Religion's Tax Exempt Status

[aneeshm]

Re: Religion's Tax Exempt Status

Originally posted by 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

So basically you agree with me when I say that the taxes levied on temples in India should be lifted (considering that identical taxes are not levied on the religious institutions of any other religion)? You agree that the government should restore autonomy to temples and get the hell out of religious affairs?

Did you know that Hindu pilgrims are taxed at an extra 30% over and above normal taxes, whereas Muslims receive a subsidy for their pilgrimage to Mecca? Do you think this is right? Should this state of affairs be changed? Do you agree that the people who did this are basically bigots wishing to destroy religion?

[snoopy369]

Jon, the point of 501(c)3 status is specifically that it is NOT a capitalist business, and thus is given tax breaks to compensate for that. It isn't supposed to be paying its leaders large amounts (though as you say, certainly some non-religious groups do). I would suggest that in very large organizations (=churches), the work done by the leaders might justify a large paycheck; but not the smaller ones that often are the more corrupt (=more donations going to the pastor's pocket). It's not supposed to be a competitive environment, so no, they shouldn't be paying more to get a better pastor.

Religious liberty is not addressed by tax exemption. Plain and simple, taxation is separate from state control of religion so long as they don't make an effort to tax religions more than other religions and/or than other organizations of similar type (equivalent charities, i.e.)

I don't think saying spiritual health isn't necessary would necessarily violate the freedom of religion clause of the constitution. If that were the sole purpose of the church (not feeding the poor etc.) then I think the argument could be made that it isn't a valid 501(c)3 purpose (if the word 'religious' were stricken from the statute) and then churches would have to be 'charitable' for other purposes. Freedom of religion means the state can't prevent you from worshiping as you wish, not that the state can't tax the religion so long as it does so in a fair and equitable manner. You're implying the state can't do anything legally involving religions, which is patently not true - I'm suggesting that the state must be blind to religion, and take the church as an organization, not a religion. Again, many (probably including myself) would argue that spiritual health is a valuable charitable cause, but I suspect a strict reading of the constitution would not require it to be tax-exempt per se. We may have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that we don't pay taxes on quite a few manners of speaking (ie, telephone wire taxes, internet connection taxes, etc.) ...

[Jon Miller]

Does anyone take advantage of your service? Does anyone pay you to offer your service?

I would guess that you wouldn't get recognised as a religion. Get 200k followers and the organization to provide the joy of your presence to others for free could be tax exempt! :B: (and a religion)

Jon Miller

[snoopy369]

Re: Re: Religion's Tax Exempt Status

Originally posted by aneeshm




So basically you agree with me when I say that the taxes levied on temples in India should be lifted (considering that identical taxes are not levied on the religious institutions of any other religion)? You agree that the government should restore autonomy to temples and get the hell out of religious affairs?

Did you know that Hindu pilgrims are taxed at an extra 30% over and above normal taxes, whereas Muslims receive a subsidy for their pilgrimage to Mecca? Do you think this is right? Should this state of affairs be changed? Do you agree that the people who did this are basically bigots wishing to destroy religion?

a) aneeshm, please don't threadjack, it's not nice Jon Miller created this thread most likely after a comment I (and others) made in your thread, to avoid threadjacking you. Return the favor please and keep your thread's arguments inside the original thread

b) Jon Miller's argument is in the United States, which is an entirely different animal in terms of religion than India. The argument made here has no relevance to India's circumstances.

[Krill]

Actually Jon, a bigot is some who is intolerant. Someone who won't accept anothers point of view. I'm more than happy to let other peole do as they please so long as it doesn't affect me. What I've said is that I don;t like it, doesn;t mean I won;t let others do as they please. I'll just steer clear.

Frankly you're the bigot who won't accept that religion isn't deserving of it's own special place in the tax laws. Snoopy is pretty much dead on where religion ought to be in a secular country.

[Jon Miller]

Actually, I don't approve of the way some churchs handle things. And I don't like really rich preachers. But I don't feel it is my place to tell them how to do things.

