this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
156 points (97.6% liked)

Asklemmy

43940 readers
768 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

companies don't get any special representation

Lmao

[โ€“] ivanafterall@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Their paying taxes is not what gets them special treatment.

[โ€“] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No, but well-connected companies use regulatory capture to structure taxes as a burden on their competition.

Consider for a moment how churches would be taxed. Maybe they are taxed on their assets. That would disproportionately affect larger churches with valuable real estate holdings, like the Catholic and Mormon churches. Maybe the donations they receive are taxed. That disadvantages newer churches which don't have corporate investments or endowments. Tax land? Hurt cemeteries. Tax salaries? Favor Quaker meeting houses where there is no specific pastor.

Look, I don't think churches should be involved in politics. Any that donate to candidates or endorse a party should lose their tax exempt status, because they are no longer churches. But a blanket removal of all tax exemptions for religious organizations is a threat to religious freedom. It would allow the religious leaders in government to play favorites and pick winners, kind of like they do now already.

[โ€“] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

yes, freedom of religion can only exist with in perpetuity tax free landownership

hahaha

[โ€“] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Is that what I said?

Tax code is applied by politicians. Do you really expect Christian Conservatives to fairly tax Muslims and Sikhs and Hindus at the same rates as their own churches? Freedom of Religion cannot exist when political leaders are able to tax competing religions into oblivion.

[โ€“] mateomaui@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago

To some degree, agreed, but your original assertion is still wrong. Unless you count all the devoutly religious people in Congress, and they already have that representation.