Is it time to start taxing churches and other religious organizations?

[arcadian]

[katandmoon]

1. YES!

[MineralMan]

2. Long past time.

[arthritisR_US]

18. ditto! n/t

[Iggo]

23. You took the words right out of my mouth. (n/t)

[jwirr]

3. I voted yes and I am a Christian.

[chimpymustgo]

4. Hell yeah.

[FormerDittoHead]

5. No, but political involvement should nullify their status.

IMO, I think that the elephant in the room are trusts and foundations.

Organizations such as the Cato and Heritage Institutes are somehow classified as 'educational' and donations are tax deductible as if giving to a charity constitute a higher abuse, IMO.

[dkf]

6. Are we proposing to get rid of tax exempt organization status?

Churches are non profit orgs. I don't see how you can target just them.

[Tesha]

14. Please investigate the difference between 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 non-profit organizations.

Many groups must maintain *BOTH* in order to properly segregate
their truly-charitable work from their non-profit but non-charitable
work. The ACLU does this as does the NRA.

Churches should do it as well.

Tesha

[dkf]

20. If churches stay away from political activities exactly what are they violating

that other non-profits don't?

[Tesha]

22. A) They *DON'T* stay away from politics.

B) There's no reason why non-charitable activities
(such ad maintaining the club-house) should be tax-
deductible. The members are taking direct benefit from
the club-house so their donations are coming right back
to them as benefits.

Tesha

[timtom]

26. BULLSHIT!

Surely what you meant to say is SOME churches "*DON'T* stay away from politics.

My guess is that you misstated in the heat of the moment.

[Tesha]

31. Far more churches involve themselves than distance themselves.

Even if the involvement is on "our side".

Tesha

[timtom]

35. Agreed....However,

"far more" does not mean all. We all have to disabuse ourselves of not differentiating among people and groups.

[Tesha]

55. Did I ever say "All"? That's another strawman.

And all the churches need to do is do the division I've proposed into
separate 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 arms.

If we had an IRS with any honest enforcement, they'd already be all
over the egregious violations taking place today.

Tesha

[lefthandedlefty]

46. To be non-profit a lot of them seem to be very profitable

[City Lights]

7. It's long overdue! nt

[The_Commonist]

8. No, it's time to start new churches and religious organizations.

Churches can own property for the use of their members.
Churches don't have to be "christian" to be legal.
I used to be a member of a hippie church, and the tax benefits were great, and the requirements were simple.
It's time to start putting our money into new organizations that work to benefit us.
It's time to start small private social clubs that can own or rent property for its members to use, rather than say, giving money to some big hotel for a vacation.
It's time to take our money out of the banks and put it into community-based credit unions.
We have to find ways for Corporatia to stop profiting from our lives anymore.
We have to turn this game on its head...

[elocs]

9. The honest truth is that it will never happen and everyone here knows that.

I believe that the church building and the parsonage should be tax exempt, as well as other charitable and strictly nonreligious enterprises.

[davsand]

49. Property Tax Exemption is local, The IRS oversees 501 (C) 3 exemptions.

Property Taxes are usually overseen by the states or maybe even the local municipality. (For instance, in Illinois, Property Tax Exemption is determined by the Illinois Dept. of Revenue.)

The issue of taxation is a kind of "two-fer" thing because you could very easily see a time where local governments say churches have to pay property taxes and the IRS says churches are still exempt from paying income taxes.

I think the OP was discussing IRS exemptions--which would be income taxes rather than Property Taxes...

:hi:


Laura

Added on edit: In looking at the OP again, you may be right about the Property Tax Exemption issue. It really isn't clear. My apologies.

L.

[madrchsod]

10. so some are in favor of getting rid of the separation of church and state?

interesting.....

[Tesha]

15. Not at all. And that wasn't even a *GOOD* attempt to hoist up a strawman. (NT)

[anonymous171]

17. Right. Taxing religion would only put a huge dent in that separation

It would not eliminate it altogether though.

[Tesha]

19. Nonsense. It would just remove a "special right" granted to religions whereby...

they are treated as charities while, in fact, most of the money they raise
goes solely to maintain the religion and a large part of what's left is
spent on political campaigns.

As I said, let them simply form suitably-incorporated 501(c)3 and
501(c)4 sub-divicions, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER NON-PROFIT MUST DO.

After all, many churches have been speaking out very loudly against
the granting of "special rights", so it seems only fair that they shouldn't
enjoy any.

Tesha

[anonymous171]

11. Along with every other non-profit. We are a profit based society after all

Anything that does not produce profit needs to be taxed in order to ensure that their funds are sufficiently drained so that they cannot influence our glorious capitalist culture.

