Trump to sign E/O lifting 501-c (3) tax restrictions on churches

[PierzStyx]

You are if you repeal the law that prohibited me from drinking beer.

I disagree. As long as it is up to my to decide to pass a law or get rid of a law that tells you can drink or not, then you're not free. The law is merely the whim of the State. As long as those whims rule your life you aren't free, even if the whim is more benevolent for the time being. But as long as I can decide you can't drink anymore then you aren't free. You're just doing what I have allowed you to do.

 

[PierzStyx]

How about an older label and we call him the anti-Christ?

That would be Luther.

But large portions of Christianity were calling the Pope an apostate at least as far back as Arius and Nicaea.

 

[PierzStyx]

Which is why the anti federalists were right, and why we should not be ruled by fatwas and royal decrees from a President/King

A fatwa is a religious ruling issued by an imam based on their interpretation of Islamic law. It isn't a law. If you don't trust the imam you don't have to follow the fatwa.

 

[TheCount]

A fatwa is a religious ruling issued by an imam based on their interpretation of Islamic law. It isn't a law.

That's extremely similar to a Trump executive order.

 

[Madison320]

I disagree. As long as it is up to my to decide to pass a law or get rid of a law that tells you can drink or not, then you're not free. The law is merely the whim of the State. As long as those whims rule your life you aren't free, even if the whim is more benevolent for the time being. But as long as I can decide you can't drink anymore then you aren't free. You're just doing what I have allowed you to do.

You sound like an anarchist.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...treating people differently under tax law is a miserable idea...the people favored will fight like hell against any movement towards honest egalitarianism...maybe hospitals, 'poorhouses,' etc., deserve special treatment...but CERTAINLY not these gd ooga booga religious institutions....ugh...

...many religious republicrats, etc.assorted peckerheads, will foam about 'religious freedom' as they force me to pay for their stinking tax/income exemption$...

...from time magazine: [FONT=&quot]The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 [/FONT]exempted nonprofits[FONT=&quot] from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax-free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, [/FONT]or most[FONT=&quot], property tax and state income tax. [/FONT]

 

[timosman]

...treating people differently under tax law is a miserable idea...the people favored will fight like hell against any movement towards honest egalitarianism...maybe hospitals, 'poorhouses,' etc., deserve special treatment...but CERTAINLY not these gd ooga booga religious institutions....ugh...

...many religious republicrats, etc.assorted peckerheads, will foam about 'religious freedom' as they force me to pay for their stinking tax/income exemption$...

...from time magazine: The federal revenue acts of 1909, 1913, and 1917 exempted nonprofits from the corporate excise and income taxes at the same time that they allowed people to deduct charitable contributions from their incomes. In other words, they gave tax-free status to the income of, and to the income donated to, nonprofits. Since then, state and local laws nearly everywhere have exempted nonprofits from all, or most, property tax and state income tax.

Why can't you incorporate yourself as a non-profit and ask your boss to hire you as a consultant?

 

[Danke]

...many religious republicrats, etc.assorted peckerheads, will foam about 'religious freedom' as they force me to pay for their stinking tax/income exemption$...
.

how exactly are they forcing you to pay taxes?

do you blame chinamen in Beijing too for not paying taxes here?

 

[oyarde]

how exactly are they forcing you to pay taxes?

do you blame chinamen in Beijing too for not paying taxes here?

My chinamen only takes cash , so pretty sure he is light on taxes . Well done .

 

[PierzStyx]

You sound like an anarchist.

Or, you know, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

That was the entire basis of liberty and why government was supposed to be incredibly small and weak, because when we create political institutions we are risking our freedom in exchange for the theoretical benefits of working together. It is also why Locke argues people can rebel against their governments at will whenever they feel like their rights are being violated. Jefferson based the entire Declaration of Independence off this idea. And Jefferson and Madison based their arguments for nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. As long as what you can and cannot do is dictated to you by another, you are not free.

 

[PierzStyx]

That's extremely similar to a Trump executive order.

If by that you mean the courts keep slapping them down, sure.

 

[Madison320]

Or, you know, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

That was the entire basis of liberty and why government was supposed to be incredibly small and weak, because when we create political institutions we are risking our freedom in exchange for the theoretical benefits of working together. It is also why Locke argues people can rebel against their governments at will whenever they feel like their rights are being violated. Jefferson based the entire Declaration of Independence off this idea. And Jefferson and Madison based their arguments for nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. As long as what you can and cannot do is dictated to you by another, you are not free.

I think they still believed in laws and minimal government.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I disagree. As long as it is up to my to decide to pass a law or get rid of a law that tells you can drink or not, then you're not free. The law is merely the whim of the State. As long as those whims rule your life you aren't free, even if the whim is more benevolent for the time being. But as long as I can decide you can't drink anymore then you aren't free. You're just doing what I have allowed you to do.

Oh, please. You are all the time "at the whims" of various people, namely: everybody. You are at the whim of your wife to not kill you. She could decide to at any moment, you know? Any time you two are together and you are defenseless, your continued life is merely the whim of your wife. At any time she might decide to pass a decree or get rid of a decree and that means you're not free. Right?

Your employer might decide at any moment to kidnap you -- lock the doors and not let you out. Your ferry operator may at any time choose to sink the boat. Your waiter may choose at any time to poison your food.

You must not be free.

For the rest of us not in La-La Land, whether we are free or not rests more upon whether our freedoms are actually being violated, not on whether they theoretically could be.

 

[PierzStyx]

I think they still believed in laws and minimal government.

