I actually agree. I would not want my pastor to endorse political candidates or parties either.
I donated to Andrew Yang’s campaign! More than once. I agree that the United States is wealthy enough to reallocate resources and give people healthcare and education. Probably free daycare and some other stuff too!
My previous post wasn’t explaining my personal views so much as trying to explain (poorly) why people in the U.S. have a knee jerk reaction against government programs.
Americans can’t distinguish between government spending on necessary services, and outright communism. Many people in the U.S. believe that if the government spends too much money on the public good, then that by itself is communist! (Never mind the fact that elected leaders create the budget, and education and policing are often under local control.) I personally think that education and health care are just public infrastructure, and everyone in the country should have basic workable versions of both, paid for by the government. Without those basic needs provided for, the inefficiencies in our systems are too great. Not to mention that the injustice between the Haves and Have Nots grows profoundly.
1 Like
The issue with GDP is that is places too much focus on “growth” irrespective of the type of growth. Economics is about finding the best allocation of finite resources. So eventually the pressure to grow solely for the sake of growing leads to unsustainable ways to maintain that growth. It can’t go on indefinitely. Yang’s argument is not to focus solely on one measure or the other but a balance of metrics that place an emphasis on sustainable growth. The current GDP measure does not do that.
China’s growth targets are a great example of how the perpetual need to grow regardless if it’s sustainable or not leads to some long term problems, such as empty cities all across the country.
The ecological fallacy.
Also, what country are you living in?
I can’t believe I agree with you.
But you fail to supply any reason why you don’t …
I do agree with him. Churches shouldn’t endorse political candidates.
Real estate, private jets …
2 Likes
Taiwan. Why do you ask? Is it because the ^Taiwanese are such a devout people, constantly going to temple to pray- other than for success for their kids in the college entrance exams, and for them to win the lottery?
It’s not quite so simple. In the US, some of the issues include:
(1) Clergy can set aside their housing so they don’t pay taxes on it. I have clergy friends who, say, get paid 50,000 and take half of that as “untaxed” housing.
(2) There have been issues with churches hoarding money. A recent example of this is LDS’s 100 billion un-taxed investment fund. Rules on spending that apply to non-profits are often waived for churches. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/mormon-church-has-misled-members-on-100-billion-tax-exempt-investment-fund-whistleblower-alleges/2019/12/16/e3619bd2-2004-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html
3. Churches also operate differently on other issues too. It can be easier to fire church employees, since the government doesn’t want to interfere in religion. Churches are also sometimes allowed to opt out of SS, etc., for religious reasons.
These are just a few examples of how the US church/state divide comes into taxation. I personally think churches should probably just be treated like regular non-profits, perhaps with some extra rights enumerated.
less crime and strife?
Aren’t temples in Taiwan ideal to launder money?
All money raised by any religious group should be taxable, but said taxes should be offset by legitimate expenses, such as donations, giving to the poor, etc. Everything else should be taxed.
So if a religious group receives a bequest from a dead member, said donation can be used however the group decides. But ONLY certain expenses should allow offset taxes. How this would work, I don’t know, but it should avoid the ‘leaders’ buying luxury vehicles to travel in, paying for luxury hotels, housing, etc. It would, in effect, create two kinds of income.
I would also add that any religious group that donates money must receive mandated reports on the amounts collected are disbursed via annual reports. Failure to provide members with the information would invalidate the groups tax-free status. Failure to use a sizeable amount of the money for ‘charitable’ purposes would also invalidate the tax-free status of said organization.
It’s ridiculous that TV ministries can raise money from their viewers in the manner that they do, provide a luxury lifestyle for their TV personalities, etc. all the while claiming tax-free status as a religious organization.
Why?
In your mind, is it some kind of punishment designed to deter what you perceive as a great wrong in this? 
So the goal is deterrence through punishment, then?
It would seem to lead to abuse by the state if tithes are paid by members of the church, the state later determines those collecting the tithes are criminally unscrupulous, collects the tithes in the form of taxes, and distributes the taxes not to the churchgoers but to the taxpaying public at large.
I’m not sure replacing one racket with another is much of a remedy.
2 Likes
The entity collects the donations, but has a responsibility to use them appropriately. If it fails to do so, then they fail to abide by the terms of their covenant as a charitable entity. Tax ‘em as a commercial organization.
Simple, open to public scrutiny, … mandatory, verified reports to members, so members can decide for themselves if they wish to continue donating.
Yeah, putting you down for using taxation as a form of punishment.
There’s a long list of attributes a religious organization has to have to meet the definition of a bona fide religious group in the US. Or rather, a long list of checks the IRS makes when deciding to ignore them or demand payment. It’s done on a case by case basis (not all checkboxes need ticking off) so that no new religious groups can identify and then emulate a “recipe” for acquiring a no taxes status. The IRS takes 'em as they come.
Once they achieve that status, they are not required to file any forms at all with the IRS. That said, many (if not most) churches in the US file each year anyway in order to guarantee to their donors that their own contributions to the church are indeed tax deductible.
I think you may have a solution in search of a problem, is what I’m saying. Not trying to steal your righteousness, though. Feel free to rage on against US churches.
By the way, here in the US good 'ol Joel Osteen is hustling the Joel Osteen Inspiration Cube. So a sale, and I suspect it’s taxed as such. Better?
1 Like
Most religious countries:
Oman, Bangladesh, Somalia, Ethiopia, Niger, Yemen, Indonesia, Malawi, Sri Lanka, Mauritania.
Least religious countries: Estonia, Denmark, Czech Republic, Japan, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, Finland, France, Australia, Netherlands.
Most religious U.S. states: Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, Arkansas, West Virginia,Georgia, Oklahoma.
Least religious US states: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Alaska, Washington (state), New York, Hawaii.