SCOTUS Rulings

[Herdfan]

We could start taxing churches,

That would raise none to very little money. From some of the big churches maybe, but the majority don't make any money/profit to be taxed on.

Revenue less Expenses equals Taxable Income. Expenses would rise to match Income, therefore, no tax liability.

 

[Herdfan]

it looks like the case may be based on fraud.

How on earth would such a case make it through the District and Circuit Court systems and to SCOTUS with such a glaring hole?

 

[MEJHarrison]

That would raise none to very little money. From some of the big churches maybe, but the majority don't make any money/profit to be taxed on.

The government gets very little money from me. But when you multiply that by all the other tax payers in the country, it adds up. The taxes from one church isn't enough to make a difference. But when you add them all together, it's quite likely a different story.

 

[Yoused]

How on earth would such a case make it through the District and Circuit Court systems and to SCOTUS with such a glaring hole?

I would say there was fraud. A person claiming to be Stewart perjured himself by making a claim before the court (or perhaps in an affidavit), which the prosecutor was obligated to carry forward. Presumably, the fact that there was a claimant interested in having the case prosecuted was enough that the prosecutor did not feel compelled to investigate his validity or make contact with him.

Once the case progressed to the appeals courts, the issue of the infraction itself was established: the defense was trying to make the case that the conviction was improper, and the state was trying to make the case that it was duly decided. Facts are largely irrelevant in appeal, but they rule on points of evidence or techncality – the plaintiff is mostly not involved in appeals.

In that sense, one can easily see how a phantom case could reach SCotUS. The fiction merely has to occur at the first level, after which it becomes irrelevant in the eyes of the higher courts: they basically have to rely on the diligence of the first level – unless, of course, it is discovered to be fakery and thrown out.

So, someone (the "complainant") committed perjury, and the "defendant" conspired in that deceit. These people are felons who should face prison for their frauds – except, they will appeal their conviction, and it is not entirely obvious that this theocrat-dominated SCotUS will not rule in their favor.

 

[Cmaier]

 

[Herdfan]

The government gets very little money from me. But when you multiply that by all the other tax payers in the country, it adds up. The taxes from one church isn't enough to make a difference. But when you add them all together, it's quite likely a different story.

But my point is there would be no taxes from most churches. At the end of the year, if they look like they are going to make a profit, they simply go spend whatever profit they think they are going to have. So, then they will have no tax liability.

 

[Cmaier]

But my point is there would be no taxes from most churches. At the end of the year, if they look like they are going to make a profit, they simply go spend whatever profit they think they are going to have. So, then they will have no tax liability.

It depends on what they spend it on.

The Church of Scientology didn’t fight so hard to keep its tax-exempt status because it thought that it would make no difference.

But, if you’re right, then no harm in taxing churches. Let’s do it.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

How on earth would such a case make it through the District and Circuit Court systems and to SCOTUS with such a glaring hole?

We’ve reached out to Representative George Santos for comment.

 

[Herdfan]

It depends on what they spend it on.

The rules have gotten so lax they could buy the pastor a new Range Rover on December 31 and deduct the entire expense.

But, if you’re right, then no harm in taxing churches. Let’s do it.

Where the money in churches is from the donations/offerings/tithings. They are deductible for tax purposes. Put a cap on those like SALT and the government would see some real money.

 

[Alli]

That would raise none to very little money. From some of the big churches maybe, but the majority don't make any money/profit to be taxed on.

See below:

The government gets very little money from me. But when you multiply that by all the other tax payers in the country, it adds up. The taxes from one church isn't enough to make a difference. But when you add them all together, it's quite likely a different story.

Let’s not tax the millionaires cause there are so few of them.

How on earth would such a case make it through the District and Circuit Court systems and to SCOTUS with such a glaring hole?

Because there is no accountability and the SCOTUS doesn’t care when it suits their goal.

 

[AG_PhamD]

You make a lot of good points:

Democrats need to move on quickly, focus on school funding, extracurricular education, things like that. You are right that it hasn’t been the overwhelming hand up it was intended to be. But we don’t want to fall further behind either. Let’s find solutions in a different way.

There are valid arguments against it that are hard to disagree with. My problem isn’t the valid complaints, or even the ending of affirmative action. It comes from those who don’t think there’s systemic racism, and that there was no need for affirmative action in the first place.

And my problem with Thomas isn’t necessarily that he benefited from a system he now disagrees with. That is certainly possible. My gripe is his ego and his arrogance. He is certain that without affirmative action, he’d still be a justice, that there were still plenty of opportunities for people like him.

His rulings have been so far-right that he’s often the sole dissent in cases.

He will also probably rule against Biden’s student load forgiveness, while his billionaire buddy paid for his godson’s tuition. Maybe he should put that in his opinion - stop whining about you skin’s pigment and get some damn wealthy friends!

Then again, knowing Thomas, he’d probably also think this painting would exist even if he wasn’t a justice. I’m sure that billionaires would lavish him with gifts and commission paintings of him if he was county judge somewhere.

View attachment 24611

I think the reality is that this is a far more complex issue than a simple binary suggests. I’m not even sure refusing systemic racism/bias and refusing AA much different than identifying systemic racism/bias while paying lip service or being of greater detriment. (If you’re wondering about the last point, one of my greatest concerns is how some rhetoric implies certain minorities can never be successful due to systemic racism- it’s the worst thing you could ever tell someone aspiring advancement).

Generally speaking I think SCOTUS is getting way too political. The fact the rules for justices have been lax I think says something about how things have changed from the past (and also how little oversight we have).

Thomas’s behavior is very unbecoming of a justice. If he wanted a lavish lifestyle he easily could have gone another route and probably still has that opportunity. Honestly though, given the partisanship in play these days I don’t think wining and dining Thomas would have changed any outcomes. To be clear- this is not me excusing such behavior, just pointing out what I see as the obvious.

On similar lines, I’m not exactly comfortable with justices getting extremely lucrative book and movie deals. Or these “reimbursements” for trips, especially trips “abroad”.

It should be public service comes with sacrifice, but all too often it comes with personal enrichment. $280k salary for life is more than enough to live comfortably.

 

[Yoused]

The rules have gotten so lax they could buy the pastor a new Range Rover on December 31 and deduct the entire expense.

A business is typically taxed on the basis of net profits. This is important because a business may have to build a product line up while initially not making a profit on it. But that has no logical correlation to religious institutions. Churches are not supposed to make a profit, so losing money does not apply in terms of standard practice. Hence, if a church is taxed, it would be on the basis of gross, not net, revenue.

Tax rules are complex and non-uniform, because various taxable entities exist in differing situations. The arrangement should trend toward fairness, though there do appear to be some serious deficiencies. Churches could be taxed on their asset base, like a property tax, which would likely lead to some of these cathedrals, arenas and warehouses being repurposed for something worthwhile. But then, it seems like a general federal tax on assets would probably be a good thing, if it were not regressive.

 

[Huntn]

But what about the Asians who were denied acceptance based on them simply being Asian?

Is that fair?

Perhaps some of the ire should be directed at Harvard and other schools that used race to exclude qualified applicants.



I agree, but I also think there would be less minority representation without some gerrymandering.

It would depend who does it, now wouldn’t it?

 

[AG_PhamD]

I think a larger part of the problem here is that there is no identifier for race on admission applications, at least prior to this ruling. So all things being equal on an academic scale, for example, if you have 50 white people and one or two black people vying for 30 openings, you almost eliminate any chance for black people. Now amplify that by tens of thousands.

They've effectively taken all of the equity out of the equation and statistically speaking minorities will have little to no real shot when being squeezed out by white people if colleges and universities don't somehow adapt.

It’s not like some information can be inferred by the school’s admission office (ie name, demographic area, etc) or directly provided or implied in certain ways by the applicant. Interviews at higher tier institutions are not uncommon either.

At the same time, it’s not like people don’t game the system. My neighbor in HS was a year older than me and successfully applied to Boston College (considered a quite competitive school even back then) as “Hispanic” because her dad was born in Cuba (to English parents). I also know multiple “African Americans” who applied using (white) South African or their North African heritage. This to me is trying to game the system and reflects quite poorly upon such people. All the white people I'm mentioning here came from extreme affluence/wealth in suburban Connecticut where children are raised to believe college acceptance is the be-all-end-all of existence.

