Let's tax churches.

[Baba Yaga]

Why not? Here's a couple reasons why it's a pretty good idea.

1. Organized religion in the United States rakes in billions and billions of dollars every year. On the low end I've seen somewhere around 71 billion and on the high end I've seen around 100 billion. If we taxed churches (and by churches I mean all religious establishments. Mosques. Synagogues. Etc.) we could get every U.S. citizen off of food stamps and then some. Ofcourse, to our religious friends that may raise an objection and say "Hey! What about small churches that thrive off of donations!" I see no reason why we couldn't have an exception for small community churches that are primarily focused on doing charitable work. However, if your church is making in upward of 100 million dollars a year or some other obscene amount of income, sweet Jesus, why shouldn't you be taxed?

Also, consider for a moment that not only are churches not taxed, they don't have to disclose their donor information. It seems awfully shady that many churches take full advantage of this privilege, which seems odd considering that if you're doing the work of the lord, why ever would there be a reason to hide anything?

2. If religious organizations are free to lobby government and participate in political matters, it's only fair they pay taxes like everyone else. Religious organizations pour millions of dollars into issues like gay marriage (Which got the Mormon church into a lot of controversy, yet it still enjoys its tax exempt status) abortion, creationism being taught in schools, and stem cell research.

3. Since when does the government decide what is and isn't a religion, anyway? If the government gives tax breaks to only a specific handful of faiths, then that is in essence an endorsement of that particular faith. In what world can we say that there is separation between church and state if the government is freely showing favoritism toward a particular faith(s)?

That's all for now. My laptop is odd in that I can't seem to copy/paste anything, and I don't want to throw too much numbers and statistics out there without some sufficient sources first. I intend to update this later with more sources and points. In the mean time, have fun kids.

 

[BigLutz]

Several problems.

A: By law churches are not able to spread political views like endorsing candidates or specific policies or bills, in return they are not taxed at all. Take away that nontaxable status and there is nothing for weekly services to become platforms about why God would support candidate X, and why not voting for candidate Y would be a sin.

B: Churches are already heavily a charity organization. Catholic Charities USA for example serves 10 million people annually. From homeless shelters to food banks churches provide invaluable services to the community. Taxing them would be seen as taking money from such charities.

C: As we have learned exhaustively on the War on Poverty, merely throwing money at the problem will not solve it.

 

[The Federation]

A: Take away that nontaxable status and there is nothing for weekly services to become platforms about why God would support candidate X, and why not voting for candidate Y would be a sin.

They already do this...

B: From homeless shelters to food banks churches provide invaluable services to the community. Taxing them would be seen as taking money from such charities.

Sure, they feed the homeless, but they also indoctrinate them into believing their religious nonsense. And that's just the churches that do spend a lot of money on charity. Go into the mega church section and you will find they could care less about charity.

C: As we have learned exhaustively on the War on Poverty, merely throwing money at the problem will not solve it.

"Throwing money" at things that lack funding does in fact help them with their funding issues. Fact. What better way to counteract the harm churches are doing than to tax them and use that money to fund public schools?

 

[BigLutz]

They already do this...

Not really, and they can get into a ton of trouble with the IRS if they try it

Sure, they feed the homeless, but they also indoctrinate them into believing their religious nonsense. And that's just the churches that do spend a lot of money on charity. Go into the mega church section and you will find they could care less about charity.

Yes how dare they feed the homeless... I mean they may be hungry and forced to sleep out in the cold but atleast they wont be "indoctrinated"

"Throwing money" at things that lack funding does in fact help them with their funding issues. Fact. What better way to counteract the harm churches are doing than to tax them and use that money to fund public schools?

In 2010, total annual spending on education exceeded $809 billion dollars. Although it is unclear whether that figure is adjusted for inflation, that amount is higher than any other industrialized nation, and more than the spending of France, Germany, Japan, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia combined. Yet we fall behind all those countries in our education standard. Fact. Throwing money at the problem does not fix it and the education system is a prime example.

 

[mjunior3]

Being a Church is a free 'self donable' service to the public. In other words, a non-profit. Not everything that makes money should be taxed, and the fact that is COULD be taxed, doesn't mean it SHOULD be. I mean, many Churches aren't all that glamorous anyways, and being somewhat political in sparce aspects isn't enough to legally tax a non-profit. C'mon people...

 

[Murder Doll]

Unless a church full blown requires for you to pay for entry/service (which I've never heard of) it really makes no sense to charge them tax because they're technically none profit. I know that donations are pretty standard and heavily encouraged but the same can be said for all none profit and charity organizations, not just the church.

I'm not even a Christian but I'd be completely against a Church or any other none-profit organization being charged tax, especially one that deals with a community based around faith, although that 2nd part if personal bias the first part just seems logical to me.

 

[The Federation]

1. Separation of church and state prohibits respecting an establishment of religion. It's unconstitutional to give a ax break to churches, because as a religion, they are more than a "non-profit" organization.

