# data[].attributes.body
1. Is there any companies/events that should receive tax breaks?

2. How would high school change if the 18 year olds could buy alcohol?

# data[].attributes.body
I found that the people who responded to my post agreed with me. The U.S. as a nation is smarter and more civilized and won't act with violence when thing don't go our way.

# data[].attributes.body
I really agreed with your response. Our country is mature enough now to not let problems tear us apart. And if we do, violence will not need to be used.

# data[].attributes.body
I really like your picture that you chose because it really shows, in my opinion, what goes on in the religious field as it regards money. Many religious employees receive lots of money and lots of churches take in more money than businesses. I just think it is a really interesting picture to go with and interesting topic.

# data[].attributes.body
I choose this picture and quote to give emphasis on how churches are technically still a bushiness and profits money. Also how the churches try to get into politics but don't even pay taxes.

# data[].attributes.body
"You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else." -George Carlin

# data[].attributes.body
America was founded on the basis that the government would not enforce of prohibit any type of religion. People, in America can practice any giving religion FREELY.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Engage in the topic of taxation and the church. Express your opinion about whether or not the church should pay taxes.

# data[].attributes.body
"Churches provide something that is important for human beings to live the good life: a connection to the divine source of all being through which they can more fully know themselves and live charitably toward other people."

Church won't be able to do as much charity work becuase they will be losing money from the taxes they have to pay.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Slate blogger Matthew Yglesias argues today that " We Should Be Taxing Churches." Yglesias is uncomfortable with the way the tax code discriminates between churches that engage in "electioneering" and those which choose to refrain from endorsing political candidates. Rather, he suggests, all churches should be taxed regardless of their degree of political involvement.

Others have observed that Matt Yglesias is a notorious troll and that the sole reason Slate employs him is to increase their page views. But kids gotta eat, and I'm not judging. Yet it wouldn't have hurt him to sprinkle a bit of nuance into his column to at least mask the rank odor of bigotry.

Even a confirmed atheist such as Alain de Botton would be able to tell Yglesias (whose surname, ironically, is derived from the Spanish word for church) that churches and other religious institutions provide non-trivial benefits to society, and tax breaks are one way to reward socially-beneficial behavior, like feeding the hungry, placing orphans in families, building community resilience, sheltering the homeless, or helping addicts get sober. Yet the only benefits of religion Yglesias can think of are those my church's annual giving statement euphemistically calls "intangible spiritual benefits":

"Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines. Under the circumstances, tax subsidies for religion are highly inefficient."

This is all missing the point, since tax breaks for churches were never supposed to reflect official endorsement of a particular set of religious doctrines. If even the notorious sci-fi cult of Scientology enjoys freedom from taxation, perhaps official pluralism has gone too far, but certainly no reasonable person would accuse the government of religious bias in that case.

The Common Good

In this country, churches are only one type of a wide range of different kinds of non-profit institutions favored with tax-exempt status. If I wish to start a society for conserving and raising awareness of local wildlife, or for introducing young people to the music of Johannes Brahms, or for making quilts to auction on behalf of autism research, I can get tax-exempt status for any of those activities. If I support the local Shakespearean troupe or food pantry, or join a fraternal lodge, I can deduct my contributions from my personal income taxes because they are considered to be supporting the common good in some way or another.

Now this common good is a very broad thing, and churches connect to it in many ways. First, from the religious perspective, churches provide something that is important for human beings to live the good life: a connection to the divine source of all being through which they can more fully know themselves and live charitably toward other people. We are not talking about how or whether this happens, but that religious people claim that it happens. In fact, to claim that it does not happen is to make a moral and religious judgment which is outside of the ability of the state to make.

Establishment of Religion

The U.S. Constitution stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is why there is no American Church as there is an Anglican Church. In the context of American history, where the desire for religious freedom played a major role even in the establishment of the early colonies, this means that unlike England or other nations with a privileged state church, the principle of pluralism applies. Congress does not seek to favor one sect over another in matters of policy. Likewise, government does not arbitrate in matters of dogma. Baptists and Presbyterians may be deadlocked on the question of infant baptism; the President may choose to attend one church or another but will not attempt to influence the churches in resolving their dispute. A local congregation may be divided over some trivial issue like what color of carpet to put in the sanctuary; the Town Council may be annoyed but will not attempt to influence their decision. Non-interference with religion is in our political DNA.

As "We" Consider: A Thought Experiment

Since Mr. Yglesias uses the pronoun "we" in his title, I charitably assume that he means "we" as in the national body politic, not just some small but powerful elite class such as, for instance, Slate's readership. Although as a whole the body politic might not permit itself an official opinion on matters of religious doctrine, its various members might be able to testify to the real benefits that various institutions, including religious ones, contribute to the common weal.

There is a good kind of political agnosticism at work here. Pluralism means that any number of religious claims might be true, although in public deliberations "we" recuse ourselves from the question and grant them the benefit of doubt.

