Churches should NOT be tax exempt except..

[Peacetrain]

if they are providing a service to anyone of any faith or non faith.. such as food banking...

But the general tax exemption because they are a religious organization.. is non constitutional in my opinion.

There should be a huge chasm between any house of worship of any stripe and the goverment.

I come to this as a very devout and committed Christian.

Its just not right that people who do not share the same faith concepts I have, are forced in a sense (by tax breaks) to support my faith body.

We do work in food banking, outreach to the poor in housing supplements, .. breakfasts for any child all summer.. that should keep its tax exemption because it benefits anyone in our community who wants to access it, no questions asked, or sermon given.

If a sermon comes with the outreach, then that should not be tax exempt..it is religious outreach.

Note:
I hope this is the right place to post this op.. it is about fair taxation for all.. if not, just let me know and I will move it to what ever area it should be in..

[Prophet 451]

1. I agree

If they';re providing a general charity function, then that part of teh church should be tax-exempt. But I'm entirely on board with the idea of taxing churches. It's a matter of some annoyance to me that my (British) taxes partially support the Church of England.

[Peacetrain]

2. Yep..

Its not good for the houses of worship either.. really isn't..

[ismnotwasm]

3. With the HL ruling

A challenge to exemption should be in the works as we speak.

I know it's OT, but I see a legal mess ahead, for both secular persons and people of faith.

[Peacetrain]

4. It is way past time.. and if something good

could come out of the HL ruling (which needs to be overturned) maybe that is it.. It is not fair on any level..

[Initech]

5. There was a huge megachurch here that bought a building for $45 million last year.

I'll repeat that: $45 million. All I could think reading that article was "why the hell are they not paying taxes on this kind of cash?".

[Peacetrain]

7. There is no rhyme or reason for that.. none

It makes no sense...

[Initech]

8. Totally agree.

We could wipe out the national debt in three years if we taxed megachurches and a few of those corporations that are stacking trillions overseas and destroying our economy in the process.

[Peacetrain]

11. And it does not do the various faith bodies

any good, because they are then an outreach of goverment.. it just doesn't make any sense .. and people should be willing to pay their taxes, and not have a tax deduction for their Sunday offerings.. or whatever holy day and particular faith body collects money for support on..

[Lars39]

6. I do not support overseas missionary work that a lot of churches do.

A lot of it goes against the "Prime Directive". Tax exemptions ought to be for charity work here in the states. There are way too many churches that do diddly squat for the poor people in their own community, state or country.

[Peacetrain]

9. If a sermon goes with it..

It should NOT be tax exempt.. That is religious outreach.. It should be supported fully by the members of whatever faith body is doing the missionary work.. and none of your or mine or anyone elses tax money (by way of breaks, that others have to make up) should be involved in it..

[jwirr]

10. Just a question. If you tax my church which I use my own money to support am I not being taxed

twice on money I have already paid taxes on? I think we have a very good law in place to address this - I would like to see stronger enforcement regarding churches that are preaching politics from the pulpit. We have been seeing this ever since before raygun was elected and as far as I can see nothing has been done to stop it.

[Peacetrain]

12. Lets try it this way..

I should not get a tax deduction for my my Sunday offerings.. (I am a Christian).. Does that make sense..If a house of worship is using monies to do religious outreach then there should be no tax deduction for that.. its religious outreach of a particular group.. if the money is used to benefit anyone in need sans a mandatory religious sermon to go along with it.. then yeah, that should have a tax deduction as you would in any charity

[jwirr]

17. That is clearer. Actually I am the worst person to ask this as my economic situation means I do not

donate to my church, don't pay taxes and work in many of that churches charity programs. What you are talking about would not effect us at all. Yet they stick with me and help me in many ways. We are also usually in the hole regarding the budget so paying taxes would not happen as long as we were taxed only on profits. There are none.

[former9thward]

15. No one does anything to stop it because it happens in both parties.

So it is in the interest of both parties to continue the status quo. If you don't believe me visit African-American Baptist churches on the south and west sides of Chicago during election time. Pastors endorse candidates in their sermons and candidates of the machine are allowed to give political speeches during services.

[jwirr]

19. I had forgotten that.

[Hekate]

13. I'm finally there, Peacetrain. The wall of separation is broken...

... certain extremists worked their asses off to break down that wall, and they were not stopped in time. That being the case, let them reap the rest: taxation. Especially (are you listening Opus Dei Supremes?!) the Roman Catholic Church.

[Peacetrain]

16. I am with you!

We have to stop this attempt to bring government into religion.. It is not good for faith bodies..for goverment (which should be secular) its horrible.. Everyone is going to suffer if we keep down this path

[hughee99]

14. I know several rw christians who agree.

They want to pay taxes so then they can ALSO spend large amounts of money lobbying and pushing for candidates. For them, if they can use the church's money to get more involved in politics, it's worth the price of the taxes.

I can't say that argument made me feel any better about taking away religious tax exemptions, though.

[Peacetrain]

20. Politics in the church has always been there..

Martin Luther King got us all moving from the pulpit.. The right has wailed against the Methodist, UCC's etc.to try and take away their tax breaks while being the first in line to slop up all the money they can get. Its past time that my taxes support the shenanigans of some far right group through breaks that have to be made up in other taxes on individuals.. and I sure they feel the same way about my religious faith body..

