Fusing church and state
June 25th, 2008 3:59 pm · 39 comments
Via Pastor Dan, check it out - it really was only a matter of time:
Religious Right Gears Up To Push Political Choices From the Pulpit
As the presidential candidates prepare to compete for religious voters this November, some preachers on the Christian right are vowing to test longstanding tax rules that inhibit politicking from the pulpit.
The Alliance Defense Fund — a legal outfit launched by James Dobson and other prominent conservatives in the mid-1990s — has recruited 50 pastors to deliver sermons in September that will include direct endorsements of political candidates. Although churches and other religious groups, like all not-for-profits, are required by law to eschew partisanship in exchange for their tax-exempt status, ADF’S Pulpit Initiative advances a premise yet to be fully tested in the courts: that religious leaders speaking from the pulpit should benefit from special speech protections.
Hm, I thought conservatives disliked the idea of “special rights,” especially for minorities like gays.
To be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with evangelical churches or any other church preaching politics from the pulpit. But then it’s tax time.
Yet check this out:
If a case involving an intransigent pastor does find its way to federal court, ADF will likely pursue a number of legal arguments. Erik Stanley, ADF’s senior legal counsel, said it would argue that the tax-exempt status of religious groups “is a right, not just a privilege” and that religious leaders enjoy a number of special protections under the First Amendment.
People of faith have a right to be tax-exempt. More special protections.
See? The Religious Right has more rights than you!
Quoth Pastor Dan:
This is about the people in charge of an aging, tattered coalition staying in charge. Without something to rally the faithful, the Religious Right leaders might find themselves at the head of a movement without followers in pretty short order. Not a moment too soon, if you ask me.
And amen to that.
Share and Enjoy:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Tags: Religious conservatism · Religion
There are currently 39 comments on this blog postView Topic | Comment on this blogGeezUS
6/25/08
6:04 PM | When THEY cross the line they need to pay the FINE.
|
dragonrider
6/25/08
6:46 PM | QUOTE(GeezUS @ Jun 25 2008, 06:04 PM) [snapback]405085[/snapback] When THEY cross the line they need to pay the FINE.
personally I don't think there should be a tax exempt status for churches. |
justplainjoe
6/25/08
7:03 PM | why shouldn't a pastor be able to endorse whomever he wants? what's the big deal? |
AngelFace
6/25/08
9:30 PM | QUOTE(justplainjoe @ Jun 25 2008, 07:03 PM) [snapback]405099[/snapback]
why shouldn't a pastor be able to endorse whomever he wants? what's the big deal?
Okay, Gil, where is your indignant OUTRAGE for Barack Obama preaching from the pulpit? Where is your call for Obama's Chicago church to lose its tax exempt status after Jeremiah Wright blasted Hillary Clinton and point by point ENDORSED Barack Obama. What a hypocrite. Riverside Church in NYC has Democrats preaching politics REGULARLY -- but you have no problem with that, right? How about the Rev. Al Sharpton, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson who preach all Democrat politics all the time FROM THE PULPIT.
Prejudice, bigotry, and bias are despicable traits for a supposed "journalist", Mr. Smart and your open hostility toward Conservatives and toward conservative Christians is just as ugly and just as repugnant as racial hatred. |
dragonrider
6/25/08
10:16 PM | I agree why shouldn't preachers endorse from the pulpit but also why should they be tax exempt.
Todays NYT , there is an article on commanding officers requiring prayer before meals and before mandatory attendance meetings. So where is this supposed seperation of church and state.
|
Shirley U Geste
6/25/08
10:58 PM | If you want separation, paying taxes to the government is not a good way to get it.
commentary from 1997 (could have been written yesterday)
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/ChurchTx.html
"If the government is over the Church of God, I'd like to know when it took place. Someone will remind us that churches receive benefits from government such as police and fire protection, garbage pick-up, etc., but then the members have paid for those benefits as individuals."
Someone mentioned Obama. Noticed this at the end of an Obama/Dobson article:
"Obama recently met in Chicago with religious leaders, including conservative evangelicals. His campaign also plans thousands of "American Values House Parties," where participants discuss Obama and religion, as well as a presence on Christian radio and blogs." |
Rural Conservative
6/25/08
11:55 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 25 2008, 10:16 PM) [snapback]405137[/snapback]
Todays NYT , there is an article on commanding officers requiring prayer before meals and before mandatory attendance meetings. So where is this supposed seperation of church and state.
