Declaring Religious Tithes as a Tax Free Donation

[Michael]

As for the debt, if its PERSONAL debt your talking about isn't that a GOOD thing for a libertarian? don't libertarians think that if you over extend yourself well that's too bad and if it means you stave or die of exposure well you were a waste of space? When you bring up "big government" and debt its PUBLIC sector debt that you should be referring to

No, it means if you overextend yourself you file for bankruptcy and follow through with the legal process.

I'm pretty sure you'd agree?

Suppose you borrowed $50 million from a bank and bought a house you could ill afford. The bank gave you the money knowing your couldn't afford it. You took the money knowing your couldn't afford it. Well, you loose your house, it's sold off to someone else. The bank recoups some of their loan - and if it's not enough then they ALSO go bankrupt. Anything else is a moral hazard. If you bail out the bank, well, they keep making bad loans hoping to get big bonuses. If you bail out the buyer, well, they go out and mortgage a second house, only this time's it's $150 million.

So, the Libertarian way is probably identical to your way of deals with this situation. Isn't it?

 

[Asguard]

No, it means if you overextend yourself you file for bankruptcy and follow through with the legal process.

I'm pretty sure you'd agree?

Suppose you borrowed $50 million from a bank and bought a house you could ill afford. The bank gave you the money knowing your couldn't afford it. You took the money knowing your couldn't afford it. Well, you loose your house, it's sold off to someone else. The bank recoups some of their loan - and if it's not enough then they ALSO go bankrupt. Anything else is a moral hazard. If you bail out the bank, well, they keep making bad loans hoping to get big bonuses. If you bail out the buyer, well, they go out and mortgage a second house, only this time's it's $150 million.

So, the Libertarian way is probably identical to your way of deals with this situation. Isn't it?

Yes and no, certain debts are protected from bankruptcy (mostly debt to government I believe but also other debt, my partners grandfather went bankrupt and he still has to pay a portion of his income every week to pay for the debt) and so are certain privileges. I'm reasonably sure that no matter what your payment record is for instance its REALLY hard for them to cut your electricity, gas and I don't think you can cut off water no matter HOW much debt you have (admittedly water is state government).


However this is irrelevant to the point I was making, its an red herring to bring up PERSONAL debt in a debate about big or small government. Our government debt is tiny, and we provide a lot more services than the US and at a lot lower cost per person in spite of the fact that the services need to be delivered at greater DISTANCES per person. Sure there are some issues with city vs country service delivery but the focus is on delivery to the country and its still not spiralling us into massive debt.

 

[Michael]

Our government debt is tiny, and we provide a lot more services than the US and at a lot lower cost per person in spite of the fact that the services need to be delivered at greater DISTANCES per person. Sure there are some issues with city vs country service delivery but the focus is on delivery to the country and its still not spiralling us into massive debt.

That's the way it USED to be in the States :shrug:

My worry is, when I'm in Australia, it's like watching a movie of the USA all over again. I've even seen some American "financiers" in AU give financial seminars (scaminars really) about how Australians should leverage the capital in their over priced houses blah blah blah... JUST like in the USA in the lead up to the crash.



That aside, were you in favor of Tithes being tax deductible or no they shouldn't be?

 

[Asguard]

no, Im not actually. Charity donations sure, but the Charity should prove to the tax department WHERE that money is going and that it will be USED for a charity purpose. That isn't to say that I'm concerned about a parish getting a tax deduction for the money they pay the priest. Rather the 2 that pop to mind which leave a bad taste in my mouth are Sanitarium (ie the COMPANY which makes Wheetbix and is tax exempt because a church owns it) and the church of Scientology.

On tax deductions in general it always irritates me that as a St John volunteer any money I pay out say for petrol to get me to events, to buy ice for an event, laundry of my uniform and any other expenses I incur are not tax deductible because I don't get paid (so they are not work place expense) and they don't class as "donations". However if a for profit company engages us to provide the first aid services they require under the relievant OH&S legislation in order for them to trade and there for make a profit, they can claim this expenditure as a tax deductible donation to a charity

 

[Mind Over Matter]

My interpretation says:
.
Congress shall make no law (with reference to) (any) establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); ...
.
That is a much more consistent statement. From dictionary.com:
.
.
IMO, it shouldn't matter if the law includes all religions or not because NO LAW shall be made that includes ANY religion, or prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Except that it doesn't say that Congress shall make no laws involving any religion; it says that Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion, nor which prohibits the free exercise of religion. My point, though obviously not clearly made, is that Congress has not made any law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor with respect to the free exercise of religion. Allowing a citizen to claim a tax break on a charitable donation (regardless of the religious nature of the charity) in no way infringes upon the 1st Amendment. It is an incentive (a fringe benefit, if you will) to encourage charitable giving. The more we give to charities, the less the government is asked to support the causes of those charities (in theory, anyway).
By the way, can you clarify what you mean by "respectful donation"?

