Should religions enjoy tax exempt status? (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Should religions be tax exempt?

And the slightly curlier question imo is that if religions are not tax exempt then where does this leave religious/church-based charities?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Although I hate religion, as a libertarian I kind of have to say yes, they should enjoy tax exempt status.

I hold that all taxation is theft. Therefore, any exemption that prevents people from being robbed is good.

It does not matter that it applied inconsistently. If a burglar robbed everyone on your street but one person, surely you would not wish for your neighbors to be robbed too (even if you don't like them) just to even things up.

Again, while I despise religion, I suspect the government is likely to spend the money in even more wasteful and destructive ways.

 

[hectic_lowie]

libertarian aspie

 

[Cyrus the Great]

not sure...my local mosque is fucking broke....wtf is the govt going to get from them...they beg for donations.

 

[GodLovesIsrael]

not sure...my local mosque is fucking broke....wtf is the govt going to get from them...they beg for donations.

I bet they are secretly funded by terrorist groups ai?

 

[redmayne]

Although I hate religion, as a libertarian I kind of have to say yes, they should enjoy tax exempt status.

I hold that all taxation is theft. Therefore, any exemption that prevents people from being robbed is good.

It does not matter that it applied inconsistently. If a burglar robbed everyone on your street but one person, surely you would not wish for your neighbors to be robbed too (even if you don't like them) just to even things up.

Again, while I despise religion, I suspect the government is likely to spend the money in even more wasteful and destructive ways.

"Ra ra ra evil government taking my money, using it to repress me and precious beliefs ra ra ra.

I don't realise that a government is necessary to protect a country internally and externally, represent us and restrict with laws. Pretty much keep my existence from collapsing around me. These crazy realists call anything less than that "anarchy"."

What an unbelievably stupid analogy. 1. You don't elect a burglar. 2. It doesn't return your money in the form of sustaining a country.

You want a government that doesn't pay any attention to you? Get lost. Right now. To Africa somewhere.

Oh, and no, religion shouldn't be exempt from tax. The Catholic church is one of the best run businesses in the world, making billions of dollars per annum. The leadership is all about money, so why help them get more.

 

[Riet]

No tax exempt status, genuine charities wouldn't be operating at any substantial profit anyway.

 

[hectic_lowie]

aspertarianism

 

[quik.]

Excuse my ignorance, but why are religions currently exempt?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

What an unbelievably stupid analogy. 1. You don't elect a burglar. 2. It doesn't return your money in the form of sustaining a country.

So the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority?

What if the burglar was elected by the majority of people in your community, could it force you to pay?

The government only spends a proportion of what it steals from us on doing anything remotely beneficial. A great proportion is spent doing horrific things like the war on drugs, and pointless foreign wars.

Even with the money that is spent of beneficial things, a huge proportion of this money is wasted in administrate costs.

Then there's the money the government unashamedly steals and just gives straight to the its corporate friends through bailouts, subsidies, government contracts and corporate welfare.

 

[redmayne]

So the majority has the right to impose its will on the minority?

You speak of minorities, yet your system is probably the worst possible scenario for them. How would the poor, the mentally ill, Aborigines etc. live in the world? Are they going to protect themselves? No, anyone that requires help from the government and community services would die out.

What if the burglar was elected by the majority of people in your community, could it force you to pay?

You're an idiot.

The government only spends a proportion of what it steals from us on doing anything remotely beneficial. A great proportion is spent doing horrific things like the war on drugs, and pointless foreign wars.

Just gonna enlighten you here. Drugs are actually fairly shit, they kill and ruin people's lives. Restricting their flow = "beneficial".

It isn't "stolen" from us. How ridiculous. You're not forced to be here. You choose to be here, because it's relatively secure and stable. Wanna know why it's like that? I'll help you, it's because we have a secure and stable democratic government.

2 to 2.5% of our GDP is spent on the military. Great proportion...ha. We spend around 10% on healthcare...pretty sure that's "beneficial" too. So, do you wanna take that stupid statement back? And if I could be fucked to do more research, it would show that by far most of what the government does directly benefits the community.

Even with the money that is spent of beneficial things, a huge proportion of this money is wasted in administrate costs.

