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

moneystacker

Pro

Con will post argument first I am just listing clarification statements

1. Go by the resolution don't go off topic

2. Try not to be to mean on this debate their will be clash but yeah

3. good luck
user_name

Con

There is absolutely no legal reason for this to happen.

It hasn't happened been made that big a deal of because the majority of th enation happen to be religious and much bigger concerns are on their plate right now and in the past.
Debate Round No. 1
moneystacker

Pro

cont 1:Huge churches don"t need/ the money use it wrong etc.
"Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity
"In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions?
cont 2: misuse of money/lies
"Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your "faith". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes.
" Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim "god can pay our taxes" so if they believe in this they don"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well.
3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored

There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the "voluntary" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar "church funded" homes, driving "church gifted" Jaguars, and wearing "church donated" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion " to the tune of about $71 billion every year.
The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors.

Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property.
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
moneystacker

Pro

vote for me cause of conduct I guess
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
moneystacker

Pro

opponent please respond I promise you these arguments aren't that big. All I did was research a bit if you do same you can attack them don't be scared I wanted a fun debate.
user_name

Con

user_name forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Once you get the governments pinky's in anything, they will dictate what is being preached. That is just a fact of politics.They will give tax incentives to those who will toe a party line.That is why it is a right to freedom of religion that would not be soiled with political pressures.

Once again it is the political left that derives its power from control of peoples money.Frankly I would not belong to a church that is so poor it cannot pay its bills.They are doing something unbiblical.In fact I left a church that accepted EBT cards for fundraising sandwiches. Those cards are not those peoples money to give to help a church.That is money stolen off those who earned it by government force. And should not be used in a church.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
This is something that's currently being debated over in my state of Texas.. so obviously its possible I mean I didn't make this resolution so no need for your dumb arsh to complain about it. This is a topic someone else came up with that I am debating on here to get arguments for the opposite side.

You critized yet you don't even know what a rich church is as well. A rich church would be considered one that has enough money to advertise but most of the churches focused by this tax exempt will be obviously the multil millionaire or billionaire churches. And probably government/ maybe IRS will determine churches and also again if you took history you would know that catholic churches are government based honestly idk why they even considered a credible religion... but anyway they have been with the government for god knows how long so it is logical they pay taxes anyway and the make up most rich churches but I belive a rich church of any religion kinda should just cuase its not fair to other buildings.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Why do you single out rich? Are you that shallow that you cannot make some other determination.And who will determine who gets exemption and who does not. You. Or some godless liberal. The best thing is just keep government corrupt paws off them.
Posted by moneystacker 2 years ago
moneystacker
I am but it is dumb to use that logic to keep them from taxes. It's still a building that cost to maintain. Also I only suggest it on rich churches.. and most rich churches pretty much back up the government or work with it so I can't support separation for them. I support separation of church and state but only for religions that actually have in the past never functioned with the government such as apostolic or seven day evangelist.. So yeah some religions like Catholic were made to work with the government anyway so they are government based religions. In the past the government looked up to catholic church on everything really.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Here all along I thought you believed in the separation of church and state.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
moneystackeruser_nameTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
moneystackeruser_nameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff
Vote Placed by Imperfiect 2 years ago
Imperfiect
moneystackeruser_nameTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF