Huckabee says churches should give up tax exempt status

A business is an organization involved in the trade of goods, services, or both to consumers. Churches sell something to people (God, hope, a feeling of superiority), and they should be subject to all the laws and taxes any other business is subject to.

 

That's a riot.

A church IS a business. ALL of it's activities are business activities.

They do not pay property tax, but many have huge property holdings and use all the same services and infrastructure a regular business does. They have paid employees the same as a regular business does. They sell a service the same as a regular business. There's no distinguishable difference between a church and a strip club, as far as their basic operation and their use of tax-funded services. But the strip club pays it's way through taxes and business fees while the church is fully subsidized by all citizens, most of whom get nothing in return.

 

Sale: to transfer possession and ownership goods or other property for money or something of equivalent value.

Is gambling a sale? No. Is a casino business? No. Is paying a stripper a sale? No, because possession has not been transferred, ownership did not change. Is a strip club a business? Yes.

 

Why not? What's wrong with it?

And for the record, Black churches have been organizing and mobilizing voters for decades.

 

If I started a "workshop" or a "retreat" that you could come to free of charge, and I would speak publicly about things that could save your soul or just improve your everyday outlook, money was not required for you to attend, I just suggested it, and eventually I had 10,000 followers that thought my insight and ideas changed their life. They all started to give me 5% of their annual income. Are you saying that I am not operating a business? Are you saying I should have a special tax exemption from the income I earned? Does it make a difference if 10 million or 1 billion people supported me?

 

Bingo. This post is exactly what I was going to make, so I'm glad I read the thread before posting.

The IRS scandal has been a real eye opener for me. I used to think that some specific deductions were useful for society. Now that I've seen the systemic abuse, I really think the best way to declaw the bureaucrats is to eliminate almost all deductions. It would drive many of the lobbyists out of business, wipe out the externality of tax attorneys and accountants, allow us to shrink the IRS to almost nothing, and force businesses to focus on investments that actually are positive NPV instead of ones that are tax driven.

If it were me, I'd eliminate all deductions except for mortgage interest, but limit that one to 80% LTV (determined at the time of home purchase or refinancing, so a changing market doesn't inadvertently impact you). Anything over 80% and you don't get the deduction.

 

I don't see the point of mortgage interest deductions. I guess it's to encourage home ownership, but does it really do that much?

I'm in the Dennie/maxiep camp of doing away with a ton of deductions and massively simplifying the tax code. It's one of the few ways I really differ from Democrats.

I just think if we had a more transparent system it'd be easier to then go on to debate the size of government and the value of government services. I like a lot of government services, but I can definitely see the merits of shrinking some as well. It'd be much easier to discuss in an open and honest manner if lobbyists, corporations, charities, unions and everybody else weren't trying to game the tax system.

I think Republicans could be natural leaders in this area if they actively pursued a truly revenue-neutral tax overhaul. Unfortunately, it always seems like they try to combine that idea with reducing spending/taxes and implementing reform in a regressive manner, which alienates too many moderates.

It should be a two-step process:
1. Simplify tax code with a goal to not change most people's overall liability much
2. Have a debate over how much to tax and who should pay less/more

Any politician of any stripe who came forward with this plan would be extremely popular.

 

In many countries the government notifies you of your liability. You get a notice that you owe X amount, and if you wish to contest it you are welcome to. It puts the burden of tax preparation on the government bureaucracy, and it takes all of the fear out because if the government fucks up and tells you the wrong amount it's their fault and not yours.

I suspect the only reason we don't operate this way is because of lobbyists (Turbotax, H&R Block, etc).

 

Because not everybody is willing to risk everything on the untested libertarian ideal of an exclusively sales-tax based federal government. If you can demonstrate where it's been successfully done for, say, a 20 million person modern industrialized country, I might be convinced it could work for a 300 million person country.

Until then, I think a more traditional three pillar approach (income, property and sales) tax continues to make the most sense. But it should be drastically simpler (and thus require far less of my personal data), it should include a national sales tax, and it should be the government's job to present to me their proposal of what they think I owe.

Even if you disagree with me, you have to admit my thinking gets us a lot closer to where you'd like to be than the current system.