So what? If that's what it takes to get essential services to the community, so be it. Improving administration is the best you can do.

What would you do in your paradise then? Collect all the federal winnings with the Treasury you don't have, get it out to communities via the transport you don't have, or the mail service you don't have, and make sure it's fairly distributed with the bureaucracy you don't have?

Then there's the money the government unashamedly steals and just gives straight to the its corporate friends through bailouts, subsidies, government contracts and corporate welfare.

No, you're right. The risk that corporations can abuse money is too high, just let the entire private sector die out. I mean, they're not the lifeblood of the economy or anything. And hey, if we made Australia crap for companies, then they wouldn't come here anymore. How wonderful!

You gonna join us in the real world now?

 

[Lentern]

Should religions be tax exempt?

And the slightly curlier question imo is that if religions are not tax exempt then where does this leave religious/church-based charities?

You're trying to drive a wedge between us aren't you? Insofar as one accepts the morality of taxation period the church should not get special exemption.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

You speak of minorities, yet your system is probably the worst possible scenario for them. How would the poor, the mentally ill, Aborigines etc. live in the world? Are they going to protect themselves? No, anyone that requires help from the government and community services would die out.



You're an idiot.



Just gonna enlighten you here. Drugs are actually fairly shit, they kill and ruin people's lives. Restricting their flow = "beneficial".

It isn't "stolen" from us. How ridiculous. You're not forced to be here. You choose to be here, because it's relatively secure and stable. Wanna know why it's like that? I'll help you, it's because we have a secure and stable democratic government.

2 to 2.5% of our GDP is spent on the military. Great proportion...ha. We spend around 10% on healthcare...pretty sure that's "beneficial" too. So, do you wanna take that stupid statement back? And if I could be fucked to do more research, it would show that by far most of what the government does directly benefits the community.



So what? If that's what it takes to get essential services to the community, so be it. Improving administration is the best you can do.

What would you do in your paradise then? Collect all the federal winnings with the Treasury you don't have, get it out to communities via the transport you don't have, or the mail service you don't have, and make sure it's fairly distributed with the bureaucracy you don't have?



No, you're right. The risk that corporations can abuse money is too high, just let the entire private sector die out. I mean, they're not the lifeblood of the economy or anything. And hey, if we made Australia crap for companies, then they wouldn't come here anymore. How wonderful!

You gonna join us in the real world now?

Awww man, these are the exact same things everyone says when they first hear about the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Read the responses to these same questions in one of the other ancap threads.

Or better still go to mises.org

I would urge you to have an honest think about it though.

Put it this way, throughout history there has always been a dominant ideology. Whether it was a belief in the devine right of kings, in the tribal elders, in a dictator, or in religion and theocratic leaders.

All these ideas are considered to be discredited in today's society. Today the dominant ideology is in the democratic nation state. But are we really that clever, is this the point in history when we have come up with the best possible system (despite some room for tweaking with it here and there)?

Perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that this dominant ideology which is basically the rule of the majority and a right to impose their will on the minority will also one day be viewed as barbaric and backward.

Perhaps as is always the case, most people are indocrinated into accepting the dominant ideology, and find the idea of radical departures from it frightening, and that is it the minority who are mocked and dismissed who are eventually vindicated by history.

Remember, if you suggested democracy to any other society in history, they would have given you a similar response to what you gave me along the lines of "are you gonna join us in the real world?" That's why progress is so slow, people like you are so quick to dismiss alternatives.

If you read a basic FAQ about libertarianism that answers all those typical questions you just raised, and then came back and wanted to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that. But at least take the time to understand what you are criticising.

 

[redmayne]

Awww man, these are the exact same things everyone says when they first hear about the idea of anarcho-capitalism. Read the responses to these same questions in one of the other ancap threads.

Or better still go to mises.org

I would urge you to have an honest think about it though.

Put it this way, throughout history there has always been a dominant ideology. Whether it was a belief in the devine right of kings, in the tribal elders, in a dictator, or in religion and theocratic leaders.

All these ideas are considered to be discredited in today's society. Today the dominant ideology is in the democratic nation state. But are we really that clever, is this the point in history when we have come up with the best possible system (despite some room for tweaking with it here and there)?

Perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that this dominant ideology which is basically the rule of the majority and a right to impose their will on the minority will also one day be viewed as barbaric and backward.

Perhaps as is always the case, most people are indocrinated into accepting the dominant ideology, and find the idea of radical departures from it frightening, and that is it the minority who are mocked and dismissed who are eventually vindicated by history.

Remember, if you suggested democracy to any other society in history, they would have given you a similar response to what you gave me along the lines of "are you gonna join us in the real world?" That's why progress is so slow, people like you are so quick to dismiss alternatives.

If you read a basic FAQ about libertarianism that answers all those typical questions you just raised, and then came back and wanted to discuss it further, I would be happy to do that. But at least take the time to understand what you are criticising.

Mmmm no. I tend not to visit the batty pages of extremists. You know...communists, neo-nazis, anarchists/libertarians and the like.

Athenian democracy was established 2500 years ago. It has been vindicated, as a revolutionary beginning. Pretty sure today it's lauded, while belief in those other systems you mentioned has, thankfully, become wildly unpopular. In the scheme of humanity's 100,000 to 250,000 year existence, our recent advancement has been phenomenally accelerating. In the past couple of thousand we've reached these social, economic and technological heights. So why can't this be your high point, or close to it? It has to be at some point. It will have to stop somewhere.

In all those historic times there have been condemned minorities as well, not just ones that would ultimately succeed, and they remain condemned today. Pure libertarianism ideology is one of those.

Perhaps you should put aside your childish animosity towards government and realise that the existence we have now is pretty damn awesome, for most of us at least. And this system of existence is the only hope for those worse off.

Since you didn't refute them, I trust you couldn't fathom just how wrong you are concerning my previous arguments.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Mmmm no. I tend not to visit the batty pages of extremists. You know...communists, neo-nazis, anarchists/libertarians and the like.

If you don't read what they have to say, how do you know they are wrong? Also libertarianism is almost the exact opposite of communism and fascism.

Athenian democracy was established 2500 years ago. It has been vindicated, as a revolutionary beginning. Pretty sure today it's lauded, while belief in those other systems you mentioned has, thankfully, become wildly unpopular.

Well obviously past examples of the dominant ideology will be lauded.

The example of democracy 2500 years ago also undermine your spiel about:

In the scheme of humanity's 100,000 to 250,000 year existence, our recent advancement has been phenomenally accelerating.

Democracy is in fact an old idea, that has little to do with modern technological advances. Democratic empires like Athens were barbaric towards non-citizens then, just as today's democratic empire the USA/NATO/non-NATO major allies is barbaric towards its so called "enemies" today.

Perhaps you should put aside your childish animosity towards government and realise that the existence we have now is pretty damn awesome, for most of us at least.

haha, yeah its awesome if you're on the right side of the government's guns.

Its not so great if you are in Iraq or Afganistan being murdered, tortured or raped by soldiers from democratic countries.

Or if you were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945. Or if you were one of the thousands of Japanese sex slaves taken my the US troops during the subsequent occupation.

Or one of the many Japanese Americans that was locked up in concentration camps during the war.

Or one of the many innocent Mexicans or Columbians being killed in the crossfire of the insane international war on drugs.

Or if you are one of the million of citizens of democratic countries currently locked in prison for victimless crimes or petty offenses.

Or if you're one of the people being held by democratically elected governments without trial in secret prisons.

Also our standard of living would have improved because of technology anyway, its not as though we have the government to thank for technological progress. We have the good things we enjoy today despite the government, not because of it.

Since you didn't refute them, I trust you couldn't fathom just how wrong you are concerning my previous arguments.

I pointed you towards sites that would answer your questions. Apparently you don't list to "extremists," although you are happy for me (who you would consider an extremist) to waste my time typing them out.

If you come up with anything more creative or interesting than the most common, stock standard objections I might be interested in refuting them.

 

[volition]

Everybody should enjoy tax exempt status!

 

[redmayne]

If you don't read what they have to say, how do you know they are wrong? Also libertarianism is almost the exact opposite of communism and fascism.

No, I read about them, I know what they're about. I'm just not gonna visit their disgusting websites. Um yeah it's different, it's the opposite extreme. Just like communism is far left, fascism far right. Pretty sure all the extremes of the spectrum are dismissed as destructive and stupid. Including yours, by any intelligent person anyway.

