Time to tax churches and NGOS.
Comments
-
vidro-
All good ideas....but I take it my take it my tax on investment capital gains isn't considered sexy?
(maybe I should put it in a bikini and in front of a classic car)
-
no, i like your idea. but i also have to question why you want to punish the Catholic church for their astute acquisitions of valuable real estste.
/S -
vidro3 said:
I would consider a modest tax on all "profits" retained by religious groups at a City level. I think the best result would be not too much money was collected but more money would be plowed back into the Church itself.To be clear, are you considering donations and tithing as "profits" for the purpose of this exercise? Because I think that's a non-starter.
That is, you don't want to pay tax? Fine. Double the size of your soup kitchen. Open a new program for at-risk teens.
Don't replace the marble floor at St. Patricks'sBut why should the government have this power? Where does it get the right to do anything remotely close to this?
-
But the MSM and the left insist on trying to paint the Tea Party as religious nutjobs and dominated by social conservative idealogy, because that's exactly what people don't like.
Please. There hasn't been a movement in recent history which was given more coverage or a bigger platform for its views, despite its small size, than the tea party.
I am a major consumer of liberal non-traditional media coverage and I can say conclusively that the tea party is always mentioned within the context of their (quixotic) attempts at fiscal austerity (as empty as such attempts may be).
People also rightfully document the other uglier movements that occasionally joined forces with the tea party, such as xenophobes and bigots, but the anti-govt mantra of the tea party is always front and center in any coverage of them.
The Tea Party talks a big game on govt spending, but has no concrete platform, no specifics, and no coherent policy. Even the Repubs they recently sent to Congress are already falling into bad graces among the Partiers that got them there b/c ranting against evil big govt isn't actually a governing policy.
Governing actually requires details and specifics that, so far, the Tea Party has been unable to enunciate or put into practice.
The Tea Party's tide has already ebbed, and it will fade into history like all the other "populist" movements that just happen to crop up whenever a Democrat is elected.
Remember all the ones we had when Clinton was first elected? Yeah, not many other people do either.
-
whynot_31 said:
The Tea Party needs a leader. Its fringe chapters are bringing it down, and both the Democratic and Republican parties crack a smile when they see it implode over and over. You seem to think the Tea Party is only disliked by those on the left; I disagree...Not sure this is accurate. In the 2010 elections the tea party was completely co-opted by the Republican party for electoral gain.
Not only that, but most things the Tea Party stands for are traditional Republican boilerplate anyway.
Smaller govt.
Taxes.
"Keep the gov out of my (gov-provided) medicare."
I hate govt programs until it's time for me to live on social security...
Etc EtcThe Tea Party was heavily funded by the wealthiest Republican donors in the land (The Kochs), and it is simply a populist mask for the same old Republican philosophy.
Bush passed Medicare Part D and spent a trillion dollars on two wars, but other than that, there's not much in the Repub party the Tea Partiers are rebelling against.
There's a reason that a vast majority of Tea Partiers vote republican:
They ARE Republicans.
-
whynot_31 said:
is this the part where you imply that only the right truly understands the work ethic, and those not on the right think everything should be free and provided by a magical government? (yawn) This is the same two party, left-right rhetoric.You seemed to be arguing that MLK was on the left. I offered the quote as a rebuttal, that his most famous quote was in direct contrast to a sacred cow of the left.
Is it better to spend and not tax?
Nope. I'd be much more open to taxes to balance the budget if they were matched by permanent, significant spending cuts. But that never happens.
You seem to think the Tea Party is only disliked by those on the left; I disagree...
No, I know the establishment right is afraid of the Tea Party as much as the left fears it. We targeted/knocked off nearly as many GOP incumbents in 2010 as we did Dems. And it wasn't over social policies.
-
vidro3 said:
no, i like your idea. but i also have to question why you want to punish the Catholic church for their astute acquisitions of valuable real estste.
/SIf I get my wish and we tax investment capital gains, I predict the churches of all varieties will buy lots more real estate to dodge "my tax".
-
Boygabriel said:
But the MSM and the left insist on trying to paint the Tea Party as religious nutjobs and dominated by social conservative idealogy, because that's exactly what people don't like.
Please. There hasn't been a movement in recent history which was given more coverage or a bigger platform for its views, despite its small size, than the tea party.
I am a major consumer of liberal non-traditional media coverage and I can say conclusively that the tea party is always mentioned within the context of their (quixotic) attempts at fiscal austerity (as empty as such attempts may be).
People also rightfully document the other uglier movements that occasionally joined forces with the tea party, such as xenophobes and bigots, but the anti-govt mantra of the tea party is always front and center in any coverage of them.