Looking back on my (very expensive) education, I’m quite sure I could have accomplished the same level of success without private schools or private colleges- at much less cost and in some respects perhaps with less unnecessary challenges. PharmD (Doctor of Pharmacy) Program’s rankings aren’t usually considered that important, especially for the 75%+ working in community/retail pharmacy. Understandably that’s not the case for most/many careers. My school did have some exclusive affiliations with my current hospital employer, but such arrangements between schools and hospitals are not uncommon.

The other area of my career- something I never fathomed being involved with- a partial owner of a residential mental health program- came down to the luck of being in the right place, at the right time, with the right people. And this “side business” has ended up earning me at east as much from my primary job and will soon likely exceed it. And that’s without me providing any clinical services.

 

[MEJHarrison]

But my point is there would be no taxes from most churches. At the end of the year, if they look like they are going to make a profit, they simply go spend whatever profit they think they are going to have. So, then they will have no tax liability.

Jesus talks about paying taxes in Mark 12:13-17. In Mark 12:17 he said "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

Given that, I think the typical (Christian) church would pay their taxes. I'm sure like people, some churches would try to find ways around that. They might do the things you suggest. But I don't think it would be as widespread as you seem to think it would be.

 

[Herdfan]

Given that, I think the typical (Christian) church would pay their taxes. I'm sure like people, some churches would try to find ways around that. They might do the things you suggest. But I don't think it would be as widespread as you seem to think it would be.

It may depend on the location. I know most smaller country churches around here can barely pay their bills, but I could see large city churches having more funds than they know what to do with.

 

[Alli]

It may depend on the location. I know most smaller country churches around here can barely pay their bills, but I could see large city churches having more funds than they know what to do with.

You mean like wealthy individuals (who avoid paying taxes), and poor people who pay taxes that leave them with nothing?

 

[MEJHarrison]

It may depend on the location. I know most smaller country churches around here can barely pay their bills, but I could see large city churches having more funds than they know what to do with.

Maybe some definitions would be in order. To me a "small" church is 3-5 families, 15-20 members, meeting in someone's home or whatever other location they can find for free. I guess that would be "tiny", and they do exist. I would not expect a church of that size to need to pay taxes. They're barely a church. It's the equivalent of a teen getting a summer job and not making enough to owe taxes. At the other end of course you have the mega churches that must be bringing in millions or tens of millions or more, they have a pastor on TV, jets, etc. For me, anything in between those two extremes would be a normal church. Some big, some small. But they have a physical place to meet, they can afford to pay a pastor, etc. If they can't afford to pay their taxes, that seems no different than a middle class person who can't pay their taxes. Too bad. Figure it out. Pass the offering plate back around a second time.

If I told the IRS I can barely pay my bills, so I'm not paying my taxes, do you think I'd walk away from that interaction satisfied with the outcome? If any other small business told the IRS they weren't paying the taxes they owe, do you think they'd get away with it? I'm not sure why you think a church could just say "too bad" and walk away unscathed. If the IRS can take my house, they can certainly take a church.

I will say churches are run by people and I'd expect certain parallels. I imagine some churches aren't wise with their money and would be in deep trouble when the tax bill arrives. I expect some churches would have greedy people trying every legal and/or illegal loophole they can find to pay little or no taxes. But I see nothing special about a church where they couldn't or shouldn't pay their taxes like any other tax payer. They'd need to figure it out like everyone else.

Of course this is all IF churches were taxed in this country.

 

[Herdfan]

Maybe some definitions would be in order. To me a "small" church is 3-5 families, 15-20 members, meeting in someone's home or whatever other location they can find for free. I guess that would be "tiny", and they do exist.

I dated a girl in college who attended a small country church. They had a building that had probably been paid for for decades and the attendance board using showed 65-75 people in attendance on Sunday morning. The Pastor had a day job.

Given that most of the members were working class, it probably barely paid the bills.

I played softball for a large church that probably had 10+ times that many people, including many doctors and lawyers. So they had money, but they also spent quite a bit on programs, where as the small church did not. They were one of the first traditional churches, (as far as I remember seeing) that built a second building for activities. It had basketball court, side rooms for other programs, and a stage for theater type productions. They truly served their community.

But even the larger one didn't compare to that mega Church in Charlotte.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The Supreme Court could have forgone the usual word salad justification for their ruling on affirmative action and just ruled "I have a black friend." which pretty much covers it.

I heard an interesting (valid?) point on their decision against letting states run amuck on federal elections. What they did was protect their right to decide elections. So you may want to take off your party hat on that one.