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

[Ender]

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.

Try reading the 1st Amendment instead of later reinterpretations from TPTB.

Churches were NEVER to be taxed- this was understood before the Constitution was ever in place. A 501(c)3 is a .gov power play to grab the natural rights & donors CAN give & deduct to a church w/o a 501(c)3.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Try reading the 1st Amendment instead of later reinterpretations from TPTB.

SCOTUS decisions are what will be applied in the real world.

A 501(c)3 is a .gov power play to grab the natural rights & donors CAN give & deduct to a church w/o a 501(c)3.

No church is ever forced to apply for or receive 501(c)(3) status. In fact, under the statutes churches don't need to apply for 501(c)(3) status in order to be tax-exempt (almost all other charitable organizations do) or to receive tax-deductible contributions. But since tax-exempt status and tax deductions aren't automatic and are entirely up to the legislature, even a contribution to a church won't be deductible if the church spends too much time attempting to influence legislation or if it intervenes in political campaigns. In such a case it could also lose its tax-exempt status.

I'm sure you think that this shouldn't be the law, but the plain fact is, it is.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

...a great person once roared at me, 'WILL YOU STFU ABOUT "THE CONSTITUTION"....MAYBE YOU CAN AFFIRM THAT FATALLY-FLAWED "SOCIAL CONTRACT" ...NOT I...AND HERE IS, LARGELY, WHERE THE PROBLEM BEGINS AND ENDS...WE LIVE IN THE STINKING, ROTTEN, STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID, FATALLY-FLAWED, LEGISLATED OUTCOME OF A BUNCH OF FATALLY-FLAWED, REPUBLICRAT, MONETARY IGNORAMU$, HAND-PUPPET$ WHO HAVE SWORN AN OATH TO A FATALLY-FLAWED DOCUMENT....THE MORE DECENT, AWARE AMONG US TEND TO NOT SWEAR OATHS TO FATALLY-FLAWED DOCUMENTS...AND SO THE TENDENCY IS FOR THE LESS DECENT, MORE UNAWARE AMONG US TO CONCENTRATE PRECISELY WHERE DECENT, AWARE PEOPLE DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF FATALLY-FLAWED, REPUBLICRAT-LEVEL 'THINKERS'...'POLITICIANS'...."LEADERS" WITHOUT INTEGRITY...PEOPLE WHO ARE MERE CAT$-PAW$...POLITICAL WHORE$ TO BE USED BY OUR VERY REAL, $UPER-$ECRETIVE ADMINI$TRATIVE MA$TERS....


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hickory.html

Against Corporations of every kind, the objection may be brought that whatever power is given to them is so much taken from either the government or the people. As the object of charters is to give to members of companies powers which they would not possess in their individual capacity, the very existence of monied corporations is incompatible with equality of rights.
Corporations are unfavorable to the progress of national wealth. As the Argus eyes of private interest do not watch over their concerns, their affairs are much more carelessly and much more expensively conducted than those of individuals. What would be the condition of the merchant who should trust everything to his clerks, or of the farmer who should trust everything to his laborers? Corporations are obliged to trust everything to stipendiaries, who are oftentimes less trustworthy than the clerks of the merchant or the laborers of the farmer.
Such are the inherent defects of corporations that they never can succeed, except when the laws or circumstances give them a monopoly or advantages partaking of the nature of a monopoly. Sometimes they are protected by direct inhibitions to individuals to engage in the same business. Sometimes they are protected by an exemption from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. Sometimes the extent of their capital or of their credit gives them a control of the market. They cannot, even then, work as cheap as the individual trader, but they can afford to throw away enough money in the contest to ruin the individual trader, and then they have the market to themselves.
If a poor man suffers aggression from a rich man, the disproportion of power is such that it may be difficult for him to obtain redress; but if a man is aggrieved by a corporation, he may have all its stockholders, all its clerks, and all its protégés for parties against him. Corporations are so powerful as frequently to bid defiance to government.
If a man is unjust or an extortioner, society is, sooner or later, relieved from the burden by his death. But corporations never die. What is worst of all (if worse than what has already been stated be possible) is that want of moral feeling and responsibility which characterizes corporations. A celebrated English writer expressed the truth, with some roughness, but with great force, when he declared that "corporations have neither bodies to be kicked , nor souls to be damned."
All these objections apply to our American banks. They are protected, in most of the states, by directed inhibitions on individuals engaging in the same business. They are exempted from liabilities to which individuals are subjected. If a poor man cannot pay his debts, his bed is, in some of the states, taken from under him. If that will not satisfy his creditors, his body is imprisoned. The shareholders in a bank are entitled to all the gain they can make by banking operations; but if the undertaking chances to be unsuccessful, the loss falls on those who have trusted them. They are responsible only for the amount of stock they may have subscribed.

 

[DamianTV]

There is a big difference between Churches (of any religion) and God(s).

Churches are of men, and most believe no one is above their god. (again, that varies for non christian religions, but mostly that is not a US problem) Churches typically are not taxed because they are, well, were, one of the foundations of Population Control. Belief, Money, Violence. Yes, churches are a big part of the Belief portion of control in the efforts of corrupt humans to control god, or at least the populations image of god. Education and MSM are the other big players. Education is not taxed as it is a form of govt, and MSM is taxed because they operate like a business.

Just my two cents...