Skip to main content

What if we taxed the churches?

According to a study conducted by University of Tampa professor Ryan Cragun last year, taxing churches across this country could result in as much as $71 billion in added revenue every year. While the math will be imperfect due to the increasing number of churches through the years, if we look back to when churches gained tax exempt status in 1894 (120 years ago), that would have generated as much as $8.5 trillion, which is almost exactly half of this country's debt (a little over $17 trillion).

So, if politicians are really serious about this country's debt problem, how about this?

1) Tax churches ($71 billion a year)

2) Close tax loopholes on corporations ($5 billion per year)

3) Increase taxes on the wealthiest among us ($40-45 billion a year)

4) Decrease defense spending (we spend between $600-700 billion on this, so pick a number... I'll go with $100 billion)

5) Legalize marijuana and tax the heck out of it (approximately $14 billion per year)

Total these numbers and we'd generate/save an extra $230-$235 billion every year. At that rate, we'd pay off our debt in 72 years. No, I doubt there's much chance of #'s 1 or 5 happening in quite some time (especially #1), but even if #'s 2, 3, and 4 got implemented, that would save approximately $145-$150 billion every year, which is at least a start. Okay, greedy politicians - it's your move...

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-06-15/religious-tax-exemption-challenged/55629908/1

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/closing-tax-loopholes-should-be-part-of-the-budget-conference/2013/11/08/41df32d2-47f8-11e3-b6f8-3782ff6cb769_story.html

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100321181

http://www.businessinsider.com/we-should-cut-military-spending-gradually-2013-2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/economists-marijuana-legalization_n_1431840.html
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more