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

[JimC]

Are there any?

Well, one would have counted CES in that category...

Warren?

[FBM]

Well, I guess you got me with CES, but I don't know Warren's political leanings, tbh.

[JimC]

Well, I guess you got me with CES, but I don't know Warren's political leanings, tbh.

Sir does not dress to the left...

[FBM]

[NineBerry]

Property taxes are religious taxes. It is paid in compensation for the state making sure the belief in the concept of property ownership is upheld and in compensation for the state financing a police force and courts of law which punish any blasphemers ("thiefs" as they are called by the property religion) who will not practice this religion.

[pErvinalia]

Are there any?

Well, one would have counted CES in that category...

Warren?

Seth. Tyrannical. Although, it's not clear whether Seth is an atheist or not, and I'm led to believe that T is a god botherer. That would probably explain his racism.

[Seth]

The reason that civilized societies decline to tax religious institutions is because historically taxation has been very frequently used as a tool of political oppression against disfavored religions, and those who respect the right of individuals to practice religion see this as a great enough risk that foregoing the relatively small amount of taxes that would be collected to begin with is a reasonable compromise in order to prevent government oppression of religion.

As we can see from the responses here, taxing the incomes of the clergy leads directly to the very slippery slope ending in the confiscatory and oppressive taxation of the religious orders by competing religions like Islam and Atheism. It's perfectly clear that to most people here who revel in the opening of the taxation floodgates under the rubric of "fair taxation" are more than happy to use that trickle as a vehicle for suppressing and eliminating religious practice altogether. Thus, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

And that's precisely why the US, and many other civilized countries, eschew taxing churches and clergy.

[pErvinalia]

The reason that civilized societies decline to tax religious institutions is because historically taxation has been very frequently used as a tool of political oppression against disfavored religions, and those who respect the right of individuals to practice religion see this as a great enough risk that foregoing the relatively small amount of taxes that would be collected to begin with is a reasonable compromise in order to prevent government oppression of religion.

Tax all religions then (like all commercial entities). Problem solved.

As we can see from the responses here, taxing the incomes of the clergy leads directly to the very slippery slope ending in the confiscatory and oppressive taxation of the religious orders by competing religions like Islam and Atheism. It's perfectly clear that to most people here who revel in the opening of the taxation floodgates under the rubric of "fair taxation" are more than happy to use that trickle as a vehicle for suppressing and eliminating religious practice altogether. Thus, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Wha?

[Seth]

The reason that civilized societies decline to tax religious institutions is because historically taxation has been very frequently used as a tool of political oppression against disfavored religions, and those who respect the right of individuals to practice religion see this as a great enough risk that foregoing the relatively small amount of taxes that would be collected to begin with is a reasonable compromise in order to prevent government oppression of religion.

Tax all religions then (like all commercial entities). Problem solved.

Problem is that if you allow taxation of all religions, you inevitably end up with political favoritism and disfavoritism that shows up as differences in how taxes are levied on different religions. Viz: Catholics and Scientologists. Is Scientology a religion? How about Atheism? The problems that crop up when government begins trying to sort out religions to tax them make it not worth the trouble given the relatively tiny amounts of taxes that could actually be collected.

As we can see from the responses here, taxing the incomes of the clergy leads directly to the very slippery slope ending in the confiscatory and oppressive taxation of the religious orders by competing religions like Islam and Atheism. It's perfectly clear that to most people here who revel in the opening of the taxation floodgates under the rubric of "fair taxation" are more than happy to use that trickle as a vehicle for suppressing and eliminating religious practice altogether. Thus, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Wha?

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

You think churches should be taxed because you despise religion and the fact that religious institutions get special consideration. It's not "fair" so you're more than happy to set up a system that the US carefully dismantled when it came into being precisely because it was routinely and egregiously abused by those in charge.

I think you should pay an extra "religion tax" because your Atheism is every bit as much of a religion as Catholicism is.

How does that suit you? We'll send you a tax bill for every post here. You good with that?

[Jason]

If calling myself an Atheist, rather than an atheist, means I can write off expenses, then I'm on board.

Go go gadget Tax Dodge!

[pErvinalia]

The reason that civilized societies decline to tax religious institutions is because historically taxation has been very frequently used as a tool of political oppression against disfavored religions, and those who respect the right of individuals to practice religion see this as a great enough risk that foregoing the relatively small amount of taxes that would be collected to begin with is a reasonable compromise in order to prevent government oppression of religion.

Tax all religions then (like all commercial entities). Problem solved.

Problem is that if you allow taxation of all religions, you inevitably end up with political favoritism and disfavoritism that shows up as differences in how taxes are levied on different religions. Viz: Catholics and Scientologists. Is Scientology a religion? How about Atheism? The problems that crop up when government begins trying to sort out religions to tax them make it not worth the trouble given the relatively tiny amounts of taxes that could actually be collected.

Are you purposely being obtuse? Tax EVERY organisation that makes a profit. Other than charity. I accept there will be fuzziness at the boundaries of "charity", but that's life. Deal with it. There's simply no rational reason (at least not one you've expounded so far) not to tax church business and investment activity.

As we can see from the responses here, taxing the incomes of the clergy leads directly to the very slippery slope ending in the confiscatory and oppressive taxation of the religious orders by competing religions like Islam and Atheism. It's perfectly clear that to most people here who revel in the opening of the taxation floodgates under the rubric of "fair taxation" are more than happy to use that trickle as a vehicle for suppressing and eliminating religious practice altogether. Thus, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Wha?

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

You think churches should be taxed because you despise religion and the fact that religious institutions get special consideration. It's not "fair" so you're more than happy to set up a system that the US carefully dismantled when it came into being precisely because it was routinely and egregiously abused by those in charge.

I think you should pay an extra "religion tax" because your Atheism is every bit as much of a religion as Catholicism is.

How does that suit you? We'll send you a tax bill for every post here. You good with that?

What's so hard to understand about the concept of "tax everyone the same"??? No one is talking about taxing religion more than any other organisation that makes a profit. Just tax them like everyone else. I get taxed on what I earn. Whether I'm an atheist makes no difference. Atheism or religion shouldn't even enter into the calculation. Unless someone is a precious god botherer and doesn't like that their imaginary play group could be treated as ordinary and non-special.

[Seth]

The reason that civilized societies decline to tax religious institutions is because historically taxation has been very frequently used as a tool of political oppression against disfavored religions, and those who respect the right of individuals to practice religion see this as a great enough risk that foregoing the relatively small amount of taxes that would be collected to begin with is a reasonable compromise in order to prevent government oppression of religion.

Tax all religions then (like all commercial entities). Problem solved.

Problem is that if you allow taxation of all religions, you inevitably end up with political favoritism and disfavoritism that shows up as differences in how taxes are levied on different religions. Viz: Catholics and Scientologists. Is Scientology a religion? How about Atheism? The problems that crop up when government begins trying to sort out religions to tax them make it not worth the trouble given the relatively tiny amounts of taxes that could actually be collected.

Are you purposely being obtuse? Tax EVERY organisation that makes a profit. Other than charity. I accept there will be fuzziness at the boundaries of "charity", but that's life. Deal with it. There's simply no rational reason (at least not one you've expounded so far) not to tax church business and investment activity.

As we can see from the responses here, taxing the incomes of the clergy leads directly to the very slippery slope ending in the confiscatory and oppressive taxation of the religious orders by competing religions like Islam and Atheism. It's perfectly clear that to most people here who revel in the opening of the taxation floodgates under the rubric of "fair taxation" are more than happy to use that trickle as a vehicle for suppressing and eliminating religious practice altogether. Thus, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Wha?

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

You think churches should be taxed because you despise religion and the fact that religious institutions get special consideration. It's not "fair" so you're more than happy to set up a system that the US carefully dismantled when it came into being precisely because it was routinely and egregiously abused by those in charge.

I think you should pay an extra "religion tax" because your Atheism is every bit as much of a religion as Catholicism is.

How does that suit you? We'll send you a tax bill for every post here. You good with that?

What's so hard to understand about the concept of "tax everyone the same"??? No one is talking about taxing religion more than any other organisation that makes a profit. Just tax them like everyone else. I get taxed on what I earn. Whether I'm an atheist makes no difference. Atheism or religion shouldn't even enter into the calculation. Unless someone is a precious god botherer and doesn't like that their imaginary play group could be treated as ordinary and non-special.

The other reason we don't tax churches and other charitable organizations is that they provide very substantial benefits to the public at no cost to the taxpayers that might otherwise have to be funded by levying taxes. Legislators have run this calculation many times and determined that by foregoing income taxes on charitable organizations like churches they get many times what would have been collected by way of free public services, particularly to the poor. If charitable organizations are treated like any other business and are taxed on income (rather than profit) they will be less likely to engage in such activities and those who are served by such agencies will be deprived of the money that would otherwise be used for their benefit, and to replace those benefits would cost the government more than what is received from the taxes.

