Warren Buffet speaks common sense; alarms most Republicans

[rah]

Taxation implies incorporation. This is why corporations can be taxed, but the church cannot.

Are you implying that individuals can't be taxed?

[giblets]

Damn. I must be wrong because Gribbler googled. What, is Google the Oracle?

Feel free to quote a source that contains the phrase "taxation implies incorporation". I think you just made that up on the spot.

In other words, you don't have any evidence that "taxation implies incorporation". Even if this statement was correct, I don't see how it would prevent taxation of churches.

[Lorizael]

His argument changes from post to post, but his conclusion is always the same. There's really no point.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you implying that individuals can't be taxed?

I'm stating that unless the Church is incorporated under US laws (it's not), it cannot be taxed as a corporate entity. If the Church were to incorporate that would also imply that the State could dissolve the Church. Which falls afoul of the constitution.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't see how it would prevent taxation of churches.

This isn't exactly a difficult to grasp argument. You can't see why because you believe that it's unfair. As does Lorizael, but there are very good reasons why they aren't treated the same way. I'm walking you through the argument, (as well as Lorizael), to explain why the two entities are not the same and the crucial differences as to why they apply to taxation.

But go on. I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make him or you drink.

Countries, (note the US), do in fact have a state church that is incorporated, and generally receives special treatment from the state as a result. The state can shut down and fire people and hire people as they see fit, because it's a state run and owned entity.

[Lorizael]

And as we all know, Congress routinely hires and fires the employees of random corporations that it taxes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Umm, yeah, they do. See GM.

[giblets]

This isn't exactly a difficult to grasp argument. You can't see why because you believe that it's unfair. As does Lorizael, but there are very good reasons why they aren't treated the same way. I'm walking you through the argument, (as well as Lorizael), to explain why the two entities are not the same and the crucial differences as to why they apply to taxation.

But go on. I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make him or you drink.

Countries, (note the US), do in fact have a state church that is incorporated, and generally receives special treatment from the state as a result. The state can shut down and fire people and hire people as they see fit, because it's a state run and owned entity.

Now it looks like you've equated two different definitions of "incorporation". Corporations like GE or ExxonMobil do not belong to the state, but they are corporations and they can be taxed. Taxing something is not legally the same as the state owning it. The state taxing churches is not an establishment of religion. Also, stop being a pretentious ******* with your talk of "walking people through" your argument. Even if I were a part of the religious majority who want to shift their tax burden onto the nonreligious I would still not buy into your retarded arguments.

[Asher]

Umm, yeah, they do. See GM.

The government owned GM.

[Ben Kenobi]

Even if I were a part of the religious majority who want to shift their tax burden onto the nonreligious I would still not buy into your retarded arguments.

So because you are so enlightened, that means you can ignore arguments you don't like? Interesting, I personally thought that was contrary to Enlightenment principles.What, do you hate Spinoza for some reason?

The argument that the two are not the same, is the point I'm trying to get across.

[Ben Kenobi]

The government owned GM.

If the state can take over GM, what's to stop the state from taking over the Church if the Church were incorporated under US Law?

[Asher]

If the state can take over GM, what's to stop the state from taking over the Church if the Church were incorporated under US Law?

They did not do a hostile takeover, Ben...

Your whole line of reasoning is beyond stupid.

The reason religious groups are not taxed is because people perceive a net benefit to society by their existence. They are ultimately not taxed due to public opinion. Not constitutional law.

Public opinion changes, so, too, could the tax free status. Especially when you've got a glut of megachurches headed by manipulative crooks...

[Ben Kenobi]

They did not do a hostile takeover, Ben...

Tell that to the bondholders...

[Asher]

Tell that to the bondholders...

Too. Stupid. To. Live.

[Flubber]

Yes, both have to be paid, but it's one income stream from which both are paid. That's double taxation.

True but doesn't the US try to make it so that monies are taxed similarly. In canada I recall ( and I am very very very rusty on this) that the system was designed so that they attempted to equalize taxes on a dollar of corporate income paid out to a shareholder versus a dollar of income of a sole proprietorship. My recollection was that a corp could pay certain forms of dividends that were essentially taxed as income to the investor while the corp could deduct the monies from income --- and then there were other forms of dividends where the corp had paid tax and the shareholder paid a far lower rate than their normal rate.

So in Canada it was " double taxation" in many cases but with no additional tax paid. In principle . . . in reality the systems and exemptions and exceptiosn get so complex that its rarely as simple as the principle

I am leaving aside capital gains where Canada has deviated from their sometimes stated "a buck is a buck" type policy and had a variety of tax rates and exemptions