Can Charitable Status Be Removed From Religion?

[H3LL]

Prompted by another thread here.

The Atheist was under the impression that atheists donate less than the religious but there would appear to be some evidence that a fair proportion of donations from the religious is actually to the religion they believe in regardless of the proportion used for charitable work.

Can Charitable Status Be Removed From Religion?

My knee-jerk reaction is yes, and it should happen soon, along with their related tax-exempt status.

Further thought suggests some difficulty in doing this.

How, for example would you separate the charitable work from their religious work.

Could the religious structure and hierarchy still directly connect itself to smallest element of charity work?

How would you separate the costs of a vicar handing out food parcels from his proselytising?

Being extreme, would the entire structure of the Catholic church, upto and including the Pope claim to be a charity for handing out one tin of beans to a homeless person?

I'm almost at a loss as to a practical way to remove charitable status from religions.

My best thought is to conclude that their charitable work IS part of their religion and therefore a religious activity and remove charitable (and tax-exempt) status from religious activity. After all, it would be hard for a christian sect to claim that charity is not part of their religion (not so sure about others).

So;

Can it be done?
Is it desirable?

Thoughts please.
.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Prompted by another thread here.

The Atheist was under the impression that atheists donate less than the religious but there would appear to be some evidence that a fair proportion of donations from the religious is actually to the religion they believe in regardless of the proportion used for charitable work.

Can Charitable Status Be Removed From Religion?

My knee-jerk reaction is yes, and it should happen soon, along with their related tax-exempt status.

Further thought suggests some difficulty in doing this.

How, for example would you separate the charitable work from their religious work.

Could the religious structure and hierarchy still directly connect itself to smallest element of charity work?

How would you separate the costs of a vicar handing out food parcels from his proselytising?

Being extreme, would the entire structure of the Catholic church, upto and including the Pope claim to be a charity for handing out one tin of beans to a homeless person?

I'm almost at a loss as to a practical way to remove charitable status from religions.

My best thought is to conclude that their charitable work IS part of their religion and therefore a religious activity and remove charitable (and tax-exempt) status from religious activity. After all, it would be hard for a christian sect to claim that charity is not part of their religion (not so sure about others).

So;

Can it be done?
Is it desirable?

Thoughts please.
.

In the case where there is an intermingling between religious and charitable duties, creating a separate tax-exempt charity wing with strong tax supervision would solve the problem. Let's say The First Church of Jeezus bring in the faithful weekly for prayer service, and also runs a homeless shelter. Legally speaking there would exist two organizations with shared resources and staff, let's call them The Church of Jeezus and The Manna Table.

Even assuming they use the same buildings and overlapping staff, it wouldn't be too hard to do, I imagine. Donations made during a service can be marked for one organization or the other, for the sake of simplicity let's assume that unmarked donations are evenly split between them because I'm sure many people wouldn't bother making a choice. The proselytizing, Bible thumping, Sunday-school functions all get taxed, and the Church pays its share of the property taxes and other taxes businesses normally face. The Manna Table would be treated like any other not-for-profit. Large businesses and government organizations are already used to practice of having different departments with distinct budgets and resources, and to spinning off charitable arms.

ETA: Oh, in the case where the Church of Jeezus owns resources that wind up in the hands of The Manna Table, it can be legally treated as a tax deducatable donation. Transfers in the reverse would constitute a sale. It's mildly complicated, but stringent enforcement of strict tax laws would make the accounting generally honest, especially if it were transparent.

 

[Darat]

An interesting take.

So you are saying that if your religion's doctrine includes charity you don't get any of the perks a non-religious charity doing the same work would?

Amusing thought - if this was the case currently in the UK the Church of Scientology probbaly would have been granted charity status but a CofE group wouldn't... (See: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/registration/pdfs/cosdecsum.pdf)

 

[Beerina]

You are concerned that religion should only get tax-exempt status if they are legitimately also performing charity?

What's wrong with religion being tax-exempt for religion's sake? Religion is enshrined in the US Constitution, not charity. The SC has already ruled the power to tax is the power to destroy, and Congress is not empowered to destroy religion.

