FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Hank Rogers[_2_]

wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:33:44 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-07-12 2:21 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-12 10:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 7/12/2018 8:40 AM, Druce wrote:
>>
>>>> But are they generalizations? There are enough of them that I don't
>>>> trust any of them but I'm sure there are some good people that don't
>>>> brag or tell others how to live their life while doing the opposite.
>>>
>>> They certainly appear to enjoy "bigly" the power they have over their
>>> congregations! A significant number live high off the hog whilst their
>>> followers are persuaded (usually with the threat of "dis-fellowship") to
>>> donate more and more of their hard-earned money. Washington doesn't have
>>> the guts to tax them properly either.
>>
>> I am not at all religious, but I can see giving churches a break on
>> taxes. The way I figure it is that they are publicly owned and operated
>> by the people. The offer space for community activities and public
>> support services. However, they have certainly been cases of abuse over
>> the years. They have been used to support and to enrich the already
>> powerful. They have been used to push political agendas. They have also
>> been used to finance the opulent lifestyles of their leaders... like
>> Jimmy and Tammy Faye Bakker.
>>
>> I had to deal with a number of churches when I was working. I was
>> surprised to learn that a lot of the new fundamentalist churches were
>> corporations, usually numbered companies doing business as....
>> I don't mind cutting them slack on the legitimate good work that they
>> do, but there need to be some rules about how the earn, use and invest
>> their money to ensure that the "church" is not just a money making
>> scheme taking advantage of people who are trying to be good.
>
> I think they should be taxed, or when they sell the profit should be
> taxed. The RC church had a monastery, a convent and a school on what
> became a prime piece of commercial property in the early 80s. When
> they sold it, it went for millions. At that point they should have
> had to pay a levy for all the 'tax' less years.
>

Didn't Thomas Jefferson want to tax the churches? It seems fair, as they
are just in the Jebus retail bussiness.

Of course, there would be tax exemptions for nuns that sell sex to sailors.