Well obviously past examples of the dominant ideology will be lauded.



haha, yeah its awesome if you're on the right side of the government's guns.

Its not so great if you are in Iraq or Afganistan being murdered, tortured or raped by soldiers from democratic countries.

Or if you were in Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945. Or if you were one of the thousands of Japanese sex slaves taken my the US troops during the subsequent occupation.

Or one of the many Japanese Americans that was locked up in concentration camps during the war.

Or one of the many innocent Mexicans or Columbians being killed in the crossfire of the insane international war on drugs.

Or if you are one of the million of citizens of democratic countries currently locked in prison for victimless crimes or petty offenses.

Or if you're one of the people being held by democratically elected governments without trial in secret prisons.

Also our standard of living would have improved because of technology anyway, its not as though we have the government to thank for technological progress. We have the good things we enjoy today despite the government, not because of it.

Hahahaha, it's so ridiculous. You're so ridiculous. Yes, obviously bad things have happened. The system we have now isn't perfect, but it's the best available. If yours has been in place think of how much more chaotic it would have been and would continue to be. Technology wouldn't have been organised enough to develop. Scores of innocent people would die all the time because of the lack of laws. People could just kill indiscriminately, without fear of retribution. The very fact that you know about those monstrosities is testament to the fact they are condemned, known about, fixable.

I pointed you towards sites that would answer your questions. Apparently you don't list to "extremists," although you are happy for me (who you would consider an extremist) to waste my time typing them out.

If you come up with anything more creative or interesting than the most common, stock standard objections I might be interested in refuting them.

Hahaha "Ummm, I didn't argue back because your arguments were silly." Loser. If they're so bad, beat them as comprehensively as I beat yours.

Anyway, as you'll see in the other thread. I'm tuning out of your insane tirade now. Some people are just beyond help.

 

[loquasagacious]

You're trying to drive a wedge between us aren't you? Insofar as one accepts the morality of taxation period the church should not get special exemption.

Far from it. I do believe we just agreed for the third time in as many days.

I think that taxation and the state must exist however must be minimised. Insofar as taxation exists it should apply to corporations, religions and charities equally because they all benefit from the services which a small state supplies.

Not taxing religions is tantamount to providing them with welfare and I don't believe that the state and the church should be in that kind of relationship. It is the business of individuals to support their chosen church and religious individuals should not expect atheists, agnostics and members of other religions to support their church. However tax exempt status is exactly that.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Hahahaha, it's so ridiculous. You're so ridiculous. Yes, obviously bad things have happened. The system we have now isn't perfect, but it's the best available.

Yeah its easy to say that when you aren't one of the millions of people that has been murdered by this system you claim is the best available.

When innocent people are consistently being killed I tend to think there might be room for improvement.

How do you know it is the best available if you won't even consider alternatives?

If yours has been in place think of how much more chaotic it would have been and would continue to be. Technology wouldn't have been organised enough to develop. Scores of innocent people would die all the time because of the lack of laws. People could just kill indiscriminately, without fear of retribution. The very fact that you know about those monstrosities is testament to the fact they are condemned, known about, fixable.

You obviously have not bothered to read about anarcho-capitalism before forcefully condemning it. There would still be private firms that enforce basic laws such as property rights.

As I said, read about it. What's the worst that can happen. I'm not saying you have to agree, just that you should open your mind to different ideas instead of angrily dismissing them and branding anyone who disagrees with you as a lunatic.

 

[GodLovesIsrael]

Yeah its easy to say that when you aren't one of the millions of people that has been murdered by this system you claim is the best available.

When innocent people are consistently being killed I tend to think there might be room for improvement.

How do you know it is the best available if you won't even consider alternatives?



You obviously have not bothered to read about anarcho-capitalism before forcefully condemning it. There would still be private firms that enforce basic laws such as property rights.

As I said, read about it. What's the worst that can happen. I'm not saying you have to agree, just that you should open your mind to different ideas instead of angrily dismissing them and branding anyone who disagrees with you as a lunatic.

Im going to assume that you are christian....and that you should be aware of the fact that anarcho capitalism is against Jesus christs teaching.