TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48301: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:45:08 AM

Would they be exempt if they make too little money for it to be worth taxing? If they only have a net profit of a couple hundred I don't really think they should have that taken from them.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48302: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:46:09 AM

Look, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.”

The Reasoning was that the exemptions for religious organizations created only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less of an involvement than would be created by taxation of churches, and the effect of the exemptions was thus not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The grant of a tax exemption was not sponsorship of the organizations because the government did not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstained from demanding that the churches support the state. The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other.

Obviously there's going to be some interaction between church and state. Just like there are some restrictions on the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

edited 27th Jan '13 11:46:54 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#48303: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:49:11 AM

@Deviant: Yeah, but Christianity is a philosophy, not a religion. tongue

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48304: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:58:03 AM

[up]And for those who believe that, I have a nice bridge that I can sell Mr O'Reilly [lol]

edited 27th Jan '13 11:59:24 AM by Bluesqueak

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48305: Jan 27th 2013 at 11:58:53 AM

Taxing them at the same rate as any other business (and let's not delude ourselves, churches are businesses) would not violate separation of church and state.

First off, no there not.

But considering some of your comments on religious institutions, I'm not at all surprised that you'd want to tax them.

Rick Perry: Texas to restrict abortion as much as possible

Poor Rick, his heart is in the right place.

But his head is up his ass, and his foot in his mouth.

edited 27th Jan '13 12:08:29 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#48306: Jan 27th 2013 at 12:07:34 PM

Churches are absolutely businesses. They're not-for-profit ones (theoretically — I might take issue with that re: some megachurches), but they're businesses just the same. They have income and expenses and services they provide just like every other business out there.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
3of4 Just a harmless giant from a foreign land. from Five Seconds in the Future. Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: GAR for Archer
Just a harmless giant from a foreign land.
#48307: Jan 27th 2013 at 12:08:02 PM

Separation of Church and State means that they have different functions. The church does not act as State, the State does not act as Church. Taxation would not infringe on that.

edited 27th Jan '13 12:09:09 PM by 3of4

"You can reply to this Message!"
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48308: Jan 27th 2013 at 12:12:19 PM

Being not-for-profit doesn't mean they can't make a profit. It means that they can't distribute their retained capital to owners or shareholders.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48309: Jan 27th 2013 at 12:45:11 PM

Churches aren't businesses. You're confusing accounting with purpose. If anything, they're a social organisation. Where people pay voluntary subscriptions to keep it going.

But taxation does infringe on separation of church and state (at least, court decisions have agreed it does). It infringes because it gives the state a lever by which it can control the behaviour of a church.

Play nice, and your taxes go down. Play nasty, and there'll be a clause in the next bill through congress, just for you.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#48310: Jan 27th 2013 at 12:51:52 PM

I'm more concerned with Megachurches with bookstores and coffee houses and crap like that.

Oh, Jovian already mentioned that. Thumbs up to Jovian.

edited 27th Jan '13 12:52:36 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48311: Jan 27th 2013 at 12:52:06 PM

Making tax policy contingent on holding certain beliefs or supporting certain practices would violate separation of church and state, freedom of expression, and equal protection. But just taxing them the same way you'd tax a corporation wouldn't do any of those things. And churches don't just survive on donations. They can also own and rent out property, some own shops, or they receive inheritances, or royalties from published works, and own stock or other financial instruments to produce income. The fact that some of their income comes from voluntary donations doesn't change the fact that they are a business. In fact, I know of some churches that require their members to turn over their tax returns and requires them to tithe.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48312: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:03:05 PM

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott may challenge Rick Perry in the 2014 Gubernatorial election.

You may remember Abbot as the man who threatened to arrest UN-affiliated poll watchers in the 2012 Presidential election.

Senate To Vote On Sandy Aid Bill Monday

[up] How the hell does that violate the freedom of expression?

edited 27th Jan '13 1:09:27 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Lascoden ... from Missouri, USA Since: Nov, 2012
...
#48313: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:07:18 PM

You may remember Abbot as the man who threatened to arrest UN-affiliated poll watchers in the 2012 Presidential election.
Haha, what? I must of missed that. Did he end up trying anything, or was he just blowing smoke out of his ass?

boop
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48314: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:12:53 PM

[up]

I believe he was blowing smoke out of his ass. Although he did send a letter to Hillary Clinton asking the White House to back him up.

He is also the guy who said "Texas is better than New York, and New York just gave us another excuse to say that" in response to Governor Cuomo's gun control legislation.

edited 27th Jan '13 1:18:48 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48315: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:14:36 PM

Honestly, not taxing churches is, in my opinion, a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#48316: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:19:15 PM

[up] I'm in the same boat. If an organization is allowed to give donations to political parties or do campaigning for political candidates, they ought to be taxed. Allowing religious organizations to influence politics without paying taxes is violating the Establishment Clause.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48317: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:23:01 PM

[up]

There's the other option: Ban Churches*

from supporting Candidates or Political Parties. Make them non-Polticial.

Keep Rolling On
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48318: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:23:49 PM

[up][up]

I agree that religious institutions that directly interfere with the political process should be reprimanded, but not religious institutions do that.

edited 27th Jan '13 1:24:23 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48319: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:26:33 PM

How the hell does that violate the freedom of expression?

It would impose a financial sanction for holding or expressing certain beliefs. No different than fining somebody for expressing the "wrong" idea, or requiring that Christians pay less taxes than non-Christians.

[up][up] Tax-exempt organizations aren't supposed to openly support candidates for office. The IRS hasn't exactly been zealous in investigating the political activities of religious organizations for the past several years, though.

edited 27th Jan '13 1:26:49 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#48320: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:32:47 PM

@Deviant: Which is why I believe they ought to prove 501c status before they can get tax exemption, and when they break the rules, they lose their exemption.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48321: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:37:13 PM

By exempting churches from taxes, the state gets to pick and choose what constitutes as a religion, and, by doing so, the state is respecting the establishment of those religions, which violates the establishment clause.

Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48322: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:53:17 PM

Ban Churches* from supporting Candidates or Political Parties. Make them non-Polticial.

Okay, be honest, Greenmantle. Be absolutely honest.

If a Vicar stood up in the pulpit, and said "if you believe in Christianity, you should not vote for the British National Party" - would you want to ban that?

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48323: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:53:34 PM

Any nonprofit organization can become a tax-exempt 501(c)(3); it just needs to file certain documents with the IRS, disclose a lot of information to the government, and follow certain rules. They don't need to be religious. Charitable and educational organizations can and do also qualify.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#48324: Jan 27th 2013 at 1:59:52 PM

If a Vicar stood up in the pulpit, and said "if you believe in Christianity, you should not vote for the British National Party" - would you want to ban that?

* Sigh *

All right then, no. Churches can have views on issues, of course. But no giving donations to Parties or Candidates, no obvious lobbying...but in end, who's going to listen? A Church or a Religion shout not force a person to vote for a party or hold a point of view, it should only persuade.

Keep Rolling On
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#48325: Jan 27th 2013 at 2:03:33 PM

[up]And I'm afraid that now I'm going to point out that Dr Martin Luther King was a Baptist minister - and paid by a group of churches.

Does that come under 'obvious lobbying'?

(The example I gave was a real example, btw - I was at that particular sermon.)

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.

Total posts: 417,856
Top