Americans are leaving religion. Why are we still subsidizing it?

[trotsky]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/14/americans-are-leaving-religion-why-are-we-still-subsidizing-it/

Another gratuity to churches is the real estate tax exemption, which denies cash-strapped municipalities revenue that could be used for public safety, road repairs and other services. Like everyone else in town, churches benefit from services provided by municipal governments, but in most areas are exempt from property taxation simply because they are churches.

Some will defend this extraordinary handout by arguing that churches do much good through charity work. Even if this were true — and it certainly isn’t the case for every church — it hardly justifies tax exemption. Many individuals and corporations “do good” as well but still pay their property taxes.

Moreover, relying on churches to provide social services is hardly the mark of an enlightened society. A homeless person who happens to be a non-Christian should not have to depend on a local Christian church for help. In a modern pluralistic society, public resources should be available for social services. Instead, in America we use the tax code to prop up churches under the pretext that religious charity is essential.

...

As Americans increasingly gravitate away from organized religion, it only makes sense that public policy will follow suit. Government need not be hostile to religion, but neither should it bestow upon it special privileges. The nonreligious are now one of the largest categories of religious demographics and growing, and that means changes are on the horizon in the business of religion.

[Texas Blues]

1. Hear hear!

It's especially true in Cruz-infested Texas. Most preachers live in large houses well above the median price for their area, while their "parishioners" are either on the same level, or impoversished immigrants who give what little they have to fill up the coffers. This is why I hate religion with a passion, and am working to turn Texas around.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. There are some around here that will knock you with claims of bigotry on that.

'Hate religion with a passion.'

Honestly, I'm right there with you, and offer in my defense;

"I've been plenty provoked, thank you very much."

[DetlefK]

2. Because medieval tradition.

Church and monarchy/aristocracy cooperated in a quid pro pro: The king was king because God had said so. And the king made the church tax-exempt because the king said so. Church and aristocracy were at a constant power-struggle, yet they both needed each other. Church gave the aristocrats legitimacy, the aristocrats lent the church their armies for its geopolitical goals.

For example: The tax-exemption of churches in Germany, to this day, is based on a medieval contract. The tax-exemption was passed on through the ages as each german empire, Reich and republic was the legal successor of the former.

As for the US, I think tax-exemption for churches was set up on the premise that this is simply how it's supposed to be, without really thinking about it.

[Cartoonist]

3. The consequences

of removing the tax exemptions would be the bankruptcy of many churches. Only those with regular contributors would survive. I'm cool with that, hey, let the free market decide, right? That's why it will probably not happen for quite a while.

I would have said never, but we're seeing gays get married now. Who's to say what happens next?

[Faux pas]

4. Kicketty Kickin'

[Igel]

6. Because there's a distinction between subsidy and tax exemption.

One says, "We will give you money."

They other says, "We will let you keep what you have."

But we'll leave aside the mischaracterization of what a "subsidy" is when rhetoric replaces logic.

The difference is whether you think that there's a reason for taking tax money that ultimately belongs to the individual or organization or a reason for not taking money that ultimately belongs to the state.

The Constitution assumes that there has to be a sufficient reason for taking. Not a sufficient reason for not taking.

[trotsky]

7. Your definitions are far too simplistic and distort the issue.

Do you think the parsonage exemption is fine as is?

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. A distinction without a difference.

In either case, the net result is the same.

A hypothetical example:

The government needs a hundred dollars to meet their required revenue. If there are ten tax-eligible citizens, each pays ten dollars in taxes. But if there are six tax-eligible citizens and four clergy, then each tax-eligible citizen pays more than sixteen dollars to the government.

So, no, it is not "you keep what you have". It is "everyone else pays more so you can keep what you have".

Incidentally, I am OK with certain religious tax exemptions. I feel it the lesser of two evils, as a taxed clergy might find their political interference rightly justified. I would rather they pay nothing, contingent upon their non-involvement in the political process.