Montreal is taxing churches (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#281

Post by voisin » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

jsmeaton wrote: post #56

earthscienceman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an important point. It's going to go against the grain at hackernews, but taxing churches in the US is a terrible idea. If you wanted to further the divide between the "liberal city"/"conservative rural" American cultures, this would be a great way to do it. If you grew up in a rural area of the flyover states you would know that churches form the backbone of these rural communities. For example, the chu…

Don't you only tax profits? If a church isn't making any, then there'd be nothing to tax?

The tax being referred to in the case of churches is usually property taxes, which are based on property value, not profit or operations.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#282

Post by Tyrannosaur » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:40 PM UTC

xbmcuser wrote: post #279

earthscienceman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such an important point. It's going to go against the grain at hackernews, but taxing churches in the US is a terrible idea. If you wanted to further the divide between the "liberal city"/"conservative rural" American cultures, this would be a great way to do it. If you grew up in a rural area of the flyover states you would know that churches form the backbone of these rural communities. For example, the chu…

Well why is a countries system so broken that you need these churches to do charities.

Why is a country's moral system so broken that instead of charitable giving you take from people under threat of force instead?

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#283

Post by busterarm » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:43 PM UTC

seesawtron wrote: post #271

busterarm wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, hackernews will never pass up the opportunity to discuss highly divisive content that will cause community drama. Let's post about rent control while we're at it and really set off some flamewars.

I thought you were against censorship as your bio says: "Censors have never been on the right side of history. If you support censorship, consider that you may be advocating evil." If this was a sarcastic bio, then forgive me for misunderstanding.

Censorship isn't the same as having community rules for positive discussion and sticking to them. The latter implies consent -- if you don't agree with the rules, participate and voice your speech somewhere else.

You can be a free speech absolutist and still think it's a bad idea to shout fire in a theater. Being against censorship doesn't mean you welcome anyone into your home to shout whatever the heck they want.

Also, perhaps you should review them again:

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That destroys the curiosity this site exists for.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#284

Post by happytoexplain » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

earthscienceman wrote: post #43

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #4

Churches get a bad rap these days, for many reasons. I want to take a minute to defend them. Right away, I want to say that I am not defending religion-driven bigotry, nor megachurches, nor abuse. I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. churches are still where communities meet, where people connect with the spiritual world, and also the ones doing most of the "heavy lifting" on any kind of charity activity. They…

This is such an important point. It's going to go against the grain at hackernews, but taxing churches in the US is a terrible idea. If you wanted to further the divide between the "liberal city"/"conservative rural" American cultures, this would be a great way to do it. If you grew up in a rural area of the flyover states you would know that churches form the backbone of these rural communities. For example, the chu…

>It's going to go against the grain at hackernews

I really wish people didn't do this. I agree with your post, but it's preemptively combative to make the first thing you say, "you're going to disagree with me." It makes you sound like you're trying to present yourself as an underdog in the face of a monolithic enemy.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#285

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

james412 wrote: post #280

jacquesm wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those have pretty clearly stated profit aims. Churches, not so much.

Your complaint was about use of public money: > they are currently building a church to the tune of 100 million euros. > 70% or more of that came from public funding, essentially tax payer money rerouted to build this monstrosity, something the country really can not afford. In Tesla's case, $428m of public money contributed almost one third of all profits made by the company in a single /quarter/, at a time when the…

No, my complaint is about churches and their lack of transparency with regards to how they process their income and the fact that they don't pay taxes. The should never receive taxpayer funds.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#286

Post by forgotmypw17 » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

thefounder wrote: post #116

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about the amounts, but the time tax, and the effort tax. Maintaining tax records is not zero-effort.

Why should the non-religious non profit organisations have to maintain tax recods then?

That is a great question!

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#287

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #278

jacquesm wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russian Orthodox priests in Romania and Bulgaria are absolutely terrible. They prey on a gullible and very poor population while living in opulence and flaunting their wealth. In Bucharest, Romania, they are currently building a church to the tune of 100 million euros. https://balkaninsight.com/2018/11/23/heavy-price-tag-oversha... 70% or more of that came from public funding, essentially tax payer money rerouted to…

This is the same in Poland. The recent elections confirmed the conservative direction of the country, fueled along others by the catholic church. The good thing is that religion is not compulsory anymore. There used to be a time where not bring part of the church meant beung a real outcast. This included the communist rulers who were quick to chistianise their children because otherwise they wild have hell in the fam…

I lived there for a few years in total, I'm well aware of all this and it is a sad thing to see this raise its ugly head again. The church was instrumental in getting rid of the communists but they are a huge problem by themselves as well.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#288

Post by kshacker » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

hestefisk wrote: post #150

ajdlinux wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the US tax system, but at least in my experience here in Australia, not every expense incurred by a business or partially-taxed non-profit is necessarily deductible. For example, I formed a company with some friends for the purpose of work on a single contract, and the expenses we incurred in incorporating the company were only deductible at a rate of 20% per year over 5 years, so we ended up havin…

That’s depreciation on capitalised assets. Churches would like have very few assets that depreciate apart from buildings.

One of the companies I used to work for - the joke was they are a land acquiring company under the guise of technology. They did tech too and made a lot of money, but they made decent sum from land too.

Same may be going on for churches too.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#289

Post by disposekinetics » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

dungdongdang wrote: post #185

onetimemanytime wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Don't you only tax profits? If a church isn't making any, then there'd be nothing to tax? Land and buildings for one could be taxed. Churches bought or were given land ages ago, before there was a Manhattan or Boston, as we today know it. Go ahead and pay property tax on land worth $250 Million when you barely make income to keep the lights on.

then they need to close down and move. if i buy a house for 20k and when I retire the property values are sky-high and the property taxes, which pay for things like roads and schools are too much for me to afford, i have to move. the people giving money to churches to attend that church, should pick up the cost of going to that church. which includes property taxes. if they are not willing to pay for that, it's their…

This seems like a flaw in property taxes not churches.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#290

Post by disposekinetics » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #265

throwaway894345 wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China aside given that it's an authoritarian state I much prefer the control the state has over the church here in Germany, because it eliminates virtually all religious sectarianism and has led to the church having adopted teaching and a curriculum that is largely in line with the basic constitutional law and secular values rather than existing outside of it. The picture you paint of government control over religi…

Diversity is a good thing, that's not changed. But diversity doesn't mean 'anything goes'. There's boundaries in a civil society for a reason. Religious practice is fine but withholding a secular education from children or ditching modern medicine, or attacking the rights of women or exercising corporal punishment isn't. I don't see how having the ability to put a stop to it is authoritarian, at least not any more th…

> Religious practice is fine but withholding a secular education from children or ditching modern medicine, or attacking the rights of women or exercising corporal punishment isn't.

So a religion is fine as long as it is watered down to the point it does not teach what is right.