Bear in mind that there is a precedent for this. Benjamin Franklin (most say he was a Deist, but I think he was more of an agnostic), recomended that the first continental congress be convened with a word of prayer.
The first amendment is designed to protect the Church from the state, not the state from the Church. Look for the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independance and you will not find them. Those words were found in correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association which occured in 1802. The correspondence was intended to clarify that the government had no right to interfere in matters of religion. The phrase "separation of Church and state" has been horribly missapropriated and missused to mean the exact opposite of what was initially intended. The phrase, originally intended to assure citizens that the government would leave them to practice their faith in peace, is now used to stifle the beliefs and practice of persons of faith.
|
dragonrider
6/26/08
12:24 AM | QUOTE(Rural Conservative @ Jun 25 2008, 11:55 PM) [snapback]405150[/snapback]
Bear in mind that there is a precedent for this. Benjamin Franklin (most say he was a Deist, but I think he was more of an agnostic), recomended that the first continental congress be convened with a word of prayer.
The first amendment is designed to protect the Church from the state, not the state from the Church. Look for the words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independance and you will not find them. Those words were found in correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association which occured in 1802. The correspondence was intended to clarify that the government had no right to interfere in matters of religion. The phrase "separation of Church and state" has been horribly missapropriated and missused to mean the exact opposite of what was initially intended. The phrase, originally intended to assure citizens that the government would leave them to practice their faith in peace, is now used to stifle the beliefs and practice of persons of faith.
When you have a commanding officer telling recruits to pray to Jesus, that is just wrong. Whats a recruit to do say Chief I am pagan I don't pray to Jesus . Yeah that will go over well. When its an officer of the government ie a commanding officer in the military then the government is interfering in the individual right to practice their own faith or no faith at all. I know you want to recruit to your Churchie Lifestyle Choice and have an Churchie Lifestyle Agenda but we still have a right not to have it forced on us by the government. |
UncommonSense
6/26/08
12:52 AM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 12:24 AM) [snapback]405163[/snapback] When you have a commanding officer telling recruits to pray to Jesus, that is just wrong. Whats a recruit to do say Chief I am pagan I don't pray to Jesus . Yeah that will go over well. When its an officer of the government ie a commanding officer in the military then the government is interfering in the individual right to practice their own faith or no faith at all. I know you want to recruit to your Churchie Lifestyle Choice and have an Churchie Lifestyle Agenda but we still have a right not to have it forced on us by the government.
The thread, I believe, was concerning clergy articulating their view on the political landscape. If my pastor, in my church, offers his opinion on any candidate - it does not affect you!
|
dragonrider
6/26/08
1:16 AM | QUOTE(UncommonSense @ Jun 26 2008, 12:52 AM) [snapback]405166[/snapback]
The thread, I believe, was concerning clergy articulating their view on the political landscape. If my pastor, in my church, offers his opinion on any candidate - it does not affect you!
As long as your church pays taxes no problemo. |
UncommonSense
6/26/08
2:09 AM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 01:16 AM) [snapback]405170[/snapback] As long as your church pays taxes no problemo.
Refer back to the articulate posting by RC for ample reason as to why your position is rubbish. Are you sure you do not have an axe to grind with churches/religion?
Consider also that the First Amendment far predated the taxation law and IRS code that is being applied to them, per my reckoning.
|
dragonrider
6/26/08
6:45 AM | QUOTE(UncommonSense @ Jun 26 2008, 02:09 AM) [snapback]405172[/snapback]
Refer back to the articulate posting by RC for ample reason as to why your position is rubbish. Are you sure you do not have an axe to grind with churches/religion?
Consider also that the First Amendment far predated the taxation law and IRS code that is being applied to them, per my reckoning.
As the IRS code is not in the constitution we have to go by the rule that has been applied to all tax exempt organizations. If you become a partisan supporter you have no tax exempt status therefore this should apply to churches as well as any other group. If your church wishes to become embroiled in politics that is its right but tax exempt status for IRS remains that the organization be nonpartisan.
