Should Churches be Taxed?

[Vertigo X]

Let's not pretend they have no say in government. Every single member of theirs gets to vote. In Freedomland for example, it seems to go so far that you won't be voted into office without being Christian, or at the very least pretend to be one. That's not religion being kept away from government.

I don't disagree whatsoever.

As far as having an influence on government though I feel like its unspoken at the moment but no one wants to make it officially "okay" by taxing churches. This is an awful example but I'm sleep deprived: Do we make something legal just because it already occurs?

[Theodarzna]

The reason though we don't tax churches is most would not be able to make it without it because they are not private businesses.

[LedZeppelin]

Bullshit. No one is going to tax people just because they practice a religion, so no one's "free exercise" is prohibited by taxation (even if that part was remotely true as well). But if an organization is going to own property and generate revenue, calling it "religion" to get out of being taxed like any other organization would is pretty asinine.

Which is why they dont let people just go and say "Oh my house is a place of worship, no taxes please." Christianity, as well as other religions, have been around for a little bit longer. No one is going to tax people just because they practice a religion? You got a lot of people in this thread saying that they should. And again taxing a church would bring far the church and state far more closer together than leaving them exempt

[Thekri]

Its not quoted, its a paraphrasing of the first amendment. It is most definitely a real thing. Taxing something is definitely prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So why do we tax the media? It is in the same amendment with the same language. Now, if we decided to tax certain religions more then others, like a Mosque paying a higher rate then a Synagogue or a Baptist Church, then yeah, I totally agree. But if they all pay in line with their secular equivalents in a for profit industry, then it isn't violating anything.

For the record, I don't actually think Churches should pay taxes on their income (Donations), I think they absolutely should pay property taxes, which is a huge source of wealth for these organizations, as it is absurdly easy for them to buy land, mortgage it, and keep all the equity in that land. I think the parsonage allotment needs to go away, and churches need to provide for their ministers in line with same legal structure everyone else has.

[Wibbin]

If churches aren't taxed there should be regulation on how they can spend their money. Ie, church officials should have caps on income and large portions of income need to be earmarked for directly helping the public/charities.

As is, yes, they should definitely be taxed. Church of Scientology and parts of Christianity are perfect examples why.

I think all churches and non profits should be taxed, if they are using all of the income to grow the church, pay salaries, or give it as charity they wouldn't have to pay any tax anyway with write offs right?

Also aren't the church officials paying taxes on their incomes already? I thought they had to pay taxes but there were some weird rules on if the church had to actually hold the money out of certain employees checks.

(I'm not a tax accountant obviously)

[Noah37]

I haven't done the research into this as much as I probably should. It just seems to me they should be lumped into the group with any other charity organization.

[kail]

Yes.

Why should they be exempt? Oh because they're places of worship for a being that doesn't exist?

No because they are (supposed to be) a nonprofit organization. The money donated to the religious institution tends to go towards building maintenance or spilled over for charitable programs. I know there are numerous cases where the tax exemption is being heavily abused, but it perhaps requires additional or rewritten regulations on how their income is spent.

[Azadina]

I don't disagree whatsoever.

As far as having an influence on government though I feel like its unspoken at the moment but no one wants to make it officially "okay" by taxing churches. This is an awful example but I'm sleep deprived: Do we make something legal just because it already occurs?

It's not about making it legal or not, it's about taxing them since they already have their claws in the system, the one thing that was supposed to give them tax exemption if they don't try. Don't keep to the deal? Deals off, roll in the taxes.

[LedZeppelin]

So why do we tax the media? It is in the same amendment with the same language. Now, if we decided to tax certain religions more then others, like a Mosque paying a higher rate then a Synagogue or a Baptist Church, then yeah, I totally agree. But if they all pay in line with their secular equivalents in a for profit industry, then it isn't violating anything.

For the record, I don't actually think Churches should pay taxes on their income (Donations), I think they absolutely should pay property taxes, which is a huge source of wealth for these organizations, as it is absurdly easy for them to buy land, mortgage it, and keep all the equity in that land. I think the parsonage allotment needs to go away, and churches need to provide for their ministers in line with same legal structure everyone else has.

Because they are selling a newspaper or magazine aka a product. I dont know of any churches that sell anything. (spare me the "they sell salvation" etc). If I was supreme ruler of the USA id get rid of income and property tax in the first 15 minutes.

[Citizen T]

This gets "quoted" constantly every time religion is discussed. But it doesn't occur in any legal document, it isn't in the constitution, or any other US law. The actual First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I quoted the whole thing because context is important. Does taxing a religious institution constitute "prohibiting free exercise thereof"? It also says we can't abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, but we tax those. Even if "Separation of Church and State" was a real thing, it doesn't mean anything. Taxing something doesn't make it part of the government, or imply any endorsement of it.

Freedom of speech isn't taxed. Freedom of the press isn't taxed - but the selling of a news product is taxed which is fundamentally different.

Now I'd argue that the right of the people to peaceably assemble is taxed due to localities requiring fees for permits to do so. And the freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is also essentially taxed as this in all reality requires an attorney and probably court costs.

Taxing churches places a burden upon the church which could easily cause the dissolution of smaller and/or poorer churches. This most assuredly is contrary to not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are abuses of this - particularly TV evangelism and/or mega-churches - but these abuses could be handled via more strict approaches to income tax evasion by the "pastors", "deacons" or whoever is abusing the system. Company cars, and homes can be considered as part of the abuser's taxable income.

[LedZeppelin]

I think all churches and non profits should be taxed, if they are using all of the income to grow the church, pay salaries, or give it as charity they wouldn't have to pay any tax anyway with write offs right?

Also aren't the church officials paying taxes on their incomes already? I thought they had to pay taxes but there were some weird rules on if the church had to actually hold the money out of certain employees checks.