[Tesha]

12. It's long-since time. After all, aren't they on record being generally opposed to "special rights"?

Make them do what every other partially-charitable/partially non-charitable
organization must do: Set up a 501(c)3 for that explicitly charitable work
and a separate 501(c)4 for their non-charitable activities such as their
political work, maintenance of the club-house, and the like.

Tesha

[Iggo]

28. Sounds goddam reasonable to me. (n/t)

[Ernesto]

13. Duh!

[frebrd]

16. Yes. Way past time.

Religion never should have been a basis for tax exemption to begin with.

[quaker bill]

21. No

The government should never have an interest in how churches are doing economically.

The exemption was not created as a favor to the churches. In England, at the time of the revolution, the tithe to the church was a tax paid to the crown. The government collected this revenue, ordained the ministers, and paid them. The ministers then had a minor role in government and how it was run. It was generally illegal to not attend church and your property could be seized by the goverment for not paying the tithe to their church.

Why would we want to revisit any of this this?

[PurityOfEssence]

34. To subsidize their municipal services is to endorse them and tacitly confirm that they're necessary

Belief systems should be subject to the same market determinants as other non-superior ones: if they can actually pay their own way, they prove their worthiness in a capitalistic way. To subsidize things like indigent care and care for the infirm is one thing--if done in a secular way--and should be done by an honorable society, but to endorse the supernatural is in direct opposition to the premise of this country's founding. Religion demands to be above reproach, which is by nature anti-democratic. It flatly expects to be an aristocracy, and this is fully understandable: putting any of these beliefs to any test of rationality, fairness, consistency or decency is to imperil them to the point of unviability. They HAVE to be above reproach, because they are literally indefensible by any argument except something of the sort of "how DARE you even SAY such a thing"; the mechanics of the premises of the beliefs are literally preposterous and untenable.

They are not "good" by definition, and shouldn't be sanctified as "superior" to other organizations of a philosophic bent. This kind of pernicious subterfuge is chickenshit encroachment, not "ceremonial deism", just as "In God We Trust" on money is a cold-blooded attempt at theocratizing our culture. Although many believers are gentle souls, far too many are cultural imperialists with a truly evil need to not only dominate others but eradicate them. These people play for keeps, and although co-existence is the soul of liberalism, to do so with cannibals is not particularly advisable either...

As for the practical reality of this, I sadly have to say "no", we should not repeal this grotesque travesty of all that is good and right at the moment, just as we should shut the hell up on other good and noble causes like gun control: these are times of great strife, and for a liberal agendum to have any purchase at all in these tenuous times, battles must be carefully chosen and generally few.

People are free to believe whatever poppycock they particularly choose, and it's somewhat incumbent upon us with the implied deference of Article One of the Bill of Rights to be somewhat respectful, but that is far different from a legally enforced levy from us productive members of the economy to carry their holy water and further their being above reproach by literal financial support.

As a homeowner in Los Angeles and a California and U.S. taxpayer, I cough up rather sizable subsidies to the various fantasies, but such is life at the moment.

Beyond all that, your post simply makes no sense whatsoever. The government specifically DOES have a voice in how churches are doing economically by this endorsed freeloading: churches get an unfair business advantage. By treating them as the businesses that they truly are in no way guarantees them a place in the government any more than the local transmission repair shop gets a seat at the local council's table by dint of paying its fair share to sustain the community. There's no connection there at all. By propping up often shaky financial entities, we are not only endorsing these bizarre operations, we're rushing to their aid and effectively proclaiming that they're "good", and we're unduly penalizing other commercial ventures to cover them with emergency services, roadways, the open forum of pluralist governmental bodies and the like.

[quaker bill]

42. What a load

First, my post doesn't need to make sense to you. It largely recounts history of the "established" church in England and some of the "established" churches in the US colonies prior to adoption of the constitution. Dis-establishment of the church did in fact go hand in hand with the tax exemption. It is that pesky little "taxation without representation" thing, since they did not want the church represented, they chose to not tax it.

You are aware that the churches were the government here, in many places, before the revolution, correct? You know that speaking for freedom of or from religion was a capital offense in Boston, right? If not, check out the statue of Mary Dyer in Boston Commons, the last Quaker to be hung there for speaking up for freedom of conscience. Google is your friend here.

It is true that some churches resemble businesses, it is also true that many do not. Our meeting pays for its public services through fees and assessments and contributes more to the community than it would be taxed, by feeding the homeless at no cost to the taxpayer. Of course, we live rather simply and own a very modest structure that would owe very little property tax. Our income is low enough that as a single family, we would hover just above the poverty line. However, I would enjoy the right to political participation, so tax away.

[Bluenorthwest]

44. But Churchs alread are given money by the government

See Office of Faith Based Bigotry or whatever they call it. The government has much to do with church finances. Already.
I know a church that owns more than half of the property in a major CA county. Tax free.
Churches spent millions of dollars to politically oppose my family's equality. Tax free.
Your church, it sat in silence while others carried signs saying 'God Hates'. Tax free.