Typically, tax exemption is to make it easier for marginal enterprises to survive. While TV preachers might make big bucks, the clergy of most organized religions either have day jobs, or scrape by on five thousand a year with most other expenses paid for by their orders. For another example, see also the tax exempt status of the munincipal bond, so the cities can claim a few extra percent in advantage, and thus pay out a lower interest rate, yet still remain competitive as an investment instrument.

I have no problem fighting religion on using the battlefield of freedom of speech, but I really dislike this recent trend among athiests who are testing the waters with early trial balloons of other methods of silencing religion. It's bad enough government is messing with dictating religion cannot have official opinions on who to vote for without losing tax exempt status, a perfectly rediculous position given how core religion is to people's lives, and how overwhelming (secular) government has become in its intrusiveness. Of course religion dictates worldview for many, which is precisely what government is all about.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

What's wrong with religion being tax-exempt for religion's sake?

...snip...

Why should it be?

 

[brodski]

You are concerned that religion should only get tax-exempt status if they are legitimately also performing charity?

What's wrong with religion being tax-exempt for religion's sake? Religion is enshrined in the US Constitution, not charity. The SC has already ruled the power to tax is the power to destroy, and Congress is not empowered to destroy religion.

Typically, tax exemption is to make it easier for marginal enterprises to survive. While TV preachers might make big bucks, the clergy of most organized religions either have day jobs, or scrape by on five thousand a year with most other expenses paid for by their orders. For another example, see also the tax exempt status of the munincipal bond, so the cities can claim a few extra percent in advantage, and thus pay out a lower interest rate, yet still remain competitive as an investment instrument.

I have no problem fighting religion on using the battlefield of freedom of speech, but I really dislike this recent trend among athiests who are testing the waters with early trial balloons of other methods of silencing religion. It's bad enough government is messing with dictating religion cannot have official opinions on who to vote for without losing tax exempt status, a perfectly rediculous position given how core religion is to people's lives, and how overwhelming (secular) government has become in its intrusiveness. Of course religion dictates worldview for many, which is precisely what government is all about.

H3LL is writing from the UK where we haver no Secular Government, Supreme Court or codified constitution.

I fail to see why religion should be tax exempt when political activities are (typically) not, religion is in many ways analogous to politics, except that it relies on supernatural authorities whereas (most) political philosophies do not.

 

[drkitten]

What's wrong with religion being tax-exempt for religion's sake? Religion is enshrined in the US Constitution, not charity. The SC has already ruled the power to tax is the power to destroy, and Congress is not empowered to destroy religion.

Non sequitor. Congress is not empowered to destroy newspapers, either -- but it's permitted to tax them. The US constitution simply demands that religious organizations be treated even-handedly and fairly, not that they be wrapped in cotton batting and protected against the cold harsh realities of life (like the fact that roads, police and the fire brigade all cost money).

The question is whether or not religion provides benefits to society in a way that justifies their special treatment. If I build a million dollar restaurant on the outskirts of town, I have to pay substantial money to the government to cover the costs involved; I may see a nice profit myself on the outcome, but only after "society" has taken its share. If I build a million-dollar soup kitchen to feed the local homeless population, the government will typically give me a break on the money that I owe them, because I'm benefiting society and not myself.

If I build a million dollar church, should I get the tax breaks or not? In the case of the soup kitchen, the benefits to the public are immediate and obvious. What are the benefits to society from a million dollar church that justify the same -- and in many cases, greater -- tax breaks?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Non sequitor. Congress is not empowered to destroy newspapers, either -- but it's permitted to tax them. The US constitution simply demands that religious organizations be treated even-handedly and fairly, not that they be wrapped in cotton batting and protected against the cold harsh realities of life (like the fact that roads, police and the fire brigade all cost money).

The question is whether or not religion provides benefits to society in a way that justifies their special treatment. If I build a million dollar restaurant on the outskirts of town, I have to pay substantial money to the government to cover the costs involved; I may see a nice profit myself on the outcome, but only after "society" has taken its share. If I build a million-dollar soup kitchen to feed the local homeless population, the government will typically give me a break on the money that I owe them, because I'm benefiting society and not myself.

