Religion's Tax Exempt Status

[Jon Miller]

To take away religions tax exempt status would be stupid, for many reasons.

1. If gives the state control of religions (the most important power the state has over things is that of taxation). This goes against our religious liberty clauses.

2. Non-profit organizations generally don't have to pay taxes. Why should religious ones be excepted from this?

3. Most private charity done in the US is done by religious groups. If these religious groups were taxed this would kill most of private charity in the US.

4. Those religious groups who do acts of charity would no longer do so or do less. Those whose members just give enough to upkeep their pastor and church would find themselves without a dedicated pastor and with a crappy church, which would serve them much poorer (I have been to churchs where the pastor had another job as primary. The level of presentation and preparation was much more lacking, and ideas weren't developed or presented well.).

5. Much charity done around the world is done by US religious groups, removing the funding of these would remove a lot of charity done around the world.

Basically, those who suggest this either did not think this through or are bigots desiring to destroy religion.

I have seen people suggest this a few times recently. I felt like I should respond.

Jon Miller

[snoopy369]

(1-2): Taxation of religions does not give the state 'control' of the religions. So long as they are taxed identically to any other organization of their type, then there's nothing giving the state 'control' over them. If they're a non-profit organization, then they'd probably not be taxed (much) anyway; I don't know if 501(c)3 type organizations are taxed at all, or if they're entirely tax exempt. But you take away the tax loophole cult-type religions can exploit far too easily, if you ensure that only non-profit religions are tax exempt ... but why should the state give preference to a religious organization as compared to any other charitable/nonprofit organization? They should be treated the same. [Note: Churches are required to fulfill the requirements of other 501(c)3 organizations, but they are not required to actually apply for the status, although it's recommended. They're considered automatically exempt, but with the caveat that if they don't apply for the status, the IRS can at any time audit them and decide they are not exempt.]

(3-5) Again, the government has pre-existing clauses that charitable donations are exempted from taxes. There's no reason this would be a problem.

I have no problem with a legitimate non-profit charitable religion from maintaining that status. I simply don't see why they need to be given a special category, and treated specially. That dates back to the Catholic Church in the medieval times using its power to make sure its clergy were not taxed by the feudal lords of the time, and even when they were acting to amass riches and/or power for themselves they would still be exempted from taxation simply because they were part of the church. America prides itself on the separation of church and state; this should be maintained in that the state should not recognize religions individually or as a group as special groups. Apply for 501(c)3 status just like the rest of the nonprofit groups, and don't have a special rule for them [or perhaps even eliminate the "religions" reason for the 501(c)3 status, and require them to have some other public function... the beneficial ones do, and the cult-like ones would then be eliminated...]

[snoopy369]

Summary for those who TLDR those paragraphs:
Churches should be (and to some extent, are) considered like any other 501(c)3 charity, and not considered any differently. If they're charitable organizations, tax exempt Otherwise,

[Jon Miller]

So providing religious services isn't a charity?

Either providing services for free is charitable, or it is not. The type of service should not matter.

Also, on point 1. The states aren't allowed to tax the federal government for this very reason. I don't see anything in your argument which is against this.

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

So providing religious services isn't a charity?

Um, no, it isn't.

[Jon Miller]

Why not?

Isn't it providing a service for free? How is that any different from providing other services for free (like health-care or education, etc).

Jon Miller

[Nubclear]

If someone punches me in the face for free, I'd be somewhat reluctant to call them a charity worker.

[snoopy369]

Providing something for free, as Tassi absurdly but correctly demonstrates, is not the necessary element of charity. One must be providing a needed or substantially beneficial service, such as education, health care, food, shelter, etc.

Now, of course it is up to debate as to whether providing for one's spiritual health is a needed or substantially beneficial service. Certainly I have no real objection to most churches being exempt 501(c)3 organizations; it's another form of education, if nothing else. But, I think they should have to show that they are doing so - and not just filling the pockets of the church leaders... too many church leaders are extremely well off for me to feel comfortable that all churches are proper 501(c)3 organizations ...

[Jon Miller]

So you are comparing a religious service to getting punched in the face.

Well, who is going to decide what services are 'punches in the face' and which are good? Isn't this just showing your innate bigotry towards religion? And it is not like no one takes advantage of the religious services, in fact, in the US churchs are generally pretty full.

And I could also point out, you aren't forced to take advantage of this service. It is just one that (most) churches provide for free.

Jon Miller

[DRoseDARs]

Tassi's just bitter because everyone keeps calling him a Mormon.



Btw, great example Tassi my Tassi.

[Krill]

So you are comparing a religious service to getting punched in the face.

Why not. Seems about right to me. Though I'd more liken religion to a kick in the balls, personally.

[DRoseDARs]

Or perhaps even analogous to a bit of surprise buttsecks.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Providing something for free, as Tassi absurdly but correctly demonstrates, is not the necessary element of charity. One must be providing a needed or substantially beneficial service, such as education, health care, food, shelter, etc.

Now, of course it is up to debate as to whether providing for one's spiritual health is a needed or substantially beneficial service. Certainly I have no real objection to most churches being exempt 501(c)3 organizations; it's another form of education, if nothing else. But, I think they should have to show that they are doing so - and not just filling the pockets of the church leaders... too many church leaders are extremely well off for me to feel comfortable that all churches are proper 501(c)3 organizations ...

This is a much better response then Tasi's and I should probably waited to reply until it was given.

On first perusal I actually feel like it does address my charity concerns.

It doesn't address my religious liberty concerns.

In response to your points I would like to point to United Way or many other charitable organizations. In those organizations the leadership is very well paid. That seems to be the general requirement in capitalist societies... (although I agree it could use some discussion, however, I tihnk it is a different discussion then this one).

In many independent churchs, the churchs pay for their pastors employment. If they choose to give more, and so pay him better, isn't that up to them? And isn't it a way to keep him doing what they want him to do? (be their pastor?).

Saying that spiritual health isn't necessary would be a governmental selection against religion (in general, not even specific). This is definitely against our freedoms of religion. Note that freedom of religion is tied to freedom of conciense, which is our most important freedom.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Krill

So you are comparing a religious service to getting punched in the face.

Why not. Seems about right to me. Though I'd more liken religion to a kick in the balls, personally.

That's because you are a bigot.

JM

[Nubclear]

I think I should have tax exempt status. After all, I provide others with the joy of my presence for free. Who is to demonstrate that this is not a worthwhile cause for humanity?

Clearly if this isn't allowed, all of our personal liberties are at stake. This is the only logical conclusion.