September 6th, 2010 
admin  |
No items matching your keywords were found.
income tax write offs
who thinks the government should be allowed to tax religious estabalishments?.
they do have incomes and there are tax write offs for donations of sorts and they are succeptable. they offer a product, market it, and defend product recalls in court (ie. child molesting priests) that its consumers buy with the belief that those actions are not part of the package that they give money to. if merck had said vioxx will kill half of you and help the other half and where allowed to continue to stock shelves with their product, they would face unsurmountable taxations where they would no longer find it profitable to continue producing the drug.
It's about time! I could say better late than never, but it is never too late to correct palpable injustice.
While the cost of government has been skyrocketing, and the burden of taxation on all of us gets higher every year, any group that declares a religious orientation may receive a tax entitlement that increases the burden on the nonreligious, and is frequently abused, manipulated, and corrupted.
The major religious establishments get a free ride, tax-wise, that adds an unconscionable burden to the already over-burdened taxpayer. This is not only unfair on the face of it, but in the opinion of many violates the principle of the separation of church and state and the spirit, if not the letter, of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Tax law, it seems to me, is still "law."
This has been going on for years. I quote: "I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land …Øit is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property …"
The speaker was not a wild-eyed atheist reformer, but the president of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, in his annual message to Congress. The year was 1875. The president was disturbed then because, in his words, "In 1850 the church properties in the United States which paid no taxes, municipal or state, amounted to about $83 million. In 1860, the amount had doubled; in 1875 it is about $1 billion. By 1900, without check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion …ØSo vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its proportion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes. …ØI would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation."
That was 1875. The president was fearful that religious tax-exemption would grow to the "vast sum of $3 billion by 1900" for the entire nation. History has shown that his fears were vastly understated: According to the report of the New York State Office of Real Property Services of May, 2001, there is more than $7 billion of religiously owned property in New York City alone and a staggering $16 billion in New York state, receiving almost complete tax exemption, and including even the residences of the clergy.
That is one city and one state. What might statistical research into the nation as a whole reveal in terms of this huge free-tax bonanza and its effect on our tax system?
Why not? The present budget in New York City alone was "brought on by the city's worst fiscal crisis since the 1970s," (New York Times, May 3 ) and homeowners and taxpayers throughout the state face crises in education, health, child welfare, hospitals, clinics, etc.
In the Record of May 5, columnist Douglas Cunningham calls the state budget "broken and bereft of new ideas.'' How about the "new idea" in this climate of rectifying the injustice of the free rides for the religious establishments? Do the math, someone, and figure out how many cuts in essential social services can be saved by eliminating the millions in tax revenue lost by these unfair exemptions.
If ever there was a time to confront and correct the long-standing inequity of tax-free rides for the religious among us, at the expense of the secular taxpayer, now is that time.
The welfare of the community as a whole should take precedence over private religiosity. And true religious freedom would be served more equitably if believers carried their own weight and if religionists and nonreligionists shared equally in bearing public burdens.
Or is this too much of a sacred cow for politicians, and the press, to challenge?
|
No items matching your keywords were found.
| Account limit of 2140 requests per hour exceeded. |
Per Kid Income Tax Write off Not Needed by Middle Class Judge Wyld BTR.wmv
a question about ontario/canada business tax write offs?.
IF a person's income was $32,000 for the year..and they tried to write off $5000 in dental care (they had NO insurance) would the government accept that or deny it and why?
This is a carpentry business with zero employees. Just one person with a business name (a contractor).
Medical expenses can not be claimed as a business expense since they personal in nature. There is a tax credit available to all taxpayers for medical expenses. The dental expenses can be claimed under the medical expenses tax credit, as long as you have receipts to support the claim. The value of the tax credit in Ontario is 21.05% of the expenses claimed. In calculating your claim, you have to deduct 3% of your net income from the expenses. You may also qualify for the refundable medical expense supplement, which is an additional credit for taxpayers whose medical expenses are significant in relation to their income.
Posted in 
Tags: 
