[civil] "Greece moves closer to eurozone exit after delaying €300m repayment to IMF "

[kentonio]

If anything, 5% on donations is too much.

Paying taxes on something which doesn't provide income (those who seem to argue that churches should pay taxes on the cathedrals/etc that they can't even upkeep anymore) or doesn't provide profit seems defeating.

So basically, it seems to me that it is paying it's share and only isn't if you have something against churches (it obviously doesn't make enough income to have built churches in such real-estate places now).

Basically it just seems to be something that those who want to destroy the institutional church want and not something that would fix the tax situation or be very fair...

JM

When did you become Ben?

[Jon Miller]

How is it Ben like to point out an attack on Christianity in Greece masquerading as a fair tax?

Yes, the church buildings are worth a lot in European cities. No, the churches don't make enough to maintain them properly and definitely not enough to pay taxes on them as if they were a business.

It is a nakedly anti organised religion stance.

Is worse than the idea of taxing donations.

JM

[kentonio]

How is it Ben like to point out an attack on Christianity in Greece masquerading as a fair tax?

Yes, the church buildings are worth a lot in European cities. No, the churches don't make enough to maintain them properly and definitely not enough to pay taxes on them as if they were a business.

It is a nakedly anti organised religion stance.

Is worse than the idea of taxing donations.

JM

- Organization owns huge amounts of property worth billions, including prime real estate in the heart of major cities.
- Organization can no longer afford to maintain said buildings because not enough people want to be part of that organization any more.
- Organization and its supporters expect to not have to pay any tax on its earnings because it thinks it shouldn't have to abide by the same rules as every other organization because something, something, god.

Did I miss anything? Perhaps if the church sold its buildings and did something out of character, like using those billions to feed the poor and shelter the needy, it might not be losing members year on year.

[Jon Miller]

At least in the US, charitable organisations don't pay taxes. I appreciate that for the commercial ventures it is nice to have them pay taxes, but holding them to pay so many taxes when they don't make a profit isn't something we even require of normal corporations.

Paying wealth taxes for organisations that are not profit oriented is an attack on that organisation.

Wealth taxes have a place when you want to tax wealth that produces income. Wealth taxes that tax wealth that isn't producing an income (and can't produce an income relative to the wealth, like so many old churches) isn't productive nor fair.

Who is going to pay what those buildings are 'worth'? It isn't going to do anything to 'fix' the Grecian economy just like selling a bunch of art won't.

Basically, I maintain that if you forced sales of all those old churches, most of them would be worth pennies on the dollar compared to the value that people assign to them as a church. It is similar to the reason that we shouldn't require nations/cities to do fire sales of museums/art galleries/other such things when they are insolvent. Wealth of this nature is not the same sort of thing as wealth that produces income (luckily the only institutions which mostly have such wealth are governments or religions, so it is easy to treat them separately than other organisations).

JM

[kentonio]

At least in the US, charitable organisations don't pay taxes. I appreciate that for the commercial ventures it is nice to have them pay taxes, but holding them to pay so many taxes when they don't make a profit isn't something we even require of normal corporations.

And in the US your definition of 'charitable organizations' allows people to live rockstar lifestyles flying around in private jets under the pretense of being a religious organization. Our definitions of 'profit' are clearly quite different.

Paying wealth taxes for organisations that are not profit oriented is an attack on that organisation.

This is utterly ridiculous. If you want an organization to avoid having to pay tax, then the onus is on you to provide a stunningly good reason why you shouldn't have to abide by the same rules everyone else does. Maintaining palatial old buildings which provide no practical use to anyone, while you're sitting on assets worth huge sums is a pretty questionable position to defend.

Wealth taxes have a place when you want to tax wealth that produces income. Wealth taxes that tax wealth that isn't producing an income (and can't produce an income relative to the wealth, like so many old churches) isn't productive nor fair.

Ok, so if I have a huge house worth say a million bucks, but a job that barely pays my mortgage, I should expect to pay no tax on those earnings right?

Who is going to pay what those buildings are 'worth'? It isn't going to do anything to 'fix' the Grecian economy just like selling a bunch of art won't.