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter
...; it says that Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion, nor which prohibits the free exercise of religion.

No it does not. Verbatim: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
.
In this case AN means ANY and THEREOF means OF OR CONCERNING THAT OR IT. Your interpretation (which is a common mistake) makes the second part of this clause contradictory - ex., or prohibiting the free exercise of a state religion.

My point, though obviously not clearly made, is that Congress has not made any law with respect to the establishment of religion, nor with respect to the free exercise of religion.

Actually they did. Congress put into law an exception specifically for Churches - arguably the largest portion of tax exempt entities - that automatically qualifies them as tax deductible entities. How is that not making a law respecting an establishment of religion?
Read post #18 for links.

By the way, can you clarify what you mean by "respectful donations"?

It was ment to imply a religious obligation to tithe. I don't know how other religions tithe but The Bible is very clear that tithing is to be used to facilitate their religious agenda.
.
Let me be clear. I don't have a problem with writing off charitable donations to religious establishments as long as the donor and recipients itemize where their funds are to be spent. It would be no different than what is expected of (embryotic) stem cell researchers when federal dollars are involved.

 

[Acitnoids]

So, what of you "Christians" whom believe "10%" of your income is the minimum amount owed to "the LORD"? By writing off this tithe you will be monetarily reimbursed a percentage of that tithe. I mean, in the end you wouldn't be giving "10%" at all because the government reimburses you. Is declaring a minimum tithe as a charitable donation ethically consistent with "Christianity"?
.
NOTE: Anything in quotation can be substituted for your appropriate beliefs for tithing.

 

[gmilam]

So, what of you "Christians" whom believe "10%" of your income is the minimum amount owed to "the LORD"? By writing off this tithe you will be monetarily reimbursed a percentage of that tithe. I mean, in the end you wouldn't be giving "10%" at all because the government reimburses you. Is declaring a minimum tithe as a charitable donation ethically consistent with "Christianity"?
.
NOTE: Anything in quotation can be substituted for your appropriate beliefs for tithing.

This is not quite true. If you give 10% of your gross income to charity, part of that amount comes off your taxable income. You still gave 10% of your gross, you just pay less in taxes.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by gmilam
This is not quite true. If you give 10% of your gross income to charity, part of that comes off your taxable income. You still gave 10% of your gross, you just pay less in taxes.

I see what you are saying; "Caesar" is not entitled to the tithing of your first fruits (gross wealth). Doesn't that put religion before the State in regards to tithing? How is that consistent with the first amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights?

 

[gmilam]

I see what you are saying; "Caesar" is not entitled to the tithing of your first fruits (gross wealth). Doesn't that put religion before the State in regards to tithing? How is that consistent with the first amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights?

That, I don't know.

I have no problems with charitable donations being tax deductible... OTOH I don't know how much of what goes to a church winds up doing any real "charity" work.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by gmilam
That I don't know.
I have no problem with charitable donations being tax deductible... OTOH I don't know how much of what goes to a church winds up doing any real "charity" work.

I'm right with you but, according to my conversations with various deacons, pastors and board members within different evangelical churches; I am told that they are not required to declare where their donations go. In other words, the money used to support a missionary in South America - with the intent of converting an isolated tribe to Christianity - is indistinguishable from the money used to feed and shelter the local homeless population. Something about that doesn't feel right to me. This is why I am asking this forum how that is ethical/legal?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

This was a topic on The Daily Show last night. Jon Stewart was commenting on the current wave of furor over the conflict between Obama's health care policies and the teachings of certain religions. Some politicians have said (paraphrasing), "Under Obama the U.S. government has begun persecuting religions!"

Jon said, "Yes. The government hates religious organizations so much that it allows them to keep one hundred billion dollars every year in contributions, tax-free! Please, please persecute me like that!"