Amazon.com Widgets

Should money from religion and entertainment be taxed heavily to benefit science and education and the medical industry for a better future?

Asked by: TylerB
  • We don't subsidize Harry Potter Clubs so why do we Subsidize Jesus/Mohamed/Yahweh clubs?

    Other clubs for groups of peoples favorite book are not subsidized. Those clubs have the same principal for tax exemption as do religious "institutions" only difference is size of members in that club. Some may argue that these churches do good for the community. While some do perform some services to the community no strings attached most do not. Many even in there most charitable event require the non faithful to endure their favorite book of tall tales in exchange for that service. The reality is that in most cases the "charity" the congregation provide is for their congregation only. Food drives for their members during holidays. Soccer leagues for their members only. Clothing drives and ice cream socials all for members. All of these if open to the public are for membership drives to make the congregation larger to bring in more free money that is not taxed. All of this done with no actual checking on the actuality it is all being done to earn a tax free benefit. The needy are mostly their own membership with little to no benefit to the community at large. Meanwhile the church itself usually sitting on large plots of land wasting water on exorbitant gardens and landscaping on a building that remains devoid of people 95% of the time wasting heat and air conditioning all of which would better suit living space for the homeless.

  • Yes only cause they kinda already do

    I dont know if it really needs to be explained or not. But religious institutions already help medicine, education, and science as a whole.

    Catholic church alone if affiliated and supports financially 30% (dont quote me on this) of the Hospitals in the world. Not just america, but the world.

    Churches, monasteries temples (at least used to and are supposed to) educate local kids. Especially in places where there are no schools. There are no teachers.

    Wait why is the entertainment industry even in here.

    Alot of our science came from the "church" granted that there was a time, a long time, that religious clerks = scientists. (and politicians, and doctors, and any profession that required a level of education) but i digress.

  • Yes It Should

    The taxing would give more funding to scientists to make the world a better place, with more technological breakthroughs We would be able to fight harmful diseases, develop new energy sources and it would be of more benefit than a movie or a church, both of which help no one.

  • Not only an illogical proposal, but unreasonable.

    So from the picture on this opinion I see the OP is inclined to favor the "sciences" than "religion" or arts. Well it's true, Religion didn't put us on the moon, and 9/11 wasn't done in the name of Science.

    But religion wasn't used to create the Atom Bomb, and Science hasn't been used for thousands of years to inspire billions to love one another, or develop the Golden Rule with a scientific method approach.

    Religion and Science both have positive and negative outcomes if used in a positive or negative manner respectively. It's up to human values and logic to make sure that both can benefit the world to become a better place.

    Not only that, but why would you tax religious missions and groups, when they are already non-taxable, and non-profit to benefit charity causes? It just seems downright unethical to me.

    As for entertainment..... I mean if we're talking super large record companies, sure maybe there might be some means for your argument. But many artists and musicians and actors are very poor, and trying to benefit our culture in some manner, so again it seems very illogical to do so.

  • A better future maybe, but not a better now.

    People who are donating their money to the church are intending for their money to go to the church. If they wanted to fund science, they'd do it themselves. Considering most money donated to charity is done through a religious organization, a tax like this would be devastating for many of the most needy of people.

    And why tax entertainment? The rich celebrities will hardly notice a loss at all, while starving artists struggle with pay cuts. Art and fun don't need to be taxed. With that, we could tax candy, soda, fast food, and anything else deemed distracting to advancement too. But what's the point of advancement if we can't even enjoy ourselves along the way? Science, education, and medicine is meant to serve life, not the other way around.

    If any of these three fields would like money for a project that would benefit others, they should describe that plan to the public and let the people decide if they would like to fund it themselves. If it's something the public really needs, it will get attention on social media and there will be offers. But when the government funds projects, there can be corruption and inefficiency. Workers may be overpaid, excessive supplies and equipment might be bought, or "projects" created to fill a quota. The public has no idea what they're even funding.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.