Should we end tax exemptions for the church?

[iNow]

 

Add that up... It's more than $71 billion per year.

For context, US agricultural subsidies (which are enormous) are $180 billion.

 

Imagine all of the firefighters and police officers and teachers we've laid off that we could hire back with that money and help the economy.

 

What do you think?

[ecoli]

Its not a bad idea, but wouldn't you then have to then instate taxes on all non-profits?

[zapatos]

Add that up... It's more than $71 billion per year.

For context, US agricultural subsidies (which are enormous) are $180 billion.

 

Imagine all of the firefighters and police officers and teachers we've laid off that we could hire back with that money and help the economy.

 

What do you think?

Interesting question. I guess the ability to tax a church suddenly gives the government a lot of influence on religion. Being tax exempt keeps a nice barrier between church and state. Religion also takes some load off government that they might give back if their funds are reduced, such as education, feeding and sheltering the hungry, etc.

 

On the other hand, if religion is going to use funds for politics and other functions, maybe some taxes would be in order. For example taxing activities outside the realm of supporting the congregation. Similar to the way the government lets individuals write off parts of their property taxes if some part of the home is used for business.

 

Its not a bad idea, but wouldn't you then have to then instate taxes on all non-profits?

No. Congress can tax anyway they want.

[Phi for All]

I guess the ability to tax a church suddenly gives the government a lot of influence on religion. Being tax exempt keeps a nice barrier between church and state. Religion also takes some load off government that they might give back if their funds are reduced, such as education, feeding and sheltering the hungry, etc.

I agree with this. But this should also mean that everything but the income tax subsidies should be dropped. The faith-based initiative subsidies, the parsonage subsidies and the rest transcend what is normal for non-profit organizations, iirc. We should never have gotten into funding religious endeavors with taxpayer dollars.

[zapatos]

I agree with this. But this should also mean that everything but the income tax subsidies should be dropped. The faith-based initiative subsidies, the parsonage subsidies and the rest transcend what is normal for non-profit organizations, iirc. We should never have gotten into funding religious endeavors with taxpayer dollars.

Can you explain this a bit more? How is government funding religious endeavors?

[D H]

What do you think?

I think that this windmill will break your lance to bits and throw both you and your horse to the ground.

 

How are you going to accomplish this? Certainly not by arguing that it's unconstitutional. That's been tried before, Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. That governments can allow tax exemptions for religious organizations is constitutional. While the Court was only asked to decide whether religious tax exemptions are constitutional, the wording of the opinion strongly implies that not providing such an exemption would be unconstitutional based on the free exercise clause of the first amendment, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

 

Certainly not by legislation. No legislature in the US would pass a law that removes the tax exemptions for religious organizations. Even if they did, it wouldn't last long. The people would vote the responsible legislators out of office, and they wouldn't wait for the next election. They would find some way to hold a special election to toss those legislators out. Even if that didn't work, the constitutionality would be challenged based on the free exercise clause and Walz v. Tax Commission.

 

You would need a constitutional amendment to accomplish this. That's not going to happen, either, not for a long, long time at least. Look how many people still think the Earth is 10,000 years old. There are signs that this nonsense is finally waning, but slowly, and only amongst younger Millennials.

[iNow]

I think that this windmill will break your lance to bits and throw both you and your horse to the ground.

 

How are you going to accomplish this? Certainly not by arguing that it's unconstitutional. That's been tried before, Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York. That governments can allow tax exemptions for religious organizations is constitutional.

So, too, is the fact that governments can end those exemptions.

 

While the Court was only asked to decide whether religious tax exemptions are constitutional, the wording of the opinion strongly implies that not providing such an exemption would be unconstitutional based on the free exercise clause of the first amendment, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

That's a fascinating suggestion, and I think it's mistaken. To claim that ending tax breaks for an organization (religious or otherwise) is unconstitutional strains credulity, even in context of the free exercise clause.

 

You would need a constitutional amendment to accomplish this.

Can you elaborate on why? This strikes me as quite profoundly wrong, but I suspect you're including something in your thoughts that I am missing.

[D H]

So, too, is the fact that governments can end those exemptions.

No, they can't. How? By law? There's no chance such a law could be passed now. There's no chance such a law could be passed in the next twenty years. Look at the demographics on religious beliefs in America. Such a change in the law might passable fifty years from now. Maybe.

 

 

That's a fascinating suggestion, and I think it's mistaken. To claim that ending tax breaks for an organization (religious or otherwise) is unconstitutional strains credulity, even in context of the free exercise clause.

It's incredulous to you because you hate religion. Toss that hate aside and think just what that qualifier "free" in "free exercise" entails. Read Burger's decision.

