Should churches have tax exempt status?

[Dis]

There has been a little bit of talk about churches having their tax-exempt status taken away. I'm not prepared to support this yet, but it is decent idea. And a new way to generate revenue for the goverment.

What do you think?

[MichaeltheGreat]

As long as they meet the legal requirements for their status, it's a constitutional issue.

[JohnT]

... and if that's the case, fuggidaboudit.

[Victor Galis]

I'd say no (unless they got that status by some means that was not related to them being a church like other non-profit organizations).

[Al B. Sure!]

always thought this kind of violated seperation of church and state (even though that is just a custom and is not expressed in the constitution), especially as certain churches (ie- cults) do not get church status...

however, i don't want to see churches and mosques shutting down because they can't afford to stay active cause they got to pay taxes all the time.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I'm not sure it is a constitutional issue. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That would seem to clearly exempt taxing Church income, as well as property taxes on properties related to the practice of religion.

But I'm pretty sure that, currently, ALL property owned by a religious organization is exempt from property tax. That's just wrong, and it should be well within the scope of the 1st Amendment to tax it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Churches generally aren't owned by anybody, they make no profits and they do not issue stock, so they meet all the requirements for not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they should not be taxed.

[:) Smiley]

How's the situation elsewhere in the world?

[DanS]

I think a non-establishment clause isn't typical, at least in the West (perhaps the Euros could correct me if I'm wrong). Because of this, the debate dynamics are different in those countries. Churches are considered more like public institutions of the state, rather than public institutions outside of government purview. But perhaps the results for taxation are the same under all of these systems.

It's amazing that this clause has been so durable, even if so simple. Kudos to the constitutional framers.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Churches generally aren't owned by anybody, they make no profits and they do not issue stock, so they meet all the requirements for not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they should not be taxed.

True of churches themselves, but what of, say, income-producing property (office buildings, for example) owned by a Catholic diocese? The income is plowed back into the diocese, which then spends it in ways that allow it to be "non-profit"; but the property itself has absolutely no status as religious.

It's amazing that this clause has been so durable, even if so simple. Kudos to the constitutional framers.

I agree wholeheartedly, but let's be clear: the framers would probably disagree with much that has been done in the name of the Establishment Clause.

[PLATO]

Any organization that is dedicated to helping others should not have their hands tied by paying a portion of that which is given freely stolen by the government. How can Government claim that they can do a better job? Supposedly they are persuing the same goal in many respects...i.e. the relief of those in need.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Churches generally aren't owned by anybody, they make no profits and they do not issue stock, so they meet all the requirements for not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they should not be taxed.

Down the street from me, there is a giant church taking up close to half a block of prime Manhattan real estate. Now somebody owns that, and is not paying the high ass property tases that would otherwise be leveled on it. Frankly, the city really needs that revenue

Churches should be taxed for two reasons:

(1) Music stores sell CDs and pay taxes; bookstores sell books and get taxed. Churches sell "salvation" and superstition - all sales operations should get taxed. But seriously ...

(2) Not taxing churches is in effect a government subsidy of religion. Think about it. The big church down the street is not paying taxes on its property. Any other operation would be paying property tax - ergo, the city is losing the revenue that property taxes would be generating. That is a classic subsidy.

Now if you want to talk about separation of church and state - giving a subsidy to religion is certainly not neutral. The way I see it, if religion is so important to the religious, they should put more in the collection plate to cover the property taxes. If they don't want to pay the full cost, then they really don't find religion that important. It's as simple as that.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by PLATO
Any organization that is dedicated to helping others should not have their hands tied by paying a portion of that which is given freely stolen by the government. How can Government claim that they can do a better job? Supposedly they are persuing the same goal in many respects...i.e. the relief of those in need.

Well, first of all, "helping others" is a great phrase, but what if it is at odds with the goals of the government? Here's a concrete example: Given that the Supreme Court has upheld abortion as a Constitutional right, why should the government subsidize attempts to undermine that right by the Catholic Church? Because by allowing the Church to own tax-exempt non-religious property, then plow the money it saves on taxes into anti-abortion efforts, that's exactly what it's doing.

Beyond that, I would suggest that government does do a better job of helping others; even a cursory look at both the Progressive Era and the New Deal provides a good indication that government programs help more people, more effectively, than does private charity.

[CorpusScorpius]

Does anyone know if the pastors,reverends,priests, ministers pay any taxes if they work exclusively for the church?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by PLATO
Any organization that is dedicated to helping others should not have their hands tied by paying a portion of that which is given freely stolen by the government. How can Government claim that they can do a better job? Supposedly they are persuing the same goal in many respects...i.e. the relief of those in need.

More libertoid ranting.