I have an axe to grind with some organizations that wish to call themselves churches/religions but are in fact political organizations. Preach the bible thats what churches are supposed to do , not pick candidates for office.
|
Lysol54
6/26/08
6:48 AM | QUOTE(UncommonSense @ Jun 26 2008, 02:09 AM) [snapback]405172[/snapback]
Refer back to the articulate posting by RC for ample reason as to why your position is rubbish. Are you sure you do not have an axe to grind with churches/religion?
Consider also that the First Amendment far predated the taxation law and IRS code that is being applied to them, per my reckoning.
RC doesn't know what hes talking about. It was not to protect the churth from the state. They saw what state sponsered or endoresed religions did all over Europe and didn't want that here. The religions used their influence to spread their power, many times in not so rightous ways. The founding Fathers didn't want a repeat of that here. Funny how his arguement was that it was to allow people the freedom to practice their religion, but Fundamentalists take that as, "Only if its Christianity."
If Pastors want to play politics thats fine, they should have their tax exempt status removed and pay taxes just like any other business. I mean thats what they are after all. Just another way to make money. Edit: I couldn't have said it better DR. Many of these churches now seem to have that fact lost of them. Or they try to fuse both together and push their agenda. |
Scout
6/26/08
6:55 AM | Quite frankly, I am more worried about what the state is doing in my personal life than I am about what it is doing in my church 
|
Goldilocks
6/26/08
7:07 AM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 05:45 AM) [snapback]405179[/snapback]
Preach the bible thats what churches are supposed to do , not pick candidates for office.
I can't believe it, but I agree with you !!
|
Rural Conservative
6/26/08
9:52 AM | QUOTE(Lysol54 @ Jun 26 2008, 06:48 AM) [snapback]405181[/snapback]
RC doesn't know what hes talking about. It was not to protect the churth from the state. They saw what state sponsered or endoresed religions did all over Europe and didn't want that here. The religions used their influence to spread their power, many times in not so rightous ways. The founding Fathers didn't want a repeat of that here. Funny how his arguement was that it was to allow people the freedom to practice their religion, but Fundamentalists take that as, "Only if its Christianity."
The founding fathers saw the issues with state sponsored religion, which is why the Bill of Rights contains the statement that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This does not apply to individual states btw as Massachusetts had an established state Church well into the 19th century. This applies only to Congress. So, if the U.S. Congress were to make a law which required all persons to attend a Baptist church or a Methodist Church, or a Catholic Church, or a particular Mosque, or a buddhist temple, that would obviously be a direct violation; however, to suggest that it is unconstitutional that persons should wish to use their faith as a platform from which they may affect society was farthest from the minds of the founding fathers. Individual liberty and expression are what they sought to protect and indeed, encourage.
QUOTE Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
(the above is from the 27th paragraph of George Washington's farewell address)
George Washington himself stated in his farewell address that religion and morality are "indispensable supports" of a free society. His next sentence calls into question the patriotism of anyone "who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness."
It seems I do know what I am talking about after all.
As for your accusation that I am a person who feels that all others must believe as I do, you are welcome to your opinion, as long as you don't mind being wrong. I'm not going to dignify that particular ludicrous statement any further by trying to argue the point.
|
Lysol54
6/26/08
10:13 AM | QUOTE(Rural Conservative @ Jun 26 2008, 09:52 AM) [snapback]405244[/snapback]
The
As for your accusation that I am a person who feels that all others must believe as I do, you are welcome to your opinion, as long as you don't mind being wrong. I'm not going to dignify that particular ludicrous statement any further by trying to argue the point.
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension, i never accused you of making all others believe what you believe. I was simply pointing out that Fundamentalist Christians seem to have that mind set. I didn't lump you into that group now did i?
|
Rural Conservative
6/26/08
10:22 AM | QUOTE(Lysol54 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:13 AM) [snapback]405254[/snapback]
Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension, i never accused you of making all others believe what you believe. I was simply pointing out that Fundamentalist Christians seem to have that mind set. I didn't lump you into that group now did i?
