Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Would Taxing the church be the downfall of religion?
#26

Would Taxing the church be the downfall of religion?
I view modern churches as businesses. They engage in producing a popular entertainment for money, they actively seek a profit, and they lie as fully as they can legally to get that profit. They have a corporate structure dedicated to promoting the company product . They are indeed a "business".

And if you doubt that, just suggest to them that they LOSE money in their overall activities and see what kind of response you get.

It is one reason I support an "asset tax". Too many super-wealthy businesses (churches among them) pay nothing. It's time to tax assets rather than just income. And that will get billions from the major religions...
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#27

Would Taxing the church be the downfall of religion?
I vehemently disagree with the idea that so many life saving services should be left to charities because the state can't or won't provide them.

I realise that this is often the case in many countries, incl. some "first-world" ones, even self-proclaimed "world leaders" but it's not a fact of life but indicative of an extremely profound problem.

YES, the state SHOULD absolutely be taking care of its citizens, including its most vulnerable ones. Think not what your country can do for you? What utter bullshit! The country exists because and for the people, and is there to serve and protect them, not the other way around.

I think it was Finland which introduced/is introducing a free housing for everyone programme ("Keeping people homeless, instead of providing homes for them, is always more expensive for the society. In Finland we have some scientific evaluations of the cost of this program. When a homeless person gets a permanent home, even with support, the cost savings for the society are at least 15,000 Euros per one person per one year. And the cost savings come from different use of different services.")

There are charities in all countries but there are definitely some where the state provides a hell of a lot more services than in others. I'm reminded of this mind-bogglingly ignorant book I was translating where someone good American Samaritan had volunteered in a Swedish orphanage. There are no orphanages in Sweden because the STATE has taken care of it and children are placed with families. They don't even have SOS villages. I guess the idea is unfathomable to many, even in so called "developed" countries.


And no, the "answer", well, America is different because... it's different (big, more diverse, <insert excuse of choice>) isn't an answer, just an empty excuse.

All this said, I absolutely don't think that NGO's which do provide valuable and often life-saving help should be taxed like any other business (and no, that rarely includes churches)
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 4 users Like Vera's post:
  • Cavebear, Szuchow, Dānu, brunumb
Reply
#28

Would Taxing the church be the downfall of religion?
(07-11-2021, 01:22 PM)Vera Wrote: I vehemently disagree with the idea that so many life saving services should be left to charities because the state can't or won't provide them.

I realise that this is often the case in many countries, incl. some "first-world" ones, even self-proclaimed "world leaders" but it's not a fact of life but indicative of an extremely profound problem.

YES, the state SHOULD absolutely be taking care of its citizens, including its most vulnerable ones. Think not what your country can do for you? What utter bullshit! The country exists because and for the people, and is there to serve and protect them, not the other way around.

I think it was Finland which introduced/is introducing a free housing for everyone programme ("Keeping people homeless, instead of providing homes for them, is always more expensive for the society. In Finland we have some scientific evaluations of the cost of this program. When a homeless person gets a permanent home, even with support, the cost savings for the society are at least 15,000 Euros per one person per one year. And the cost savings come from different use of different services.")

There are charities in all countries but there are definitely some where the state provides a hell of a lot more services than in others. I'm reminded of this mind-bogglingly ignorant book I was translating where someone good American Samaritan had volunteered in a Swedish orphanage. There are no orphanages in Sweden because the STATE has taken care of it and children are placed with families. They don't even have SOS villages. I guess the idea is unfathomable to many, even in so called "developed" countries.


And no, the "answer", well, America is different because... it's different (big, more diverse, <insert excuse of choice>) isn't an answer, just an empty excuse.

All this said, I absolutely don't think that NGO's which do provide valuable and often life-saving help should be taxed like any other business (and no, that rarely includes churches)

I differentiate between churches and NGOs. They have different purposes.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#29

Would Taxing the church be the downfall of religion?
(07-11-2021, 01:51 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I differentiate between churches and NGOs.  They have different purposes.

They absolutely do. I just mentioned it explicitly because the thread was about taxing churches (which I support) and then the conversation veered towards charities and NGO's and when I talked about the state having to step up and take care of its citizens, I didn't want it to be taken to mean "we should be taxing NGO's like any other business".

The sad truth of the matter is, we do need charities and NGO's... still. Because our states are not doing their job well enough (some better than others, some worse). The days of small villages where the villagers could take care of the "village idiot" are long gone. Those who need help cannot and should not have to rely on the charity of their neighbours anymore but on the protection of the state which exist, among other reasons, specifically to serve as a "big village". The fact that we're not there yet just shows that we have a lot of work to do still.
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 2 users Like Vera's post:
  • Cavebear, brunumb
Reply
#30

Would Taxing the church be the downfall of religion?
(07-11-2021, 01:59 PM)Vera Wrote:
(07-11-2021, 01:51 PM)Cavebear Wrote: I differentiate between churches and NGOs.  They have different purposes.

They absolutely do. I just mentioned it explicitly because the thread was about taxing churches (which I support) and then the conversation veered towards charities and NGO's and when I talked about the state having to step up and take care of its citizens, I didn't want it to be taken to mean "we should be taxing NGO's like any other business".

The sad truth of the matter is, we do need charities and NGO's... still. Because our states are not doing their job well enough (some better than others, some worse). The days of small villages where the villagers could take care of the "village idiot" are long gone. Those who need help cannot and should not have to rely on the charity of their neighbours anymore but on the protection of the state which exist, among other reasons, specifically to serve as a "big village". The fact that we're not there yet just shows that we have a lot of work to do still.

Yeah, posts shift a bit. But I agree with you about NGOs. Churches are buried in hoarded wealth; NGOs are not.
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)