Wisconsin....

gabrielmalinois wrote:

[b]I say tax the churches[/b] Whatcha talkin about willis? Triracer already explained to you why that's not a good idea but even beyond that Churches do...

I say tax the churches Whatcha talkin about willis?

Triracer already explained to you why that's not a good idea but even beyond that Churches do not produce anything or render any services except weddings and funerals which most do not charge for, if they do charge for renting the building then they do pay taxes on that I believe. All the money a church gets has already been taxed from those who donate the money. Heck man if you take this too far I am going to have to form a union.

jtomasik wrote:

Churches provide religious services by taking in revenue from their customers.

gabrielmalinois wrote:

No it's different because the people who contribute the money are part of the church.

jtomasik wrote:

Churches provide religious services by taking in revenue from their customers.

gabrielmalinois wrote:

No it's different because the people who contribute the money are part of the church.

jtomasik wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That...

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That revenue is taxed. No difference whatsoever.

jtomasik wrote:

Churches provide religious services by taking in revenue from their customers.

gabrielmalinois wrote:

No it's different because the people who contribute the money are part of the church.

jtomasik wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That...

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That revenue is taxed. No difference whatsoever.

Brad460 wrote:

In addition...Constitution states there must be a wall of separation between church and state..exempting churches from taxes emphasizes this..

Brad460 wrote:

In addition...Constitution states there must be a wall of separation between church and state..exempting churches from taxes emphasizes this..

jtomasik wrote:

Churches provide religious services by taking in revenue from their customers.

gabrielmalinois wrote:

No it's different because the people who contribute the money are part of the church.

jtomasik wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That...

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That revenue is taxed. No difference whatsoever.

Brad460 wrote:

In addition...Constitution states there must be a wall of separation between church and state..exempting churches from taxes emphasizes this..

jtomasik wrote:

Actually, it says that government must not establish religion. The specific wording is: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the...

Actually, it says that government must not establish religion. The specific wording is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


It could be argued that by not taxing churches, the government is violating the Constitution by giving religions an unfair market advantage over private business.

The Constitution has no wording including "separation of church and state".

gabrielmalinois wrote:

No it's different because the people who contribute the money are part of the church.

jtomasik wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That...

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That revenue is taxed. No difference whatsoever.

gabrielmalinois wrote:

Are you part owner of your gym? All a church is, is a group of people who pool their money together in order to have a...

Are you part owner of your gym? All a church is, is a group of people who pool their money together in order to have a place where they can meet and worship. Should we tax all NPO's ?

APLMAN99 wrote:

I think it's been well established that the lack of taxation is not equivelant to establishment. Now if Govco decided to tax all churches but the...

I think it's been well established that the lack of taxation is not equivelant to establishment. Now if Govco decided to tax all churches but the catholic church, however, I think it'd be a bit easier to make an establishment charge.

Taxation would probably be argued as punitive and/or prohibiting free practice pretty easily.

Brad460 wrote:

In addition...Constitution states there must be a wall of separation between church and state..exempting churches from taxes emphasizes this..

jtomasik wrote:

Actually, it says that government must not establish religion. The specific wording is: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the...

Actually, it says that government must not establish religion. The specific wording is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


It could be argued that by not taxing churches, the government is violating the Constitution by giving religions an unfair market advantage over private business.

The Constitution has no wording including "separation of church and state".

Brad460 wrote:

In addition...Constitution states there must be a wall of separation between church and state..exempting churches from taxes emphasizes this..

jtomasik wrote:

Actually, it says that government must not establish religion. The specific wording is: [i]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the...

Actually, it says that government must not establish religion. The specific wording is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


It could be argued that by not taxing churches, the government is violating the Constitution by giving religions an unfair market advantage over private business.

The Constitution has no wording including "separation of church and state".

Brad460 wrote:

The phrase has only been used for over 200 years..it represent the intent of the first amendment..

jtomasik wrote:

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That...

That has nothing to do with it. I join a gym. I'm a member of the gym. I pay monthly fees. The gym provides services. That revenue is taxed. No difference whatsoever.

gabrielmalinois wrote:

Are you part owner of your gym? All a church is, is a group of people who pool their money together in order to have a...

Are you part owner of your gym? All a church is, is a group of people who pool their money together in order to have a place where they can meet and worship. Should we tax all NPO's ?

jtomasik wrote:

Before you call a church a non-profit organization, maybe you'd better open up the Catholic church's books. If I own stock in a publicly traded gym...