I apologise if I have missunderstood your meaning; however, you did include that statement in a response to my post, and the way the sentence is written, it certainly appears that you are including me in a stereotype, which is actually quite incorrect.
There are differences between Fundamentalist Christians who use the term Fundamentalist to mean "one who believes in the fundamentals of Scripture," and Hyper-fundamentalists who read only the KJV and have very...off-the-wall views.
I don't have time to go into the differences since my wife wants to go buy some shelves.
...I guess continuing to write would be...Shelf-ish..or maybe un shelf-ish...of me...HAR HAR HAR
|
dragonrider
6/26/08
10:38 AM | I agree that the founding fathers had concerns when the church had too much power over the government and when the government had too much power over religion. Yes the founding fathers felt a persons faith in any religion should be a basis to form opinions about governance but I don't remember George saying that churches should be telling you what your opinion should be about certain laws or candidates. |
Rural Conservative
6/26/08
11:53 AM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 10:38 AM) [snapback]405264[/snapback] I don't remember George saying that churches should be telling you what your opinion should be about certain laws or candidates.
He may not have said that exactly; however, pastors preached politics in Washington's day and I don't remember reading anything saying that George Washington ever spoke out against it. What part of "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," indicates that the government has a say in the views presented in any particular Church? If a specific pastor believes that he/she should speak out against something he/she believes is a problem, he/she should be allowed to do so. This is also protected under freedom of speech.
Personally, I do not belong to a church that "tells" me what my opinion should be. The Church to which I belong encourages careful study of Scripture, and even encourages us to disagree with the pastor, elders, and deacons if we see them acting in opposition to the teachings of the Bible. The idea that persons who attend various fundamentalist/conservative churches are all mindless zombies, is a misplaced stereotype.
|
dragonrider
6/26/08
12:24 PM | QUOTE(Rural Conservative @ Jun 26 2008, 11:53 AM) [snapback]405285[/snapback]
He may not have said that exactly; however, pastors preached politics in Washington's day and I don't remember reading anything saying that George Washington ever spoke out against it. What part of "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," indicates that the government has a say in the views presented in any particular Church? If a specific pastor believes that he/she should speak out against something he/she believes is a problem, he/she should be allowed to do so. This is also protected under freedom of speech.
Personally, I do not belong to a church that "tells" me what my opinion should be. The Church to which I belong encourages careful study of Scripture, and even encourages us to disagree with the pastor, elders, and deacons if we see them acting in opposition to the teachings of the Bible. The idea that persons who attend various fundamentalist/conservative churches are all mindless zombies, is a misplaced stereotype.
what part of the respecting clause do you see gives churches tax exempt status? |
Rural Conservative
6/26/08
12:38 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 12:24 PM) [snapback]405298[/snapback] what part of the respecting clause do you see gives churches tax exempt status?
Requiring a religious organization to pay taxes comes dangerously close to violating the establishment clause since the government would eventually have to say that a religious organization could not exist if they did not pay the tax. This steps on regulation of religion. Of course, they already seek to regulate by limiting what can be said from a pulpit in regards to politics anyway, so this would just be another step down that road, away from what was intended by the founding fathers.
|
graphicsully
6/26/08
12:43 PM | this is going to sound "way out there" but I really think this has a lot to do with the Vatican. I'm not agreeing with Gil on this because of his perspective. But the Catholic church forced a false "Christianity" on Europe for many centuries by ruling from behind the "pulpit". I believe the Vatican is still trying to exert its power here in the US. It wasn't until the late 19th century that a Catholic was allowed to serve in our government because American's did not trust the Vatican. Christianity has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with follow Jesus Christ and the Word of God. If preachers preach the Bible the way they are supposed to be, they will not have to tell their congregation who to vote for in any election. I'm a very conservative Christian but I don't want any church run by men, influencing our government to directly.
At the same time, I think that property tax is completely out of hand and I hate it. It is unfair and in Gils words "makes a special class" of people. It should be eliminated, not just reduced. |
dragonrider
6/26/08
12:51 PM | QUOTE(Rural Conservative @ Jun 26 2008, 12:38 PM) [snapback]405304[/snapback]
Requiring a religious organization to pay taxes comes dangerously close to violating the establishment clause since the government would eventually have to say that a religious organization could not exist if they did not pay the tax. This steps on regulation of religion. Of course, they already seek to regulate by limiting what can be said from a pulpit in regards to politics anyway, so this would just be another step down that road, away from what was intended by the founding fathers.
