Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why do we allow people to deduct the cost of spreading mythology?

Posted 9 years ago on April 16, 2013, 5 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

If you want the United States taxpayer to pay for you to tell the world your version of its creation, then all you got to do is call it “church”. Why is that? Shouldn't we stop doing that before we cut back on peoples retirements?

Update: I just came across this on the web a Pew Research report on how some of this tax deducted money is spent:

http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Lobbying-for-the-faithful--exec.aspx

81 Comments

81 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 9 years ago

Yes! No more tax-free schools of hate mongering and human division.

Every religion claims to have the "one true god", the correct set of "rules to live by" and divides people on these lines,. they build community yes, however it is non-inclusive, and lead by faith,. or the belief in that witch in not actually true. This sort of cultism should in no way be endorsed or funded by tax-free exemptions, and in fact should be ridiculed and marginalized until it is drowned in a bathtub.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Many "Churches" are as much country club business support groups the Morons are a perfect example, Romney gives money to the Church and the Church members help him in business, that's fine but giving money to your private club in which all members must join your Church should not be tax deduct-able.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

Trinity church assets are still mostly real estate value of the massive Manhattan given to them for FREE in 1705 by Queen Ann!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/nyregion/trinity-church-in-manhattan-is-split-on-how-to-spend-its-wealth.html?_r=0

Enough already.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

There are many churches large and small not paying for the roads, the cops, or the fire protection they receive. Do they not have bathrooms in these churches do they not have electricity?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

They do, & they get all services for free I guess.

We want our money back.!

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

If someone like say Mitt Romney pays less, say 5 or 6 percent on millions of income someone must make up the difference. Anyone receiving special tax treatment on their income is taking money from other taxpayers. That's why I asked the question if we give them special tax treatment don't we have a right to ask how they spend the money? Take for instance cap gains and dividends are tax less to encourage investment to create jobs, so don't we have the right to ask if car elevators are the best way to do that, just as we expect teachers to meet our expectations.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-we-give-them-a-lower-tax-rate-dont-we-have-a-ri/

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 9 years ago

I was just reading about how our government here in the U.S.A. is giving Karzi all these bags of cash ($millions a month in unmarked bills).

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cia-pays-the-potentate/

Before we worry about the churches, it would be better to worry about all this money that is going overseas to make wars.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Really? Then can we do that before we cut "entitlements" too? Or how about headstart? As long as we aren't taking away i guess it could wait, but before you start cutting back on need services and my damn retirement you better quit paying for praying.

[-] 1 points by Shule (2638) 9 years ago

amen.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

Me thinks your prejudice runneth over...

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

What has prejudice got to do with it? I don't care what you believe in just don't expect me to pay for it.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

And what of the other nonprofits out there?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

If you can't tell the deference between what is "believed" in and what is actually real, then you got problems, I don't mind deductions for real things it's just this teaching mythology you should do with your own money, I'm not prejudice I don't think any contribution to groups that use the money to promote their 'beliefs' as opposed to what can be seen, felt, peer-reviewed should be allowed, for instance if you think your god keeps you from following the laws every other employer does then giving you money by one person shouldn't cause my taxes to go up or my retirement to go down.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

You don't think singling out religious institutions specifically is prejudicial?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

But I don't single out religious institutions I don't think any contributions used to increase your club's membership should be tax deductible if the purpose of the club is to teach a certain type of mythology rather than say a real course on mythology as a whole.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

A certain type of mythology? Are you kidding me? And political non-profits are not a certain mythology? As opinion, belief, intended to promote and grow the power and success of their own? What is a non-profit anyway, do you have any idea? Are you one of those who favors taxing conservative groups in an effort to remove opinion in opposition from the political conversation?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

certain as in specific...if you spend money on "informing" instead of helping you should not be tax except, per the 1954 law, so yeah i am diffidently in favor of the IRS enforcing the law and none of these political groups would be tax except, "conversation" was never intended by Congress to be tax except, and as far as you other crap goes yes there is a difference in spreading food and spreading the Word.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 9 years ago

The catholic church is the largest land owner in the United States - other than the government - no real estate taxes, etc

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

A lot of people have been bringing up the property tax thing, it is kind of crazy I mean if a church gets broke into don't the cops show up? Don't people drive on roads to go there and give them money once a week or so? Don't they use the mail system or broadcast system? I agree the exception of property tax is ridiculous, but i also contend that allowing people to deduct contributions is also ridiculous given that so much of the money is used for the teaching/spreading of mythology.

There are a lot of churches of all kinds I would think that collectively it is huge, just the Catholic Church comes under one roof so to speak.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by HCabret (-327) 9 years ago

What does religion have to with retirement?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Haven't you heard we have an "entitlements" problem, if are going to keep having taxpayers pay to spread The Word then we got to cut them.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

Why, that's the most absurd word I've ever heard.

[-] 1 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

Why not end that status for all non-profits?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I do see a difference in giving people food and telling them creation stories.

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

We don't all think alike and there is a sizable group that would disagree with you. Tax all properties on all organizations that collect money. Once you start debating the merits of what a non profit does you open the door to all sorts of exceptions. There are going to be those that claim a church "feed the soul" and have just as much merit as the secular organizations that feed the body.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

People can claim all kinds of things but those that can't discern between the things that are known and those that are theorized have bigger issues than tax policy. They should focus on reconnecting with reality.

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

There are all sorts of things people should do, the problem is convincing them to change. Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

no doubt, but no reason some should pay more in tax so others can pay less just to spread rumors of other worlds...

[-] 1 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

There is a reason, a tax code has been put in place using (or abusing if you prefer) the laws of the nation. Get a majority to agree with you and it can be changed.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

This is a law that should be changed, the first step is recognizing that it is a problem, I would not expect this to change, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.

[-] 0 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

I agree. The entire tax code needs to be reviewed and changed. If non-profits or churches get taxed that would be fine with me but it's of secondary importance. I think a bigger priority would be to do something current tax laws that enable people and companies to shelter money.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I'm just trying to ask the questions I don't hear anybody else asking, that's all.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 9 years ago

No. It has to go by congress.

It's been proved they. Don't care for popular, or majority rule.

[-] 2 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

Yes in a representative republic, you're right. The representatives have to be convinced their job is on the line. If demonstration alone doesn't do that, then people will have to find new candidates and elect them.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

The most effective way to affect public policy is to become involved in primaries. Tough to maintain the veil of "non-partisan" and do that. I think that people who wish that the nation would address wealth inequality would do best to find and support the most like minded Democratic to support in the primary while exposing the the republican's complete devotion to the rich.

[-] 1 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

Yes it would be difficult to remain non-partisan. Tough to get anything of consequence if you don't get more directly involved too.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Involvement can take many forms, in many ways the only involvement that matters is the VOTE, much like the involvement of an elected official it is his or her votes that create policy, the VOTE is first and foremost. Engaging the mind for thought is useful before the vote.

Being out and present matters too, I was at a history setting first time ever event this past weekend at some personnel risk to my liberty, but someone must be first.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 9 years ago

If voting actually changed anything, it would be illegal.

Who said that, factsy?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I lived though the 90's and the 2000's it sure seemed like something changed to me Bumbler, as I recall voting was involved.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 9 years ago
[-] 0 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 9 years ago

It will take more than two of us.

[-] 0 points by gsw (3400) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 9 years ago

We've all been on a vacation to nowhere since 1960, especially 99 percent of congress. Time for some new ideas, yesterday.

They shipped out our jobs, then hid their private fortune overseas, and had a good time, while wages froze, jobs left.

We need to take care for ourselves, stop givin the big corp execs our money. Get better leaders in dc

[-] 0 points by Sandy0621 (175) 9 years ago

There isn't a lot we can do about the past. People need to become actively engaged in the process. As you suggest, we need to get better leaders. Find them and elect them.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

Churches should pay!!

Just think of the property taxes!!

My god! .oops. heh heh.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

It really is insane that someone like Romney can give money to the Mormon Church and reduce his tax bill, then call on the Church for business contacts. While the Church uses the money to recruit more Mormons to join their club. Now don't get me wrong many churches do this, this is just one example.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

Don't forget the money the Mormons used to defeat gay marriage referendum in Cali, (now in SCOTUS)

All churchs get politically involved. No reason they shouldn't contribute to society.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

there are outright violations sounds like what you're talking about would be one, but even beyond that why should I get to make a tax deduction so I can send people door to door to ask people to believe a certain mythology, I mean even when a church is doing exactly what they claim to do why should we ask other people to make up the difference in tax so you can convince people to believe in your creation myth?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

I agree. We should not. And how many people are "creating" new religions to take advantage of this tax windfall.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

sometimes new and improved is a good thing, but makes no sense really,

workers spend their lives being productive for the owners, now they plan to steal the pension so the privilege can continue to avoid giving back

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

I'd like to see tax exempt status for all churchs lifted but there are too many people still brainwashed/believers in the bronze era fairytales.

But it will happen.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I think it is at least a fair question to ask, why do we allow people to deduct what they give to Church? Sure the property tax could help cities, I thought the cops responded when a church was broke into or was on fire, maybe they do, does that mean they consume without even chipping in, that is stupid. But why should people be able to deduct contributions even, a much bigger cost to the taxpayer, when the money is use to build more club houses, err churches, to teach mythology, err religion.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

Excellent point. Goes back to medieval or more likely bronze age notion of giving ceasar his due and God his due.

I vote to end the boondoggle.

Just tell the right wing religious fundamental cases it's the only way to cut the evil deficit.

They always buy that blindly.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

They are talking about cutting back on the charitable contribution deduction, I would like to direct that cut just to those that spread mythology and those that do good work in this world leave them alone, or we remove the charitable deduction and just apply a 10% across the board tax to all income with 100% of the money earmarked to help the poor, that would be best no doubt.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

That could work. Don't particularly like taking any deductions from the working class, but I'd be willing to consider it.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

well at this point it's really very much a theoretical discussion,

No one really talks about how some churches are as much country club as they are church and even then what's so special about a certain version of creation when it can cause people to claim all kinds of crazy crap once they start to talk for God. So other people who aren't members of the club who don't benefit from the contacts have to take up the slack when the tax man calls, well i think that's bullshit.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 9 years ago

You're right, Only theoretical, Unlikely any action will come anytime soon. non believers are growing but still represent a small minority of population. Andreligious (brainwashed?) are very vocal, & still used by pols with emotional wedge issue politics.

important to bring up the issue, test the waters, gauge the support. In a generation (or 2?) this change will come.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 9 years ago

Uh, isn't OWS a tax preferred org 501c or whatever? Let's see, their take over of public spaces caused lots of police overtime and they trashed the parks they occupied. They used public washrooms, too. Hmmmmm..........

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

501cs pay property tax, churches don't that funds the cities, deductions for contributions for the purpose of spreading truth such as the fact the the rich are richer than ever is very different than spreading mythology about creation myths.

[-] -1 points by justiceforzim (-17) 9 years ago

Ok then...no prob since Occupy only occupies others property.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

glad you're on broad with this whole the rich are too damn rich thing....

[-] -2 points by Dmooradian (-74) 9 years ago

So what you are saying is that you want a flat tax with no deductions. Oops, that was Romney's plan!!! You can't believe in that can you?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I don't want deductions for teaching mythology, if you want to feed people fine, we should allow that deduction, if you want to some TV without commercialism that's a deduction, if you want to help people go to a real school where they teach science that's fine too, I just don't see why the taxpayer should be paying to spread mythology.

I would like to see us flat tax the social security tax first dollar to last all forms of income, is Romney for that? i don't think so. If we do that and allow a deduction to everyone for the basic cost of staying alive say the first $40,000 or so then a flat tax on the rest, as long as we do it to social security too I could support that sure.

[-] -3 points by Dmooradian (-74) 9 years ago

So now it comes down to what you believe and want. That's called a dictatorship. I might not agree with you but a flat tax with no deductions treats everybody the same.

To your second point, giving less well off people a tax break was proposed by Friedman back in the 60s and is the basis of the earned income tax credit which had been a success.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

As I have said before in this thread, if you cannot tell the difference between reality and mythology then you have problems beyond the tax code to concern yourself with. I don't have a problem with feeding people that's science not mythology and giving a break for them that do that is fine with me and is very different than taking from me so you can spread your version of creation. That is a very different thing.

Let me be more clear, when the Catholic Church gives away food and medicine that’s fine but then when they use their mythology to say we don't want to provide the same level of health care that others employees receive, then they have entered the world of mythology, it’s based on what their “God” tells them not reality. This is the problem with these Churches they are ruled by beliefs, except in the case of the Mormons where belief takes a back seat to gaining power. I mean really was Joseph Smith gay married or poly married? I forget, and is there a difference?

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 9 years ago

Fine, I don't believe in your god, Obama, to do the right thing but you want to take from me to fund it. I don't believe in green energy but you do. That's the problem. Instead of arguing about it and picking winners and losers we should treat everybody the same and give nobody the break.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

really you don't believe solar panels exist? I see them all the time they do exist can you say the same about your "God" when did you last see Him or touch Him? (and have you discussed it with your doctor)

[-] -1 points by Dmooradian (-74) 9 years ago

Did you ever think that you are living in the wrong country as the US was formed by religious people and the belief in God. It's on every dollar bill you use.

But that's not the point, disagreements happen and that is why it should be a system with no tax breaks.

By the way, green energy is a non-starter due to its cost.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Discussing the pros and cons is very different than deigning its existence, that's where that part where you talk about dictatorship saying you disagree with the decision of the majority is very different than taking money from non-believers to build buildings for the purpose of talking to imaginary people, especially if you are going to insist that you can't follow the rules we agree on because of something the imaginary person tells you.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

I guess my family has been living in the wrong place since at least 1721 how long has yours?

Of course the people who put the country together understood the dangers of religion that's why religion is the only thing they were specific about keeping out of government. They had seen how the Puritans had ruled in the northeast and they wanted no part of that, noted by the fact that try as you might God is not in the Constitution, He was put on the money during the Red scare of the fifties, hardly a time the Founding Fathers would be proud of. But in spite of the best efforts of the Founding Fathers religious zealots have sunk their claws back into our government and an exorcism is in order.

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

So you make statements about me with no basis in reality I think i can see the problem now you really don't know the difference between reality and mythology. You speak of green energy and say you don't believe in it are are there many things you don't believe in? do you believe planes can fly? and if you don't should the rest of us not insane people be bound tro write public policy to reflect your insanity?

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

We can deduct for the expense of defending ourselves against prejudicial practices, or the cost of a discrimination suit, well, if we're black... is that not prejudicial?

Why should we allow tax exempt status to some nonprofits but not all?

What of tax equality?

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Legal expenses are tax deductible? I don't believe that is true. Could you provide supportting info via a link?

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 9 years ago

A new line was created to allow deductions for the cost of a discrimination suit. And this is not tax equity because it is intended, very specifically, to favor minorities. To state this another way - this is IRS corruption - and the Obama administration as our Federal executive is directly responsible.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Tax law originates in the House if there is such a line it was the GOP in Congress that moved it through, or don't you have a TV?

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

vaprosvyeh said 15 hours ago at April 29, 2013, 1:07 p.m. EST (delete)

“You do realize that there are hundreds of non-profit colleges that build structures the purpose of which is to gather together and teach ACTUAL Mythology....right? I have no problem with the idea of churches paying taxes as long as every other non-profit organization (there are roughly 1.5 million of them in the US) such as colleges, think tanks, foundations, that gathers and teaches concepts which many people find questionable are also forced to pay the same taxes. Do you agree?”

What think tank doesn't pay property tax, does anybody know?

[-] -3 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

Here's what letting people feel like their mythology is something more than that:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/26/1926221/mississippi-church-state/

I think it's called indoctrination.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

People come by to downvote but too chickenshit to say anything I see.

[+] -6 points by lloydbraun (-12) 9 years ago

Church hating liberal atheists, still trying to figure a way to suck more money out of hard working religious Americans, in order to fund more entitlements, for their lazy non working communist brothers

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8708) 9 years ago

And what church might that be, The Church of Self-Righteous Stupidity . . .? Our Lady of Perpetual Psychosis? It couldn't be Jesus that you worship, or God for that matter, so who or what do you worship, really?

You might want to give that a moment's thought, athough I know that's almost asking the impossible of people like you.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8306) from Phoenix, AZ 9 years ago

You mean hard working people like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6niWzomA_So

Who have been taking money out of the retirement accounts of Americans which they pay into on their wages, but these people don't on their cap gains and dividends. Then they use the money to cover tax cuts at the top resulting the the top 1% paying the lowest taxes in decades. Sure they still pay a big percentage of the total but that's a refection of just how much they have, not that they are actually paying a fair share.