If I build a million dollar church, should I get the tax breaks or not? In the case of the soup kitchen, the benefits to the public are immediate and obvious. What are the benefits to society from a million dollar church that justify the same -- and in many cases, greater -- tax breaks?

Who are you, and what have you done with drkitten?

 

[drkitten]

Who are you, and what have you done with drkitten?

I'm just trying to express the argument more clearly -- to cut to the heart of the matter, if you will. You'll notice that I just asked the question, I didn't try to answer it! (I'm not that stupid, thank you.) What benefits does religion itself provide to justify its tax treatment? I'm sure you'll get a completely different answer from a hard-line atheist than you will from an educated Catholic, and a third answer altogether from an evangelical Protestant. And my answer would probably differ from all three.

Having just denied being stupid enough to try to answer the question -- I will now proceed to prove myself a liar. I think that the division of opinion on such matters is reason enough (under the spirit of "Congress shall make no law...") to grant "charitable status" to for any nonpathological purpose that someone thinks is beneficial to society. You build a library -- great. I found a chess club -- great. Someone else endows a symphony -- cool. And a fourth person decides to build a huge church to the greater glory of God. I may think that that's a waste of land and building materials, but he probably thinks that chess is a vain and unprofitable way of frittering away time. Rather than trying to referee, I think that both should be treated identically. Or in other words, who gets to define "charity"?

Thus, I'm cool with giving the Academy of Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt the same tax breaks that Harvard or MIT gets. On the grounds that your misguided hobbies are no more stupid than mine. But on the other hand, I also think that Our Lady should get no more tax breaks -- on the grounds that mine are no more stupid than yours.

 

[Darat]

Oh just make it simple -everyone has to pay tax and obey the same laws.

Another vote winning idea brought to you from the "Darat KISS" campaign*.


*We anticipate election victory shortly after hell freezes over....

 

[drkitten]

Oh just make it simple -everyone has to pay tax and obey the same laws.

That's a reasonable and fair solution -- but unfortunately some of us like the idea of encouraging "beneficial" behavior. I like, for example, the idea of educating people who can't afford it themselves, and I'm willing to suggest that we as society reward that practice -- for example, by making it cost less to operate a school than a stock brokerage

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Having just denied being stupid enough to try to answer the question -- I will now proceed to prove myself a liar. I think that the division of opinion on such matters is reason enough (under the spirit of "Congress shall make no law...") to grant "charitable status" to for any nonpathological purpose that someone thinks is beneficial to society. You build a library -- great. I found a chess club -- great. Someone else endows a symphony -- cool. And a fourth person decides to build a huge church to the greater glory of God. I may think that that's a waste of land and building materials, but he probably thinks that chess is a vain and unprofitable way of frittering away time. Rather than trying to referee, I think that both should be treated identically. Or in other words, who gets to define "charity"?

Thus, I'm cool with giving the Academy of Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt the same tax breaks that Harvard or MIT gets. On the grounds that your misguided hobbies are no more stupid than mine. But on the other hand, I also think that Our Lady should get no more tax breaks -- on the grounds that mine are no more stupid than yours.

I find that attitude dangerously lax. I am not aware of any heads of not-for-profit chess associations who have seven or eight figure salaries from their organizations that sell snake oil promising it will improve the buyer's Sicilian Gambit, neither am I aware of any music philanthropists who promise eternal life and happiness for those who send money to their favorite piccolo player. The abuses that religious organizations have perpetrated under the protection of their tax-exempt, and thus scrutiny-exempt, status are far greater than those of other not-for-profit organizations.

 

[Brown]

I take this opportunity to cross-reference to this thread, in which I discuss legal aspects of religious exemptions.

Of special relevance to this thread are some remarks from the Walz case, in which Chief Justice Burger expressed reservations about equating religious organizations with "good works" groups.

Others may find the remarks made by President Grant to be of interest.

 

[H3LL]

While TV preachers might make big bucks, the clergy of most organized religions either have day jobs, or scrape by on five thousand a year with most other expenses paid for by their orders.

