Should we end tax exemptions for the church?

[Vent]

Why are you guys giving the church a special status? If they want to be non-profit they need to split for legal clarity and declare themselves charity, not church or religion. Tax exemption for the church is an historical contingency, there's no reason to continue to honour it (religious apologetics not-withstanding).

 

Changing the church to charity and removing all religious benefits that are given for religious status reasons sounds like a good idea to me.

[waitforufo]

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.

 

 

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.

 

iNow,

Your ideology is simply detaching you from reality. Of course you believe that all that is earned and all that is owned is a subsidy of government. You have expressed this opinion in various ways on many topics in science forums. For example this belief is central to the arguments of the occupy movement which you have fully embraced. In various ways you have expressed that the wealthy have gamed the tax system and by which are receiving huge government subsidy. Never does it cross your mind that the wealthy have the same property rights as all others so that what they earn and what they own belong to them. Your ideology simply won't let you except facts. The same can be said for your belief that oil companies receive subsidies through tax breaks. Oil companies pay billions in taxes. When the government wants oil companies to do things that make no business sense government coerces them into doing those things by creating taxes with built in tax breaks for those that play along. Then those of your ideology come along and add insult by calling those tax breaks a subsidy. Only ideology could trap someone into believing such nonsense.

 

Our constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. Are you going to tell me that taxes are not coercive? How many times have I read your exaltations regarding the good and proper use of the coercive taxation? Admit it, you are a firm believer in this use of taxation. Have you abandoned your support of carbon taxes? Is not the goal of such taxation to inhibit my free use of fossil fuels? Have your beliefs so blinded you that you can't see that taxing religious organizations would be inhibiting the free exercise of religion? Perhaps you should step out of the ideological box of your own religion for just a moment and embrace reality.

[John Cuthber]

When you say

"When the government wants oil companies to do things that make no business sense government coerces them into doing those things by creating taxes with built in tax breaks for those that play along."

do you mean, if the government wants them to do stuff, it pays them a subsidy to do so?

 

Anyway, I still can't see where iNow has said anything like what you say he has.

Could you fins a quote?

[Phi for All]

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?

If you want a separation between church and state, you need to have distinctions that allow for that separation, and taxation of religion can be viewed as governmental control and therefore violates the separation. But, as I said before, if you're going to have that separation, it needs to be a complete one, so absolutely no taxpayer funding should be going to help ANY organization that has religious status. First Clinton, and then Bush (in a big way) blurred those lines with the concept of Faith-based Initiatives and that really needs to stop.

 

If the distinctions are clear, and churches are receiving no help from taxpayers, then whatever guidelines regulate tax exemption for churches should apply to you if you can prove you're a church. If you choose to take that path, you should not be able to take advantage of any public funding. Then you should be able to buy whatever kind of flooring or windows your followers are willing to fund.

 

Something I've learned from this discussion is that full financial disclosure is not something required from churches that have tax-exempt status, certainly not to the extent required of other non-profits. I realize this may seem like governmental control being exerted, but I really feel more transparency is needed here. I really don't care if churches spend money given to them by their followers on gold candlesticks, but I really think we should make sure that revenue sheltered from taxation is received properly, and not as a result of investments made in for-profit concerns or joint ventures with secular companies. I suppose we can't really object to a church investing money received from followers in secular ventures, but I do think profits from those investments should NOT be tax-exempt.

[iNow]

Of course you believe that all that is earned and all that is owned is a subsidy of government.

No, I do not.

 

You have expressed this opinion in various ways on many topics in science forums.

No, I have not.

 

For example this belief is central to the arguments of the occupy movement which you have fully embraced.

I did no such thing. You are clearly arguing from a completely fabricated and manufactured reality.

 

In various ways you have expressed that the wealthy have gamed the tax system and by which are receiving huge government subsidy.

No, I have not.

 

Never does it cross your mind that the wealthy have the same property rights as all others so that what they earn and what they own belong to them.

Of course it does, and your continued assertions are not only wrong, but they are ignorant and insulting.

 

Our constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion.

Correct, and my point as summarized on the previous page is that taxing revenues taken in by churches in the same way that we tax revenues brought in by other services and industries is not equivalent to "prohibiting the free exercise of religion."

 

How many times have I read your exaltations regarding the good and proper use of the coercive taxation?

