this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
71 points (94.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44148 readers
1721 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

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
 

Most of the time when people say they have an unpopular opinion, it turns out it's actually pretty popular.

Do you have some that's really unpopular and most likely will get you downvoted?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Teon@kbin.social 64 points 1 year ago (10 children)

All religions should be heavily taxed. NO EXCEPTIONS!!

[–] richieadler@lemmy.myserv.one 14 points 1 year ago

And, independently of their tax status, they shouldn't promote political candidates.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree with you on principle, but in practice, allowing the taxation of religious groups would create massive opportunities for abuse. Tax code can be structured to promote one religion and punish another, and you know for damn sure that our elected officials won't hesitate to put their greasy thumbs on the scale.

Do they tax income? Investments? Real estate? Spending? Endowments? Salaries? Each of those would create a disparity in how much a specific group owes. Consider how the Mormons collect and spend money vs Catholics, or how Quakers don't have preachers, just elders, while evangelical preachers earn hundreds of millions.

Any tax gives a massive advantage to the religions of the wealthy. You'd end up with four mega churches and a bunch of underground religious communities meeting in secret and sharing holy books smuggled in from Canada.

While I'd love to see churches start paying their fair share, I also see the way our tax code works now. We can't get economic elites and the well connected to pay their fair share, what makes you think that it will happen with the religious economic elites and the religious well connected? It's always the little people who suffer the most.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

While I’d love to see churches start paying their fair share

Genuinely curious, what do you define this fair share as?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's a reasonable question, and I'm open to different points of view on what exactly that means.

In a general sense, I believe taxes are the price of admission for society. We all contribute, and we all benefit from roads and schools and firefighters and streetlamps and building inspectors and and and on. A church benefits as much as any other business, and really should be taxed like a business. They are in the business of fundraising, and money spent on fundraising and supporting the church should be taxed. I also think money spent on charitable works should be tax deductible the same way it is with other businesses. Money donated to churches in excess of the charitable work they do should not be tax deductible by the donor.

In an ideal world, that would mean paying income tax at the established rates, property taxes, payroll taxes for non-charity workers, and whatever municipal and state taxes are required wherever the church is located.

But as I said, that leaves the door wide open for abuse by politicians looking to promote their own faith. There are already corrupt policies promoting "social clubs" in dry towns, and morality taxes on products like cigarettes, HFCS beverages, alcohol, marijuana where it's legal, etc. Don't you think they'd find a way to tax the Satanic Temple into oblivion given the opportunity?

How many Christian holidays are promoted through the federal holiday calendar? Winter Break never doesn't coincide with Christmas.

So yeah, in conclusion, churches that don't operate as "not for profit" businesses should not be tax exempt, but keeping government out of religion is more important to me.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Ok, thanks for clarifying your stance, I think I understand now.

I can see how this could get complicated depending on the organization. For example, my church has distinct legal entities so that the "not-for-profit" side and the "business" side are kept separate.

I agree that keeping the government out of religion is extremely important.

Thanks for your time!

[–] Squirrel@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 year ago

Absolutely, 100% agreed. I know most other church-goers would disagree, though. Religious organizations should be treated no differently from any other organization.

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

My unpopular opinion is that people who keep throwing this stupid idea around have no clue what they're talking about.

Religions / churches are non-profits. Their only revenue is post-tax donations. The people who work at the non-profit churches still pay income tax. The moment you start taxing a church, you allow them to function as a corporation. Not taxing churches is a fundamentally great thing.

[–] Woodie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I upvoted you, but do disagree with this a bit, there are a few religions which set up food for anyone willing to come inside, like I went to eat langar at a Sikh temple during my friend’s wedding, and all we have to do is cover our head out of respect. Grab a plate, sit on the floor, and eat.

I randomly went with my friend a couple days later, and they still had food out, so it’s not a wedding only thing, but they actually have cooks in the kitchen most of the day.

[–] tev@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

especially scientology

And regulated and inspected for abuses of power

[–] drifty@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

This stance is very popular where I'm from and I agree

[–] ARg94@lemmy.packitsolutions.net 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Including climate and woke ideology religions! Yes!

[–] Teon@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago

Dood! Your MAGA is showing.

[this post was created by ANTIFA]

[–] zer0nix@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'd give loopholes for good works and define them specifically

If you really do mean no exceptions then that is genuinely an unpopular view.

[–] Teon@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I do mean no exceptions. They rarely do "good things" for anyone.
Having a homeless shelter where you require the homeless to attend mass is not helping people, it's taking advantage of people in a bad situation and forcing your views on them. Just one example.