(I'm not a tax accountant obviously)

Non profits also pay salaries, expand etc. Non profits, and I know this seems weird, can still make money. Difference being that non profits dont pay dividends or shareholders etc. Church officials still do pay taxes. Its the church that doesnt.

[Vlaid]

I think all churches and non profits should be taxed, if they are using all of the income to grow the church, pay salaries, or give it as charity they wouldn't have to pay any tax anyway with write offs right?

Also aren't the church officials paying taxes on their incomes already? I thought they had to pay taxes but there were some weird rules on if the church had to actually hold the money out of certain employees checks.

(I'm not a tax accountant obviously)

The point is more that the Church has a disproportionate amount of money to pay employees with to begin with, the employees might get income taxed still, but they can pay their employees/religious officials much better because the church didn't have to pay any taxes on receiving the money in the first place.

[Zeth Hawkins]

It would only make sense for them to be

[Thekri]

Freedom of speech isn't taxed. Freedom of the press isn't taxed - but the selling of a news product is taxed which is fundamentally different.

Now I'd argue that the right of the people to peaceably assemble is taxed due to localities requiring fees for permits to do so. And the freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is also essentially taxed as this in all reality requires an attorney and probably court costs.

Taxing churches places a burden upon the church which could easily cause the dissolution of smaller and/or poorer churches. This most assuredly is contrary to not "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are abuses of this - particularly TV evangelism and/or mega-churches - but these abuses could be handled via more strict approaches to income tax evasion by the "pastors", "deacons" or whoever is abusing the system. Company cars, and homes can be considered as part of the abuser's taxable income.

True, and fair points. However we are certainly in a period where smaller press organizations are collapsing, and becoming conglomerated into massive media companies because the smaller ones can't stay solvent, which is certainly problematic to the ideal of free speech, yet we aren't obtaining from taxing them.

Anyway I agree that we shouldn't charge them for donations and income, I do think we should charge on property taxes, which is land they are buying, building on, and eventually selling, and I think those transactions should be charged. In the list of systematically broken things that need to be addressed, this is toward the bottom of my personal list though.

[WskyDK]

As long as they remain non-profit, then I’m completely ok with churches remaining tax free.
If only the tax reform effort included taking a look at hinges like mega churches.

[Asaliah]

Of course they have to.
They are like cosmetics company, selling wind, but at least these pay taxes.
Plus they should pay rentals for the space they occupy that could be used for something more useful.

[WskyDK]

That's a hard question, some churches run for profit, some don't. If only there was a way to recognize one from another. I don't think that faith should be taxed.

A much better and succinct way of saying what I was thinking.

[Endus]

Long standing? You mean the 50s? LOL.

The federal exemption to churches for income taxes dates back to 1894, with the Tariff Act. And while that was repealed, the tax exemption was re-introduced in 1913 with the Revenue Act.

And yeah, over a century is definitely "long-standing".

It has absolutely everything to do with separation of church in state. Even the supreme court agrees with me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walz_v...ty_of_New_York

Your own selected case makes only a tangential reference to separation of church and state in one of its four justifications for its ruling, and that wasn't even the important part of that one justification. And if you read much of the rest of the case documents, they make it very clear that while they considered separation of church and state an important principle, it was not one that could be deemed absolute, as even granting an exception like this involved some interaction between church and state.

And doesn't make any kind of argument against my other point, that these protections are only on offer to religious groups which avoid political involvement. They're classified as 501(c)3 type organizations, which cannot engage in such activity, and which would lose that non-profit status (which grants the tax exemption) if they engaged in such.

[Wibbin]

Non profits also pay salaries, expand etc. Non profits, and I know this seems weird, can still make money. Difference being that non profits dont pay dividends or shareholders etc. Church officials still do pay taxes. Its the church that doesnt.

I didn't mean to imply that NPs didn't do all of those things.

I guess my point is I think both churches and non profits should be taxed to further incentive them to spend the money donated to them. That way if they aren't doing their job the government gets more money, but if they do then they end up not having to pay any taxes anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is more that the Church has a disproportionate amount of money to pay employees with to begin with, the employees might get income taxed still, but they can pay their employees/religious officials much better because the church didn't have to pay any taxes on receiving the money in the first place.

I could be wrong, but I don't think taxing churches would decrease the amount of money they pay to employees. If you start taxing churches (which I agree with) I think they would look for more write offs (including salaries) and end up paying minimal taxes anyway. I want them taxed to ensure they are spending the money donated to them in their communities.

[LedZeppelin]

The federal exemption to churches for income taxes dates back to 1894, with the Tariff Act. And while that was repealed, the tax exemption was re-introduced in 1913 with the Revenue Act.

And yeah, over a century is definitely "long-standing".



Your own selected case makes only a tangential reference to separation of church and state in one of its four justifications for its ruling, and that wasn't even the important part of that one justification. And if you read much of the rest of the case documents, they make it very clear that while they considered separation of church and state an important principle, it was not one that could be deemed absolute, as even granting an exception like this involved some interaction between church and state.

And doesn't make any kind of argument against my other point, that these protections are only on offer to religious groups which avoid political involvement. They're classified as 501(c)3 type organizations, which cannot engage in such activity, and which would lose that non-profit status (which grants the tax exemption) if they engaged in such.

Nice try in trying to shift your argument. You were clearly referencing that churches had to say quiet about politics. Thats from the 50s. Thats recent. Further more, churches have been tax exempt since the country has been founded and then officially tax exempt later.

Yes and they said that a tax exempt was the smallest in terms of interaction. Either they are taxed or are not. Either involves an interaction. Exempt is less so. What you are referring to in your last paragraph is what I was saying from the 50s. Thats the johnson amendment which was created as part of his plan to get reelected.