 

 

Can you elaborate on why? This strikes me as quite profoundly wrong, but I suspect you're including something in your thoughts that I am missing.

Two parts, one of which strains your (but not Burger's) credulity; the other you intentionally cut in your quote of my post.

 

 

I'm not a religious person. I'm very far from it. I'm also realistic in seeing how far in the minority my personal stance is. Yours is a Mittyesque dream that will never see the light of day. You are tilting at windmills. Bringing coal to Newcastle. Nailing jello to a tree. Asking the sun not to shine. Herding cats. Carrying water in a sieve. All of the above, and more.

Edited June 22, 2012 by D H

[John Cuthber]

Its not a bad idea, but wouldn't you then have to then instate taxes on all non-profits?

 

(Ignoring the idea that it's politically impossible at the moment because not many people would vote for it.)

 

That seems fair enough. We can tax the church and the non profit organisations. I suggest that we tax their profits at the same rate as ordinary companies are taxed.

Of course, since the non profit organisations don't make a profit...

 

Incidentally, there has to be an opportunity for a "non-prophet organisation" joke here somewhere.

Edited June 22, 2012 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

No, they can't. How? By law? There's no chance such a law could be passed now. There's no chance such a law could be passed in the next twenty years. Look at the demographics on religious beliefs in America. Such a change in the law might passable fifty years from now. Maybe.

 

It's incredulous to you because you hate religion. Toss that hate aside and think just what that qualifier "free" in "free exercise" entails. Read Burger's decision.

 

Two parts, one of which strains your (but not Burger's) credulity; the other you intentionally cut in your quote of my post.

 

I'm not a religious person. I'm very far from it. I'm also realistic in seeing how far in the minority my personal stance is. Yours is a Mittyesque dream that will never see the light of day. You are tilting at windmills. Bringing coal to Newcastle. Nailing jello to a tree. Asking the sun not to shine. Herding cats. Carrying water in a sieve. All of the above, and more.

DH - I don't disagree that such a move may be difficult to implement in the current climate. However, I asked you how such a move (ending tax exemptions/subsidies for religion) would be unconstitutional. You did not address that.

 

In Walz v. Tax Commission, they concluded that granting tax exemption to religious institutions in not unconstitutional. They did not conclude that ending tax exemptions to religious institutions is unconstitutional.

 

The question I suspect you're raising is the level of "entanglement" between the state and the church. You are pointing out that not taxing churches allows for a lower level of involvement, wherein taxing the church causes the level of involvement to increase, and hence would be unconstitutional since the state cannot interfere with religion. If that's the case, I still think taxing an organization is well within the powers of congress, regardless of the first amendment... so long as they tax all churches equally.

 

Telling me I'm tilting at windmills or bringing coal to newcastle or trying to nail jello to a wall or asking the sun not to shine or carrying water with a sieve doesn't magically negate that... It merely makes your comments unnecessarily personal and invective towards me.

[ecoli]

(Ignoring the idea that it's politically impossible at the moment because not many people would vote for it.)

 

That seems fair enough. We can tax the church and the non profit organisations. I suggest that we tax their profits at the same rate as ordinary companies are taxed.

Of course, since the non profit organisations don't make a profit...

 

Incidentally, there has to be an opportunity for a "non-prophet organisation" joke here somewhere.

 

Are profits taxed or are revenues?

[swansont]

Are profits taxed or are revenues?

 

Profits. If it were revenues you couldn't have a 35% tax rate and a company with a 3.5% profit margin (see WalMart).

[Phi for All]

Can you explain this a bit more? How is government funding religious endeavors?

Many of Bush's faith-based initiatives give grants and government contracts specifically to religious organizations for community work. I don't like any favoritism when it comes to who gets federal contracts. These are contracts that only go to religious organizations, and bypass the normal grant procedures.

 

Some religious groups are even allowed to hire people based on their religious affiliation and still get federal grants and contracts. And we're basically giving government contracts to groups that are allowed to preach their religion in the course of fulfilling their government program contracts. We're also talking about teen outreach programs that preach abstinence-only birth control methods, which study after study have shown to be ineffective.

[waitforufo]

 

Add that up... It's more than $71 billion per year.

For context, US agricultural subsidies (which are enormous) are $180 billion.

 

Imagine all of the firefighters and police officers and teachers we've laid off that we could hire back with that money and help the economy.

 

What do you think?

 

I’m curious about your source of information, table 1, in your opener. Also I wonder about the use of the word “subsidy.” My search for the definition of this word found the following..

 

sub•si•dy:

1. A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service...

2. A sum of money granted to support an arts organization or other undertaking held to be in the public interest.

 

Now I know that the government at times chooses to provide money to the poor and indigent through religious organizations. Is this the “subsidy” of which your source speaks?