Basically, I maintain that if you forced sales of all those old churches, most of them would be worth pennies on the dollar compared to the value that people assign to them as a church. It is similar to the reason that we shouldn't require nations/cities to do fire sales of museums/art galleries/other such things when they are insolvent. Wealth of this nature is not the same sort of thing as wealth that produces income (luckily the only institutions which mostly have such wealth are governments or religions, so it is easy to treat them separately than other organisations).

JM

If those churches have value to people, then get those people to contribute privately to their upkeep. Or nationalize them if they have major national historical interest. Just don't expect millions of people who have no affiliation to your religion to pay for their upkeep because you think you're too special to pay the taxes that are part of everyone elses lives.

[Jon Miller]

And in the US your definition of 'charitable organizations' allows people to live rockstar lifestyles flying around in private jets under the pretense of being a religious organization. Our definitions of 'profit' are clearly quite different.

Isn't that about individual taxes and not about organisational taxes?

JM

[Jon Miller]

If those churches have value to people, then get those people to contribute privately to their upkeep. Or nationalize them if they have major national historical interest. Just don't expect millions of people who have no affiliation to your religion to pay for their upkeep because you think you're too special to pay the taxes that are part of everyone elses lives.

I don't understand how not treating a religion worse than any corporation is treating them as too special to pay the taxes that are part of everyone elses life.

After all, we aren't talking here about taxing charitable donations/etc. I would argue against taxing those also, but I could see how those would be reasonable to tax.

JM

[kentonio]

After all, we aren't talking here about taxing charitable donations/etc. I would argue against taxing those also, but I could see how those would be reasonable to tax.

I thought that was exactly what we were arguing about? Reading back I see you moved onto taxing buildings, but what specifically? Property taxes?

[Jon Miller]

The idea that the church owed huge amount of property taxes for religious buildings (historical churches) is what I am taking exception to (it is what Cockney mentioned when I asked about how much income/wealth the Church was not being taxed on, he noted that it was being taxed on it's income and on it's commercial income was being taxed at probably the same rate as businesses).

The idea of property taxes is to tax wealth, due to the fact that most wealth results in a high rate of return which is difficult to tax otherwise. Historical or artistic things like old churches (or old buildings in general), pieces of art, etc are highly valuable but become a lot less valuable when forced to sell. Additionally, they don't produce much of any rate of return.

This would be a problem with the idea of taxing wealth via property taxes, but isn't as much of one because the organisations where a lot of the wealth is in this form are religious or governmental. It is pretty easy and well motivated to make an exception for them. You could probably make something more general (a historical/artistic law which creates different rules for such things), but it would be accomplishing the same thing. In any case, the desire to take Church wealth from historical buildings/etc is wrong headed and an attack on religion (in general). If the religion was a normal business it would be glad to rid itself of such things in order to focus on the wealth which gives a return. That it isn't is some of the reason why it can't be treated the same.

JM

[kentonio]

In any case, the desire to take Church wealth from historical buildings/etc is wrong headed and an attack on religion (in general). If the religion was a normal business it would be glad to rid itself of such things in order to focus on the wealth which gives a return. That it isn't is some of the reason why it can't be treated the same.

Most businesses are expected to operate in a sustainable and logical way. The fact the church don't want to, shouldn't give them some special status. What's annoying me more though is that you seem to have already decided that any attempt to make the church pay its way is some 'attack on religion', rather than just expecting religion to follow the same rules as everyone else has to.

[Jon Miller]

If a corporation behaved like a church they wouldn't pay these sorts of taxes either. They would mark down capital or investment or what have you and not pay taxes. That is why talking as if churches are being given some huge tax benefit (other than the incentive for donations which goes for every non-profit, at least in the US and doesn't exist in Europe or exists to a much smaller extant) is ridiculous and an attack on religion. There is no other reason to bring it up.