They only regulate what is said in the pulpit as it effects tax exempt status. And as you just agreed there is nothing in the establishment clause that grants tax exemption, therefore the non partisan rule applies to churches same as other orgs. But the churches are free to exist and say whatever they want just pay taxes. I feel the best solution is require all churches to pay taxes then no risk on just picking on certain churches. |
AngelFace
6/26/08
2:14 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 12:51 PM) [snapback]405309[/snapback]
They only regulate what is said in the pulpit as it effects tax exempt status. And as you just agreed there is nothing in the establishment clause that grants tax exemption, therefore the non partisan rule applies to churches same as other orgs. But the churches are free to exist and say whatever they want just pay taxes. I feel the best solution is require all churches to pay taxes then no risk on just picking on certain churches.
Then be prepared to tax ALL NON-PROFITS. The concept behind tax exemption was that the tax is an INCOME tax on EARNED INCOME. The reasoning was that money is donated to non-profits in order to do good (calm down! "good" is in the eye of the beholder!) The money given has already been taxed as income to the earner. If that earner chooses to give, it is purely donation. How many times can the same income be taxed? That is the whole platform for tax reform to do with inheritance tax -- whatever a person leaves behind to loved ones has already been taxed! But he is dead, cannot protest, and taking money from dead people is lucrative business for the govt. Grandma's money was taxed as income. She dies, leaves it to her sister, it is taxed again. Six months later Aunt Ida dies and leave it to her daughter -- it is taxed AGAIN.
Sorry. Back to non-profits. You object to churches who are saying things you don't like, so you want them to be taxed. Those same churches might object to Planned Parenthood and what IT says, so are we going to tax all non-profits with whom we disagree? I am a vegan peacenik -- let's tax the NRA. Problematic, since my sons, the hunters (WHERE DID I FAIL???), support the NRA and want PETA taxed because PETA rubs them the wrong way. Slippery slope all around.
I personally think the Income Tax is unconstitutional. But I am not fond of the idea of a long vacation in Leavenworth, KS at govt. expense, so I grudgingly ante up. |
dragonrider
6/26/08
2:23 PM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 26 2008, 02:14 PM) [snapback]405355[/snapback]
Then be prepared to tax ALL NON-PROFITS. The concept behind tax exemption was that the tax is an INCOME tax on EARNED INCOME. The reasoning was that money is donated to non-profits in order to do good (calm down! "good" is in the eye of the beholder!) The money given has already been taxed as income to the earner. If that earner chooses to give, it is purely donation. How many times can the same income be taxed? That is the whole platform for tax reform to do with inheritance tax -- whatever a person leaves behind to loved ones has already been taxed! But he is dead, cannot protest, and taking money from dead people is lucrative business for the govt. Grandma's money was taxed as income. She dies, leaves it to her sister, it is taxed again. Six months later Aunt Ida dies and leave it to her daughter -- it is taxed AGAIN.
Sorry. Back to non-profits. You object to churches who are saying things you don't like, so you want them to be taxed. Those same churches might object to Planned Parenthood and what IT says, so are we going to tax all non-profits with whom we disagree? I am a vegan peacenik -- let's tax the NRA. Problematic, since my sons, the hunters (WHERE DID I FAIL???), support the NRA and want PETA taxed because PETA rubs them the wrong way. Slippery slope all around.
I personally think the Income Tax is unconstitutional. But I am not fond of the idea of a long vacation in Leavenworth, KS at govt. expense, so I grudgingly ante up. Non profits such as Sierra Club have already had to split into a political arm which pays taxes and a non political which is tax exempt. Same should apply to churches that become overtly partisan in endorsing candidates, wether they are Rev Wright Al Sharpton James Dobson or Hagee. |
cyberscribbler
6/26/08
2:33 PM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 26 2008, 02:14 PM) [snapback]405355[/snapback]
How many times can the same income be taxed? That is the whole platform for tax reform to do with inheritance tax -- whatever a person leaves behind to loved ones has already been taxed! But he is dead, cannot protest, and taking money from dead people is lucrative business for the govt. They're not taking it from the dead, it's a euphemism to make it sound morbid. The average person is not going to pass along a substantial inheritance to their kids. The well to do could pass on enough money so that their kids never have to work again. Then you wind up with celebrity train wrecks like Paris Hilton. 
