Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Trump on Removing Tax exempt status

slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state. Just imagine, for example, the roles which churches played in the civil rights movement. Or look at the Quaker influence on things like abolition and prison reform.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 2:39:52 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

I can't come up with any good reasons for churches to have tax exempt status in the first place.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 2:48:55 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It doesn't.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:21:44 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

The private observance of one's faith is almost universally perceived as sacred and unobjectionable (at least within the U.S.). The government can implement tax policies that encourage it, without eliciting strong objections from the public. Politics is perceived as temporal and contentious. A religious institution cannot become a political actor without sacrificing those harmless, and in fact, meritorious, qualities the government originally intended to promote.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Bob13
Posts: 706
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:25:03 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 9:18:57 PM, slo1 wrote:
In a recent speaking event to a Christian organization, Trump doubled down his commitment to repeal the code which removes the tax free status of religious institutions should they participate in politics.

I'm curious to hear how this proposed policy resonates with everyone.

I'm a bit conflicted, but thing bringing out religious thought which can be critiqued and evaluated is important. we all know that people's religious belief already plays a large role in determining which candidates or policies an individual supports. iE: Fundamental Christian adherence to the Bible verse that any affront to Israel is an affront to God and will result in a reduction of favorably from God, or more specifically a curse. This in turn impacts foreign policy with Israel for those who believe it such as Ted Cruz and maybe now possibly Trump.

As long as religious institutions are non-profit organizations, they should be tax-exempt. Being involved in politics shouldn't remove that status as long as they don't donate to political campaigns.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:06:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.

Actually, they are. It's sort of a founding principle of the country, which is why churches have never been taxed on any real level. It's sort of enshrined in Supreme Court ruling.

"The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years-religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

At this point, a challenge could go either way at the Supreme Court. But if we're going to be discuss the principles involved, let's not pretend that the churches were all taxed before 1894 and that we all of the sudden made a blanket non-profit exemption and were nice enough to include churches. Churches were wrapped into non-profit tax law because they were already exempt from most taxes due to the Establishment Clause.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:33:11 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching'

" I have shown you not one but TWO instances in which he supported the ostensibly "incorrect" policy respecting the Iraq War, and you're here still trying to explain it away. This is your religion. This is literally your second religion."

c:
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 4:33:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching'

" I have shown you not one but TWO instances in which he supported the ostensibly "incorrect" policy respecting the Iraq War, and you're here still trying to explain it away. This is your religion. This is literally your second religion."

c:

lol maybe that's an exaggeration. there's no church of donald trump quite yet ... but they're getting there.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 4:06:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.

Actually, they are. It's sort of a founding principle of the country, which is why churches have never been taxed on any real level. It's sort of enshrined in Supreme Court ruling.

"The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years-religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

At this point, a challenge could go either way at the Supreme Court. But if we're going to be discuss the principles involved, let's not pretend that the churches were all taxed before 1894 and that we all of the sudden made a blanket non-profit exemption and were nice enough to include churches. Churches were wrapped into non-profit tax law because they were already exempt from most taxes due to the Establishment Clause.

And how do you defend the argument that partisan political activity constitutes 'free exercise' of religion.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 8:02:22 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 5:40:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 4:06:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/11/2016 3:03:06 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/11/2016 11:47:51 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 9/10/2016 10:36:58 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/10/2016 9:52:29 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

Yeah, I've always seen attempting to base tax exemption on political nonparticipation as an instance of the government basically telling religious leaders that their tenets cannot touch public life, something which violates the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't follow, how does that violate separation of church and state?

It's the government telling that church that their teachings can't touch a specific sphere in order for them to be classified as a religion under tax codes. It's essentially an act of the government applying economic pressure to faiths in order to mold doctrine and preaching.

Yeah, because "vote for donald trump" can be reasonably classified as 'religious preaching' .... and churches are entitled to tax benefits.

Actually, they are. It's sort of a founding principle of the country, which is why churches have never been taxed on any real level. It's sort of enshrined in Supreme Court ruling.

"The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Separation in this context cannot mean absence of all contact; the complexities of modern life inevitably produce some contact and the fire and police protection received by houses of religious worship are no more than incidental benefits accorded all persons or institutions within a State's boundaries, along with many other exempt organizations. The appellant has not established even an arguable quantitative correlation between the payment of an ad valorem property tax and the receipt of these municipal benefits.

All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years-religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com...

At this point, a challenge could go either way at the Supreme Court. But if we're going to be discuss the principles involved, let's not pretend that the churches were all taxed before 1894 and that we all of the sudden made a blanket non-profit exemption and were nice enough to include churches. Churches were wrapped into non-profit tax law because they were already exempt from most taxes due to the Establishment Clause.

And how do you defend the argument that partisan political activity constitutes 'free exercise' of religion.

It does. There are religious teachings which explicitly demand it. For an example, my family has historically been Quaker, and a fundamental tenet of the Quaker faith is the 'Calling'. Essentially, during a meeting the Quaker can be called to address some injustice in the real world, and I gave examples of historical Calling previously (abolition and prison reform). These were pursued politically. For the government to use the threat of taxation to essentially control doctrine to the exclusion of political action is a blatant abrogation of the entire principle of separation of church and state.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -