Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
52 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Tax the damn churches already! (Original Post) Initech Jun 2023 OP
Yep Chi67 Jun 2023 #1
I don't see it that way... Think. Again. Jun 2023 #7
+1 Totally agree.n/t ChazII Jun 2023 #14
of course... Think. Again. Jun 2023 #16
Not "political"--that's too broad a brush. Igel Jun 2023 #27
Good point... Think. Again. Jun 2023 #34
A politician speaking in a church is not a violation of the tax code. former9thward Jun 2023 #46
The one thing standing between us and totalitarianism is the Johnson Amendment. Initech Jun 2023 #24
Amen! Easterncedar Jun 2023 #2
Yes! Duppers Jun 2023 #3
I'm totally OK with that! Initech Jun 2023 #26
Any church that tells people how to vote KS Toronado Jun 2023 #4
That's how it's supposed to be Mariana Jun 2023 #22
The claim's incomplete. Igel Jun 2023 #28
Wow... Think. Again. Jun 2023 #37
A union does not have an core ideology. former9thward Jun 2023 #47
All in it for themselves AKwannabe Jun 2023 #5
Of course, only non-Christians would ever behave like that. Mariana Jun 2023 #23
You're right. Igel Jun 2023 #30
The difference is that Hefner neither claimed to be ExWhoDoesntCare Jun 2023 #44
Only someone entirely ignorant of the religion's history ExWhoDoesntCare Jun 2023 #43
THIS malaise Jun 2023 #6
Absolutely. F**Kers want to play in politics and interfere in governments etc. scarletlib Jun 2023 #8
The cognitive dissonance will be intense here once the black churches start screaming if this Celerity Jun 2023 #9
Maybe. scarletlib Jun 2023 #10
How do you define "politics" for this purpose? onenote Jun 2023 #21
Our democracy defined it. Igel Jun 2023 #31
Link to law regarding politics and churches scarletlib Jun 2023 #29
I read a few years ago that if they began taxing all churches, jimfields33 Jun 2023 #11
How can these phonies live with themselves? Mysterian Jun 2023 #12
Yank the exemptions from the pastors too. Look at this church in my home town. I really brewens Jun 2023 #13
A visit to the Vatican will give an idea of the asset wealth - why not donate all thet? BSdetect Jun 2023 #15
And ANYTHING can claim to be a church ⛪️...like Scientology. Funtatlaguy Jun 2023 #17
Tax them on what? Zeitghost Jun 2023 #18
Not sure what you're talking about. Marius25 Jun 2023 #19
No, they do not. Igel Jun 2023 #33
None of this makes any sense. Marius25 Jun 2023 #35
Twitter has shareholders Zeitghost Jun 2023 #40
Almost all of that wealth (not income) Zeitghost Jun 2023 #42
You Don't Need Shareholders To Have A Profit Motive ProfessorGAC Jun 2023 #32
By Shareholders I mean Ownership Zeitghost Jun 2023 #39
You Have A Stange Concept Of Profit ProfessorGAC Jun 2023 #41
just watched the 60 Minutes segment on the Mormon Church RussBLib Jun 2023 #20
Which political parties supports that? Kaleva Jun 2023 #25
Indeed! nt Wounded Bear Jun 2023 #36
If Democrats came out in favor Elessar Zappa Jun 2023 #38
When the nones ExWhoDoesntCare Jun 2023 #45
This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Jun 2023 #48
K&R Blue Owl Jun 2023 #49
Some of what they come up with seems pretty partisan to me. lees1975 Jun 2023 #50
To me what's truly insane is the MAGA lunatics that call themselves prophets. Initech Jun 2023 #51
Yes! Because of the hate speech becoming a danger to society... phrigndumass Jun 2023 #52

Chi67

(1,064 posts)
1. Yep
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 02:45 AM
Jun 2023

I used to be against this as it mixes politics with religion. But since they are doing it anyway, tax the hell out of any church that advocates political action. This has gone on for way too long.

Think. Again.

(8,078 posts)
7. I don't see it that way...
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 07:28 AM
Jun 2023

Yes, creating a specific tax scenario of any kind for religions would be mixing politics and religion.

Right now churches fall under the umbrella of tax codes for 'non-profit' organizations, and plenty of 'non-profits' are frauds, while many are not frauds, and some others even choose to pay the taxes they are not required to.

It seems to me it would easy enough (and much needed as well as good and fair) to clarify and harden the regulations of how charitable-gifted funds are used by any given 'non-profit' for those funds to be considered tax exempt.

For example; there's no justifiable reason within it's non-profit mission statement for a religious organization to own and maintain a luxurious mansion for one of it's employees to live in. How gifted money is used would determine whether it is taxed as profit or not.

At the very least, a clause in the tax code allowing for certain uses to be declared non-exempt by the IRS if they don't directly and verifiably impact the non-profit organization's stated 'mission' might deter this wide-spread tax code abuse.

Basically, we need a much better distinction between legitimate and taxable business, legitimate and non-taxable charity activity, and illegitimate and taxable-by-prison fraud.




Think. Again.

(8,078 posts)
16. of course...
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 09:14 AM
Jun 2023

On the flip side, non-profits are already prohibited from engaging in political promotion under threat of having their non-profit tax exemption rescinded...

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/political-activities-of-exempt-organizations

but of course the regulations are convoluted and depend entirely on the Internal Revenue Service competently doing internal revenue work.

Igel

(35,300 posts)
27. Not "political"--that's too broad a brush.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 03:56 PM
Jun 2023

"Partisan" is closer.

Lobbying to ban abortion or alcohol or discrimination can be a deeply political act and one rooted in values and belief systems; those are issues that are political but not rooted in trying to get specific people elected or assisted in elections.

That can be a fine line. Push "we need to elect people who support X" is usually okay. Add in, "... who support X--vote for Archie and Mehitabel" is firmly on the "not okay" side of the line.

I've always looked disfavorably on instances where a church chooses to invite a politician to politick in their buildings, esp. worship-adjacent, even if they invite the competition.

Think. Again.

(8,078 posts)
34. Good point...
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 05:49 PM
Jun 2023

Thank you for that clarification.

The tax code does specifically restrict non-profits from "engaging in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office." (From the irs link posted above), so yes, you are correct. The code refers to referencing individuals running for office but allows for referencing the ideology that any given candidate might hold.

Thanks again.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
46. A politician speaking in a church is not a violation of the tax code.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 10:18 PM
Jun 2023

The violation is when a church uses its resources to back a candidate in an election. Obama got his start by speaking in the many black churches on the south and west sides of Chicago. It was not a violation.

Initech

(100,063 posts)
24. The one thing standing between us and totalitarianism is the Johnson Amendment.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 01:52 PM
Jun 2023

And MAGA nutcases are trying to overturn that too. We can't allow that to happen under any circumstances.

KS Toronado

(17,199 posts)
4. Any church that tells people how to vote
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 03:11 AM
Jun 2023

should lose their non-profit status and start paying excess profit taxes.

Igel

(35,300 posts)
28. The claim's incomplete.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 04:29 PM
Jun 2023

"Any church that tells people how to vote for specific people should lose their tax exempt status" is pretty much the law.

Note that Reverend King knew the law and never said to his religious anti-discrimination movement to vote for Kennedy or Johnson. His movement was sharply political but utterly non-partisan (in the sense of pushing explicitly for one party's candidates).

Pushing to get discrimination or abortion banned is political, but don't take that last step and say who to vote for and you're good. That's been the law for a long, long time.

Note that this applies to *all* non-profits. The same law that regulates Planned Parenthood regulates fundie Xian churches and mosques and synagogues and the Nature Conservancy.

One thing that's bothered me for 45 years is that a SCOTUS ruling said that while unions may be non-profit, they are above things like Congressional/IRS regulations because they're free associations of citizens. (Unlike, say, a church or mosque or the Nature Conservancy or Greenpeace, which are, presumably, forced associations ... Huh?)

Think. Again.

(8,078 posts)
37. Wow...
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 06:03 PM
Jun 2023

A non-profit, be it a church or whatever, is NOT considered a "free association of citizens"!?!

I can't wrap my head around that...

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
47. A union does not have an core ideology.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 10:25 PM
Jun 2023

You are a member of it due to your employment. A church has a principle as does Greenpeace. If you want to kill the whales you can't be a member of Greenpeace. If you advocate atheism you can't be part of a church that requires a belief in God. So unions are free associations while the others are not.

Igel

(35,300 posts)
30. You're right.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 04:39 PM
Jun 2023

I assume Hugh Heffner was a devout "wear it on your sleeve" Xian.

He didn't slum by having a house in just Beverly Hills.

No, no. Holmby Hills.

https://www.zillow.com/los-angeles-ca/holmby-hills_att/

 

ExWhoDoesntCare

(4,741 posts)
44. The difference is that Hefner neither claimed to be
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 10:01 PM
Jun 2023

A moral authority, claimed to be a charitable institution, nor took a vow of poverty.