Yes, laws and government constrained my the operation of natural law. All human law was supposedly constrained by the limits of Natural Law. As soon as any man-made law begins to violate the rights of man then they are justified in rebellion. This is because man-made law is not law but the whims of a tyrant. In fact Locke goes further than I an says that any time the government passes a law that violates your rights, and thus establishes absolute power over you, then the State has instantly placed itself in a condition of war against the people and can be completely replaced.

“Since men hope to preserve their property by establishing a government, they will not want that government to destroy this objective. When legislators (lawmakers) try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey the laws. When legislators try to gain or give someone else absolute power over lives, liberties, and property of the people, they abuse the power which the people had put into their hands. It is then the privilege of the people to establish a new legislature to provide for their safety and security. These principles also hold true for the executive who helps to make laws and carry them out.” -John Locke, Two Treatise of Government

That this sounds like anarchy to so many Americans just betrays a deep lack of study on the part of most Americans to study the philosophies of liberty. Too many mimic and ape Locke without actually reading him. And it only ends up justifying those in power. They don't really understand what "minimal government" truly means.

 

[PierzStyx]

Replies in bold.

Oh, please. You are all the time "at the whims" of various people, namely: everybody. You are at the whim of your wife to not kill you. She could decide to at any moment, you know? Any time you two are together and you are defenseless, your continued life is merely the whim of your wife. At any time she might decide to pass a decree or get rid of a decree and that means you're not free. Right?

Way to miss the point. Of course you are influenced by the actions of others. But my life isn't ruled by the whims of my wife. She cannot order me to do anything. And while she can certainly try to kill me, there is no assurance she would. Even if successful she would not rule me.


On the other hand, if someone else can determine your liberty or freedom, can command you to obey and compel you do so, then they rule you. Whether they choose to use that power in a way you like or not is irrelevant to the power they exercise over you. And that is what is being discussed, the extent to which the commands of others can dictate your liberty and obedience without your choice in the matter.

Your employer might decide at any moment to kidnap you -- lock the doors and not let you out. Your ferry operator may at any time choose to sink the boat. Your waiter may choose at any time to poison your food.

You must not be free.

You're absolutely right that if someone kidnaps you and holds you hostage that you then aren't free. Not only is your argument stupid here, it is entirely pointless.


For the rest of us not in La-La Land, whether we are free or not rests more upon whether our freedoms are actually being violated, not on whether they theoretically could be.

What a slave mentality. Enjoy the velvet shackles. "As long as the Massa dun't whoop me, he's a good Massa!" Never mind that the ability of the Master to do what they want to you is what constitutes slavery and servility in the first place, not whether you like it or not.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

timosman advises: Why can't you incorporate yourself as a non-profit and ask your boss to hire you as a consultant?



...will that get me out of paying $5,500/year in property taxes?

...maybe timosman and dinke are right:...maybe people who hate chattel/child/etc. slavery should just get some slaves themselves...maybe people who hate insane marijuana/drug laws should just beg the state for a medical card...[please please mr government man, do what you want to others...but please just leave me alone...]

...[apparently timosman and dinke are ok with stinking 'laws' that treat corporations [artificial persons] better than real people!...]

...if you two had an honest clue about the nature of 'money' you would understand there is no need for DIRECT TAXATION in the first place...ugh...republican-level tax experts!...ugh...

 

[Danke]

timosman advises: Why can't you incorporate yourself as a non-profit and ask your boss to hire you as a consultant?



...will that get me out of paying $5,500/year in property taxes?

...maybe timosman and dinke are right:...maybe people who hate chattel/child/etc. slavery should just get some slaves themselves...maybe people who hate insane marijuana/drug laws should just beg the state for a medical card...

...[apparently timosman and dinke are ok with 'laws' that treat corporations [artificial persons] better than real people!...]

...if you two had an honest clue about the nature of 'money' you would understand there is no need for DIRECT TAXATION in the first place...ugh...republican-level tax experts!...ugh...

You topped yourself , I didn't think your posts could get anymore idiotic.

 

[Ender]

The POINT here is that the 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make NO law concerning religion.

Churches were always tax-free- and still are- and were to be left alone. The whole 501(c)3 garbage was used to entice churches to incorporate so that .gov had more control.

Now the average Joe thinks this has to be done, but it does not.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Replies in bold.

And you still don't care to figure out how to properly quote things.

That's OK. I'm down with all kinds. I get along with everybody!

You write: "Way to miss the point."

I rarely miss the point. However, in fairness, I likewise rarely make an effort to give any indication that I understood the point. Furthermore, oftentimes I am not very interested in the original point at all. This is one of those times. So, it is entirely reasonable for you to feel this way.

Let me offer you the Olive Branch of Understanding: What I understand you to be saying is that if one party -- namely, the State -- can pass whatever oppressive nonsense it wants to from year to year to exploit, manage, and micro-manage the second party -- you -- then that second party -- you -- is not a very free man. He is not a free and independent individual. Even if one year the first party decides to "go easy" and only enslave him 5% of the time, that's small comfort, for the very next year he may increase the burden back to 30% enslavement. Or more -- whatever strikes his fancy. Certainly that cannot be called freedom! None would call that freedom but the totally delusional!

Is that about it?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The POINT here is that the 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make NO law concerning religion.

Churches were always tax-free- and still are- and were to be left alone. The whole 501(c)3 garbage was used to entice churches to incorporate so that .gov had more control.

The Free Exercise Clause doesn't mean churches can't be taxed any more than the Free Press Clause means that a publisher can't be taxed. While it's true that legislatures have historically granted tax exemptions to churches, the Constitution doesn't require it. See, for example, Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization, 493 U.S. 378 (1990), a unanimous decision holding that a religious organization can be subject to a generally applicable sales tax.

501(c)(3) doesn't require any organization to incorporate, and 501(c)(3) status allows donors to deduct their contributions for income tax purposes.