Your attitude about taxing churches (which are non-profit charitable organizations just like the Red Cross) is based in the typical socialist notion that everybody has to share the pain and that it's not fair that you have to pay income taxes and somebody else doesn't, even when that somebody else contributes vastly more to the well-being of society than you ever will.

It's all part of the fundamental socialist mindset of greed, envy and jealousy that is the hallmark of every socialist regime. Socialism is not, you see, actually about social equality for all, it's about equality of misery for all. It's based on the concept that one who works hard to produce and profit more than those who do not is not entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but those who do not work as hard to produce are entitled to enjoy the fruits of the labor of the productive.

Pure unadulterated selfishness, greed and envy is the cornerstone of Marxism and all it's socialist metastasized cancerous offspring.

[Svartalf]

Given how much money gets eaten as 'general costs' rather than actually going to charity when churches are involved, and how much church based charities cover compared to actual needs, I have to conclued that you must surely be jesting, good sir.

[macdoc]

[pErvinalia]

The reason that civilized societies decline to tax religious institutions is because historically taxation has been very frequently used as a tool of political oppression against disfavored religions, and those who respect the right of individuals to practice religion see this as a great enough risk that foregoing the relatively small amount of taxes that would be collected to begin with is a reasonable compromise in order to prevent government oppression of religion.

Tax all religions then (like all commercial entities). Problem solved.

Problem is that if you allow taxation of all religions, you inevitably end up with political favoritism and disfavoritism that shows up as differences in how taxes are levied on different religions. Viz: Catholics and Scientologists. Is Scientology a religion? How about Atheism? The problems that crop up when government begins trying to sort out religions to tax them make it not worth the trouble given the relatively tiny amounts of taxes that could actually be collected.

Are you purposely being obtuse? Tax EVERY organisation that makes a profit. Other than charity. I accept there will be fuzziness at the boundaries of "charity", but that's life. Deal with it. There's simply no rational reason (at least not one you've expounded so far) not to tax church business and investment activity.

As we can see from the responses here, taxing the incomes of the clergy leads directly to the very slippery slope ending in the confiscatory and oppressive taxation of the religious orders by competing religions like Islam and Atheism. It's perfectly clear that to most people here who revel in the opening of the taxation floodgates under the rubric of "fair taxation" are more than happy to use that trickle as a vehicle for suppressing and eliminating religious practice altogether. Thus, the "slippery slope" argument is not a fallacy, it's a fact.

Wha?

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

You think churches should be taxed because you despise religion and the fact that religious institutions get special consideration. It's not "fair" so you're more than happy to set up a system that the US carefully dismantled when it came into being precisely because it was routinely and egregiously abused by those in charge.

I think you should pay an extra "religion tax" because your Atheism is every bit as much of a religion as Catholicism is.

How does that suit you? We'll send you a tax bill for every post here. You good with that?

What's so hard to understand about the concept of "tax everyone the same"??? No one is talking about taxing religion more than any other organisation that makes a profit. Just tax them like everyone else. I get taxed on what I earn. Whether I'm an atheist makes no difference. Atheism or religion shouldn't even enter into the calculation. Unless someone is a precious god botherer and doesn't like that their imaginary play group could be treated as ordinary and non-special.

The other reason we don't tax churches and other charitable organizations is that they provide very substantial benefits to the public at no cost to the taxpayers that might otherwise have to be funded by levying taxes. Legislators have run this calculation many times and determined that by foregoing income taxes on charitable organizations like churches they get many times what would have been collected by way of free public services, particularly to the poor. If charitable organizations are treated like any other business and are taxed on income (rather than profit) they will be less likely to engage in such activities and those who are served by such agencies will be deprived of the money that would otherwise be used for their benefit, and to replace those benefits would cost the government more than what is received from the taxes.

Your attitude about taxing churches (which are non-profit charitable organizations just like the Red Cross) is based in the typical socialist notion that everybody has to share the pain and that it's not fair that you have to pay income taxes and somebody else doesn't, even when that somebody else contributes vastly more to the well-being of society than you ever will.

It's all part of the fundamental socialist mindset of greed, envy and jealousy that is the hallmark of every socialist regime. Socialism is not, you see, actually about social equality for all, it's about equality of misery for all. It's based on the concept that one who works hard to produce and profit more than those who do not is not entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but those who do not work as hard to produce are entitled to enjoy the fruits of the labor of the productive.

Yeah, coz taxation is socialism.

Pure unadulterated selfishness, greed and envy is the cornerstone of Marxism and all it's socialist metastasized cancerous offspring.

The Marxist boogey man is coming for you, Seth..