Those who donate big bucks to lobbying firms and PACs are skilled at massaging public opinion to their favor.
|
dragonrider
6/26/08
2:38 PM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jun 26 2008, 02:33 PM) [snapback]405381[/snapback] They're not taking it from the dead, it's a euphemism to make it sound morbid. The average person is not going to pass along a substantial inheritance to their kids. The well to do could pass on enough money so that their kids never have to work again. Then you wind up with celebrity train wrecks like Paris Hilton. Those who donate big bucks to lobbying firms and PACs are skilled at massaging public opinion to their favor. |
AngelFace
6/26/08
10:03 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 26 2008, 02:38 PM) [snapback]405386[/snapback]
Only very very large inheritances are taxed as well, the average by that I mean 99.99 % of taxpayers will never ever pay inheritance taxes this is purely a tax on the inheritance of the mega rich to prevent a ruling elite income class.
I only used the inheritance issue as an example of earned income being taxed over and over. You pay income tax on your salary. You choose to give your college kid $1000. for his birthday so he can buy his textbooks, clothes for the school year. Should he pay income tax on that money? It is fresh money to him! (Just for the record, you can only give someone up to $11,000. a year in gift money. Anything over that, and they DO have to pay tax on it -- great system, huh?)
That is the principle behind non-profits. For now, the government considers what we give them as a gift -- a donation. Sierra Club and others who have a political "arm" have paid lobbyists. That is why they are taxed. They are actually at work in Washington trying to influence elected officials. Not quite the same thing as simply saying, "I am going to vote for Candidate A".
Just to return briefly to the inheritance thing. Most taxpayers will not have the big FEDERAL inheritance tax. But only spouses inherit freely. Anything that is left is taxable in the Commonwealth. Anything left to kids is taxable. We had a great-Aunt who died in a nursing home at age 103. She had about $1,000. left to her name. She was so earnest about her niece and nephews receiving something "to remember her by". My better half dutifully wrote 4 checks to the college kids (who were grateful). Six weeks later he got a bill from PA for more than a hundred bucks. We paid it out of pocket, but not without a few choice words! Why is a government entity due ANYTHING just because someone DIED??? |
Nativeson
6/26/08
10:46 PM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 26 2008, 02:14 PM) [snapback]405355[/snapback]
I personally think the Income Tax is unconstitutional. But I am not fond of the idea of a long vacation in Leavenworth, KS at govt. expense, so I grudgingly ante up.
It used to be unconstitutional. All this would go away if we went back to that. Forbes for president!
|
AngelFace
6/27/08
12:21 AM | QUOTE(Nativeson @ Jun 26 2008, 10:46 PM) [snapback]405494[/snapback]
It used to be unconstitutional. All this would go away if we went back to that. Forbes for president!
Boy, if you could get Forbes to enter the race, he's got my vote!!! |
cyberscribbler
6/27/08
8:52 AM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 26 2008, 10:03 PM) [snapback]405488[/snapback] Just to return briefly to the inheritance thing. Most taxpayers will not have the big FEDERAL inheritance tax. But only spouses inherit freely. Anything that is left is taxable in the Commonwealth. QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 27 2008, 12:21 AM) [snapback]405515[/snapback] Boy, if you could get Forbes to enter the race, he's got my vote!!! For governor?
|
AngelFace
6/27/08
10:34 AM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jun 27 2008, 08:52 AM) [snapback]405581[/snapback]
For governor?
