(S. Korean) Government to introduce 'church taxes'

[Coito ergo sum]

Taxation is a democratic process. You own a piece of Gubment. Saddam did not need no stinking taxes, he could just pump oil.

The citizenry ought not be able to vote a religion out of existence by means of tax policy, and that's a real possibility when the gubmint may tax religion.

This area would not be immune to the same economic realities of any other area. The government modifies tax policy to encourage X and discourage Y. You tax something, it raises the price and therefore downward pressure is exercised on demand. You subsidize something and it lowers the price and you get upward pressure on demand. All depending on price elasticity and such other basic concepts.

Tax breaks for religions that do this, no tax breaks for religions that do that.

[klr]

Pay unto Caesar, baby!

...

[charlou]

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

How so?

It was explained by Daniel Webster in his argument in the seminal case of McCulloch v Maryland in or around 1819. The power of congress to create, and of course, to continue, the bank....is no longer to be considered as questionable. That the power of taxing it by the states may be exercised so as to destroy it, is too obvious to be denied."

A tax can be used to accomplish policy ends —to induce, deter, or change conduct. As such, taxing of religious institutions cuts at the very core of the separation of church and state, as the government begins to depend on revenues from churches, and therefore has an interest in fostering their financial success (just as it has an interest in fostering employment and success of taxpaying businesses). Further, it has the power to force taxpayers to do things and/or to coerce them to do things via the tax code: behave like X and you get taxed. Refrain, and you aren't taxed.

Cigarette taxes reduce smoking. Gas taxes change the way people drive and what they drive.

The power to tax is the power to control, and to destroy. It's just a question of degree.

re the bit I've bolded ... That's a point I'd not considered before.

By the same token, does a government have an interest in fostering cigarette and alcohol consumption, and gambling? In Australia a portion of the tax revenue from those will be channeled back into the associated remedial systems and programs .. Not so with a church tax revenue. A church would be considered a business, not a vice .. the effect of religion on society considered desirable, not unhealthy ..

[Svartalf]

and if the state has a vested interest in the religious institution continuing as a source of revenue, by definition, taxing it does not destroy it, as the state will not kill the golden goose... Not that I agree with the argument, since it fails to differenciate between the religious aspects (letting citizens practice their religion), and the secular ones (the institution as a moneymaking concern) of the matter.

[Cormac]

What they need to do is levy property taxes against universities, what a tax boondoggle that is.

Property TRANSACTION taxes are perfectly fine, because there may be a capital gain involved, and money changes hands.

Property taxes during the period of ownership is straight theft, no matter on whom it is imposed.

[Svartalf]

Yet many states levy a land tax, sometimes even one on the owner and one on the occuppant of a given property...

[Cormac]

Yet many states levy a land tax, sometimes even one on the owner and one on the occuppant of a given property...

Yes. Straight theft.

I have no problem with local council taxes, levied openly on income, provided it is means tested.

Taxes levied on "property" seek to pretend that there is some value generated by inert property - when this is a blatant falsehood. Such taxes are stealth income taxes and so are, in fact, theft.

[Svartalf]

I know better than to argue about what constitutes theft with a qualified solicitor

[pErvinalia]

Yet many states levy a land tax, sometimes even one on the owner and one on the occuppant of a given property...

Yes. Straight theft.

I have no problem with local council taxes, levied openly on income, provided it is means tested.

Taxes levied on "property" seek to pretend that there is some value generated by inert property - when this is a blatant falsehood. Such taxes are stealth income taxes and so are, in fact, theft.

But council taxes/levies (what we call "rates" here) are levied to pay for services associated with your land - like water, rubbish collection, postal services, sewerage services etc.

[MiM]

The tax on people where there is a state approved, lutheran etc., religion is typically 1% of income. In Nordic countries that is the only way to get weddings funerals etc done in church, to belong. They own most of the cemeteries.

It's a simple web based system to drop out. I had to ask them if I was still registered a Lutheran. They said no, I was deleted in the 70s.

Some fundie had thousands unjoining a month ago. She put church above law. And she is minister of justice.

Saying that the Nordic countries have "state approved churches" is maybe going a bit far, but yes, the entanglement between churh (Lutheran and Orthodox) and state in Finland is still far too strong. One example is that the state provides the church with the service to collect its fees through a church tax, that goes together with general taxation, typically a bit more than 1% nowadays (only members pay that). However the church actually pays the state some tens of millions every year for this service. And the churches are obliged to bury also non-members for the same fee as the members pay (they get an extra tax funding to compensate for this).

However, more importantly for this thread. Clergy has "always" paid taxes over here, just the same as anyone else, and the church pays taxes in roughly the same way as any other association.

And Tero, Päivi Räsänen is minister of the interior, not justice

[Hermit]

Yet many states levy a land tax, sometimes even one on the owner and one on the occuppant of a given property...

Yes. Straight theft.

I have no problem with local council taxes, levied openly on income, provided it is means tested.

Taxes levied on "property" seek to pretend that there is some value generated by inert property - when this is a blatant falsehood. Such taxes are stealth income taxes and so are, in fact, theft.

But council taxes/levies (what we call "rates" here) are levied to pay for services associated with your land - like water, rubbish collection, postal services, sewerage services etc.

Council Rates =/= Land Tax. The former is a fee for services rendered by your local council. The latter is a wealth tax imposed by your local state government. Here in Australia just about every state has one of the latter now, but none of them apply to your principal place of residence if you own it or have a mortgage on it.

Note to Cormac: I don't regard land tax, as applied in Australia, as theft.

[Tero]

And Tero, Päivi Räsänen is minister of the interior, not justice

OK, close enough. She should be an interior decorator. She could decorate church interiors.

My dad was a cheap skate before I was born so they were married at city hall. My dad had a Lutheran memorial service in Florida, my mom in Finland. Both had the urn buried in Tampere. I think after 25 years I will give up the plot.

[Cormac]

I know better than to argue about what constitutes theft with a qualified solicitor

Oy Frenchie! I'm as fallible and prone to fallacious statements as the next guy!

(The next guy is you, by the way)...

[Cormac]

Yet many states levy a land tax, sometimes even one on the owner and one on the occuppant of a given property...

Yes. Straight theft.

I have no problem with local council taxes, levied openly on income, provided it is means tested.

Taxes levied on "property" seek to pretend that there is some value generated by inert property - when this is a blatant falsehood. Such taxes are stealth income taxes and so are, in fact, theft.

But council taxes/levies (what we call "rates" here) are levied to pay for services associated with your land - like water, rubbish collection, postal services, sewerage services etc.

Not really. They are associated with your USE of services or impact on the environment, and so are at least logically justifiable.

[Cormac]

The tax on people where there is a state approved, lutheran etc., religion is typically 1% of income. In Nordic countries that is the only way to get weddings funerals etc done in church, to belong. They own most of the cemeteries.

It's a simple web based system to drop out. I had to ask them if I was still registered a Lutheran. They said no, I was deleted in the 70s.

Some fundie had thousands unjoining a month ago. She put church above law. And she is minister of justice.

Saying that the Nordic countries have "state approved churches" is maybe going a bit far, but yes, the entanglement between churh (Lutheran and Orthodox) and state in Finland is still far too strong. One example is that the state provides the church with the service to collect its fees through a church tax, that goes together with general taxation, typically a bit more than 1% nowadays (only members pay that). However the church actually pays the state some tens of millions every year for this service. And the churches are obliged to bury also non-members for the same fee as the members pay (they get an extra tax funding to compensate for this).

However, more importantly for this thread. Clergy has "always" paid taxes over here, just the same as anyone else, and the church pays taxes in roughly the same way as any other association.

And Tero, Päivi Räsänen is minister of the interior, not justice

It is only an overstatement if this tax is an opt-in not an opt-out.

If it is an opt-out, then the statement was bang-on.