You cannot control churches from the goverment.. We have separation of church and state..

I am all for breaks for any charitable outreach that does not include the sermon from the body administering that..

[hughee99]

22. It's one thing to hear a preacher advocate for a candidate in the sermon,

it's another for an organized church with millions to spend using it to push candidates.

I agree that neither should happen now, but one already does in some places and the other will begin the day they drop the tax exemption.

[Peacetrain]

24. Its a very difficult subject to bring up

and even get your arms around..

[TheBlackAdder]

18. Someone here will flag this OP as being offensive. They flag most of mine.

Hopefully, the jury will see past that attempt to suppress thought.

[Peacetrain]

23. I hope not..because it is not an attack on any faith body..but a defense

of the rights of the individual tax payer.. religious and non religious.. This is a conversation way past due.. It is not about religious practices per se.. so I did not think it went into the religion area.. but taxation.. have to wait and see if others see it that way or not

[TheBlackAdder]

25. Most times when folks mention cutting off church exemptions, the fundies send them to jury. nt

[el_bryanto]

26. Yep - Democratic Undergrounds huge fundie population is a real threat to freedom of thought.

That's why you never see posts attacking or mocking religion at DU.

Bryant

[TheBlackAdder]

28. Even bringing up valid religious topics, as discussed on college campuses, gets flagged as offensive

There are a few here, and I've noticed a pattern, who will challenge an OP if it disagrees with their views in any way, shape, or form.

You can bring up valid critical analysis of written test, question when dinosaurs lived, how old the earth is, and you will get flagged.

===

Anything that casts a doubt on their fragile religious beliefs will gets sent to jury.

If their religion is so strong, then why are they afraid to address areas which most privately question?

And this goes for all religions, including the parodic Pastafarian and the FSM.

[el_bryanto]

30. This website must look pretty differently to you than it does to me

Because particularly in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision I've seen constant broad-brush attacks on religion in general and the Catholics in specific. So if believers are that powerful, why aren't those posts gotten rid of?

I don't flag on posts (or do so very very rarely) but I do think that attacks on religion are best confined to the religion forum rather than General Discussion.

Bryant

[TheBlackAdder]

34. You'd be surprised how many of them go to jury, only to survive because there was nothing wrong. nt

[el_bryanto]

35. Exactly - at DU there's nothing wrong with broad-brush smears on religion

So what are you complaining about?

Bryant

[Xithras]

21. The problem is the 1st Amendment

The Supreme Court actually addressed this in 1970. The problem is that the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits the government from passing any laws to limit or restrict religion, and the Supreme Court has typically only allowed religious infringements when they occur within the context of a government agency (e.g. no prayer in school...a government facility), or when they cause direct harm to others. When the Supreme Court addressed the question of tax deductions for churches, they found that BOTH taxing and not taxing churches could be defined as interfering with religion, but that taxing it had MORE of an impact because it limited the power of churches by reducing their revenue streams. By giving the government the ability to decide how much revenue a church gets to keep, you are giving the government authority over the church. That's a 1st Amendment violation.

The court ruled that giving them a tax exemption was also government interference, but that it was less interference than taxing them. Basically, it was a "lesser of two evils" finding.

If the federal government tried to tax the churches today, the churches could use the Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York findings to try and overturn any laws that Congress passed to impose them. It would likely go back to the Supreme Court again and, given their recent HL ruling, I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that they'd overturn their previous decision.

[Peacetrain]

27. This is my legal ignorance showing I am sure..

This does not make sense to me..By not letting an individual take off on his or her taxes the amount that he or she donated to a religious body is somehow religious infringement.. When it seems to me, that it is just the opposite. No one is telling anyone how much money they can give to the church or not..but by letting me take my contributions to my church off my taxes (example here) then that money for the budget has to be made up by taxes (like increased food taxes) of individuals who do not even belong to my faith body, or share my beliefs.. is seems so patently unfair..to the individual.. and in the long run to the faith body..

[Indydem]

33. How much do you honestly think this matters?

You understand the donation comes off of the gross, and not the final tax bill, right?

[whatthehey]

29. Can't disagree with that

But we need at least another 2-3 non-theocratic justices before that's even a worthwhile wish.

[Orsino]

31. And not unless they comply with all labor laws...

...to include insurance mandates.

If they want to discriminate, the very least we can do is to tax them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. Couple of things...

Churches aren't exempt from payroll taxes. They pay those like any employer.

Clergy still get a "housing allowance" exemption that is antiquated -- and exempts a portion of their income from taxation -- and it needs to go. Nothing personal, clergy, but a job is a job is a job.

To calculate "income" for a church, it should be defined as net of all income (whether tax deductible or not) minus staff salaries, maintenance of the church's building and other expenses like utilities. Religious instruction and outreach DO NOT COUNT.

Since churches don't have shareholders, what's left are either religious instruction/outreach or services to the general community (food pantries and such) that DO NOT have any religious test or requirements in order to receive a benefit. If a church provides more community benefit than religious activity, then it has no tax liability. But to the extent that it has more religious activity than community benefit, it's going to pay taxes.

First in line for tax revenue should be local school districts that are getting stiffed on property taxes.

And as has been mentioned, churches are subject to ALL relevant requirements with regard to employers. If the churches don't like that, then they should get volunteers to do the job.