Hey, for any office that requires fiscal responsibility, accountability, or restraint -- From Mayor to President! And replacing Rendell with Forbes might actually get us some property tax relief! |
dragonrider
6/27/08
11:17 AM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 27 2008, 10:34 AM) [snapback]405644[/snapback]
Hey, for any office that requires fiscal responsibility, accountability, or restraint -- From Mayor to President! And replacing Rendell with Forbes might actually get us some property tax relief! Yes lets get another fiscal conservative republican in their to cut taxes and increase spending so we can have a ballooning deficit on the state level like we have on the federal level. |
cyberscribbler
6/27/08
12:15 PM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 27 2008, 10:34 AM) [snapback]405644[/snapback] replacing Rendell with Forbes might actually get us some property tax relief! It has to be done in the right order. Property tax relief, then gambling.
QUOTE(DragonRider) cut taxes and increase spending so we can have a ballooning deficit on the state level like we have on the federal level. It we plugged the holes in the tax code we wouldn't have a deficit. They estimate they lose $300B a year, that isn't audited. Sixties era IT systems, fewer tax agents, enforcement with no teeth.
|
dragonrider
6/27/08
4:58 PM | QUOTE(cyberscribbler @ Jun 27 2008, 12:15 PM) [snapback]405698[/snapback] It has to be done in the right order. Property tax relief, then gambling.
It we plugged the holes in the tax code we wouldn't have a deficit. They estimate they lose $300B a year, that isn't audited. Sixties era IT systems, fewer tax agents, enforcement with no teeth.
Personally I prefer to get rid of the IRS completely bunch of jack booted thugs, and go with a VAT. That way everyone pays taxes even prostitutes and drug dealers and hedge fund managers.(comparison intended) |
AngelFace
6/27/08
6:05 PM | QUOTE(dragonrider @ Jun 27 2008, 04:58 PM) [snapback]405859[/snapback]
Personally I prefer to get rid of the IRS completely bunch of jack booted thugs, and go with a VAT. That way everyone pays taxes even prostitutes and drug dealers and hedge fund managers.(comparison intended)
Exactly! And your comparison was PERFECT.
Another poster said a Republican would cut taxes and raise spending ... but Democrats RAISE taxes and RAISE spending. How about a Forbes approach that cuts taxes AND CUTS SPENDING!!!! Lets AUDIT THE GOV'T the way the IRS audits taxpayers, and lets CUT OUT ALL THE WASTE. And while we are at it, how about letting the rest of the world pay their own bills, and we just take care of ourselves for awhile. |
Rural Conservative
6/27/08
9:40 PM | QUOTE(AngelFace @ Jun 27 2008, 06:05 PM) [snapback]405867[/snapback]
Exactly! And your comparison was PERFECT.
Another poster said a Republican would cut taxes and raise spending ... but Democrats RAISE taxes and RAISE spending. How about a Forbes approach that cuts taxes AND CUTS SPENDING!!!! Lets AUDIT THE GOV'T the way the IRS audits taxpayers, and lets CUT OUT ALL THE WASTE. And while we are at it, how about letting the rest of the world pay their own bills, and we just take care of ourselves for awhile.
And how about we stop paying the politicians. New Hampshire doesn't pay their state legislators and it works pretty well for them. It's all a prestige thing. The less time these morons can afford to spend in Washington, the less time they have to screw things up.
|
cyberscribbler
6/28/08
8:04 AM | QUOTE(Rural Conservative @ Jun 27 2008, 09:40 PM) [snapback]405894[/snapback]
And how about we stop paying the politicians. New Hampshire doesn't pay their state legislators and it works pretty well for them.
Better to derail the pay to play system and bar legislators from working for lobbying firms after leaving office.
QUOTE(Angelface) How about a Forbes approach that cuts taxes AND CUTS SPENDING!!!! Lets AUDIT THE GOV'T the way the IRS audits taxpayers, Again, has to be done in the right order. Eliminate income tax 1st, then implement a VAT tax. Just remember whatever is taxed is then discouraged. A nat'l sales tax would mean less consumption. We're a consumption based economy.
The gov't is already audited via the GAO. The IRS has been made toothless by reform measures in the late 90s. Their budget was slashed, there's very little effort to enforce tax cheats. I know this flies in the face of conservative talking points, but that's the reality of it.
Congress made the IRS user friendly, now they're a bunch of lapdogs to corporate & top 5% income tier who comprise the political donor class.
Check out Perfectly Legal
|
View Topic | Comment on this blog