Before you call a church a non-profit organization, maybe you'd better open up the Catholic church's books.

If I own stock in a publicly traded gym, pay their dues, and am a member, they still pay taxes.


Keep reaching.

APLMAN99 wrote:

I think it's been well established that the lack of taxation is not equivelant to establishment. Now if Govco decided to tax all churches but the...

I think it's been well established that the lack of taxation is not equivelant to establishment. Now if Govco decided to tax all churches but the catholic church, however, I think it'd be a bit easier to make an establishment charge.

Taxation would probably be argued as punitive and/or prohibiting free practice pretty easily.

jtomasik wrote:

And for over 100 years slavery didn't violate the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't specify that the government has to establish a [u]single[/u] religion to violate the...

And for over 100 years slavery didn't violate the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn't specify that the government has to establish a single religion to violate the Constitution. It only has to establish any religion. It could easily be argued that by not taxing churches, they're given an unfair advantage over private business, and since they're based on religion, the government is establishing religion.


Give it time. You'll see.

APLMAN99 wrote:

The constitution codified slavery for almost 100 years. It took changing the constitution to truly enact that change, not simply re-interpreting the meaning. Is there a...

The constitution codified slavery for almost 100 years. It took changing the constitution to truly enact that change, not simply re-interpreting the meaning.

Is there a serious movement afoot to amend the constitution in regard to taxation of religious organizations?

jimmie wrote:

Tax churches? "non profits"? Okay Same for all non profits, sounds good to me... Planed Parenthood... Peta... Jerry's kids... March Of Dimes.. United Way... Mayo Foundation...

Tax churches? "non profits"?

Okay

Same for all non profits, sounds good to me...

Planed Parenthood...
Peta...
Jerry's kids...
March Of Dimes..
United Way...
Mayo Foundation...

and all the rest...

jimmie wrote:

Tax churches? "non profits"? Okay Same for all non profits, sounds good to me... Planed Parenthood... Peta... Jerry's kids... March Of Dimes.. United Way... Mayo Foundation...

Tax churches? "non profits"?

Okay

Same for all non profits, sounds good to me...

Planed Parenthood...
Peta...
Jerry's kids...
March Of Dimes..
United Way...
Mayo Foundation...

and all the rest...

jtomasik wrote:

Chuches are not purely "non-profits". By their own definition they claim to be, but often they are not by practice. Really, guys, you need to look...

Chuches are not purely "non-profits". By their own definition they claim to be, but often they are not by practice. Really, guys, you need to look at the Catholic church, as a great example. My own business has "non-profit" activities, but it doesn't mean the entire business is "non-profit". Same goes with churches. They pay salaries, they buy property, they have employees.

Additionally, these supposed "non-profit" organizations, some of which you cited, have turned into big business and are clearly in the profit business. "Non-profit" and "charity" needs to be driven back down to the American family, where the family takes care of their own.

That said, the "non-profit" laws need to be seriously reviewed and revised. And, to get the families to start taking responsibility for their own, eventually America needs to work itself back from social programs to supporting their own. That means the plans enacted during the Johnson era should eventually be repealed.

drmarkr wrote:

Guess most of you fucks just don't want to discuss the topic of this thread...... This is the beginning of the end of public sector collective...

Guess most of you fucks just don't want to discuss the topic of this thread......

This is the beginning of the end of public sector collective bargaining. In the state where such crap was born.....

No doubt, others will be emboldened by this victory, and the 'fox guarding the henhouse" crap of public employee unions will die a shithole death. Gawd, I love it.....

TeamGreen wrote:

Huh? OK, I'll bite... Have we forgotten that people MAKE their own Career choices? Or that these Gov't types get Holidays and in the case of...

Huh? OK, I'll bite...

Have we forgotten that people MAKE their own Career choices?

Or that these Gov't types get Holidays and in the case of a Teacher a 9 month Work-Year?

How about the Good Ol' Days when a gov't job was a conscious decision one made knowing that they'd make a little less and get Better Beni's and Plenty of Holidays...?

Then there's this...

Why is it JUST FINE with Soooo many of you when the Unions get away with RIDICULOUS SHIT ...BUT...It's NOT OK when someone takes a bit back from them and...in this case...Removes some of their MANIPULATIVE POWER...?

