How Would You Change Religious Protections

[Seth]

Well as tax evasion is basically a form of treason it deserves extremely harsh punishments but generally armed officials arent needed to collect it (unless the tax evaders are carrying guns themselves).

Whats the penalty in the US for treason during wartime Seth after all there is the 'war on terror' ?

Treason is quite specifically defined in the US precisely to prevent definition "creep" such as you're using here. In the US, it's explicitly and only defined as levying war upon the United States, or giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. Nothing else.

So, no, tax evasion is not "treason." It may be fraud, but then again oppressive, unfair taxation was one of the primary reasons that the Revolution occurred, and history is written by the winners.

[MrJonno]

Whole problem with tax exceptions for charitably organisations is unless there is a very strict definition of what is charitable you simply get mass tax evasion.

[camoguard]

Whole problem with tax exceptions for charitably organisations is unless there is a very strict definition of what is charitable you simply get mass tax evasion.

Agreed. Also, while google-mining for case law regarding religious freedom, I came across this gem from the Employment Division v. Smith case (by Scalia in 1989)

Respondents in the present case, however, seek to carry the meaning of "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" one large step further. They contend that their religious motivation for using peyote places them beyond the reach of a criminal law that is not specifically directed at their religious practice, and that is concededly constitutional as applied to those who use the drug for other reasons. They assert, in other words, that "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" includes requiring any individual to observe a generally applicable law that requires (or forbids) the performance of an act that his religious belief forbids (or requires). As a textual matter, we do not think the words must be given that meaning. It is no more necessary to regard the collection of a general tax, for example, as "prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" by those citizens who believe support of organized government to be sinful than it is to regard the same tax as "abridging the freedom . . . of the press" of those publishing companies that must pay the tax as a condition of staying in business. It is a permissible reading of the text, in the one case as in the other, to say that, if prohibiting the exercise of religion (or burdening the activity of printing) is not the object of the tax, but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended. Compare Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131, 139 (1969) (upholding application of antitrust laws to press), with Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 250-251 (1936) (striking down license tax applied only to newspapers with weekly circulation above a specified level); see generally Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983).

The bold is mine.

In short, the freedom of religion as established in the constitution leaves a lot of clarity to be desired. So I've been digging through case law. The point of the bolding is the suggestion by Scalia that taxing religion with general tax laws is constitutional. So we probably couldn't have a law that said "religious organizations cannot be tax exempt" but we could probably have a law that said "organizations that which to qualify for tax exempt status must (1) provide services that are available to people of any faith or lack of faith, (2) provide services regardless of race, ethnicity, orientation, disability and so forth as far as can be reasonably provided, (3) must not attach their service to advertising for or against a religious position." In other words, all charities must abide by stricter secular standards.

[Seth]

Whole problem with tax exceptions for charitably organisations is unless there is a very strict definition of what is charitable you simply get mass tax evasion.

The tax exemption is generally not defined as "charitable," it's defined as "non-profit," which is much easier to determine. There are many forms of non-profit organizations that are "charitable" in nature, and each one has to file mandatory tax returns every year showing how the money is spent. This includes churches. The IRS will challenge, from time to time, particular expenses claimed as administrative or operating costs when they are out of line with similar costs for other like organizations, but the latitude is wide. For example, a pastor of a megachurch may make a paltry salary, but the congregation may provide him with a home, cars, clothes and other items that he uses personally, but which are not his, but rather they belong to the congregation. That's what happened to Ted Haggard, and when he was booted from "his" church, all the "stuff" he had stayed behind.

The non-profit status of churches is something that can, at least in theory, be revoked if the money collected is used improperly or distributed as "profits" to members or administrators.

It's all relatively tightly run, but so long as a church doesn't make a profit according to the accounting requirements of the IRS, it remains a tax-exempt charitable organization, to a large extent.

As for those who donate to non-profit organizations, be they churches or the Sierra Club, their donations are deductible against their income taxes for public policy reasons, which mainly consists of a public recognition that charitable giving is a good thing and that non-profit organizations do service to the community, in one way or another, that far exceeds what would be collected by the IRS taxing such donations.

[MrJonno]

Not convinced any individual makes a 'profit', most of us are in debt so why can't we all be charities and pay no tax whatsoever

[Hermit]

Not convinced any individual makes a 'profit', most of us are in debt so why can't we all be charities and pay no tax whatsoever

Debt is not the opposite of profitability. On the contrary, most companies rely on debt to make a profit. Two of my decisions that involved going into debt big time were the most profitable decisions I have ever made.

[MrJonno]

Not convinced any individual makes a 'profit', most of us are in debt so why can't we all be charities and pay no tax whatsoever

Debt is not the opposite of profitability. On the contrary, most companies rely on debt to make a profit. Two of my decisions that involved going into debt big time were the most profitable decisions I have ever made.

I mean many people have less money in their bank account at the end of each month as they did the previous one, thats definitely non-profit making

[Seth]

Not convinced any individual makes a 'profit', most of us are in debt so why can't we all be charities and pay no tax whatsoever

Debt is not the opposite of profitability. On the contrary, most companies rely on debt to make a profit. Two of my decisions that involved going into debt big time were the most profitable decisions I have ever made.

I mean many people have less money in their bank account at the end of each month as they did the previous one, thats definitely non-profit making

They should spend less, and they should elect people who don't deliberately inflate the money supply.