2. The gov't gets to choose what is and what isn't a "valid religion". That means the gov't literally gets to pick and choose what is and isn't qualified for a tax break. Since anyone can make up a religion and have it be just as valid as anyone else's religion, this poses a problem.

3. Tax exemptions are public subsidies. This means we are losing potential income from a billion dollar institution, unconstitutionally. Churches should never have had the option to be tax exempt in the first place.

4. If a religion is valid, it should be able to do with no money, no currency of any kind, and survive- if it's god's will. Sure, we all know it wouldn't survive because God either wouldn't do it because blah blah blah or the more likely explanation, he's not there to do anything about it.

5. Most of the founding father pleaded the case for church-state separation. Why is it ok to ignore them here, but not when people are threatening, say, firearms? How hypocritical.

As an atheist I resent that my own taxes are higher to compensate for religious institutions who don't pay into the system at all. We could solve much of the public education crisis that exists in many states due to lack of funding entirely if we would demand the billions that churches are holding from us as nontaxable entities.

 

[Murder Doll]

It isn't even about them being a religious group, they literally don't charge you anything for their services....no none profit organization should be forced to pay tax on donations of all things.

The only point where I can see some sort of logic behind taxing them would be for income from fund drives that include the sale of goods, and that even seems sort of dickish.

Pardon my french

 

[T5000X]

Politicians can't claim to be on the side of the church if they tax them. Same reason why they fight against taxing obscenely rich company owners of things like Wal Mart and McDonalds.

Although, as far as I know, the policy of not taxing a recognised religious establishment has been long, long standing. That tradition may be part to why they aren't taxed now despite there being no reasonable reason why they shouldn't.

Taxing the church would most certainly not solve Americas economic problems.

 

[The Federation]

It isn't even about them being a religious group, they literally don't charge you anything for their services....no none profit organization should be forced to pay tax on donations of all things.

Churches do more than donate things. In fact, some churches don't donate... at all. Their ownership and operation can be entirely self-serving, and they still see the same non-taxable status as a real nonprofit.

The only point where I can see some sort of logic behind taxing them would be for income from fund drives that include the sale of goods, and that even seems sort of dickish.

How about we charge them for existing, like we charge everyone else? Explain why is morally fine for a member of the clergy who may or may not have ever done anything that actually, demonstrably helped another in his profession to skip taxation against the constitution, yet a member of the military who laid his/her life down for our own well-being is taxed just the same as anyone else?

Taxing the church would most certainly not solve Americas economic problems.

Will it solve all of America's tax problems? No. Will it solve some of America's tax problems? Absolutely. Billions annually is nothing to scoff at, even with the current obscene spending trends.

 

[Murder Doll]

Maybe I'm just closed minded but all I can think of behind your logic is a scenario where I gift a friend of mine money, the Government takes tax from that gift because "lol you can't hand out money" and you sitting there going "I approve of this".

 

[The Federation]

Maybe I'm just closed minded but all I can think of behind your logic is a scenario where I gift a friend of mine money, the Government takes tax from that gift because "lol you can't hand out money" and you sitting there going "I approve of this".

The difference being, the founding fathers of the United States of America didn't specifically endorse the non-intervention of you and your friend, nor are you and your friend sucking the average taxpayer dry through your un-taxed gift of money. Let's make this very clear- it's not just the donations that would be taxed, but the entire institution.

That means:
Donations + Salaries + All expenses

Are you and your friend completely nontaxable entities? If you aren't, then you're comparison falls on it's face.

EDIT: Another comparison is that the gov't gets to choose which religions are "valid". If the gov't gets to decide your gift is nontaxable but Henry's from across the street is fair game, even though the decision is completely arbitrary, then there is a problem.

 

[T5000X]

Poor people with houses payed off over decades still have property tax but your argument is basically that because the church sometimes donates money they should be exempt from all taxes.

 

[The Federation]

Poor people with houses payed off over decades still have property tax but your argument is basically that because the church sometimes donates money they should be exempt from all taxes.

It's more than that, even. They're saying that even churches that potentially never take any beneficial action should be subsidized by tax exemptions. Furthermore, churches rarely give without at least an attempt at indoctrinating those they help, so while their gain might not be monetary, it certainly exists.

 

[Profesco]

Not really, and they can get into a ton of trouble with the IRS if they try it.

Demonstrably not.

=X

 

[Murder Doll]

The difference being, the founding fathers of the United States of America didn't specifically endorse the non-intervention of you and your friend, nor are you and your friend sucking the average taxpayer dry through your un-taxed gift of money. Let's make this very clear- it's not just the donations that would be taxed, but the entire institution.

Are you and your friend completely nontaxable entities? If you aren't, then you're comparison falls on it's face

Donations = Gifts, are the gifts being given to an organization? Yes. But my question is, why should a gift under any circumstance be taxable?

 

[BigLutz]

1. Separation of church and state prohibits respecting an establishment of religion. It's unconstitutional to give a ax break to churches, because as a religion, they are more than a "non-profit" organization.

