- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:44 pm to RoyMcavoy
quote:
the 1st amendment does not say anything about seperation of church and state. Please stop misquoting the constitution
I'm citing the Supreme Court case...not quoting the Constitution.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Do you know how many times this has been cited? Do you know why that language is important as it relates to the standard of scrutiny applied to 1st Amendment controversies?
Can you find me a case where it was cited that held that taxes on churches are constitutionally prohibited?
It is pretty clear there is a long historic tradition of granting STATUTORY exemptions to churches. I can find no constitutional exemptions.
Again, I am not arguing for or against the tax exempt status of churches on policy grounds. I am just correcting your assertion (again with no relevant citation) that such exemptions are constitutionally mandatory.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:49 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
I'm citing the Supreme Court case...not quoting the Constitution.
you replied to the OP and said this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. When i said i agree with what they're doing, you said "wow, you're against seperation of church and state".
what am i missing???
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:49 pm to BigJim
Posted on 11/17/14 at 2:58 pm to BigJim
quote:
It is pretty clear there is a long historic tradition of granting STATUTORY exemptions to churches. I can find no constitutional exemptions
The Walz decision (7-1 by the way) was based upon interpretation of a statute, However, the reasoning of the court hinged on excessive entanglement of the government with religion. It states that taxation of churches certainly expands the involvement and entanglement of government and churches.
The court discusses at length separation of church and state and the 1st Amendment. Are you asserting that because the underlying facts were in regards to a statutory exemption that the application of constitutional principles used by the court are somehow irrelevant?
Oh..and it has been cited favorably over 70 times.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:18 pm to goatmilker
quote:
300K from taxing churches in a town of 3800? Seems a bit high.
And other non profits. Every burned out social worker found out there was more money to be maid in fleecing the government than trying to save people. Lots of non profits in Ak, and they are quite profitable.
There are about 9-10 churches in Nome and they don't have large congregations. Nome is still very much a frontier town, and doesn't have much of a church going population. It does have a lot of "charity" groups that deal with the outlying eskimo population though.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:25 pm to RoyMcavoy
quote:
you replied to the OP and said this is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. When i said i agree with what they're doing, you said "wow, you're against seperation of church and state".
what am i missing???
The long line of cases (starting with the 7-1 decision in 1970) that states taxation of churches... as opposed to exemption of churches... necessarily requires greater entanglement of church and state.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:27 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Oh..and it has been cited favorably over 70 times
OK, so do any of them establish the constitution prohibition against taxing churches? Because that is what I have asked for since the beginning. You would think with it being cited so frequently this would be easy.
quote:
The Walz decision (7-1 by the way) was based upon interpretation of a statute, However, the reasoning of the court hinged on excessive entanglement of the government with religion. It states that taxation of churches certainly expands the involvement and entanglement of government and churches.
And then said that an exemption is LESS of an entanglement. And since taxation is acceptable, it necessarily follows that exemptions must be acceptable. Therefore the ruling.
quote:
Are you asserting that because the underlying facts were in regards to a statutory exemption that the application of constitutional principles used by the court are somehow irrelevant?
Yes. The facts while not quite opposite, are completely different.
The Walz decision held that tax exemptions are OK. This is a town that is looking to revoke a tax exemption. I suppose one could extend the language of the Walz case to say, taxing churches is not only an entanglement, but an EXCESSIVE entanglement; but, and this is the key point, I have not seen that done in any Supreme Court case.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:29 pm to BigJim
quote:
Not saying this is a great move, but hardly a violation of the first amendment.
So, a church doesn't pay its taxes. What does the city do?
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:46 pm to BigJim
quote:
OK, so do any of them establish the constitution prohibition against taxing churches? Because that is what I have asked for since the beginning. You would think with it being cited so frequently this would be easy.
well..the supreme court doesn't make decrees without a case being presented to them. Do you have a case supporting your statement that taxation of churches is acceptable?
If it is so acceptable there should be plenty of cases supporting it, right?
I haven't really looked at this stuff in years...but my recollection is there isn't much debate in the legal world about the first amendment and taxation of churches. Maybe you studied it more recently than I. Please post the cases or any other citations you may have. I was under the impression the subject was pretty much settled.
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:47 pm to the808bass
quote:
So, a church doesn't pay its taxes. What does the city do?
Dunno. That would depend on the state, and to a lessor degree local, laws.
I think the basic answer would be, whatever they do to private organizations that don't pay their taxes. Probably liens, maybe ultimately seizure of property.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:48 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
well..the supreme court doesn't make decrees without a case being presented to them. Do you have a case supporting your statement that taxation of churches is acceptable?
If it is so acceptable there should be plenty of cases supporting it, right?
I haven't really looked at this stuff in years...but my recollection is there isn't much debate in the legal world about the first amendment and taxation of churches. Maybe you studied it more recently than I. Please post the cases or any other citations you may have. I was under the impression the subject was pretty much settled.
Well the reason you won't see a case is that, pretty much everybody wants to give churches tax breaks. So the circumstances for a case to exist would be exceedingly rare. I found one law review article around the time of the case that pretty much says that. So you eventually might be right, but just not right now.
I would add as affirmative proof (and it's really not the same thing, I realize) is that clergy, even self-employed clergy have to pay federal income tax.
edited to, you know, actually reply!
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:49 pm to BigJim
How can a church challenge a taxed if they aren't taxed? Can you link me to a case where a church was taxed...challenged...then lost on constitutional grounds? If you cannot it is because a challenge has never been brought. The supreme court can't just rule by decree....meaning that churches are not being taxed. (This must be out of the governments good will)
On the other hand, we can look at the cases the court examined when the exemptions were challenged.
Oh...and the one case where a town did try to initially revoke tax exemption...and the courts ruled in favor of the town was because:
New Creation Fellowship of Buffalo v. Town of Cheektowaga, 164 Fed.Appx. 5
quote:
Town's initial refusal to grant tax-exempt status to church and its persistent attempts to enforce town's tree preservation ordinance did not violate church's First Amendment rights; church's rights to free expression, free association, and freedom of religion were not inhibited by town's actions, church members were not deterred from participating in church as result of town's actions, and church was never required to pay the challenged taxes.
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:55 pm to goatmilker
quote:
300K from taxing churches in a town of 3800? Seems a bit high.
What the heck are these churches "selling"?
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:56 pm to BigJim
quote:
Probably liens, maybe ultimately seizure of property.
And this is why taxation of churches is a bad idea (and non-profits in general). The power to tax is the power to destroy.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:58 pm to BigJim
quote:
So the circumstances for a case to exist would be exceedingly rare. I found one law review article around the time of the case that pretty much says
Corbitt's? That article also says that it is likely the church's would win any fights on income taxes, gift taxes, etc. and it was written in 1971.
quote:
I would add as affirmative proof (and it's really not the same thing, I realize) is that clergy, even self-employed clergy have to pay federal income tax
Very different. a lot of law here that could be looked at...but I don't want to.
Posted on 11/17/14 at 3:59 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
What the heck are these churches "selling"?
I'd guess it's property taxes.
Eta:
Misread it.
It's sales tax.
Sales tax is what 8%?
So they're saying these non-profits in a town of 4000 spend $4M? Lulz.
This post was edited on 11/17/14 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 11/17/14 at 4:00 pm to RoyMcavoy
quote:Same here. Take away their property tax exemptions as well.
I agree with the nome city council
Posted on 11/17/14 at 4:01 pm to Jim Rockford
It seems to me that Nome is freeloading off these copious amount of charities and the public dole.
Sounds like a very awfully managed city full of layabouts and a poorly managed budget. They have to cut some fat.
Sounds like a very awfully managed city full of layabouts and a poorly managed budget. They have to cut some fat.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News