I find any appeal to the poverty of the church particularly hard to swallow.

Low pay for the clergy is surely an issue that should be directed at the church, and is also hard to believe that it's due to the church's lack of funds. Low pay is rarely the fault of the recipient in my experience.

For example, in the UK, most of Northumberland and large parts of Westminster are church owned and the claim of lack of money would probably be contested by the Duke of Northumberland^WP (estimated wealth of £300 million) and Duke of Westminster^WP (estimated fortune of 6.6 billion) who own much of the rest and are far from poor. The Dukes pay some tax though.

I believe that nobody outside can see the accounts of the Vatican.

.

 

[brodski]

That's a reasonable and fair solution -- but unfortunately some of us like the idea of encouraging "beneficial" behavior. I like, for example, the idea of educating people who can't afford it themselves, and I'm willing to suggest that we as society reward that practice -- for example, by making it cost less to operate a school than a stock brokerage

Unless of course things like schools and hospitals are run by the state, in which case their taxable status becomes a moot point.
what charitable status for schools has done in the UK is to give tax breaks to Public (private) fee charging schools who cater almost exclusively to the rich.

 

[AgingYoung]

maybe everyone should pay 'their fair share' of taxes.


Date line: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:04:32

THE FOUNDATION IS IN BUSINESS!

It is my great pleasure to announce the creation of the
James Randi Educational Foundation. This is a non-
profit, tax-exempt, educational foundation under
Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code,
incorporated in the State of Delaware. The Foundation
is generously funded by a sponsor in Washington D.C.
who wishes, at this point in time, to remain anonymous.

Gene

 

[Darat]

maybe everyone should pay 'their fair share' of taxes.


Date line: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 04:04:32


Gene

As long as exemptions and advantages exist I don't think any organization whether it is the Catholic Church or the JREF shouldn't take advantage of it.

Mind you come to think of it "temples and money lenders" comes to mind....

 

[AgingYoung]

Yes, the knights templar. Even the money changers need a break from the oppressive tax man. hehehe.

In '05 I bought and sold over 2.4 million (2,400,000 usd) in securities. Between taxes, margin interest, interest on loaned securities, etc. at the end of the day there was very little left for poor Gene. It's not fair I tell you! The tax man can get blood from a turnip. It's a miracle.

Gene

 

[hammegk]

maybe everyone should pay 'their fair share' of taxes ..

The JREF website educates passers-by and long-time lurkers that materialists/atheists are Bright, and that anyone who disagrees is not so bright.

 

[Ossai]

Beerina

Typically, tax exemption is to make it easier for marginal enterprises to survive. While TV preachers might make big bucks, the clergy of most organized religions either have day jobs, or scrape by on five thousand a year with most other expenses paid for by their orders.

I have no idea what part of the country you are in but that is definitely now how it is where I’m located.

My brother-in-law’s brother is a preacher. He works for the church, it’s not even one of those mega-churches, and his entire salary is paid for by the church. He isn’t even the main preacher but the secondary and they also have a third titled ‘youth minister’. He makes approximately 65,000 a year. Of that amount he is only required claim 45% as taxable income. That means he is in a lower tax bracket. He is married and has two children. His wife works and they file separately. Add in a house and a few other tax deductions and he is almost getting paid to sit back and take money from gullible people by the government. He receives a larger refund that what he actually pays through withholding.

What's wrong with religion being tax-exempt for religion's sake?

and

It's bad enough government is messing with dictating religion cannot have official opinions on who to vote for without losing tax exempt status, a perfectly rediculous position given how core religion is to people's lives, and how overwhelming (secular) government has become in its intrusiveness.

You just answered your own question. If the religions is so central to someone’s life and it dictates how they live, vote, what past times they may participate in, etc. then it is rather apparent that who and what issues they vote for would be a religious decision. However, just because they follow one religions does not give them the right to dictate to me what my views are or should be.

The separation of church and state works both ways. If the government is not allowed to interfere in religious matters then the religion should not be allowed to interfere in government matters.

Ossai