 

Please explain how else the government is granting money to religious organizations? Can you provide images of the cancelled checks?

 

My guess is that your “subsidy” is simply tax breaks and exemptions. I’m always intrigued how liberals distort the word subsidy. I for example, would never call letting a person keep the money they earn a subsidy. I recall the HUD Secretary under Clinton once claiming that the middle class in America received more housing subsidies than the poor. How you might ask? Well the middle class takes the greatest advantage of the tax right off on the interest they pay on mortgages. Well as I recall that didn’t go over too well on the middle class. No middle class person thought that the money they earned was a subsidy.

 

On the other hand such subsidies would make a great liberal stimulus plan. Create a $100K personal occupancy tax for living in the US and then exempt everyone that is either living or dead. Everyone would then be receiving a $100K subsidy. Think of what you could buy with your subsidy. We could support the arts by passing an artist tax but then exempt everyone who then produces art. What a novel way of subsiding art.

 

Your opener makes it sound like religious institutions would shut down if it wasn't for all that government cash. What a joke.

[D H]

Also I wonder about the use of the word “subsidy.”

That's rule #1 when making a fallacious argument: Use emotionally charged words if at all possible, even if those words aren't quite correct. You have to admit that "subsidy" has a better ring than "unsubstantiated guess from an unnamed source regarding taxes if only religious and nonprofit organizations were not granted a tax exemption".

[iNow]

Yay. Make it personal instead of just asking for the source. Way to go, guys!

http://www.secularhumanism.org/fi/vol_32/4/cragun_32_4.pdf

 

The 42 sources that went into the file are shown on pages 7 and 8.

 

Your opener makes it sound like religious institutions would shut down if it wasn't for all that government cash. What a joke.

No, it really doesn't. It is a very commonly accepted use of the term "subsidize" to refer to tax breaks and exemptions. That's what we call it when we do it for oil. That's what we call it when we do it for agriculture. Your argument is bunk on its face, and you're choosing to cast this aside as liberal propaganda because you cannot address the facts put forth. At least you're consistent, though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

 

Notice the definitions...

 

subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access.

 

Now, from the report itself:

 

In addition to paying no tax on donations, religious institutions pay no property taxes. The Hartford Seminary estimates that there are 335,000 congregations in the United States. Using forty-seven churches in Tampa from six different religions as our basis (Presby terians, Mormons, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, and Pentecostals), we estimated that the average value of a church in the United States today is about $1.7 million (land and building). Because property taxes are paid at the state level, we averaged the total number of churches across all fifty states, multiplied the estimated number of churches by the average value, and then calculated the lost state revenues. States subsidize religions to the tune of about $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes for property worth about $600 billion. This subsidy is of particular interest because property taxes pay for services such as firefighting and police, which religious institutions use the same as corporations and private citizens.

 

Even if you want to quibble on the numbers themselves, it's entirely irrelevant to the topic being discussed (or, merely supplemental). The topic is whether or not we should continue these subsidies, or if we should consider ending them, not whether or not the report is accurate to the third decimal.

 

---

More from the report:

 

In summary, religions spend a relatively small portion of their revenue on physical charity, and while they spend a larger portion of their revenue addressing spiritual concerns, most of that qualifies as labor, not charity. What little would qualify as “spiritual charity” would not be replaced by government if discontinued. In short, religions are, by and large, not engaged in charitable work.

 

As a result, we calculated the subsidies to religions under the assumption that religions are more like for-profit corporations providing entertainment (such as movie theaters or amusement parks) rather than charities. That assumption is actually a fairly accurate description of their primary activity: religions largely provide entertainment for their “consumers.” And while that entertainment may be meaningful to their consumers and even address “spiritual concerns,” the same can be said for movies (well, some movies). So, our starting assumption in calculating government subsidies to religions was to treat religious institutions like corporations. We recognize that it is not a perfectly sound assumption, but if you will grant it for now you may find the resulting calculations of interest.

 

Figure 1 summarizes the tax code related to religions...

Edited June 22, 2012 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Let's just contemplate the following two quotes.

 

 

No, it really doesn't. It is a very commonly accepted use of the term "subsidize" to refer to tax breaks and exemptions.

 

and from his source..

 

..subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access.

 

Based on these to quotes isn’t everything a person makes and owns a subsidy?

 

 

Imagine all of the firefighters and police officers and teachers we've laid off that we could hire back with that money and help the economy.

 

What do you think?

 

Think of all the firefighters and police officers and teachers that could hired if the government decided to take away all your subsidies? Especially police, the government will need lots more of those when they reduce such subsidies.

 

Not related to the topic at hand? I think someone brought up the fact when it comes to religion, the constitution stops our government from “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Well I guess if you can come up with newspeak versions of words like subsidy and by which make everything a benevolent subsidy from government, well then government can do anything.