Makes a big difference. He, at least, wasn't a hypocrite.

 

ExWhoDoesntCare

(4,741 posts)
43. Only someone entirely ignorant of the religion's history
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 09:59 PM
Jun 2023

Could say something so ridiculous.

They have been power mad money-grubbers for their entire history. Their demigod's body had barely floated up into the ether when they were killing people over money. Ananias and Sapphira ring some bells there? You don't seriously believe that vicious lie Peter told that something supernatural dropped them both dead, do you?

They aligned with a murderous thug known as Constantine to seize power and money for themselves.

Everywhere they decided to extend their power in Europe, they murdered pagans and seized their lands and resources in the pursuit of money and power. Every single country where they forced the government to establish their religion had to pay the religion in tax dollars for the "privilege" of being in the good graces of said religion. They used those tax dollars by having clergy living in luxury even some kings didn't enjoy, while their congregations lived mean, brutal lives of hunger, near-slavery work conditions, and deprivation.

They spent centuries selling relics, selling indulgences, and selling even their prayers. Oh--and don't forget how they came up with the celibacy requirement for clergy so that they could get the assets from inheritances of said clergy members, rather than having it go to a bunch of useless eaters in the form of widows and children.

They helped rob the New World blind of assets for centuries. Take a look at this horrifying spectacle of excess for but one example of how they profited from the New World:



That not gold paint but the real stuff that thousands of native Mexicans had to work literally to death to mine for them. I can assure you this is not the only display of excess in the religion that I could share. Not by a long shot.

In fact, to get that kind of access to gold, the religion's big kahunas authorized slavery of non-Europeans, not once but twice, and reveled in the share of profits they got back from that unpaid labor in the form of tithes and "gifts." Those slavery authorizations would later become the basis for the Atlantic Slave trade. The Protestants didn't hesitate at all in adopting the same "reasoning" that the Catholic church did to make their own profits off slave labor.

And of course, one cannot forget how christians robbed Jews of their assets for centuries, right into the 1930s. The losses to Jewish people from inquisitions, pogroms, the Holocaust and general nitwittery total not in the billions, but the trillions.

Even in the new country of America, they managed to carve out an exception for themselves so that they could make all the money they want but pay no taxes--and *still* enjoy all of the benefits of tax dollars that the rest of us have to pay. In fact, they get *more* than their share of benefits from our taxes than we do.

And you think the posted meme indicates an exception, not the rule of that religion?

GTFO.

scarletlib

(3,411 posts)
8. Absolutely. F**Kers want to play in politics and interfere in governments etc.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 07:34 AM
Jun 2023

They are no longer just preaching the ‘word of god’ to their congregations. They should be free to worship as they see fit but they have no right to tell the rest of us or our government how to live or vote.

Tax the hell out of them. The whole idea (as I understand it) was that the churches wouldn’t be taxed as long as they remained apolitical. They broke that rule a long time ago.

Celerity

(43,327 posts)
9. The cognitive dissonance will be intense here once the black churches start screaming if this
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 07:47 AM
Jun 2023

actually starts to be come a possibility.

Just to be clear, I am massively in favour of taxing ALL churches, no matter religion they are or what party (if any) they support.

scarletlib

(3,411 posts)
10. Maybe.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 08:03 AM
Jun 2023

Size of the property would be the determining factor for property taxes. The church could incorporate as non-profit which could reduce or eliminate many federal taxes.

I think the point is that if you want to remain free of taxes then stay out of politics .

It could be complicated but just the threat might cause some to change their behavior.

I think the mega-churches should be taxed, including the Catholic Church. After reaching a certain size in property, buildings etc. they are more businesses than churches.

onenote

(42,698 posts)
21. How do you define "politics" for this purpose?
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 12:32 PM
Jun 2023

Endorsing specific candidates? Endorsing legislation? Supporting, or urging members of the church, to support certain policies?

Igel

(35,300 posts)
31. Our democracy defined it.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 04:40 PM
Jun 2023

Supporting persons and parties (their candidates, actually), not policies.

It's crystal clear. No need to make it a "living" law where the words evolve to entirely new genera as you read them.

People just have to take the 20 seconds to read it.

jimfields33

(15,774 posts)
11. I read a few years ago that if they began taxing all churches,
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 08:15 AM
Jun 2023

A good majority of black churches would close down due to affordability. Sorry no link.

brewens

(13,574 posts)
13. Yank the exemptions from the pastors too. Look at this church in my home town. I really
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 08:46 AM
Jun 2023

don't know if all of them qualify for the property tax exemption, but there is really no way they have this many pastors really at it full-time.