Or...are we going to be gnorant enough to believe that some of these worthless pieces of shit DIDN'T get these jobs due to the UNIONS ABILITY TO MANIPULATE DURING "Labor Negotiations"?

Furthermore, How the FUCK did we end up in a Country where Union Membership is MANDATORY and "Prevailing Wage" is the Phrase of the Day?

The Bottom-Line?

We are in a Period of Recognition.

Let's 1st take the time to be brutally HONEST and WON the Fact that WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES.

We EXPORTED our Mfg-Base AWAY and EVERY fcking ONE OF US participated. From your Chi-Com knock-off POS crap that you buy from Rocky-Mountain ATV to the Chi-Com POS TV -I- BOUGHT AT the Wally-Mart.

Then there's the fact WE let it happen.

The "Housing Bubble"...?

Did YOU Purchase of Re-Fi in the Last Decade? If so...you're part of it. Especially if you bought "Too Much"...or Got it Waaay Too Easily...or got it when ya really didn't need it...some of you KNOW you were thinking..."Ya know, I really DON'T need to do this...". Hell, I know I did.

Glass-Steagall? We didn't pay attention...as usual...we were all Too Busy.

I don't remember a single damn ONE OF US UP IN HERE TALKING ABOUT...Brooksley Born or SCREAMING about the Easy Money we were getting?

How about some of the Ridiculous money some of us have made over the years...Not to mention the Easy Money that everyone went and bought their 5th Wheelers and xtra toys with.

Or...how we don't seem to give a shit til it's too late.

Or...how we all seem to accept the fckin' checks when they come in the mail...Unemployment...Disability...etc. Yes, some are legit...but...really...who can't do some kinda work when/if they can sit here and type a whinning bitchy response...?

Time to Recognize and make changes.

Time to quit Bitching and Start fixing.

Some will call it "Austerity"...or "Unfair"...then there's the Class Warfare sniveling little shits. How's that Hope-n-Change working for ya?

The "Have your Cake and Eat it, too" days need to end.

Time to pay up.

The Unions that think they're "Gonna get theirs no matter WHO has to pay" are gonna see a Big Change in the Public Opinion Polls...the Union Bosses should know, by now, that MANY OF US are jus' TIRED of their manipulation of Gov't Jobs.



That's what I got from this "Wisconsin F-Up" we've just witnessed.

drmarkr wrote:

The Unions that think they're "Gonna get theirs no matter WHO has to pay" are gonna see a Big Change in the Public Opinion Polls...the Union...

The Unions that think they're "Gonna get theirs no matter WHO has to pay" are gonna see a Big Change in the Public Opinion Polls...the Union Bosses should know, by now, that MANY OF US are jus' TIRED of their manipulation of Gov't Jobs.


Not sure why you're arguing with me on this.....that's exactly what my point was in starting this thread.....the death of public sector unions. Which were a fucking farce from the get go....the "second" biggest mistake JFK ever made (check your history if you don't believe me).

As for unhinged libs in Wisconsin, here's your video proof!!

jimmie wrote:

I get all of that. Salaries are still taxed, some at a lower rater however. My point was, some on here feel "churches" are getting an...

I get all of that.

Salaries are still taxed, some at a lower rater however.

My point was, some on here feel "churches" are getting an unfair free ride on the tax issue. I just wanted to point out that there are thousands of businesses that operate with the same tax advantage. So to be fair, it should be the same, across the board.

After all, we all agree the government needs more money to spend in the wise manner that history has proven it is capable of performing. (sarcasm)

jimmie wrote:

I get all of that. Salaries are still taxed, some at a lower rater however. My point was, some on here feel "churches" are getting an...

I get all of that.

Salaries are still taxed, some at a lower rater however.

My point was, some on here feel "churches" are getting an unfair free ride on the tax issue. I just wanted to point out that there are thousands of businesses that operate with the same tax advantage. So to be fair, it should be the same, across the board.

After all, we all agree the government needs more money to spend in the wise manner that history has proven it is capable of performing. (sarcasm)

jtomasik wrote:

Those businesses were established to provide a charitable service. Not all churches do that, and all do it to a varying degree (which includes zero charitable...

Those businesses were established to provide a charitable service. Not all churches do that, and all do it to a varying degree (which includes zero charitable services). Simply not taxing a church because it is a religion doesn't require it to do anything charitable at all. It's apples to oranges, when comparing a church to a pure charitable business.

If the government wants to support charitable businesses, that's a whole other discussion.