Pres. Trump Frees Churches to Go Political
"Leaders of the U.S. religious left, a rising force of opposition to Trump's hard-line stance on immigration and healthcare, said they were poised to benefit from the move, which lifts the risk of religious groups losing their tax-exempt status if they advocate for particular candidates.
"This is going to backfire on Trump," said the Rev. Jennifer Butler, chief executive of progressive policy group Faith in Public Life. "We are morally outraged at what is going on and we are appalled at the weaponisation of religion."
The group is planning to back congressional candidates who would oppose Trump in the 2018 midterm elections, and will now have more liberty to do so without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of the churches its members represent.
"We're going to be mobilizing millions of voters to turn out at the polls and vote their values," Butler said." --
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa...
As I read the order it does nothing.
"... the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury."
... where speech of similar character has ... not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign ... "
Well, OK, what if such speech has been ordinarily treated as political intervention?
And what is a "religion" as the US DoD has recognized secular humanism as a religion?
Read the White House release.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...
"This is going to backfire on Trump," said the Rev. Jennifer Butler, chief executive of progressive policy group Faith in Public Life. "We are morally outraged at what is going on and we are appalled at the weaponisation of religion."
The group is planning to back congressional candidates who would oppose Trump in the 2018 midterm elections, and will now have more liberty to do so without jeopardizing the tax-exempt status of the churches its members represent.
"We're going to be mobilizing millions of voters to turn out at the polls and vote their values," Butler said." --
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa...
As I read the order it does nothing.
"... the Secretary of the Treasury shall ensure, to the extent permitted by law, that the Department of the Treasury does not take any adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character has, consistent with law, not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate for public office by the Department of the Treasury."
... where speech of similar character has ... not ordinarily been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign ... "
Well, OK, what if such speech has been ordinarily treated as political intervention?
And what is a "religion" as the US DoD has recognized secular humanism as a religion?
Read the White House release.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...
Not only a song by Stephen Foster but a description of your (and mine) plan.
You know the saying "Stand up and be counted." In colonial America, that was how we voted. The secret ballot is the Australian ballot because criminals do not trust each others. Free people do not fear their neighbors. Yes, it was not perfect. Yes, social retaliation happens. Life is imperfect. But you should have the courage of your convictions, rather than slipping envelopes of cash under the table in a restaurant.
Consciousness soars on the wings of metaphor's.
When this nation was founded, there were no corporate income taxes and churches were heavily engaged in politics, with preachers endorsing political candidates. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this - it is (or should be) protected speech. If Mark Cuban can endorse, why not Billy Graham?
Interesting that no one seemed to care about whether or not President Obama could withhold federal monies from a state for non-compliance with the transgender bathroom order, yet have declared that President Trump can't withhold federal monies from states for noncompliance with immigration laws.
Evangelicals were openly political when they very publicly backed Trump before the election.
Southern Baptists are why there are dry counties in Alabama~
http://abcboard.alabama.gov/(S(g35kyu...
Just sayin'~
For instance, some states do not tax gold, silver, and numismatic items. Coin clubs have an opinion on that. However, any NFP, such as the American Numismatic Association or the Michigan State Numismatic Society, would lose their status if they participated in the debates.
So, I agree with your point: it was (and is) history. But the social landscape changed with the creation of NFPs as a tax-exempt businesses.
Moreover, the deeper question is why churches do not pay taxes, considering that other businesses do.
"How to have a large voting block" is a secondary thought I came back to edit in.
But, to tackle some of those difficulties... Churches are not taxed on their income; they do not pay property taxes. While clergy do offer "moral guidance" at election time, they are not supposed to stump for specific candidates or specific ballot issues. Generally, the compromise has been honored, though churches get away with occasional exceptions, though civic authorities do not just occasionally tax a church once in a while.
See Forbes here, "Why Churches are the Gold Standard in Tax Excempt Organizations":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwo...
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." (Webster for the defense in McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819.) So, we do not tax churches. The state bows to the power of the pulpit.
Eliminate all tax free institutions. They are part of the swamp.
1. They were designed to help large enslavement organizations (Rockefeller, Rothschild, Carnegie, Morgan...you know the players) squirrel away untold amounts of un-taxed dollars to co-opt the educational system of the US by buying up chairs at all the major universities.
2. Before 1913, any organization that was directly helping the poor, providing hospitals for indigents, taking care of orphans etc were either taxed at a much reduced rate or not at all. Then when we created "holy" businesses who somehow have a video store that is "more socially responsible" because ???? so they get a non-taxable status (American Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Mercy Corp who props up the "homeless industry" here in Portland).