There are 3 options for Europe. (I use the Church although in some places it is more than one and it isn't the same church in every country)

Option 1:

Treat the Church as businesses and church property as normal property, they will have to sell and get rid of most of their church property (at fractions of pennies on the dollar compared to what people value it at currently). No one else will find such property to provide a high rate of return so it will be torn down/etc (if it is treated as normal property). No one except those who don't like seeing religion wants this option (because the church property is highly valued even though it can't produce a high rate of return).

Option 2:

Treat churches as businesses and church property as areas of historical interest. The Church gets rid of most of their church property, selling it at it's valuation (very high) to the government (which doesn't have to pay taxes, note). The government then runs and cares for the church building, renting it out to different groups (including churches) that want to use it. I think this is the option you want, but it would be very expensive to governments because they would be operating the building at a lost instead of the Church. If I was running the Church this is what I would do, btw, as I primarily value the material things for their historical interest. I think that the actual members of the Church think differently, however, and value the material things spiritually.

Obviously this wouldn't provide a lot of money for the government for operations (it would be a cost for the government for operations), even though the wealth of the government would increase. As I said, ignoring the emotional/spiritual valuation of members of the Church, this has the highest utility although it is the worst for the state finances.

Option 3:

Realize that churches are not businesses with regards to their historic property. You could make a general law that treats any organisation that holds historic places of interest the same if you want, but it would primarily 'benefit' the Church. They will maintain theoretically high levels of wealth, but that wealth will continue to be in assets which have negative rates of return. They will basically continue to pay to be the caretakers of the historical places of interest.

I recognize non-material forms of utility and think that option 3 could be the one that maximizes utility.

JM
(I recognise that for option 2 you will have groups that are opposed to the Church sometimes renting out the building (like Satanists when they want to make a statement). However, generally it will be the Church or people who want to use it for a church(as they already do) and the Church would just need to create some purification practice or something that is quick.)

[PLATO]

I have to agree with JM on this one and I sure as hell am not Ben.

Tax free status though must come with accountability. The Church must be primarily a philanthropic organization. If so, I am not sure why an organization that is efficient in distributing help to the needy should be taxed by an organization that is inefficient in distributing help to the needy.

Maybe churches operate differently over there, but most here use vast networks of free labor to distribute donated food and clothing, to buy building materials and repair homes of the elderly, and provide shelter to the homeless. The budgets that they accomplish this on are tiny fractions of what the government would spend on the same services.

Just because some may be against religion should not blind them to the good works that churches do. Why would you want to create inefficiencies in supporting the poor just because you don't agree with the religion?

[Jon Miller]

I Think some of the issue in Europe is that the Church spends a lot of money on up-keeping buildings of historic interest (old churches) also. There is apparently some ill will towards it due to the fact that these buildings are theoretically worth a lot although not capable of providing a high return.

JM

[Aeson]

If you notice something over the line in a [civil] thread please notify the staff.

Bereta_Eder has been banned for 2 months for insults/slurs in a [civil] thread. I will be moving the offending posts and those that which quoted or were directed at them to the Lost and Found.

[kentonio]

I have to agree with JM on this one and I sure as hell am not Ben.

Tax free status though must come with accountability. The Church must be primarily a philanthropic organization. If so, I am not sure why an organization that is efficient in distributing help to the needy should be taxed by an organization that is inefficient in distributing help to the needy.

Maybe churches operate differently over there, but most here use vast networks of free labor to distribute donated food and clothing, to buy building materials and repair homes of the elderly, and provide shelter to the homeless. The budgets that they accomplish this on are tiny fractions of what the government would spend on the same services.

I disagree with the assumption that government is inefficient at distributing help to the needy in the first place. Charity is a horribly inefficient way of dealing with the needy, as its hugely location based, and pretty much always dependent of the levels of donation at any particular time. Hungry or homeless people can't just take a six month break from needing help, just because the economy dips or because they live in a rural area.

I also disagree with both the idea of the church being particularly philanthropic and that they are in any way accountable to anyone. Their headquarters is its own country for goodness sake, and one that is dripping with obscene amounts of wealth.

Just because some may be against religion should not blind them to the good works that churches do. Why would you want to create inefficiencies in supporting the poor just because you don't agree with the religion?

The poor should never, ever be reliant on charity to survive.