Should churches have tax exempt status?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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

Nope. That strikes me as appropriate, and wholly in keeping with the Non-Establishment Clause.

[JohnT]

Given that the Supreme Court has upheld abortion as a Constitutional right, why should teh 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 teh money it saves on taxes into anti-abortion efforts, that's exactly what it's doing.

Well, one of the counterarguments I can use is that it isn't necessarily illegal or immoral to disagree with your government.

Secondly, I would say that the idea of non-taxed religious organizations has helped the proliferation of tax exempt secular organizations - and note that these tax-exempt secular organizations commonly run counter to the desires of the government. You want to start taxing the ACLU* now?

So if your favorite political action group is tax-exempt, and you like that, be sure to thank your local church.

*In all honesty, I don't know if the ACLU is a tax exempt organization, they're just a handy example.

[Ned]

I say any Church that endorses a political candidate or whose minister runs for political office should immediately, and permanently lose its tax exempt status. The separation between church and state must be maintained both ways.

Are you listening Reverend Jackson?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ned
I say any Church that endorses a political candidate or whose minister runs for political office should immediately, and permanently lose its tax exempt status. The separation between church and state must be maintained both ways.

Are you listening Reverend Jackson?

Ned and I agree on something.

Of course, every evangelical church in Texas (maybe even in the whole south) would then lose its tax exempt status.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


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.

First of all, because the government has ruled one way does not end the right of people to persue change. You cannot tie someones rights to ask for redress to any taxation issue.

Second, while the governments effort to assist people is bigger in scope, it can hardly be called more efficient. Charitable organizations recieve huge amounts of free labor and materials which they use to stretch the money they do get. It would be hard to imagine the government competeing with them of efficiency.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by PLATO


First of all, because the government has ruled one way does not end the right of people to persue change. You cannot tie someones rights to ask for redress to any taxation issue.

Nonsense. We're not talking about curtailing their right; we're talking about financing their activities. Other people who "do good" pay taxes; "doing good" is not, in and of itself, an entitlement to tax relief. The issue is not whether they're doing good, but whether the government is subsidizing their activities above and beyond what is required by the Non-Establishment Clause. And they are.

Don't tax the churches, don't tax the schools or the cemetaries or the soup kicthens, but I see no reason why secular, commercial investments shouldn't be taxed. I'd say the same even if the Church and I agreed on absolutely everything.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Nonsense. We're not talking about curtailing their right; we're talking about financing their activities.

So those who receive the Earned Income Credit should not be allowed a voice?

[Whaleboy]

Only if synagogues, mosques, etc etc get the same status. Ideally, none of them should, they are businesses like any other, and don't do any DIRECT charitable work.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by elijah
Only if synagogues, mosques, etc etc get the same status. Ideally, none of them should, they are businesses like any other, and don't do any DIRECT charitable work.

I have no problem with synagogues, mosques, etc.. having tax exempt status. In fact, they should have.

[Wernazuma III]

I think it's highly naive to say churches are no profit organizations when I look at the Catholic church... The Catholics (and not only them) own firms, banks, estates and other economic institutions, hold back large amounts of capital etc. etc. Economic activity from those enterprises should be taxed like any other similar institution or we'd give them an undeserved advantage over comparable non-church organizations.
With aid programs from churches it should be different of course.

And let's finally not forget that one could be a bit suspicious that SOME organizations could disguise as religions while being profit oriented or some people make their economic activities be part of their church... (Scientology anyone?)
Maybe I'm wrong in the last part - how difficult/easy is it in the US to be considered a church and get the benefits?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by PLATO


So those who receive the Earned Income Credit should not be allowed a voice?

You win; that's the dumbest analogy I've ever seen on Poly. Your trophy's in the mail.

Here's a proper analogy, just so you can tell the difference. Suppose, as a private citizen, I own a strip mall in suburban Chicago; suppose I donate all the money I make from the mall -- beyond what's required to feed and clothe my family -- to charity. (1) Is the strip-mall itself exempt from property taxes? (Answer: No). (2) Should it be?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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.

The purpose, like with most amendments, was to counteract specific examples of abuse known to the framers. If you have a property tax on all churches, then selectively enforce payment and collection on those you don't like, you give the state power to enforce a religious preference. That's harder to do in modern times, so the more subtle method is to play with the assessed value of the improvements to the property.

The tax exemptions apply only to qualifying activities, so if a church was to own a commercial business, that in itself is a violation of status. The solution (the same thing is done when a for profit business wants to create a not for profit charitable foundation) is to have two chartered organizations, one for the for profit enterprise, and one for the not for profit enterprise. The for profit enterprise is taxed, but is a separate entity for all legal and accounting purposes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
And let's finally not forget that one could be a bit suspicious that SOME organizations could disguise as religions while being profit oriented or some people make their economic activities be part of their church... (Scientology anyone?)
Maybe I'm wrong in the last part - how difficult/easy is it in the US to be considered a church and get the benefits?

Fairly easy to get, and fairly hard to revoke. Both the Church of Scientology and Jimmy Swaggart Ministries had extensive battles with the IRS. Then there's ol' Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and a few others that have gotten.

[Wernazuma III]

Then tax them, otherwise it's just a legal hole for all kinds of unscrupulous "businessmen".

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Only if synagogues, mosques, etc etc get the same status.

IIRC, they do.