3. Non-taxables also get a LOT MORE benefits than we do. They can use a lot of the city and state's locations, equipment and services of the bureaucracy whereas I can't (eg. I can't get on the Central Library Calendar even though I've booked the room for an event because I'm NOT a non-taxable.
4. The smart non-taxables (those on the OTHER side of politics - not ours), work together, fund each other, promote each other's events and use each other's people and connections. They have entire networks of inter-support amongst themselves and even share grant writers and templates...lots of stuff to disadvantage REAL businesses.
5. It allows state sanctioned businesses (non-taxables), some even OPERATED by the CITY, to be in direct competition with productive sector businesses - (bicycle shop ON the river in competition to a real business across the street - the libraries are now filled with popular, short term interest material they turn and flip every few months - in direct competition to every video, music and book store in town...oh, and see if you can find a copy of the Constitution in your branch library by the way,
6. The most important thing....more and more people are forming non-taxables and they don't mind taxing the "taxable businesses" to make up for it. Just think for a minute, if ALL businesses had to pay taxes, NOBODY would be eager for anyone to pay taxes and we'd be asking a lot more questions about what they do with our money...no more expensive "edible forests for children to walk through....once a year".
If you'd like some evidence...I'll send you a READABLE copy of the Reese Report from 1963. I found it in a very famous gentleman's library when I was helping to catalogue some of it.
Renee@Flourish.us
1. That's because after income taxes were established, companies did the natural thing: they tried to limit their tax burden according to the built-in loopholes in the tax code. It's less about the type of organization but about the fact that there was taxation at all. Prior to the 1913 tax amendment, any taxation on businesses was local - not Federal.
2. Prior to 1913, any taxation was at a State level - not a Federal level. Make sure to make that distinction because what we are talking about here are Federal rules.
3. This is a local issue - not a Federal Tax issue. They are separate and distinct problems.
4. That's because they are laundering and sheltering each others' incomes to avoid the taxes. This all becomes irrelevant if you eliminate corporate taxes.
5. Again, this is a local - not a Federal issue. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that there are two approaches and they affect two completely separate bodies of tax code.
6. Again, this becomes a non-issue on elimination of corporate taxes. See #1 above: this is a natural result of trying to limit exposure to taxes and maximize income.
The report would be interesting. I'd love a copy.
Abandoning the non-taxable model is a first step. There are ever increasing numbers of non-taxables getting registered each year. Per the Secretaries of State around the USA, this is now a near "holy" business structure with oh, so many sanctions and special benefits.
Only when people understand how much the non-taxable is a gravy train for the enslavers, their organizations and their agendas, will they be willing to find another path to what they want.
A first personal step we took was to stop using tax funded services. Don't go to "Concerts in the Park" or the latest city sponsored "fun event or festival". Don't go to the zoo, the art museum, the ballet, the symphony or a million events each year.
I tolerate the library as I have a near perpetual chair in the Sterling Writers Room but if you saw the "homeless refuge" the main library has become, you may not agree even with that exemption.
We encourage all new startup enterprises to embrace the corporate rather than non-taxable model during formation of their businesses.
We actually want to GET to your goal above but we also want to start seeing ideas for ways and means to get there.
This is also how you solve it more locally. Focus on the sphere of influence we can realistically engage in and stop using our time on learning more about the problem.
Another tactic is to support products and services produced by taxable business entities. If it's a nature video, we get it from Barnes & Noble, not the Audubon Book Store.
There are extremely few liberty organizations who are NOT non-taxables. LewRockwell.com is the only one I know of.
We try and put our money, not where our mouth is, but where our values are and that's for profit businesses...always.
A five percent consumption tax to replace all other federal taxes is adequate for constitutionally authorized federal government activity. Strictly limit federal government borrowing to eliminate any possibility of federal debt accumulation.
We MUST stop financially supporting activities that we do not support philosophically.
Politically, you'll get zero sponsorship on that kind of bill. You won't get any of the progressives to vote for it because that includes all of their political action groups. You won't get any conservatives because they all go to church. I don't even think in a referendum you'd get 10% to vote for it. It's an interesting idea, but a non-starter.
What I've noticed is that there are no baby-steps in politics. It's all or nothing. So let's just focus on educating people about how corporate taxes are a double tax and concentrate on eliminating the taxes in one shot. It's unlikely to get much support from Democrats, but at least our current President could get behind it.