I'm thinking... zero?

 

Have your beliefs so blinded you that you can't see that taxing religious organizations would be inhibiting the free exercise of religion? Perhaps you should step out of the ideological box of your own religion for just a moment and embrace reality.

Dialog with you is unproductive and annoying.

 

Perhaps my position would seem less nonsensical to you if you stopped strawmanning it and started accurately comprehending what I'm articulating.

 

---

Anyway, I still can't see where iNow has said anything like what you say he has.

Could you fins a quote?

He will never man-up and provide a quote because 1) he lacks enough integrity and character to do so, and 2) he cannot because such a quote does not exist anywhere but in his own head.

Edited June 24, 2012 by iNow

[Phi for All]

Are you going to tell me that taxes are not coercive?

I don't feel taxes on income, the ones we're discussing in this thread, are coercive at all. They could perhaps be more productively and effectively spent, but in general the concept of income tax is a societal requirement for any country that wishes to prosper as a whole, imo. That they are mandatory doesn't make them coercive; it simply means they are a societal necessity. If we gained no roads or libraries or schools or other public works from these taxes, I could see your point, but we do.

 

Have your beliefs so blinded you that you can't see that taxing religious organizations would be inhibiting the free exercise of religion?

I don't see the connection. Again, I can agree that giving churches an exemption on income taxes helps keep a separation between them and the State, but I don't see how taxing them would ever inhibit the exercise of those religions. Indeed, it might actually help them by giving them eligibility for government assistance or justifiable contracts and grants from the government. Paying their fair share for the roads their parishioners use to get to church would hardly harm their beliefs, and a church should be able to participate in normal free market transactions if they give up their tax exemptions.

 

What I object to most is that churches are now getting both tax exemptions AND the ability to gain taxpayer funding through grants and contracts. This is not separating church and state, this is having your cake and eating it too.

[waitforufo]

I don't feel taxes on income, the ones we're discussing in this thread, are coercive at all. They could perhaps be more productively and effectively spent, but in general the concept of income tax is a societal requirement for any country that wishes to prosper as a whole, imo. That they are mandatory doesn't make them coercive; it simply means they are a societal necessity. If we gained no roads or libraries or schools or other public works from these taxes, I could see your point, but we do.

 

Perhaps some might find the word “coerce” too pejorative. One can for example write off from their income the mortgage interest on two homes when determining income taxes. Are taxpayers they coerced in to buying a home? In this case our elected officials are wise enough to admit that taxation can be so onerous as to prohibit citizens from obtaining the necessities of life. Only a liberal would consider such a tax break as a subsidy.

 

I don't see the connection. Again, I can agree that giving churches an exemption on income taxes helps keep a separation between them and the State, but I don't see how taxing them would ever inhibit the exercise of those religions.

 

Really? So you don’t think that parishioners getting passed the donation plate won’t be thinking about how the government is going to take 30% of their donation to support things they find contrary to their religious beliefs? You know, things like war and abortion?

 

Indeed, it might actually help them by giving them eligibility for government assistance or justifiable contracts and grants from the government. Paying their fair share for the roads their parishioners use to get to church would hardly harm their beliefs, and a church should be able to participate in normal free market transactions if they give up their tax exemptions.

 

Two things here. First there are plenty of people with legitimate reasons for not wanting churches to distribute government largess. Not only does it crash hard into the separation of church and state, but it provides a false sense of the true generosity of the church involved. How caring and generous is a church which simply distributes government money? How many would claim that they do it for a profit? By the way, church goers pay taxes and those taxes pay for the roads they drive on to get to church.

 

What I object to most is that churches are now getting both tax exemptions AND the ability to gain taxpayer funding through grants and contracts. This is not separating church and state, this is having your cake and eating it too.

 

Personally I would prohibit churches from distributing government largess. My experience however is that you overstate your case. Why? The government applies rules to this money causing most religious organization to turn it down. Locally for example the federal government tried to give the Union Gospel Mission money to provide meals to the indigent. The Union Gospel Mission requires those that receive such meals to hear a short sermon and sit through a prayer before they eat, which is prohibited by government. So the Union Gospel Mission turned it down. Also locally, the Catholic Church opened a shelter and halfway house for indigent women, mostly prostitutes. This shelter was opened in part to reduce the body count from serial killer Robert Lee Yates. For a short period of time this shelter and halfway house received HUD funding but ran into fair housing act laws when it tried to evict tenants who were using their shelter apartments as brothels. The nuns thought it was better to reject government cash than to be forced to run a whore house.