The leaders of United Way get paid a lot... and that is a nonprofit. The same with most other nonprofits. So I don't really say that it is something that only religious nonprofits do. I am saying that it is excused with the point of capitalism... which is due another thread. If you maintain that nonreligious nonprofits don't pay their leaders well, then we can discuss this point more.

I still don't see your point. Religious liberty is about the lack of control of religion by the state (as far as is reasonable). This gets disrupted when the states most basic form of control is exercised, namely that of taxation. Whoever get's to determine the taxes would set it so their religions were favored (or if they bigotted against religion they would set it so high that no religion could flourish). (by setting what get's taxed)

Really, considering how much of the tax money that the corporations and wealthy in the US steal (using the Tax code), the amount that is arguably misaddressed for religious purposes is just a drop in the bucket.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

Aneeshm, I would agree in general, unfortunately I don't know much about the history of hindu civilzation.

Krill, you said that religion is a kick in the nuts. That is bigotted. If you said that your experience of religion was like getting kicked in the nuts, it wouldn't be. It was your generalization that makes your comment bigoted.

Jon Miller
(as another thread, I don't think it is always wrong to be bigoted. I am bigoted agianst child molestors and furries for example)

[DRoseDARs]

Oh God, Jon, don't get him started on the history of Hindu civilization again...

[Krill]

Jon, do I need to teach you english as well as how to spell without typos?

"I would liken" is the same as saying "In my experience".

[Jon Miller]

Err...

When you say that you would liken something to something, then you are generalizing.

When you say that your experience with something was such, then you are saying that this was your experience with it.

Two very different things, one is general, implying that that is true for everyone (which is also the context of your comment). The other is just relating personal expeirence.

JM

[Patroklos]

I suspect a strict reading of the constitution would not require it to be tax-exempt per se.

I think if you take into account who wrote that into the constitution, you would not come to that conclusion.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Jon, the point of 501(c)3 status is specifically that it is NOT a capitalist business, and thus is given tax breaks to compensate for that. It isn't supposed to be paying its leaders large amounts (though as you say, certainly some non-religious groups do). I would suggest that in very large organizations (=churches), the work done by the leaders might justify a large paycheck; but not the smaller ones that often are the more corrupt (=more donations going to the pastor's pocket). It's not supposed to be a competitive environment, so no, they shouldn't be paying more to get a better pastor.

Religious liberty is not addressed by tax exemption. Plain and simple, taxation is separate from state control of religion so long as they don't make an effort to tax religions more than other religions and/or than other organizations of similar type (equivalent charities, i.e.)

I don't think saying spiritual health isn't necessary would necessarily violate the freedom of religion clause of the constitution. If that were the sole purpose of the church (not feeding the poor etc.) then I think the argument could be made that it isn't a valid 501(c)3 purpose (if the word 'religious' were stricken from the statute) and then churches would have to be 'charitable' for other purposes. Freedom of religion means the state can't prevent you from worshiping as you wish, not that the state can't tax the religion so long as it does so in a fair and equitable manner. You're implying the state can't do anything legally involving religions, which is patently not true - I'm suggesting that the state must be blind to religion, and take the church as an organization, not a religion. Again, many (probably including myself) would argue that spiritual health is a valuable charitable cause, but I suspect a strict reading of the constitution would not require it to be tax-exempt per se. We may have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that we don't pay taxes on quite a few manners of speaking (ie, telephone wire taxes, internet connection taxes, etc.) ...

Dude, I just reread your post. It doesn't make any sense at all.

How would ruling that spiritual health was not important/did not exist not be a religious statement? How would it not be the state taking sides in the issue of religion?

Jon Miller

[Wezil]

I'd tax all church revenue that does not go toward non-religious charity. Spend on helping others tax free but pay tax on moneys used to expand the size of the flock (or build pretty buildings, etc.).

[Aeson]

Snoopy

Golden Spires (tax free)

I think that giving to charity, whether a church or other individual/organization, should be treated the same regardless. Keeping money... same deal.

Having government decide which sects qualify as tax exempt religions, and which don't, is a blatant disregard for seperation of church and state.

[Arrian]

I only skimmed his posts, but it seems to me that snoopy is on the right track.

-Arrian