Should churches be taxed?

[H. Ross Peron]

Not unless they operate a non-religious business on the site.

This. Churches should not be taxed. The satellite TV network you're running that you moved inside your megachurch to hide from taxes should be.

[Redalgo]

Yes and no. Under the current tax system I'd have no objections to taxing churches. I voted no in the poll though because I think only the individual's income should be taxed.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Maybe if individual churches actively rake in a profit of something like $1,000,000 per year, fine. I mean... churches that sell miracle water on late night infomercials are doing just fine. It's the churches with congregations of less that fifty people that can barely keep afloat. To insinuate that "First Street Presbyterian Church" is a business is just insulting. All most of these churches are interested in is ministering their message and making enough money to keep their buildings up-to-date and their preachers paid.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I think it goes without saying that individuals (especially folks like Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson and the like) should be taxed quite heavily.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not unless they operate a non-religious business on the site.

This. Churches should not be taxed. The satellite TV network you're running that you moved inside your megachurch to hide from taxes should be.

I think it goes without saying that individuals (especially folks like Joel Osteen, Pat Robertson and the like) should be taxed quite heavily.

[© tweed]

so the question is how do you write a tax code that manages to tax the televangelists "quite heavily".  probably easier said than done.

[DC Al Fine]

so the question is how do you write a tax code that manages to tax the televangelists "quite heavily".  probably easier said than done.

A hefty sales tax on planes would be a start

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

so the question is how do you write a tax code that manages to tax the televangelists "quite heavily".  probably easier said than done.

Progressive tax structure considering how much those guys are worth. Then again they are probably paying taxes already, just not their enterprises.

But no churches should not be taxed. Businesses that masquerade as churches perhaps.

[TJ in Oregon]

There are two issues. One is churches acting as political organizations, but it seems to me that the 501c4s are are much bigger problem in this area of skirting the law. The bigger problem with churches is that many of them are essentially tax-free businesses. The taxpayers are subsidizing crooks who are duping weak-minded and elderly out of their savings with promises of salvation, etc. The problem is the system treats an order of monks with vows of poverty who feed the poor the same way it treats a megachurch TV network that sells DVDs, books, etc. (or as I mentioned before, Scientology, which I think everyone can agree is no 'church')

You hit on a very important issue. A lot of people on the internet are all chomping at the bit to tax churches but yet often have no idea how the tax structure is set up for non-profits. Or claiming that churches are essentially a political organization if they advocate a belief that is extended into a policy. Surely if a church is acting as a campaign organization, having politicians come and speak, or explicitly making endorsements, that's a huge issue and I'd have to agree they should not be allowed to do so and retain their tax exempt status.

But if you look at the tax code, the 501(c)4's are far lower hanging fruit to go after if you don't want political organizations to be tax exempt. For crying out loud, Organizing for America is tax exempt! And people want to revoke the tax exempt status of churches for being overtly political!?

The other issue raised here is a very legitimate concern: tax fraud is a huge issue.

[Ban my account ffs!]

If you tax a church, then the church has the right to preach all kinds of political values.

Separation of church and state is a two way street... it seems the forum Europeans don't understand that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you tax a church, then the church has the right to preach all kinds of political values.

Separation of church and state is a two way street... it seems the forum Europeans don't understand that.

Because, indeed, American churches never intervene in the political debate...

[Torie]

The government getting into the business of taxing religion is troublesome. That however is different from offering tax deductions for contributions to religious organizations. That may be troublesome too to some. I sort of prefer that religions set up separate charitable organizations for those activities, and contributions to that, rather than the operational expenses of the religions, receive deduction status, to the extent we offer deductions for charitable expenses.

[memphis]

At the very least, they should have to pay property taxes. We have some enormous megachurches (and synagogues) in my hometown that are sitting on prime real estate. Just so I'm not accused of playing favorites, Temple Israel, in particular, occupies 30 acres in one of the fanciest parts of town. And they don't pay a dime. I'm not running a business (a curious standard) out of my very modest home but property taxes are due nonetheless. And taxes on residences are much higher because we have to make up for the taxes the churches are not paying. FWIW, the churches/synagogues are also very forthcoming in giving opinions on political issues. Every Sunday, the local paper asks a panel of a dozen or so clergy from around town their thoughts on a current issue and each one gets a paragraph or two to explain his position.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you tax a church, then the church has the right to preach all kinds of political values.

Separation of church and state is a two way street... it seems the forum Europeans don't understand that.

Because, indeed, American churches never intervene in the political debate...

If churches had no incentive to not endorse candidates, fundraise for campaigns, do organizing, etc. it'd be FAR worse. The tax exempt status they have now is why that doesn't happen.

Also removing the tax exempt status of ALL churches which includes plenty that don't do politicking is fairly nasty collective punishment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you tax a church, then the church has the right to preach all kinds of political values.

Separation of church and state is a two way street... it seems the forum Europeans don't understand that.

Because, indeed, American churches never intervene in the political debate...

If churches had no incentive to not endorse candidates, fundraise for campaigns, do organizing, etc. it'd be FAR worse. The tax exempt status they have now is why that doesn't happen.

Also removing the tax exempt status of ALL churches which includes plenty that don't do politicking is fairly nasty collective punishment.

Tax = punishment now? Sigh...

Tax is something any individual/association have to pay, by default. If there are reasons to make certain activities tax exempt, the burden of proof is on the side of these associations to provide a valid reason. Taxing churches isn't a violation of the separation of church and state: giving churches a tax-exempt status in absence of a valid secular reasons is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In Germany the church taxes you.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If you tax a church, then the church has the right to preach all kinds of political values.

