Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Should Churches Pay Taxes?

77 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

oh you want more? ok

[quote]The tax would be levied once at the final retail sale for personal consumption on new goods and services. Purchases of used items, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export"]exports[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business-to-business"]business-to-business[/url] intermediate business transactions would not be taxed. Also excluded are investments, such as purchases of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equites"]stock[/url], corporate [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mergers_and_acquisitions"]mergers and acquisitions[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_investments"]capital investments[/url]. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_%28economics%29"]Savings[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuition"]education tuition[/url] expenses would be exempt as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption).[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax#cite_note-billtext-51"][51][/url][/sup][/quote]

yeah this totally wasn't developed by and for the rich nope no way

btw i think it's fuging hilarious when dumbshit libertarians have the gall to not only advocate for the "fair"tax, but to also call people stupid for pointing out its many flaws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='gospodin shuttlesworth' timestamp='1355133047' post='2039872']
oh you want more? ok



yeah this totally wasn't developed by and for the rich nope no way

btw i think it's fuging hilarious when dumbshit libertarians have the gall to not only advocate for the "fair"tax, but to also call people stupid for pointing out its many flaws
[/quote]

i'm sure the rich also advocated everyone getting a monthly check for a living expense?
maybe the rich advocated the abolishment of all other taxes rather than simply tack on a sales tax as you've implied?
maybe the rich plan on only buying only used items to avoid said sales tax?
perhaps it is the evil rich white men that seek the horrible ends of killing an entire division of government and its expense (irs) that it incurs?
maybe its those same evil men that seek to implement a system that holds government fiscally accountable for how its citizens do?

i'm sure those just things just slipped by your magnificient comprehension skills. but go on... please continue with you enlightened views

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

fairtax is regressive at higher income levels. this isn't really debated. the "prebates" would be taxed as they are spent and, considering the middle class spends a larger proportion of its income than the rich, they would generally pay a higher effective rate than the rich.

notice the tax burden would increase on the middle class, whether there is a "prebate" or not:

[img]http://i.xomf.com/xllgk.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i.xomf.com/xjvhf.jpg[/img]

additionally, the fairtax relies on tax evasion to basically cease to exist and, even if it did (lol like the rich are going to go for that), it would not generate the revenue needed to maintain necessary social programs.

none of this is anything new, btw. you're just another in a long line of people tricked into supporting the interests of the rich. i'm sorry you had to find out this way but hey look on the bright side: now you won't feel compelled to bring up the fairtax and look like a complete fuging idiot ever again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Congratulations... you can cut and paste. Too bad that doesn't apply to comprehension.

The current tax code is BUILT for tax evasion and buying voter loyalty for politically approved behaviors.

Oh yeah... a national sales tax is not the same as HR25. Come back with a real analysis that is actually comprehensive. Shall I google search that for you, or do you want to try this again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='twylyght' timestamp='1355139668' post='2039904']
Oh yeah... a national sales tax is not the same as HR25.
[/quote]

[quote]The [i]Fair Tax Act[/i] ([url="http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr25"]H.R. 25[/url]/[url="http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s13"]S. 13[/url]) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_%28economics%29"]goods[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_%28economics%29"]services[/url] for personal consumption.[/quote]

how fuging stupid can you be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='PhillyB' timestamp='1355075615' post='2037187']


120k?

inexcusable.
[/quote]

It was always claimed that he "returned" a good portion of it to the church thru his own tithe.... of course there's no way to know this for sure. And like I said, I was on the "financial stewardship" committee, and saw first hand that it was just a rubber stamp for whatever budget the pastor wanted. Any time one of us had a question, the answer was always "well, that's the way the pastor wants it" and that was supposed to be the end of it. It was truly a farce to make the congregation believe that people were reviewing what the staff was doing with the church's money.

I'm pretty sure the guy was fairly legit in his dealings, he didn't drive a fancy car or have a big house... but there was certainly the implication of impropriety from being on that committee because the staff would never really let us look at the actual books, only pre-printed forms and papers at our meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='gospodin shuttlesworth' timestamp='1355140352' post='2039912']
how fuging stupid can you be?
[/quote]

Apparently not as stupid as you. National Sales Tax = Value Added Tax, not HR25. There is a reason why the distinction has been made repeatedly in conventional talk and national media.

A national sales tax stands by itself as an added tax for extra generated "revenue" for the federal government. HR25 is a national sales tax alone on ONLY new goods AT THE END OF SALE along with the ABOLISHMENT of ALL OTHER TAXES. Used goods are NOT taxed again. The IRS is to be cut to the lowest degree and eventually made a part of the FBIs white-collar crime division to consolidate costs and cut unnecessary federal spending. The prebate is the "fair" portion of it to remove the "regressive portion of the tax burden".

The current codification of the tax code is RIFE with the means for corporations, individuals, and political entities to exploit for the purposes of evasion. Of course there is discussion about tax evasion at the retail level, but you are now looking at a much smaller footprint of scrutiny as opposed to the goliath that stands today. The national sales tax (again the VAT, not FairTax) still retains multiple levels of sale tax before the end of sale.

All of this was spelled out in the wiki and countless other google sites. To call you a retard is to assume you have made an honest mistake and are simply too dense to understand the not-so-subtle nuance. It is clear that you are a liar to the nth degree in the hopes that no one will call you on your obvious brand of bullshit.

Care to continue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There's a church in Rocky Mount that has an ATM in he lobby and the pastor drives around a RR Phantom...which he tried to have exempted from taxes because it is used as a "church vehicle"...something wrong with that picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

that car is worth more than the rest of rocky mount put together.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='gospodin shuttlesworth' timestamp='1355122625' post='2039810']

"you acknowledge that social mobility isn't very good in america? WHAT ARE YOU DUMB AND POOR"

does this standard apply to everyone who has reached the conclusion that social mobility fuging sucks because uh fyi there are plenty of people who agree and have accomplished waayyyy more in their lives than you and your meaningless "work" at "a fortune 500 company"; you know, the "work" that you can't help but to bring up at every opportunity as if anyone gives a fug about the preordained "success" of bourgeois fugs such as yourself

seriously how much research did you do into the topic of social inequality while completing your work in "finance" because i'm guessing somewhere around 0 and yet here you are, acting qualified to talk about something that you clearly cannot even begin to understand (which btw appears to be a trend with you). seriously, if you want to debate the point, at least try to back it up. it's so fuging lazy to counter a well-researched, commonly accepted point with "but nuh uh what are you poor?" remember when i asked you if you cite your papers with something along the lines of (MADHATTER 2012, p. FORGET WHAT PAGE, JUST LOOK AROUND YOU) because i never got an answer; you never, ever, cite any of the dumb poo you post which is really a shame because i'd love to see just how far down the free republic rabbit hole this whole thing goes.
[/quote]

Screw you and your "inequality".

You make your own opportunities is life....you don't sit around and bitch about what you don't have.

My parent's families were dirt poor....my parents did not have college degrees....I went to a high school that less than 20% of the students went to either a 2 or 4 year degree....I had the same classes and teachers available to me that every other student there had.

Please explain to me how anyone from that same area/school did not have the same opportunities that I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

tell me about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

[quote name='Mr. Scot' timestamp='1355103094' post='2039232']

In other words, giving the government authority to use taxation to tell churches how they ought to spend the money given by their members.

You think you can defend that constitutionally?
[/quote]


Yes. Because you are not telling the church how to spend its money. Youre simply stating that if you want the preferential tax status there are requirements.

Its already been established that churches cant campaign for or against a political candidate without risking their exemption. This would be no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites