childress22
All American
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 7,974
Taxes are pretty fucking low. Yes, we should pay more in taxes, but also, as has been said, the money we do pay should be allocated a lot better.
childress22
All American
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 7,974
Also, can we get rid of the fucking tax-exempt status for religious organizations, too?
rome8180
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 52,198
This drives me crazy. I'd be okay with them being untaxed -- separation of church and state and all that -- if they didn't make enormous profits. There's also the fact that not all religions are treated equally in the eyes of the arbiters of the constitution.
childress22
All American
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 7,974
dkst0426 said:
I assume some of these regulations -- what is said from the pulpit, how money raised is spent -- are difficult to truly enforce and would be very expensive to truly enforce. That said, I'm not at all sure how they're enforced in the first place. Is it all based on reporting of violations?
childress22
All American
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 7,974
rome8180 said:
I don't think that having churches pay taxes -- and this includes property taxes, for which all 50 states give a waiver to religious organizations -- is a violation of church and state any more than having individuals pay taxes hinders their freedom of expression.
dkst0426
All American
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 4,052
That's a big blanket statement that assumes all religious organizations make "enormous profits".rome8180 said:
That was always my understanding when I was serving in ministry, yes. I know one church down in Gaston County that ended up triggering a massive IRS investigation and audit when their pastor went off in sermons on a particular issue while tying it to state and federal leaders. This same church also distributed "voting guides" to its members that went beyond outlining the issues into naming specific candidates. Needless to say, it turned into quite the mess for them.childress22 said:
dkst0426
All American
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 4,052
I agree that these megachurches whose pastors can afford private jets and that congregate in large arenas converted into "church sanctuaries" should come under heavier scrutiny. If, as you suggested, different religions are held to different standards (which is pretty evident and I agree with to an extent) by lawmakers, then it does not seem unreasonable that different bodies within each religion be held to different standards. A Lakewood has far more resources than a small-town Methodist church, after all.rome8180 said:
deepdarkblue
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 16,015
dkst0426 said:
And how about those "mission trips"? Here in Wilmington, they like to go minister to those poor souls in Costa Rica, though one particularly right-thinking church in town decided it was better to help US citizens, so they went to help out the unfortunates in Hawaii. And then they write that shit off on their taxes. I can only imagine how blissfully God smiles down on them for their great good works.
rhfarmer
Legend
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 14,710
I'm a Bernie fanboy, but knew the DNC would never let it happen. A bog overlooked factor in all of this is that Bernie doesn't fund down ticket dems, and Hillary does. That's one of the big functions of fundraising and super pacs.
I have voted Green before, but this election is too important to let Trump off the hook. This is the most important election of my life.
I have voted Green before, but this election is too important to let Trump off the hook. This is the most important election of my life.
dkst0426
All American
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 4,052
TANGENT: That was always an ongoing issue in the churches I served at - serve locally or serve abroad? The Associate Pastor at the last church that I was at was big into foreign missions, and I actually envisioned organizing a citywide service camp for local missions. I still have a nagging feeling that my push for that played some role in me getting chased out eventually.deepdarkblue said:
But to write that all off on taxes? Ehhhh.......I can understand purchasing materials but not if things like transportation and food were also written off.
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 41,218
Looking at top marginal income tax rates historically is extremely misleading and essentially useless. The top marginal income tax rate in 1944 of 94%, for example, only applied to income over ~$2,690,000 in today's dollars. A very small portion of the population today would have any income taxed at 94% under the tax code in 1944. The top marginal income tax rate today of 40% applies to income over ~$400,000. A much larger portion of the population and national gross income is affected by the 40% tax. Throw in different deductions and exemptions over time, and there's really no use in looking at top marginal rates.
Here's a decent resource for effective tax rates historically instead of top marginal rate, though it only goes up to 2012:
http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
Click on all the different income levels in the interactive chart and you can see, yes, the middle class is paying less in taxes, but it's not a disgusting difference from the historical average since the 1940s (and they pay much higher taxes than pre-1940s). The real problem is when you get up to the $500k, $1 million and $10 million households. The super wealthy are paying much, much less than historical norms, and that needs to change, since no reasonable person needs even 1/10 of $10 million in annual income to be extremely comfortable, unless they have 20 kids.
I don't think raising the financial burden on doctors and academic professors making $100-300k a year will make America great. Since guys like Gates and Zuckerberg already give over 50% of their assets to charity, they can probably afford to pay a lot more in taxes.
Here's a decent resource for effective tax rates historically instead of top marginal rate, though it only goes up to 2012:
http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
Click on all the different income levels in the interactive chart and you can see, yes, the middle class is paying less in taxes, but it's not a disgusting difference from the historical average since the 1940s (and they pay much higher taxes than pre-1940s). The real problem is when you get up to the $500k, $1 million and $10 million households. The super wealthy are paying much, much less than historical norms, and that needs to change, since no reasonable person needs even 1/10 of $10 million in annual income to be extremely comfortable, unless they have 20 kids.
I don't think raising the financial burden on doctors and academic professors making $100-300k a year will make America great. Since guys like Gates and Zuckerberg already give over 50% of their assets to charity, they can probably afford to pay a lot more in taxes.
skins
All American
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,144
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2012
- Messages
- 41,218
It is humanly impossible to value your 10 millionth dollar in annual income as much as your 10 thousandth dollar in annual income. There is no such person, no such utility curve in economics. If you changed the tax brackets to 60% for all income over $2.5 million, 50% for all income $1-2.5 million, 45% for all income $500k-1 million, and decreased taxes by a small but significant percentage for all income under $250,000, I think you'd end up with more total taxes collected but >99% of the country paying less taxes. Isn't that what >99% of the country would want, while raising more taxes for government spending? Any individual or single family that complains about "only" taking home $6 million of their $10 million income (when keeping all deductions and 15% capital gains tax in place) will have close to zero support.