I went to school with Brad and Sue Bramlet who founded and built the church. Brad had to merge with another growing church, and I think it turned into a hostile takeover. It's still the same moderate sized church, but he got pushed aside and all these other jokers piled on.

If it's so important to these people, let them pay their own way. Our state legislature let property taxes in Idaho get way out of control and it's a huge issue. People need to understand we are paying more than necessary because too many are getting a free ride.

https://www.rivercitychurch.us/our-team

BSdetect

(8,998 posts)
15. A visit to the Vatican will give an idea of the asset wealth - why not donate all thet?
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 09:06 AM
Jun 2023

Will never happen.

Zeitghost

(3,858 posts)
18. Tax them on what?
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 11:36 AM
Jun 2023

I ask this question every time this issue comes up and nobody can give me an answer outside of removing property tax exemptions, which sounds fine, but is not what most people are talking about.

If you tax a church like a business, as everyone suggests, you will get no tax revenue. A business is taxed on profit, not revenue. A church does not have an incentive to produce a profit because they have no shareholders to return that profit to.

Outside a few cults like Scientology, the goal (and legal mandate as a non profit) of a church is to spend what they bring in with a little held back in savings to ride out rough times or for future projects. There would be nothing to tax.

 

Marius25

(3,213 posts)
19. Not sure what you're talking about.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 12:01 PM
Jun 2023

Most big churches amass astronomical amounts of profit. The Mormon Church is worth at least 100 billion.

Seventh Day Adventists are worth an estimated 16 billion, and it's a fairly small denomination.

The Catholic Church is worth astronomical amounts of money, much of it not even disclosed.

Megachurches rake in millions of dollars a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/21/religion.mega.church.christian/index.html#:~:text=Mega%20churches%20are%20extra%2Dlarge,million%20in%20income%20a%20year.%22

Mega churches mean big business

Igel

(35,300 posts)
33. No, they do not.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 04:52 PM
Jun 2023

Words have defined meanings.

Otherwise, really, computer pepper is was gravel hog.

No, remember, none of those words have any pre-set meaning. I get to define them, and that string means, "Hey, doncha just love enchiladas potosinas with crema?" If you didn't get it, seriously? Get with the bletting. Oh. Language is for communication and without established meanings all we get is frog-fur. Um, gibberish. Sorry, ego idiolected. (Oh, by the way, "blet" really is a real word.)

A profit is in the case of corporation what is paid to shareholders. A *non-profit* has that horrible morpheme { non } in it. It may have savings, but it has no profit. If you're a sole proprietorship, it's all profit because you, your house, your breakfast, and your business are all the same "chunk o' stuff." As soon as you incorporate, though, the former owner gets a paycheck--and that's it, it's no more profit than *your* paycheck is your employer's "profit."

Now, if a non-profit sets up a business, it's a for-profit corp. and pays taxes. The UBS sells Bibles? Taxable. The UMC sets up a bookstore? Taxable. But the UBS and UMC in other contexts are doing 501(c)(3)'s work, and that's not taxable. Examples? A church? The advocacy portion of Planned Parenthood? The Nature Conservancy or Greenpeace? BLM-central (it has a name, but it competes with BLM-startups and I can't keep them straight)? They produce and sell crap? For-profit. They advocate and speechify? Utterly non-.

"Big environmental groups mean big business" makes no sense. All of those orgs may take in money, but it falls outside the usually accepted definition of "profit."

 

Marius25

(3,213 posts)
35. None of this makes any sense.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 05:58 PM
Jun 2023

Profit simply means taking in more money than you spend in expenses. It has nothing to do with shareholders unless it's a publicly traded company, which churches are not.

Twitter is worth about $15 billion right now, and it has zero shareholders. Are you saying Twitter shouldn't be taxed? That's ridiculous.

It's still a fact that big churches take in astronomical amounts of profit compared to their expenses and they should be taxed on what they take in.

Zeitghost

(3,858 posts)
42. Almost all of that wealth (not income)
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 07:14 PM
Jun 2023

Has been accumulated over decades if not centuries and most is tied up in property and other assets (all of which are deductible immediately or over time through depreciation in a business like tax scheme).

Churches do accumulate some excess cash, generally to fund future projects or to get them through financial downturns, but if you taxed them like a business, they would change that behavior because there is no incentive to turn a profit and there would be a disincentive to accumulate cash.