[John Cuthber]

He will never man-up and provide a quote because 1) he lacks enough integrity and character to do so, and 2) he cannot because such a quote does not exist anywhere but in his own head.

 

Looks like you were right

[Phi for All]

Perhaps some might find the word "coerce" too pejorative. One can for example write off from their income the mortgage interest on two homes when determining income taxes. Are taxpayers they coerced in to buying a home? In this case our elected officials are wise enough to admit that taxation can be so onerous as to prohibit citizens from obtaining the necessities of life. Only a liberal would consider such a tax break as a subsidy.

Coerce is too pejorative to describe how taxes are administered. The US has a lower tax burden than most first-world countries, but our real problems in that area are what those funds are spent on, not necessarily the system that collects them. Only a conservative would get hung up on what an unjust exemption is called.

 

 

Really? So you don't think that parishioners getting passed the donation plate won't be thinking about how the government is going to take 30% of their donation to support things they find contrary to their religious beliefs? You know, things like war and abortion?

Then why aren't you arguing to keep the separation between church and state clean and well-defined? Why are you going on about what the exemptions are called rather than agreeing that Faith-based Initiatives are using taxpayer funds to support religious agendas? The pendulum swings both ways, you know.

 

 

Two things here. First there are plenty of people with legitimate reasons for not wanting churches to distribute government largess. Not only does it crash hard into the separation of church and state, but it provides a false sense of the true generosity of the church involved. How caring and generous is a church which simply distributes government money? How many would claim that they do it for a profit? By the way, church goers pay taxes and those taxes pay for the roads they drive on to get to church.

By the way, the church goers deduct their donations to their church from those taxes they pay, so that money is getting double exemptions. And whether or not those who use this tax-exempt religious non-profit pay their own taxes, this particular type of non-profit has leaders who pay nothing, not even property tax on the homes purchased with that tax exempt revenue.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

waitforufo, if you are going to make claims about what someone has posted, you should be able to provide quotes. Do so before continuing. Otherwise it is merely straw-man argumentation, which is not allowed.

Everyone responding to waitforufo, let's dial it back. Claims about integrity, etc. are unproductive.

Please do not further sidetrack the discussion by responding in the thread.

[doG]

If you want a separation between church and state, you need to have distinctions that allow for that separation, and taxation of religion can be viewed as governmental control and therefore violates the separation.

Taxing the churches revenues would violate nothing. There is no Constitutional separation of church and state. The 1st amendment says explicitly,

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Congress cannot establish any religion or pass any laws that favor any religion over any other. It also cannot pass any laws that prohibit or coerce anyone of holding a particular religious belief.

 

The 16th Amendment says explicitly,

 

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

IMO, as long as Congress taxes all churches the same then I don't see any conflict with the 1st Amendment or the separation of church and state implied by Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptists.

[KennyC]

Should we end tax exemptions for churches?

 

YES!

[Phi for All]

Taxing the churches revenues would violate nothing. There is no Constitutional separation of church and state.

Personally, I have no real problem with tax-exemption under non-profit status for churches. But currently they're getting special treatment that allows them to profit in ways they shouldn't under the status definitions. Either we should let churches be treated as non-profit charities or start treating them as for-profit businesses, but not give them the best bits of both, and especially not with taxpayer funds.

[doG]

Wow, a relevant link I found posted elsewhere:

 

 

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:Enforce federal 501©(3) regulations by removing the tax-exempt status from churches that engage in political activity.

 

Since 2008, pastors of some churches have openly supported and advocated specific political candidates in sermons to members in early October in an event referred to as "Pulpit Freedom Sunday". According to Reuters, videos of these sermons are sent to the offices of the IRS.

 

According to section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the provision of the tax code from which these churches derive their tax-exempt status, a compliant organization must not "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of ... any candidate for public office."...

[iNow]

Less formally than the campaign law shared by doG, it's quite common for the "flock" to vote as a unified block based on little more than the sermons of their local pastor or religious leader. They are by no means apolitical, though.