The Tea Party talks a big game on govt spending, but has no concrete platform, no specifics, and no coherent policy. Even the Repubs they recently sent to Congress are already falling into bad graces among the Partiers that got them there b/c ranting against evil big govt isn't actually a governing policy.
Governing actually requires details and specifics that, so far, the Tea Party has been unable to enunciate or put into practice.
The Tea Party's tide has already ebbed, and it will fade into history like all the other "populist" movements that just happen to crop up whenever a Democrat is elected.
Remember all the ones we had when Clinton was first elected? Yeah, not many other people do either.
It's amusing being told what I stand for by someone like you.
-
Jimmy said:
It's amusing being told what I stand for by someone like you.Ad hominem AND no substantive points or response.
Good work, as usual.
-
Boygabriel said:
Not sure this is accurate. In the 2010 elections the tea party was completely co-opted by the Republican party for electoral gain.Not only that, but most things the Tea Party stands for are traditional Republican boilerplate anyway.
Smaller govt.
Taxes.
"Keep the gov out of my (gov-provided) medicare."
I hate govt programs until it's time for me to live on social security...
Etc EtcThe Tea Party was heavily funded by the wealthiest Republican donors in the land (The Kochs), and it is simply a populist mask for the same old Republican philosophy.
Bush passed Medicare Part D and spent a trillion dollars on two wars, but other than that, there's not much in the Repub party the Tea Partiers are rebelling against.
There's a reason that a vast majority of Tea Partiers vote republican:
They ARE Republicans.
Yes, the Tea Party has been crushed by an influx of republicans who feel their party is not conservative enough. The Tea Party is likely beyond repair as a result.
But I think a party that avoided social issues and focused on fiscal discipline could attract a large swath of the population if it had a good leader. Sadly, I can identify no leader that fits the bill.
-
Jimmy said:
To be clear, are you considering donations and tithing as "profits" for the purpose of this exercise? Because I think that's a non-starter.profits would be the positive difference between Revenue and Expenses of the organization as a whole, not per church, or Synagogue, or parish, or diocese.
If they would prefer not to pay the tax they could add to their expenses by reopening a closed school or something.
-
vidro3 said:
profits would be the positive difference between Revenue and Expenses of the organization as a whole, not per church, or Synagogue, or parish, or diocese.If they would prefer not to pay the tax they could add to their expenses by reopening a closed school or something.
Would you stop making sense - it's obviously not welcome here.
-
whynot_31 said:
Yes, the Tea Party has been crushed by an influx of republicans who feel their party is not conservative enough. The Tea Party is likely beyond repair as a result.But I think a party that avoided social issues and focused on fiscal discipline could attract a large swath of the population if it had a good leader. Sadly, I can identify no leader that fits the bill.
But the tea partiers were never not (almost entirely) Republican.
It was at the beginning, it will always be. Their platform is nearly identical to parts of the core of the Republican platform.
The difference between the tea party and the republican party is that once you get into office, you can no longer rely on generalities and slogans.
Also, the tea party was astroturfed by the Koch brothers. So we shouldn't treat it like some organic populist uprising that happened to coincide with a Democrat getting elected.
-
You seemed to be arguing that MLK was on the left. I offered the quote as a rebuttal, that his most famous quote was in direct contrast to a sacred cow of the left.I am not going to engage is an argument over whether MLK was left or right, because I feel such characterizations are simplistic.
I used him as an example of their being a large base of religious believers in this country to respond to your claim that any discussion of taxation on religions and NGOs is an inherent attack on the right.
Needless to say, the NGOs in this country also vary. I'd tax the assets of the Heritage foundation, Manhattan Institute, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, Earth Action, Move On etc.
Nope. I'd be much more open to taxes to balance the budget if they were matched by permanent, significant spending cuts. But that never happens.so, you are an independent?
No, I know the establishment right is afraid of the Tea Party as much as the left fears it. We targeted/knocked off nearly as many GOP incumbents in 2010 as we did Dems. And it wasn't over social policies.
ah, you use the term "we", as is Tea Party. At what point will the brand be so tarnished that you want nothing to do with it? Can you get the leaders to go to marketing class, and then start having official Tea Party events so you effectively separate yourself from the angry heard?
...maybe get a few scientists to come on board?
-
vidro3 said:
profits would be the positive difference between Revenue and Expenses of the organization as a whole, not per church, or Synagogue, or parish, or diocese.If they would prefer not to pay the tax they could add to their expenses by reopening a closed school or something.
In non-profit accounting this is called Net Assets
-
vidro3 said:
profits would be the positive difference between Revenue and Expenses of the organization as a whole, not per church, or Synagogue, or parish, or diocese.What about denominations? Would a small Baptist church in rural Mississippi be forced to pay US taxes because the Church of England owns valuable real state in the UK?
And what about sects of Islam? Would a Sunni mosque be asked to pay taxes because of oil price fluctuations in Saudi Arabia?