What you would see them do is at the end of the year, excess donations and income would be spent or returned to the membership to zero out any profit and avoid any tax.

ProfessorGAC

(64,996 posts)
32. You Don't Need Shareholders To Have A Profit Motive
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 04:41 PM
Jun 2023

Nearly every small business has an obvious profit motive, even sole proprietorships.
Your premise seems to be flawed.
And, the property & art value of the RCC dwarves scientology, so your "exception" is hardly exceptional.

Zeitghost

(3,858 posts)
39. By Shareholders I mean Ownership
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 07:00 PM
Jun 2023

Even most small businesses have them, although a small sole proprietor might not have incorporated, the same principles apply.


Most churches, even most RCC parishes break even every year. There is no reason to accumulate excess cash as there is legally no way to distribute it to people.

ProfessorGAC

(64,996 posts)
41. You Have A Stange Concept Of Profit
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 07:07 PM
Jun 2023

I have been in big business, on the board of a large credit union, and have an MBA.
Your description of profit motivebis both bizarre and out of line with everything I've seen since 1976.
You are offering a very weak defense of church taxation based upon a condition that doesn't exist except in your wild hypothetical.
The Mormon church has an accumulated wealth of $100 billion. Total capital value of the RCC has been estimated at $400-600 billion. Your premise about profit being pointless if it can't be shared is wildly at odds with reality.
I'm done with this pointless discussion.

RussBLib

(9,006 posts)
20. just watched the 60 Minutes segment on the Mormon Church
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 12:22 PM
Jun 2023

...from a few weeks ago. The church is sitting on over 100 billion dollars, allegedly in a non-profit situation, where they bought a freakin' shopping mall and run a for-profit insurance company. But no, they don't really have to reveal anything about all their money and what they do with it under the non-profit shield. And the IRS seems too afraid to take them on. Probably afraid of being accused of being anti-religion, "of the Devil!!" How many charlatans have latched onto the tax-free nature of religions to fleece their flocks?

Down here in S Texas, the Mormon Church bought a huge city block in McAllen and have built a monstrous, gaudy church, complete with probably 300 really tall palm trees which can cost a few thousand each. It's a monument to ignorance and greed, and to me, it's a total blight on the landscape.

Kaleva

(36,294 posts)
25. Which political parties supports that?
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 01:58 PM
Jun 2023

The Democratic Party doesn't and would consider the proposal to be extremist .

Elessar Zappa

(13,964 posts)
38. If Democrats came out in favor
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 06:04 PM
Jun 2023

of taxing churches, we would likely lose bigly. Now if they’re violating the law and endorsing candidates, that’s a different story.

 

ExWhoDoesntCare

(4,741 posts)
45. When the nones
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 10:14 PM
Jun 2023

Become the majority, and that won't be long now, they won't lose anything by deciding that everyone who participates in politics has to pay for the ride.

What's maddening is that religious nones outnumber evangelicals now, but we get none of the political love that they do. Nobody cares about us or our interests. All we get is contempt.

That gets really--really--old.

Response to Initech (Original post)

lees1975

(3,845 posts)
50. Some of what they come up with seems pretty partisan to me.
Sat Jun 3, 2023, 11:14 PM
Jun 2023
https://signalpress.blogspot.com/2023/06/false-prophets-nothing-about-trump-came.html

They're turning prophecy into campaign rhetoric. That's not protected religious liberty and that should disqualify them for tax exemption. Most non-profits don't do that kind of thing.

Initech

(100,063 posts)
51. To me what's truly insane is the MAGA lunatics that call themselves prophets.
Sun Jun 4, 2023, 12:24 AM
Jun 2023

Imagine the level of insanity that you have to be on in order to call your far right wing brain farts "prophetic". That is some next level insanity.

phrigndumass

(5,809 posts)
52. Yes! Because of the hate speech becoming a danger to society...
Sun Jun 4, 2023, 09:56 AM
Jun 2023

It's stochastic terrorism. Hyper-partisan "Kill all gays" being preached in some pulpits is unconstitutional, especially since it never stops at one particular group. For them to acquire empathy for others who aren't exactly like them, they would first need to see their targets as human.

This won't happen anytime soon, and it's the reason why the Southern Poverty Law Center have designated many Christian churches as hate groups, alongside others such as:
- The KKK
- American Family Association
- Family Research Council
- Liberty Counsel
- Oath Keepers
- Proud Boys
- American College of Pediatricians (yes, unbelievable)
- Three Percenters
- The Christian Identity ideology

More information: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Tax the damn churches alr...