Mike Huckabee thinks churches should give up tax exempt status

[Phony Moderate]

Hmmmm.  

http://www.examiner.com/article/mike-huckabee-says-churches-should-give-up-tax-exempt-status

[Zarn]

I already knew that Huckabee was a statist. This does not suprise me in the least.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I disagree that churches themselves should give up their tax exempt status, but I think charity deductions should be abolished. That is the only reason why some people even bother giving to charity, and it defeats the purpose.

[publicunofficial]

For the record, he doesn't think churches should pay taxes because they shouldn't be exempt.


He saying this because he wants churches to endorse political candidates and issues, which would force them to lose their tax-exempt status.

[DC Al Fine]

If it came down to a decision between preaching the gospel and not paying taxes, then by all means I would agree with Huckabee. However this seems to be more a case of wanting more church involvement in politics. The church has far more pressing needs of it's time & money, like you know... reaching the lost

[Maxwell]

For the record, he doesn't think churches should pay taxes because they shouldn't be exempt.


He saying this because he wants churches to endorse political candidates and issues, which would force them to lose their tax-exempt status.

Oh well that makes a lot more sense.

[Indy Texas]

I disagree that churches themselves should give up their tax exempt status, but I think charity deductions should be abolished. That is the only reason why some people even bother giving to charity, and it defeats the purpose.

I would argue just the opposite - the church's charitable activities should be kept under a tax-exempt umbrella, while their core functions (the church itself, the pastoral staff, the services and ceremonies) should not be. There is a difference between tithing money to support orphanages and soup kitchens (things the government should encourage people to do), and tithing money to pay for a minister to perform weekly religious ceremonies that benefit you and others like you (which is basically like being part of a private club where membership dues are encouraged but not explicitly required).

[memphis]

I'm totally cool with that. Churches already advocate for political positions in such a way that their support for candidates is strongly implied, even if they can't make formal endorsement. Even ignoring the huge amounts of money municipalities stand to receive if they could tax church property, the mullahs wouldn't be getting much additional political clout by openly advocating for candidates. And they'd look extra slimy for going political to boot. I think it's win-win.

[King]

I'm starting to come to the belief that corporations/organizations shouldn't be taxed at all, or at least very little.  Taxes against corporate revenue promote outsourcing and cuts at the bottom to making profits.  Attacks on corporate revenue always hurt the bottom, not the top.

IMO, a compelling offer could be made from the left to the businessmen of America: 1% flat corporate tax rate (to keep them honest), no deductions/credits in exchange for sharp tax increases on income greater than 250k annual, especially at 1 mil annual.  CEOs would pay more taxes endorsing this plan, but also be rewarded with more base pay for expanding their own corporate profits.

It would move the tax haven incentive into United States corporations, which is real investment, while actually solving the wealth gap in this country.

[Likely Voter]

Huckabee has expressed issues with how Christian conservatives are taken for granted. He wants churches to become political so that they (and by extension he) will have more power.

[H. Ross Peron]

If it came down to a decision between preaching the gospel and not paying taxes, then by all means I would agree with Huckabee. However this seems to be more a case of wanting more church involvement in politics. The church has far more pressing needs of it's time & money, like you know... reaching the lost

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm starting to come to the belief that corporations/organizations shouldn't be taxed at all, or at least very little.  Taxes against corporate revenue promote outsourcing and cuts at the bottom to making profits.  Attacks on corporate revenue always hurt the bottom, not the top.

IMO, a compelling offer could be made from the left to the businessmen of America: 1% flat corporate tax rate (to keep them honest), no deductions/credits in exchange for sharp tax increases on income greater than 250k annual, especially at 1 mil annual.  CEOs would pay more taxes endorsing this plan, but also be rewarded with more base pay for expanding their own corporate profits.

It would move the tax haven incentive into United States corporations, which is real investment, while actually solving the wealth gap in this country.

I don't see this resulting in anything but a wider income gap. Perhaps more jobs will result, but they won't pay any better than otherwise. Off shoring, adopting cost cutting new technologies that displace employees, hiding profits oversees.. these will not go away by throwing them this bone. They will just exacerbate the problem and make the government's purse strings ever more taut, damaging the welfare of our poorest and most vulnerable.

Or maybe I missed something. Cutting corporate taxes means the lower and middle classes get more money? I think we are living in that paradise currently.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I already knew that Huckabee was a statist. This does not suprise me in the least.

I came here to post that Mike Huckabee is a moron. Then I saw this post and the prize goes to you instead.

[perdedor]

I'm starting to come to the belief that corporations/organizations shouldn't be taxed at all, or at least very little.  Taxes against corporate revenue promote outsourcing and cuts at the bottom to making profits.  Attacks on corporate revenue always hurt the bottom, not the top.

IMO, a compelling offer could be made from the left to the businessmen of America: 1% flat corporate tax rate (to keep them honest), no deductions/credits in exchange for sharp tax increases on income greater than 250k annual, especially at 1 mil annual.  CEOs would pay more taxes endorsing this plan, but also be rewarded with more base pay for expanding their own corporate profits.

It would move the tax haven incentive into United States corporations, which is real investment, while actually solving the wealth gap in this country.

Outsourcing is caused by vast gap in labor costs associated with hiring Americans vs moving jobs overseas. For example, according to the BLS, a Chinese factory worker's average hourly wage is less than 1/10 that of his American counterpart. You can't make that up by cutting corporate taxes (which are so laden with questionable breaks and deductions that most corporations pay much less than the effective rate) and, even if you could, how would this incentivize businesses to return production? Businesses typically do not use newly available capital to maintain current production levels at a higher cost. In other words, if labor is cheaper in China, it would only make sense from a profit-generating business perspective to invest the new capital in China and achieve more production at the minimal cost. There is no profit motive in spending the money to relocate jobs to America, so that an equal amount of production (or less, depending on the previous working hours of the now unemployed Chinese) can be achieved for 10x the previous cost.

Outsourcing would be best handled from the position of prevention (disincentivizing), as it's very difficult for a regulatory body to infuse incentive into its actions without dumping the true cost on the working class (abolishing the minimum wage, for example, could be considered a proper economic incentive to business, but most agree that such policy would be socially and economically destructive). If American companies want to manufacture overseas, let them pay punitive import taxes and analyze the net benefit of producing domestically.

Naturally, one may warn of increased costs of certain goods -- to which I would argue that current prices are the result of immoral work conditions in overseas factories and that the preservation of these prices is not a valid argument from the position of a free, just society - as America claims to be.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Huck, I love you man, but you're wrong on this one, just like you were about supporting the ideological purity of the Tea Partiers.