• Fisk400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    Definitely not how that works. All companies are taxed and they don’t get any special representation outside lobbying that they were going to do either way and churches do in fact put a lot of the money they should have payed in taxes into lobbying.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.

      • mateomaui@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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.