2. The gov't gets to choose what is and what isn't a "valid religion". That means the gov't literally gets to pick and choose what is and isn't qualified for a tax break. Since anyone can make up a religion and have it be just as valid as anyone else's religion, this poses a problem.

It does, unless the Government has a threshold in which it approves what a church is, and does so even handedly then there is no Separation problem.

3. Tax exemptions are public subsidies. This means we are losing potential income from a billion dollar institution, unconstitutionally. Churches should never have had the option to be tax exempt in the first place.

Churches are not only non profit as already explained, but they also provide help to the community meaning they are just as tax exempt as the local Soup Kitchen

4. If a religion is valid, it should be able to do with no money, no currency of any kind, and survive- if it's god's will. Sure, we all know it wouldn't survive because God either wouldn't do it because blah blah blah or the more likely explanation, he's not there to do anything about it.

If God compelled his followers to donate, as is written in multiple religions, then they are surviving through money willed by God

5. Most of the founding father pleaded the case for church-state separation. Why is it ok to ignore them here, but not when people are threatening, say, firearms? How hypocritical.

There is no Seperation problem as long as the Government is even handed in it's policies toward all religions

Churches do more than donate things. In fact, some churches don't donate... at all. Their ownership and operation can be entirely self-serving, and they still see the same non-taxable status as a real nonprofit.

As long as they do not gain a profit then they are by definition a non profit entity

How about we charge them for existing, like we charge everyone else? Explain why is morally fine for a member of the clergy who may or may not have ever done anything that actually, demonstrably helped another in his profession to skip taxation against the constitution, yet a member of the military who laid his/her life down for our own well-being is taxed just the same as anyone else?

Ministers are taxed via Self Employment Tax

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...yment-Taxes/Ministers-and-Taxes/INF12069.html

It's more than that, even. They're saying that even churches that potentially never take any beneficial action should be subsidized by tax exemptions. Furthermore, churches rarely give without at least an attempt at indoctrinating those they help, so while their gain might not be monetary, it certainly exists.

SO WHAT?!

I mean really would you rather someone be left hungry than be "indoctrinated"? Is your hatred against religion so bad, that you see that as a better alternative?!

Demonstrably not.

=X

Your link says and I quote

"The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has officially halted tax audits of churches until it can adopt rules that clarify which high-level employee has the authority to initiate them."

That does not suggest that those entities that should be punished under the law, will not be punished when the rules are adopted and clarified

 

[The Federation]

Donations = Gifts, are the gifts being given to an organization? Yes. But my question is, why should a gift under any circumstance be taxable?

Did you miss the totality of my post? It's not just the gifts! If it were, I might even be more open to the lack of taxation. The fact is, it's the institution that gets to avoid tax without repercussion because it is of the correct nature, not because of it's actions.

Just because a church may or may not have given someone or something a gift once shouldn't make them untouchable. If that were proper logic, I should be nontaxable right now because I have donated to charity more than once in my life.

 

[Baba Yaga]

To add to what Profesco was saying, we also have the prestigious ACLA (American Christian Lobbyists Association)

www.americancla.org/acla_home_page.html

If you don't think religious groups being entrenched in political affairs is not a reality in the United States, you are just not paying attention.

How much money do religious groups spend on lobbying government, anyway?

www.christianpost.com/news/religiou...on-annually-lobbying-in-dc-study-finds-62750/

400 million dollars sounds like a lot, per year. Personally, I think all that money would be better suited to care of the poor than it is fighting abortion or stem cell research. So, nobody has a problem that religious organizations have effectively been buying off our politicians, probably even more destructively since the relaxation of campaign finance laws starting from the 1970's? If separation of church and state and the healthy functioning of the political process is something that's important to you, this is something you shouldn't be happy about.

Would BigLutz like to revise his statement?

 

[BigLutz]

To add to what Profesco was saying, we also have the prestigious ACLA (American Christian Lobbyists Association)

www.americancla.org/acla_home_page.html

If you don't think religious groups being entrenched in political affairs is not a reality in the United States, you are just not paying attention.

How much money do religious groups spend on lobbying government, anyway?

www.christianpost.com/news/religiou...on-annually-lobbying-in-dc-study-finds-62750/

Would BigLutz like to revise his statement?

Privately Lobbying the Government =/= Advocating for a certain political position on church ground.

BTW can you show me where the ACLA or any other religious group gets money directly from churches and not from private donators?

Did you miss the totality of my post? It's not just the gifts! If it were, I might even be more open to the lack of taxation. The fact is, it's the institution that gets to avoid tax without repercussion because it is of the correct nature, not because of it's actions.

Just because a church may or may not have given someone or something a gift once shouldn't make them untouchable. If that were proper logic, I should be nontaxable right now because I have donated to charity more than once in my life.

Umm no, the logic is that every small donation given to the church is considered a gift and avoid taxation, if you give a gift to someone you would not be taxed for the amount of the gift given under a reasonable amount of money by law.