[iNow]

I think someone brought up the fact when it comes to religion, the constitution stops our government from “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Charging taxes on a religious organization that collects revenues in the same way that we charge taxes on other businesses and organizations that collect revenues (such as the entertainment industry) is not equivalent to "prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

[Vent]

Yes i think the exemptions should be ended. Why not?

 

Listening to the people's opinion on the tooth fairy and then making policy that affects everyone in a nation because of it? /boggle.

[waitforufo]

Charging taxes on a religious organization that collects revenues in the same way that we charge taxes on other businesses and organizations that collect revenues (such as the entertainment industry) is not equivalent to "prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

 

So if the government did tax religious organizations, could the government then also provide tax exemptions and rebates to religious organizations? If your answer is yes, are you then advocating government subsidies for religious organizations? You did say that subsidies include tax exemptions and rebates.

 

Why don't we just cut to the chase? You seem to believe that all income earned and all property owned by everone and every organization is simply a subsidy from our benevolent government. So I have to ask, why all this silly talk about taxes? The word tax is such an old fashioned and pejorative term. Subsidy sounds much more caring and giving. Why don't you simply advocate that our government endow it's subsidies in a manner more to your liking?

 

If we are going to operate by your rules, personally I would advocate a greater subsidy to me, my family, and my church. Being old fashioned however, I advocate sticking with our current system.

[iNow]

You seem to believe that all income earned and all property owned by everone and every organization is simply a subsidy from our benevolent government.

I believe no such thing, and my words don't even come close to implying that. I'm sorry you struggle so horrifically with basic reading comprehension, but you're quite simply mistaken.

 

Moving forward, I ask that you please focus on what I actually say and not on your heavily biased broken interpretation of what I said. I have confidence that mature dialog is still possible, and that disagreement can be reasonable and respectable. You are most certainly one of the people causing that confidence to quickly erode, but I maintain it all the same.

 

If we are going to operate by your rules...

I did not propose any rules. I asked whether or not we should end the subsidies and tax exemptions currently granted to religions in the US, subsidies that add up to more than $71 Billion annually.

[Phi for All]

Personally, I have no problem with religious groups being given the tax-exempt status any other non-profit gets. If they're using their income for upkeep on their buildings, running their organizations and funding their charitable works, they should be allowed that status.

 

It appears, however, that they currently enjoy exemptions that other non-profits don't, like the parsonage subsidy. If I read this correctly, the home of the church leader is exempt from taxes, and I don't think there is any correlation to any other similar group. I'm not sure what the Investment Tax Subsidy is exactly, but the non-profits I've been involved with were prohibited from any capital gains from investments (they usually had to spend all the money they made every year and weren't allowed to hold any over). If this is something the churches are allowed to do differently, then I would object to this practice.

 

I've already mentioned my objections to the Faith-based Initiatives programs. These are just wrong, and would be seen by many as harmful to free market principles if they were granted to private or public businesses.

 

Most of the "Subsidies Not Estimated" are exemptions other non-profits enjoy. They may be objectionable, but not because only churches get them. The one that concerns me though is the Related Business Income Tax Subsidy. If this allows churches to invest in joint-venture business arrangements with for-profit businesses yet keep any income from those ventures tax-exempt, or lend their own tax-exempt status to for-profit businesses on a limited venture basis, this is also a loophole that needs to be closed.

[doG]

Conversely, if we're going to allow such exemptions then shouldn't it be fair for every man to declare his own house his church and enjoy the same exemptions? This would end all personal property taxes

[Phi for All]

Conversely, if we're going to allow such exemptions then shouldn't it be fair for every man to declare his own house his church and enjoy the same exemptions? This would end all personal property taxes

Only if you qualify as a non-profit organization under state guidelines. Even churches don't get to be property tax exempt if they don't qualify.

 

I think where the real dilemma stems from is that churches aren't subject to rigorous financial disclosure the way other non-profits are. They enjoy this exemption as a kind of nod to the division between church and state. But if this is allowed to continue, I'd say that the other exemptions and subsidies should be ended (did I mention that Faith-based Initiatives should stop?). On the other hand, if the churches want them to continue, then they should have to provide full financial disclosure the way other non-profits do. They shouldn't get to have all the bonuses with none of the penalties.

[doG]

Only if you qualify as a non-profit organization under state guidelines.

That's a pretty slippery slope though isn't it? Non-profit? Does that mean I can buy marble floors with my revenue like the church does? Gold candlesticks? Handmade stained glass windows? Can I earn a living at a job and give all my earnings to my church so that my church can take care of my family and me? If I do that is my church non-profit?