You stand with the pogrom makers, the pro discrimination crowd, and the definition of that is the cross. It means 'we hate the following peoples' and it means nothing more. When I see a cross on a person, to me it is like a nazi symbol, that is a person to avoid, for they very likely will have bad intentions and a bag of bigotry and not much else to offer. They might be dangerous, many of them are. They shoot and bomb and draft laws against this minority and that minority.
You church people already participate politically. To say otherwise is a lie, but the religious lie with great ease, for God told them it is ok to lie to 'those people' so you all do so. Tax free.
Look at Prop 8, look at the Family and tell me churches have no political participation. What a crock of steaming crap to push in the name of the divine. Prop 8. Delivered by RCC and LDS. Time for you to get real. Until you do, you are a coat holder for the hate crowd. And that is that.
The lack of integrity in speech is to me, the hallmark of the religious American.

[quaker bill]

47. Wrong on so many dimensions

that it is hard to tell where to begin. First, my Meeting stands for same gender marriages. The community of Friends at my Meeting has trust of many same gender couples that have joined. We are white, black, hispanic, and GLBT.

I do not stand with pogrom makers.

I just think that taxing churches was tried, and history proves that it was a truly stupid idea, an idea which in fact promoted all the things you purport to oppose. Quakers at one time could not get married, because we were not part of the state-church. Our property was forfeit to the state upon death, because without legal marriage, there were no "lawful heirs". The "Quaker act" was passed against us by the Commonwealth of Virginia, because we had this nasty habit of treating slaves as equal, and freeing them. There are original documents that indicate that this really angered George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, because when we were around "people forgot their proper place and station in life".

When the church becomes the largest taxpayer in the county you speak of, what do you think will happen? Who do you think will own that government?

Many stupid and hurtful things are done in the name of religion. It is also true that many stupid and hurtful things are done without it.

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Don't expect to make ridiculous leaps of logic and have some kind of immunity; that's PRIVILEGE

Please cite your historical proof to back up the claim that a bargain was struck with churches upon the founding of the country where they would no longer have a voice in government in compensation for being relieved of a tax burden. I'm pretty well-versed in American History, and this is the first I've heard, although that doesn't mean you're not right. (I, unlike some, feel obligated to be understood by those in an open forum into which I've stepped with combative assertions.)

As I understand it, there was little if any history of church taxation (for the "established", read: "accepted" ones) even before the War of Independence. Upstart belief systems have always had a rough go of it in the face of competing fantasies; hucksters HATE having others mess with their hustle, and call them "cults" or worse. A religion, after all, is simply a cult that "made it".

As for your lack of obligation to make any logical sense whatsoever to me, a simple answer to the following points should be a responsibility for anyone who swaggers into an open forum copping an dismissive attitude to the peons who don't swallow his/her disconnected historical facts that are paraded as irrefutable causality.

Is it just ME or some so-and-so like me who doesn't deserve an explanation for incoherence? Am I a special version of no-account who's not worthy of justification for fantastical paranoia, or are we all beneath contempt and subject to edicts of self-evidence that come with no support? Fatuous pronouncements are the heart and soul of religion, and arrogant demands to be above reproach are the aristocratic mien of spiritual superiority.

Is persecution for one's beliefs tantamount to letters of Marque and Reprisal to do as one damn well pleases with no justification?

Is a set of beliefs, some of which are admirable, enough to make one immune to the obligation of justification that the rest of us have to endure? If so, then step to the back of the bus, because members of the Society of Friends haven't suffered anywhere near as much or as dearly on the whole as non-believers have. Playing the pity card to non-believers is laughable.

Where do you get this distorted historical set of "facts"?

As for the religions being the governments, that's just plain silly in most cases. Yes, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was a Puritan enclave, and the church had an inordinate say in governance, but it was NOT the government. There were Governors and councils. Maryland was a Catholic operation. Pennsylvania was Quaker. Still, there was a separate, if well-influenced to the point of being ALMOST affiliated, government in all of these colonies. Your supposition that religions WERE the governments is outrageously incorrect, and designed to claim some kind of magnanimity for surrendering authority.

In the spectrum of suckitude that is religion, the Quakers come off quite well. My quarrel isn't with this sect as much as it is with Religion Incorporated: the big Protestant Sects, the Mormons, the Roman Catholic Syndicate, The Nation of Islam and others that shall remain nameless here.

What on earth allows you to flail around with absurd leaps of logic and sneer at having to explain yourself? If you want to make your point in what is a fairly hostile (to your belief system) thread, that's not going to work. That's aversion therapy, and those of us who have chosen to chart a course of non-belief in this society tend to be rather immune to hectoring, badgering and fulminating dismissal.

