The Johnson Amendment

[NotreDame]

In this case, Churches get free use of land (normal individuals and businesses would have to pay taxes on that) and do not have to pay any taxes on the money it brings in. Well any 501C organization, it's not limited to Churches. But all tax-exempt organizations of this class are subjected to similar restrictions. Because they are receiving this very substantial and generous break, they cannot use their positions to politicize and tell people who to vote for.

It's really that simple.

A business operates on its own money too, but it has to pay taxes on its property and profit. Churches do not have to pay that, thus it is government subsidy.

The business has to pay taxes because a statute exists ordering them to pay taxes. The money the business makes, however, is their own money and not the government's money. Absent any statute, law, regulation, and so forth, taxing the money made by a business, is to leave the business with its money free of taxation. A government choosing to refrain from exercising its taxation authority in regards to X, thereby leaving with all of its money free from taxation, is not a subsidy. The money belongs to X, is owned by X, and is not owned by the government and neither does the money belong to the government, and neither would the government have a legitimate claim to the money. This would not be a government subsidy.

Tax deductions can be "free money" because they government still has to collect that money for another source.

The money was earned and/or received by the person/entity and belongs to the person. At no time does the government have any legitimate claim, ownership, or possessory interest in the money. The money belongs to someone or something else. This is not, therefore, "free money." Yes, someone or something else may be taxed but the taxing of someone else's income does not transform someone keeping more of their income as "free money." The belong begins with possession and ownership by the person/entity. Allowing them to keep more of what belongs to them is not "free money. Now, the situation may be unfair, unjust, or immoral, but the characterization of "free money" is not accurate.

The taxpayers foot the bill. Child credits, for instance, are subsidies to families. It's subsidized through other tax payers. The government doesn't spend less money because it gave a certain class of people a credit. They take that money they would have collected from other people.

This arrangement is not a subsidy, at least not as you just described. Yes, other people may be "taxed" more to make up the difference (so, for example, two people with identical incomes but X has a mortgage deduction whereas Y does not, all else being equal, Y will pay more in taxes), but this does not render the tax deduction as a subsidy. In my example, X is not receiving a subsidy by keeping more of what belongs to him, i.e. income. As I said previously, an allegation of such a deduction as being unfair, unjust, or immoral may be applicable but the description of subsidy, to the arrangement above, is not accurate.

We may have to agree to disagree, perhaps vehemently, on this issue.

Because they are receiving this very substantial and generous break, they cannot use their positions to politicize and tell people who to vote for.

I agree with your characterization they are receiving a "substantial and generous break." I also think, they are receiving a government privilege. But they are not receiving a government subsidy by keeping all or more of what belongs to them in the first place.

This digression aside, I do not find palatable a government condition privileges, or "breaks" on waiving, foregoing, or agreeing not to exercise a constitutional right, in this instance political speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

 

[DamnYankee]

you've explained nothing except that you think churches should get free play all the way around. They shouldn't have to pay taxes on the land/property they own, they shouldn't have to pay taxes on the money they bring in, but they should be allowed to use their power and position to preach politics and tell their congregation how to vote.

You're starting to troll.

Either re-read the thread or come up with new stuff.

 

[Ikari]

You're starting to troll.

Either re-read the thread or come up with new stuff.

You haven't countered anything I said with anything of substantial argument, thus there is no need for me to do so.

 

[DamnYankee]

You haven't countered anything I said with anything of substantial argument, thus there is no need for me to do so.

Your trolling.

 

[MrWonka]

Churches do some wonderful charity work, and you're sick of it?

In exchange for the right to proselytize to the people that they are helping. Keep the charity, end the proselytizing.

Besides I thought all you right wing nuts thought charity creates dependency. If you give things to people why would they work for them? How come it's okay to have millions of poor people dependent on the church, but not the government?