Now, it is notoriously difficult to truly draw the hypothetical "veil of ignorance" when discussing something as near to one's heart as religious experience, or the absence thereof, and Mr. Yglesias has not successfully done it, I think. He has not been able to grant religious institutions the benefit of the doubt regarding their contributions to the common good. Let us then attempt an opposite, equally godlike and impossible hypothetical. Let us suppose that instead of being incapable of knowing the truth, "we" have actually discovered which group is the "true" church. For the sake of argument, let us suppose it is my church, the Episcopal Church, since Episcopalians would never make any such claim about ourselves. Let us say that this knowledge has been hidden even from the elect, but that as keepers of the public weal "we" have seen the clouds open and beheld Becket and Cranmer at the right hand of God.

What then? Should "we" promote this "true" church alone, and revoke the non-taxed status of other churches and religions? Should we assume that Baptists and Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims provide no public good worth encouraging?

In choosing to tax these religious groups, we would be making a moral judgment. And since we have not received any such special revelation, by revoking the tax-exempt status of religious institutions we would be making the moral judgment that, unlike art galleries, symphony orchestras, or labor unions, religious institutions provide no sort of public good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Slate blogger Matthew Yglesias argues today that " We Should Be Taxing Churches." Yglesias is uncomfortable with the way the tax code discriminates between churches that engage in "electioneering" and those which choose to refrain from endorsing political candidates. Rather, he suggests, all churches should be taxed regardless of their degree of political involvement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc remain tax-exempt?

# data[].attributes.body
I really believe you are on to something good here, but I feel as though you're looking a church, mosque, or synagogue like it is a business. You could say it is unconstitutional due to the separation clause, but maybe a small tax?

# data[].attributes.body
Adam Suggs- Why do you feel it is unfair for a non-profit, often NOT always, community boosting institution like a church to not get the same tax exemptions as other "charities" like Goodwill or Red Cross?

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how much money the U.S. and its citizens loses because of the tax exemption on churches.

"The charitable deduction for all groups cost about $39 billion this year, according to the CBO, and given that 32 percent of those donations are to religious groups, getting rid of it just for them would raise about $12.5 billion. Add that in and you get a religious subsidy of about $83.5 billion."

Its crazy how much money we give churches.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Matt Yglesias thinks we ought to start taxing churches. "Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines," he notes. Even if you did direct the money toward the one true faith, it'd still be a bad idea, as "Upgrading a church's physical plant doesn't enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy."

Regardless of whether you buy Yglesias's logic, this raises an interesting question - exactly how much money are we talking about here? If, all of a sudden, churches, synagogues, mosques and the like lost their tax privileges, how much tax revenue would that generate?

Ryan T. Cragun, a sociologist at the University of Tampa, and two of his students, Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega, took it upon themselves to figure it out. They're not exactly disinterested parties; their research appeared in Free Inquiry, a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism. But Cragun is a serious sociologist of religion and the data seems to check out. The full scale of subsidies religions get is pretty staggering:

When people donate to religious groups, it's tax-deductible. Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

Cragun et al estimate the total subsidy at $71 billion. That's almost certainly a lowball, as they didn't estimate the cost of a number of subsidies, like local income and property tax exemptions, the sales tax exemption, and - most importantly - the charitable deduction for religious given. Their estimate that religious groups own $600 billion in property is also probably low, since it leaves out property besides actual churches, mosques, etc.

The charitable deduction for all groups cost about $39 billion this year, according to the CBO, and given that 32 percent of those donations are to religious groups, getting rid of it just for them would raise about $12.5 billion. Add that in and you get a religious subsidy of about $83.5 billion.

Of course, these subsidies do more than reduce revenue. Property tax exemptions, in particular, distort real estate construction decisions and allocate more land to religious entities than would otherwise be the case, which drives up rents for everyone else (especially since religious groups tend not to buy property in high-density, skyscraper-style developments and instead get a whole lot of land for themselves).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
You give religions more than $82.5 billion a year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Matt Yglesias thinks we ought to start taxing churches. "Whichever faith you think is the one true faith, it's undeniable that the majority of this church-spending is going to support false doctrines," he notes. Even if you did direct the money toward the one true faith, it'd still be a bad idea, as "Upgrading a church's physical plant doesn't enhance the soul-saving capacity of its clergy."

# data[].attributes.body
This site is dedicated to persuade everyone to believing that making churches pay taxes is the right thing to do.

The site has certain links to certain people to convince you to agree with them. Examples: Republican, feminist, Christian, etc.

"Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approx. $110 billion."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
引越しをする目安｜安くて安心できる業者を選ぶ術

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
引越しを安い料金で実施するためには、割引の多い業者の利用が効果的です。また、引越しの料金は荷物の量に比例して高くなっていきます。そのため、荷物を徹底的に選別することによって、安い料金の引越しを実現できます。

# data[].attributes.body
Churches have been exempt from income tax since 1894. When i say "Churches" I mean all Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc. Some argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state. Others say that that churches deserve a tax break because they provide crucial social services.

Who: Churches, Temples, Synagogus

Where: United States

When; Started 1894

What: They are exempted from having to pay taxes.

Why: A lot of money could be put into the system helping everyone, but will it really hurt or help our society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc remain tax-exempt?