I don’t follow what’s silly here. These motherfuckers are not taxed and also not obligated to give back and that should matter. Tax them, would be the obvious solution
Yeah the moral bit is we know people who hold housing for profit are douches. Churches are worse because they think they’re doing the Lord’s work and love talking about caring for people, but very few actually do any good.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that churches are worse than house-hoarding landlords, just because they think they’re doing good but a lot of them don’t? Even the 18% of churches that rent their buildings from other churches[1] (or the ones that rent non-church properties like theaters or schools,) and thus almost certainly don’t even have a property they could give? Or what about the 48% of churches that run or support a food pantry[2], and are thus doing good?
Correct, that is what they are saying. I understand a significant portion of Lemmy is staunchly anti-religious. But there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance going on here that I hope can begin to be recognized and addressed.
I don’t even care about protecting churches. I just hate to see Buffet, Zillow and AirBnb type megacorps getting handed a free pass.
Well thanks, but to be fair, I was asking Scrubbles. When it comes to an opinion I disagree with, it’s more fruitful to talk to the person who holds that opinion than it is to deride the opinion with someone else who already agrees with me. Partially because there’s a good chance of a misunderstanding.
Not to say the rest of your remark is invalid, just addressing the first sentence where you seem to be speaking on Scrubbles’ behalf.
If all churches were to be taxed, the estimated new income would be a paltry $2.4 billion yearly. src
If you have an “obvious solution” to homelessness that can be accomplished with $2.4 billion, please do enlighten us. Otherwise you might want to get comfortable with that “silly” label. 👍
When I said “solution”, the problem I was talking about was how unfair it is that religious groups get tax exempt status despite doing nothing to earn that, and a lot to prove they should be taxed. I never said that suddenly we could feed and house all the homeless with those tax dollars
The post is about the contradiction between homeless people getting the shaft while churches get handouts. There was no change of subject, you just set your focus narrowly and apparently decided anyone outside that would be wrong in multiple ways.
You are free to discuss taxes. But stop trying to frame it as a disagreement with my position which had nothing to do with taxes. Do it elsewhere where relevant.
I don’t follow what’s silly here. These motherfuckers are not taxed and also not obligated to give back and that should matter. Tax them, would be the obvious solution
Yeah the moral bit is we know people who hold housing for profit are douches. Churches are worse because they think they’re doing the Lord’s work and love talking about caring for people, but very few actually do any good.
Cite this and I will change my opinion.
Am I reading this right? Are you saying that churches are worse than house-hoarding landlords, just because they think they’re doing good but a lot of them don’t? Even the 18% of churches that rent their buildings from other churches[1] (or the ones that rent non-church properties like theaters or schools,) and thus almost certainly don’t even have a property they could give? Or what about the 48% of churches that run or support a food pantry[2], and are thus doing good?
[1] - https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/2018/fall-state-of-church-ministry/two-churches-one-roof.html
[2] - https://theconversation.com/nearly-half-of-all-churches-and-other-faith-institutions-help-people-get-enough-to-eat-170074
Correct, that is what they are saying. I understand a significant portion of Lemmy is staunchly anti-religious. But there is a certain level of cognitive dissonance going on here that I hope can begin to be recognized and addressed.
I don’t even care about protecting churches. I just hate to see Buffet, Zillow and AirBnb type megacorps getting handed a free pass.
Well thanks, but to be fair, I was asking Scrubbles. When it comes to an opinion I disagree with, it’s more fruitful to talk to the person who holds that opinion than it is to deride the opinion with someone else who already agrees with me. Partially because there’s a good chance of a misunderstanding.
Not to say the rest of your remark is invalid, just addressing the first sentence where you seem to be speaking on Scrubbles’ behalf.
Fair enough! I hope I’m wrong lol.
If all churches were to be taxed, the estimated new income would be a paltry $2.4 billion yearly. src
If you have an “obvious solution” to homelessness that can be accomplished with $2.4 billion, please do enlighten us. Otherwise you might want to get comfortable with that “silly” label. 👍
When I said “solution”, the problem I was talking about was how unfair it is that religious groups get tax exempt status despite doing nothing to earn that, and a lot to prove they should be taxed. I never said that suddenly we could feed and house all the homeless with those tax dollars
Post is about homelessness. Post is categorically not about taxes. So you changed the subject without even indicating you were doing so. 🙄
Awesome cool thank you for your contribution. But yeah glad to see we agree on an entirely tangentially related topic.
The post is about the contradiction between homeless people getting the shaft while churches get handouts. There was no change of subject, you just set your focus narrowly and apparently decided anyone outside that would be wrong in multiple ways.
Misinformation. Churches do not get handouts.
Corporations do.
You are free to discuss taxes. But stop trying to frame it as a disagreement with my position which had nothing to do with taxes. Do it elsewhere where relevant.
Not getting taxed while taking in revenue is a handout. Not sure why you’re so insistent on arguing.
You’re adamant that your random subjective reading if the post is the only valid one and it’s not. It’s weird you want to insist it is