If they would prefer not to pay the tax they could add to their expenses by reopening a closed school or something.So in effect, you're penalizing religious groups for saving/investing?
-
Jimmy said:
I would argue that members of churches already do contribute, through individual taxes. In addition, churches contribute significantly to communities through charitable acts, financial giving, food banks and shelters, etc.On a related note: I would guess that taxation of churches would be, in many cases, a regressive tax, hitting low-income families through the decrease of those services mentioned above. If anything, those low-income families would be asked to contribute more through donations (which I assume we're not talking about taxing?).
Many NGOs and religious institutions are tremendous assets to their communities, but this obligation stems from the demands of their customer/members, not the government.
The government has a right to be paid for the fire and police services required. In NYC, we all must contribute to a fund which pays for the sad comedy routine Marty Markowitz and Albany provides. If I have to pay for him, I see no reason anyone should get to be exempt.
-
Jimmy said:
You seem to think I'm interested in having a discussion with you, or that I care at all about what you think. I'm not, and I don't.No no, it's quite clear you're not interested in defending your views.
-
Jimmy-
What about denominations? Would a small Baptist church in rural Mississippi be forced to pay US taxes because the Church of England owns valuable real state in the UK?Only if said church was dumb enough not to incorporate separately. The whole incorporation process costs about $300 in most states. I'll provide links if you want them.
And what about sects of Islam? Would a Sunni mosque be asked to pay taxes because of oil price fluctuations in Saudi Arabia?
see above. Are you unclear on what a capital gain is? The gain must actually be realized.
So in effect, you're penalizing religious groups for saving/investing?Only to the extent that any tax of any kind discourages saving. For example, by taxing liquor you could argue I have less to invest. I (however) could simply believe I have less to spend on liquor.
For example, by making me pay to drive across a bridge, you could argue that the revenue over and above what it cost to maintain the bridge constitutes "theft". I however, see the exhaust from my car wafting into nearby homes and know that the public must pay for treating kids asthma stemming from my pollution.
-
whynot_31 said:
Many NGOs and religious institutions are tremendous assets to their communities, but this obligation stems from the demands of their customer/members, not the government.That hardly changes the fact that they do contribute. I'd argue that such contribution is much more noble and valuable than anything the government can do.
The government has a right to be paid for the fire and police services required. In NYC, we all must contribute to a fund which pays for the sad comedy routine Marty Markowitz and Albany provides. If I have to pay for him, I see no reason anyone should get to be exempt.As I said, members of religious groups and NGOs already do contribute, with individual taxes. They aren't exempt.
-
Jimmy said:
I'd call myself a Tea Partier, if you insist on putting a label on me. Or perhaps a conservative libertarian, or a social liberal/fiscal conservative.How long will you give it to get its act together? At some point, will you distance yourself from a movement that has (sadly) been taken over by idiots?
-
Jimmy said:
That hardly changes the fact that they do contribute. I'd argue that such contribution is much more noble and valuable than anything the government can do.As I said, members of religious groups and NGOs already do contribute, with individual taxes. They aren't exempt.
The same could be said for any corporate entity, profit or non-profit.
Their customers/members/clients contribute by taxes. However, when they took the step of establishing a legal entity they gained certain legal rights. ...those rights are protected by the court system, the dept of defense, the police, the fire department, etc.
With those rights comes the obligation to contribute to the costs.
....what is hard about this?
-
whynot_31 said:
Only if said church was dumb enough not to incorporate separately. The whole incorporation process costs about $300 in most states. I'll provide links if you want them....
see above. Are you unclear on what a capital gain is? The gain must actually be realized.
vidro3's statement was that "profits" for this purpose were any revenue that exceeded expenses. He said nothing about capital gains.
Regardless of the merits of this particular plan, any step down this path implicitly requires that Americans, religious institutions and NGOs simply trust that the government won't play favorites. That's totally unrealistic.
-
whynot_31 said:
The same could be said for any corporate entity, profit or non-profit.Their customers/members/clients contribute by taxes. However, when they took the step of establishing a legal entity they gained certain legal rights. ...those rights are protected by the court system, the dept of defense, the police, the fire department, etc.
With those rights comes the obligation to contribute to the costs.
....what is hard about this?
The hard part is that historically, religious organizations have been implicity exempt due to the separation of church and state. A tax on religious groups would violate that.
...what is so hard about this?
-
whynot_31 said:
How long will you give it to get its act together? At some point, will you distance yourself from a movement that has (sadly) been taken over by idiots?As long as it's doing a better job and better represents my views than do the GOP or the Dems, I'll stick with them. I'll certainly give them longer than the 2+ years they've had. It beats standing for nothing and complaining about how everyone sucks.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds