Hey Mr President! I represent evangelicals, televangelists and scientology like Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, David Miscavige, etc.

We collectively call you out as a raping pedophile piece of shit living specimen who wouldn’t dare come after our tax-free status. FUCK YOU!

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Honestly, churches should have always stayed the fuck out of politics or lose their tax exempt status. Of course, that rule does not apply to the weepy Republicans, because the rules never do. They cry about “religious freedom”, but want their cake and eat it, too, of course: the most radically right wing churches can say whatever the hell they want regarding telling their people how to vote and we all get to fund it, effectively.

    Having the cake and eating it too is not an option for liberal churches, though.

    • HermitBee@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Honestly, churches should have always stayed the fuck out of politics or lose their tax exempt status.

      Churches should never have had tax exempt status.

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        23 hours ago

        honestly im not sure anything should have. You can deduct expenses so theoretically non for profits should not pay much anyway.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 minutes ago

          they’d still have to pay various payroll taxes and things, and they still buy things: tax exemption in australia for example means you neither have to charge GST (our version of VAT) to customers, and you get to claim it back from any purchases you make

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Unless they can show they are providing beneficial services to the entire community they should not get it. So a church that only serves their parishioners would be a no, but one that runs a food bank open to the community would be able to get it.

        Any political advocacy along the lines of telling people who they should vote for should be a permanent revocation of nonprofit status.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 minutes ago

          well, it’s probably a similar thing to a 501c7: membership organisations like sports clubs

        • HermitBee@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I’m not opposed to that, but I don’t see any reason to bring the word “church” into it. I think they should be treated like any other club of people, and that may well include tax exemptions for community work.

        • Tower@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          Agreed. It’s not so much a matter of changing church tax code, but changing 501c3 tax codes in general and having enough IRS agents to properly keep up.