politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
No churches deserve tax exempt status. Why the hell should we rely on their kindness to feed the homeless when we can tax them and ensure the poor are fed?
I always love the assumption that the money taxed on churches will go and do the work that churches would do and not build bombs. My parishioners are already taxed to help kill people, I really don't need their faithful contributions to be taxed again so that the US can kill more people. Maybe fix the way taxes are spent and I'll support taxing my church. But for now, I really don't want to see the money people give out of their sense of faithfulness to be used to pay for an extra bullet that's going to kill someone standing in ICE's way.
My congregation is pretty small. I know the assumption is huge megachurches and all that (and yeah, maybe those folks should be taxed because they use the religious exemptions as a loophole for some really unsavory stuff). But the 40-ish people that give what they do do so to help in what little ways they can.
You say this but in many communities churches are the only option or the primary option because government has failed its populace.
When I worked with the homeless shelters would fill immediately, like within an hour of opening doors, and they would kick you out at 7am so you’d have to come back that evening and hope you make it. Closed during the day because of no funding for staffing. but churches would have much more space, would be open during the day, would have hot food, etc.
The funding for the homeless is nothing and gets cut year after year. In my state it’s somewhat decent too, in the more conservative states my understanding is that it can be more dire.
My conspiracy theory is that this is intentional: homeless services, rehab services, etc get minimal funding that is consistently slashed to funnel people into churches when they’re most vulnerable which allows them to be indoctrinated more easily. I worked with many people who either became very religious or if they were already religious became far more conservative and evangelical. Guess who also tended to vote against their own interests based on wedge issues like abortion and lgbt rights once they got back on their feet?
At the same time liberals don’t actually want to fund mental health services. They are viciously anti taxes and viciously anti homeless. Look at California: when programs start that are positive to improve the lives of homeless and start to break the cycle the NIMBYs come out in full force
By that logic, charities should not be tax exempt either. I agree that charity isn't the ideal solution to poverty, hunger, homelessness, etc. and we should be funding social welfare to solve those problems, but in the meantime people who are working to alleviate these issues should not be tax burdened. I don't like the religious exemption, but the 501(c)(3) exemption as a whole is a good thing.
There's an argument to be made that charities and other 501c3 organizations both entrench capitalism and normalize its failures to care for marginalized people, and/or that they also mostly exist to provide the wealthy with tax breaks through which they can fund pet projects, bypassing any democratic processes and ignoring what society actually needs.
I agree, but I still think that as long as charities exist they should be tax exempt. I look at it similarly to USAID, which was a way for the US empire to project soft power, but also saved and improved lives. Ending 501c3 tax exempt status would be a disaster in the same way that the current administration ending USAID was. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ending it suddenly without a replacement would be a catastrophe, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean they deserve tax exempt status. The majority of charities are pretty decent and get a good portion of their donations to people in need but there are also charities that are basically a way for the wealthy to avoid taxes. I think the government will better represent the will of the people (in normal times), have lower overhead, work faster, and close the loopholes. I'd also be satisfied with closing the loopholes that allow people to take advantage and avoid paying taxes. Donating a few million to the charity you own to get a tax break, while your nephew runs the charity taking a fat check, and makes the area you live nicer; improving your real estate values should not be a thing.