Separation of church and state is a two way street... it seems the forum Europeans don't understand that.

Because, indeed, American churches never intervene in the political debate...

If churches had no incentive to not endorse candidates, fundraise for campaigns, do organizing, etc. it'd be FAR worse. The tax exempt status they have now is why that doesn't happen.

Also removing the tax exempt status of ALL churches which includes plenty that don't do politicking is fairly nasty collective punishment.

Tax = punishment now? Sigh...

Tax is something any individual/association have to pay, by default. If there are reasons to make certain activities tax exempt, the burden of proof is on the side of these associations to provide a valid reason. Taxing churches isn't a violation of the separation of church and state: giving churches a tax-exempt status in absence of a valid secular reasons is.

I don't want to state this as a fact, but this seems like it might be a difference of interpretation between the American and French versions of secularism. Taxing churches does come across as a church-state violation to most Americans.

[greenforest32]

If there's going to be tax exemptions for non-profits, it should be tied to them doing an activity that's worthy of such a subsidy. Obviously these campaign financing groups should get no exemption but allowing a unique automatic exemption simply based on the organization being religious is problematic, especially if they're also exempt from filing the annual tax exemption paperwork: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Many-Tax-Exempt-Organizations-Must-File-with-IRS-By-May-15-to-Preserve-Tax-Exempt-Status

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oregon just approved a law revoking (state) tax exemption status to non-profits that spend 70% or more of their donation revenue on "overhead". Imagine if there was a federal law on this. I don't see why churches should be exempt from meeting such requirements. Churches and charity non-profits should not be automatically conflated as the same thing.

I don't find the justifications for these special exemptions to religious groups to be compelling: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you tax a church, then the church has the right to preach all kinds of political values.

Separation of church and state is a two way street... it seems the forum Europeans don't understand that.

Because, indeed, American churches never intervene in the political debate...

If churches had no incentive to not endorse candidates, fundraise for campaigns, do organizing, etc. it'd be FAR worse. The tax exempt status they have now is why that doesn't happen.

Also removing the tax exempt status of ALL churches which includes plenty that don't do politicking is fairly nasty collective punishment.

Tax = punishment now? Sigh...

Tax is something any individual/association have to pay, by default. If there are reasons to make certain activities tax exempt, the burden of proof is on the side of these associations to provide a valid reason. Taxing churches isn't a violation of the separation of church and state: giving churches a tax-exempt status in absence of a valid secular reasons is.

I don't want to state this as a fact, but this seems like it might be a difference of interpretation between the American and French versions of secularism. Taxing churches does come across as a church-state violation to most Americans.

This is most certainly true. One of the things I've really learnt during my year at USF is that there are indeed some extremely peculiar French and American preconceptions in political thought (of course, my experience of the forum already gave me strong hints). I do acknowledge my thinking is influenced by French frames of thought.

I don't think this can be a conclusion to political debate though. Acknowledging the cultural roots of a divergence in opinions doesn't mean both opinions are equally right. I still genuinely think my rationale is the soundest one, and I do not think my judgment is so seriously impaired by cultural prejudices as to prevent me from arguing for it (neither is those of BRTD or other people in this thread, as far as I know).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think this can be a conclusion to political debate though. Acknowledging the cultural roots of a divergence in opinions doesn't mean both opinions are equally right. I still genuinely think my rationale is the soundest one, and I do not think my judgment is so seriously impaired by cultural prejudices as to prevent me from arguing for it (neither is those of BRTD or other people in this thread, as far as I know).

Oh, of course. I'm not claiming that it is. (Neither, I think, is mine.) This observation was just my first reaction to noting that I, for cultural reasons, thought the idea that not taxing churches was a violation of secularism flatly ridiculous when I read it. I realized a moment later that the reason it confused me so much was that I'd grown up thinking of the Jeffersonian or pseudo-Jeffersonian model of the 'wall of separation', rather than laïcité, as my assumed baseline version of how secularism is done. (Also remember that, as I think I've said to you in the past, I do admit a certain degree of practical cultural relativism even as I reject theoretical moral relativism.)

The theoretical, rather than cultural, reason for why I think that churches should be tax-exempt (churches qua churches, not the people who get their income from churches or the shady but technically legal side operations that are run out of some churches; and I'm using churches as a generic term to refer to all religious institutions, Christian or otherwise, since that's what the thread as a whole is doing) is the same as the Supreme Court's in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. The Court (or rather, Chief Justice Burger and Justices Black, Stewart, White, and Marshall; Justices Harlan and Brennan concurred on different grounds) observed that '[t]he tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other' (as opposed to a situation in which a fiscal relationship would be established that treated churches, critically, no differently from institutions from which the government isn't constitutionally separated). The flip-side of this is, of course, the observation that many churches establish such a 'fiscal relationship' themselves through having far more involvement in political campaigns than they should, and that the IRS has historically been reluctant to investigate possible violations of the political campaigning ban nearly as rigorously as it's supposed to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I understand this line of thought. I actually had the occasion to gain a pretty good grasp on American debates on Church and State issues, as I took a class on the First Amendment last semester.

Personally, I don't see entanglement as a problem in itself. I actually noticed, to my surprise, that in some case I was actually more tolerant of government help to religion than the Supreme Court (for example, I have no problem with the State financing religious schools, as long as those schools conform to the conditions set by the State). What is imperative to me is the secular purpose of legislation: religion should not be a factor taken into account in the crafting of a law unless absolutely unavoidable. And at the very least, the government should not discriminate between two organizations based on the religious nature of one of them. I have no problem with religious charities getting the same exemptions as secular ones - but in a truly secular State, religion in itself has no right to a special treatment.