There is a assumption held by many believers that belief is inherently "good", and that the rest of us simply must share this prejudice. I don't. MANY of us don't. MANY of us are offended at the demand that we are to see believers as inherently "good"; the fundamental, single function of the Christian is to square him/herself with the big, vindictive Sky Chief and secure his/her future safety. That's pure selfishness, and it shows throughout the belief system. Sure, there are many good things in the belief system, but the very core of the duty of the individual is to save his/her own ass, and that's a cringing, childish mentality, and sheer selfishness. Don't get me wrong; Islam's MUCH worse on this account: it's complete subservience.

I see religion as a mixed bag, and on the whole, a personal failing that promotes and exacerbates mental illness and justifies social abuse, while demanding exemption from logic, justification and transparency and denigrating that which is greatest about us as a species: curiosity and the ability to function amid uncertainty and evolving understanding. Religions seek to kill thinking. They are inherently conservative by this very definition: faith is certainty and unwillingness to explore alternatives or step down from the altar of superiority to admit such faults.

That your particular sect is "good" on the balance is probably very true, but that doesn't justify the concept of subsidizing dangerous entities.

First, though, a bit of history to justify your wildly proclaimed "facts". Even if I am beneath deserving an explanation, you're in a communal setting here, and there are others who presumably DO rise above my obvious calumny or insignificance, and they DO deserve an explanation. Otherwise, your posts are just the action of a bomb-throwing popinjay who expects aristocratic immunity from reproach because of the moral beauty of his/her superior beliefs.

[rd_kent]

24. WAY past time!!!!

[tammywammy]

25. No, enforce the provisions that we already have

If a non-profit delves into the political arena they lose that status.

The churches I've been a member of never were political and did do a lot of charity work.

[bigwillq]

27. Yes (nt)

[lazarus]

29. yes

they can have tax exempt status strictly for their charity work, IF that charity work in no way proselytizes. But I'm sick of my tax dollars subsidizing others' fantasy world.

[B Calm]

30. Just tax the ones who try to influence our government!

[Craufurd]

33. "tax the ones that try to influence our government"

I would allow that if you will also tax the corporations, PACs, social clubs, banks, insurance companies, etc. who have not only tried, but have, had a lot of influence(and effluence!) on our government.

[zorahopkins]

32. No Tax Exemptions for Anyone!

I think that there should be no tax exemptions for anyone or anything.

Everyone should pay taxes.

No exemptions.

[earth mom]

36. So there are 19% fundies on DU who voted yes?!

:yoiks:

[dems_rightnow]

40. No...

No more than than "What? 81% on DU are religion hating anarchists?"

It's perfectly possible to have an opinion not directly supporting your narrow beliefs.

[earth mom]

41. What other reason would someone vote yes? C'mon now.

:eyes:

[earth mom]

43. That should have read-what other reason would someone vote no? nt

[panzerfaust]

37. Yes: The gods can take care of their own

but the rest of us need the cash.



God's Gold?

[demoleft]

38. yes, definitely. n/t

[hobbit709]

39. Jefferson and Madison thought so.

[H2O Man]

45. Won't happen.

[Initech]

50. Absolutely, religion makes billions yet pays no taxes on it.

[tekisui]

51. Hell YES! This should have happened long ago.

They don't deserve any special treatment, hoarding their money, not contributing to funding the commons they enjoy.

[yellowwood]

52. Absolutely!

It's bad enough that they pay no taxes on their buildings, etc. What I resent more is that they can buy media outlets to compete with commercial and public media in order to spread their propaganda.

[davsand]

53. "Exempt" by its very definition implies a special status.

http://www.dictionary.net/exempt

"2. To release or deliver from some liability which others are subject to; to except or excuse from he operation of a law; to grant immunity to; to free from obligation; to release; as, to exempt from military duty, or from jury service; to exempt from fear or pain. <1913 Webster>"

I do not understand how exemption from taxes implies a "separation" of church and state. If anything, it appears to me that exemption from taxes is a special or preferential treatment. Certainly, the legal opinions I've seen (regarding Property Tax Exemptions, anyway) have supported the idea that exemption from taxes is a "gift" or earned privilege rather than a right.



Laura

[proteus_lives]

54. Wow.

But not surprising on DU.

[Tesha]

56. Yeah., there just aren't that many people here who believe fairy-tell tellers need a tax exemption.

Especially when it's a "special right" granted where so many of the grantees
just hate "special rights".

Tesha

[Terra Alta]

57. it depends.

any church or religious organization that spreads a message of hate, such as homophobia, or carry around signs with pictures of dead fetuses(most of which were miscarried, not aborted) should have their tax exempt status taken away. As should any church endorsing any particular party or candidate.