Religion and tax.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Mar 3, 2017.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,591
    I dont know in so far as I cant give authority but I thought the idea behind interest rate moveme t was to control the employement a d therefore inflation. I dont think I got it out of thin airbut at myage who knows.
    Yes.
    Sounds reasonable.
    I e joyed your post thank you.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    When not being artificially manipulated to engineer the economy, the prime rate, on which other interest is based, is just a measure of risk. Lower employment typically means higher risk of defaulting on loans and higher interest to cover those losses, but government guarantees, i.e. "too big to fail", artificially reduce the risk and interest rate. Usually the justification for holding the prime rate down is to allow more business loans to boost employment. It's generally a bad idea and hasn't proven to work.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    About taxing church properties....
    Why not?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    Taxes are fungible.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,357
    That depends on wages.

    That's also the case with welfare.

    If the incentives aren't there, some other explanation than welfare is needed. If what you are really talking about is not incentives, but punishments, then a little more clarity about who you intend to punish is in order.
     
  9. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Reason to exempt church properties from taxation:
    Good. Therefore all taxes should be abolished.
    No more military; no more police; no more prisons; no more presidents.
    Theocracy or anarchy.
     
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Someone doesn't seem to know what fungible means.
    If an individual or entity is taxed, that money comes out of the same pool of funds as any other. So it makes no difference whether the tax is directed at the income, property, etc.. Any tax levied on religion violates "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Property taxes could hinder the building of new churches or limit the free exercise of religion.

    Don't like it? Change the First Amendment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Bull. Shit.
    Money qualifies on all counts. Doesn't differentiate between tax, fees, business transactions or loan interest.

    Utterly inapplicable to freedom of religious practice.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    And? I said "Taxes are fungible." That literally means that one tax, say income, is "freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another", say property tax.
    All taxes infringe on the "free exercise of religion", since taxes are trivially not free.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And no amount of red-in-the-face-cursing is going to change that fact. Like Obama said, if you don't like it win an election. You just have to win enough to change the Constitution.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    And you were wrong.
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    Bare assertions are not arguments.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Nevertheless.
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,591
    In all honesty I thought it was some sort of slang but I looked it up, so I thank you for increasing my vocabulary.
    Do you think that the tax exemptions maybe taken by some who dont deserve it.
    Alex
     
  17. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    More non-argument.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Yeah, I always appreciate new vocabulary too.
    There's always someone willing to game any system, and I'm sure there's plenty of even secular non-profit charities administered by people who earn many times the median salary. But 'deserve' is a judgment call based on legal criteria. Is there a dollar figure at which point an endeavor ceases to be religious or charitable? I don't really see how. If an organization that provides 1000 scholarships a year, ceases to be a legit charity for earning enough to provide 2000 scholarships a year, it seems to only penalize success and limit philanthropy. I really can't justify wasting more charitable donations by arbitrarily splitting it up among more charities, each with their own overhead.
    More people working means more money circulating in the economy. It only depends on the wages due to ridiculous things like $15 minimum wage, that artificially increase prices and cool the economy.
    No, welfare typically provides more money than can immediately be made at an initial transitioning job, pays better for single parents than married, and has no high school requirement, which many jobs do. This means that welfare explicitly incentivizes these three largest predictors of lifelong poverty.
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,357
    That's not what fungible means, and that's nowhere near the case for taxes. For example, different taxes have different effects on the costs of governance, the expenditures that will be necessary from the money collected.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,357
    Failure to punish is not an incentive. And as posted: :" If what you are really talking about is not incentives, but punishments, then a little more clarity about who you intend to punish is in order."
    That depends on the wages. If you got everyone working by disproportionately lowering the wages, you don't get more money circulating.
     
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2017
  20. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,405
    LOL! I quoted from the actual definition of "fungible".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The tax burden on any individual or entity is completely fungible. You're just making a nonsensical straw man about tax collection. Try to keep up.
    Actually you do, because the price of goods and services in a free market economy are effected by wages. Lower wages means cheaper goods and services, maintaining the rate and value of circulation. Again, basic economics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page