Comments on: Let’s Get Ready to Rrrrrrrumble! http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:15:33 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Robin Edgar http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html/comment-page-1#comment-2170 Robin Edgar Tue, 09 Sep 2008 04:29:00 +0000 http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html#comment-2170 "But how long would Canada, or ANY nation, stand against this new Rome?"<br/><br/>Longer than you might think. . . After all, Canada and other nations have stood against a variety of other American political or religious stances for decades if nmot centuries. “But how long would Canada, or ANY nation, stand against this new Rome?”

Longer than you might think. . . After all, Canada and other nations have stood against a variety of other American political or religious stances for decades if nmot centuries.

]]> By: Jacqueline http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html/comment-page-1#comment-2169 Jacqueline Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:20:00 +0000 http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html#comment-2169 Thank you, Julie. Done much better than I ever could. I think it would be worth reposting this to the other comment board attached to this posting, the ignorance over there needs to be addressed. It's rather shocking. Thank you, Julie. Done much better than I ever could. I think it would be worth reposting this to the other comment board attached to this posting, the ignorance over there needs to be addressed. It’s rather shocking.

]]> By: THE Michael http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html/comment-page-1#comment-2168 THE Michael Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:53:00 +0000 http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html#comment-2168 That would in effect turn this country (finally, it seems) into BAPTIST PAX AMERICANA, and I would have to resign from the club. But how long would Canada, or ANY nation, stand against this new Rome? That would in effect turn this country (finally, it seems) into BAPTIST PAX AMERICANA, and I would have to resign from the club. But how long would Canada, or ANY nation, stand against this new Rome?

]]> By: Julie http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html/comment-page-1#comment-2167 Julie Mon, 08 Sep 2008 22:38:00 +0000 http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/09/lets-get-ready-to-rrrrrrrumble.html#comment-2167 As a Pagan tax professional, let me put this in context:<br/><br/>Most Pagans practice/celebrate in small circles or covens, and very few of those have registered for tax-exempt status. It took a court case to get Wicca qualified as a "church" for this purpose, and I'm not sure that non-Wiccan Pagans qualify even today.<br/><br/>So, many of us may not be all that aware of the extent to which the government subsidizes churches. Here's how this works: If you give your circle $100, it costs you $100, and your circle gets $100. However, if you belong to a tax-exempt church (and you're in a 25% tax bracket), you give your church $100, it costs you $75, and your church gets $100. The other $25 comes off of your taxes, so it's subsidized by the government.(YMMV, of course...every tax return is different. That's a middle-class tax bracket.) Same donation, very different result.<br/><br/>So the government is subsidizing churches to the extent of their donors' tax brackets. This also puts the government in the position of qualifying churches for this subsidy.<br/><br/>Individuals are not tax-exempt, and can endorse any candidate they wish, so long as they don't pretend to represent a tax-exempt organization. Non-tax-exempt churches can also endorse any candidate they wish. This restriction applies only to organizations which have applied for this particular tax subsidy. <br/><br/>The richer the members, the greater the subsidy, and your circle probably doesn't get much at all, even if it's registered. <br/><br/>Political organizations, including most (but not all) major environmental groups, are not tax-exempt. Your $100 check to the Sierra Club does not get you that $25 tax reduction, any more than your check to the Obama (or McCain) campaign. (If you claimed it, it will be disallowed if you're audited.)<br/><br/>The upshot of this should be apparent by now: the churches who get the most tax-free money would be at a big advantage compared to those who get less, and even to political organizations. As a Pagan tax professional, let me put this in context:

Most Pagans practice/celebrate in small circles or covens, and very few of those have registered for tax-exempt status. It took a court case to get Wicca qualified as a “church” for this purpose, and I’m not sure that non-Wiccan Pagans qualify even today.

So, many of us may not be all that aware of the extent to which the government subsidizes churches. Here’s how this works: If you give your circle $100, it costs you $100, and your circle gets $100. However, if you belong to a tax-exempt church (and you’re in a 25% tax bracket), you give your church $100, it costs you $75, and your church gets $100. The other $25 comes off of your taxes, so it’s subsidized by the government.(YMMV, of course…every tax return is different. That’s a middle-class tax bracket.) Same donation, very different result.

So the government is subsidizing churches to the extent of their donors’ tax brackets. This also puts the government in the position of qualifying churches for this subsidy.

Individuals are not tax-exempt, and can endorse any candidate they wish, so long as they don’t pretend to represent a tax-exempt organization. Non-tax-exempt churches can also endorse any candidate they wish. This restriction applies only to organizations which have applied for this particular tax subsidy.

The richer the members, the greater the subsidy, and your circle probably doesn’t get much at all, even if it’s registered.

Political organizations, including most (but not all) major environmental groups, are not tax-exempt. Your $100 check to the Sierra Club does not get you that $25 tax reduction, any more than your check to the Obama (or McCain) campaign. (If you claimed it, it will be disallowed if you’re audited.)

The upshot of this should be apparent by now: the churches who get the most tax-free money would be at a big advantage compared to those who get less, and even to political organizations.

]]>