Do you think Churches should be taxed?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

And exactly how do you make this distinction without creating a very real system of discrimination against "non-authorized" sects and religions?

Again, I think the solution is to treat churches no differently than any other non-profit. If they want to use it as a tax shelter (see: Fred Phelps), they have to account for it to the IRS. If they want to use it to fleece people, let them make their fleecing public.

Well, I do think that *if* there is a tax on churches it should be even across the board on all churches. Don't tax Christians more than Jews, don't tax Jews more than Islamics, etc.

However, loop holes, like those used by Fred Phelps and others should be shut down. How to investigate them? Well, I'm not sure there's probably a way to have the suspect church "investigated" by IRS officials, as well as some top theologians, who can have a vote and say "Yep, this is a church" or "Nope, this is some wingnut praying to a cactus made out of snow in his freezer."

Scientology only got it's tax-exempt status due to nefarious means. They should be stripped immediately of their tax exempt status. http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html

However, there is a lot of anti-religion bias being spouted off here. Some is warranted. But some is based off of the opinions of some person trying to drive to the supermarket past a "megachurch" to go buy beer for the 1PM football game and all they see what that church does is "collect money".

I'm not defending mega-churches, I think they're an abomination and a blight. But there is a lot of knee jerk reaction of people hating churches in general that they don't see that maybe, just maybe, that church is funding a soup kitchen, helping battered wives get on with their lives, helping someone get over an addiction, or even just transitioning from prison life to the outside world. All they see is the bad image.

Anyways, All those philanthropic things churches DO provide, if they're taxed, guess who ends up making up for it... that's right... the tax payers. Paying for social services that the church may have provided, with less bureaucratic overhead.

But keep on hating if that makes you feel better.

 

[corplinx]

Do you think Churches should be taxed?

Yes.

 

[dudalb]

Well, I do think that *if* there is a tax on churches it should be even across the board on all churches. Don't tax Christians more than Jews, don't tax Jews more than Islamics, etc.

However, loop holes, like those used by Fred Phelps and others should be shut down. How to investigate them? Well, I'm not sure there's probably a way to have the suspect church "investigated" by IRS officials, as well as some top theologians, who can have a vote and say "Yep, this is a church" or "Nope, this is some wingnut praying to a cactus made out of snow in his freezer."

Scientology only got it's tax-exempt status due to nefarious means. They should be stripped immediately of their tax exempt status. http://www.xenu.net/archive/media/time910605.html

However, there is a lot of anti-religion bias being spouted off here. Some is warranted. But some is based off of the opinions of some person trying to drive to the supermarket past a "megachurch" to go buy beer for the 1PM football game and all they see what that church does is "collect money".

I'm not defending mega-churches, I think they're an abomination and a blight. But there is a lot of knee jerk reaction of people hating churches in general that they don't see that maybe, just maybe, that church is funding a soup kitchen, helping battered wives get on with their lives, helping someone get over an addiction, or even just transitioning from prison life to the outside world. All they see is the bad image.

Anyways, All those philanthropic things churches DO provide, if they're taxed, guess who ends up making up for it... that's right... the tax payers. Paying for social services that the church may have provided, with less bureaucratic overhead.

But keep on hating if that makes you feel better.

I am in the wierd position of being a total disbeliever in religon,but thinking a lot of the anti religious rheteoric I hear is really,really,over the top. Some of it is almost like a Bizarro version of religious fundamentalists.
I don't believe in God, but see no reason to automatically despise and hate those who do.

 

[Cleon]

Well, I do think that *if* there is a tax on churches it should be even across the board on all churches. Don't tax Christians more than Jews, don't tax Jews more than Islamics, etc.

However, loop holes, like those used by Fred Phelps and others should be shut down. How to investigate them? Well, I'm not sure there's probably a way to have the suspect church "investigated" by IRS officials, as well as some top theologians, who can have a vote and say "Yep, this is a church" or "Nope, this is some wingnut praying to a cactus made out of snow in his freezer."

Hey, that's great, but what gives you (or the IRS) the right to decide that the snow-cactus-cult isn't a bona fide religion? On what grounds?

That's what I mean about discrimination. It's not about Christianity vs. Islam vs. Judaism or anything like that, it's about giving the state authority to decide which is a "church" and which isn't. And that's a very dangerous place to go.

[
I'm not defending mega-churches, I think they're an abomination and a blight. But there is a lot of knee jerk reaction of people hating churches in general that they don't see that maybe, just maybe, that church is funding a soup kitchen, helping battered wives get on with their lives, helping someone get over an addiction, or even just transitioning from prison life to the outside world. All they see is the bad image.

OK, so why is a mega-church with a CEO any more legitimate than the guy with his cactus god? Between the two, I'd bet more on the cactus-worshiper volunteering in a homeless shelter than the CEO of a mega-church.

 

[qarnos]

So how do you tell a real church from a false one? What do you use to discriminate(in the sense of telling apart, needed for the different treatment you advocate) between real religion and fake ones?

Oh, this one's easy! A real religion is one which believes in the same god I do. Everything else is obviously fake!

 

[Lonewulf]

I think that churches either should pay taxes, or be treated like any non-profit organization, with all the restrictions of such.

 

[The Painter]

If churches pay taxes, its really going to screw up the whole separation of chuch and state thing. The Pope for president, yeah baby.

 

[drkitten]

If churches pay taxes, its really going to screw up the whole separation of chuch and state thing. The Pope for president, yeah baby.

No more than newspapers paying taxes messes up the "freedom of the press" thing.

 

[MaxHardcore]

So how do you tell a real church from a false one? What do you use to discriminate(in the sense of telling apart, needed for the different treatment you advocate) between real religion and fake ones?

You throw them in the river and see if they float.

 

[drkitten]

So how do you tell a real church from a false one? What do you use to discriminate(in the sense of telling apart, needed for the different treatment you advocate) between real religion and fake ones?

Well, one suggestion that I would make, as a start. ANY non-profit organization must spend at least X% of its annual income or Y% of its total assets, whichever is greater, on external charitable activities -- charitable being defined in the text of the bill as including things like direct charity, education, cultural activities, etc. that are not restricted to the membership of the organization itself. (Most charitable "foundations" already operate under something like this; I can't create the "drkitten foundation" and collect donations which I simply put in a cookie jar on my refrigerator; I actually need to spend some of the money for the benefit of all mankind.) Buildings and capital investment, salaries for workers, administrative costs, and so forth, would specifically not count.

And closed "religious" activities would not count, either. If it isn't public (and available to the public), it's not charitable.

Running a soup kitchen? Great. Financing a hospital? Most excellent. Giving chocolate FSM's to homeless children every Mad Hatter Day? Rock on. Buying a new Caddy for the guru? Not "charitable," even if one of the tenets of your church is that the guru needs a new Caddy each year to get into Heaven.

As I said, this isn't that unusual a restriction in general -- "normal" nonprofits operate under these rules all the time. What would be unusual is simply levelling the playing field so that religions had to follow them.

But I think this would make "religion" a much less lucrative tax-dodge. It probably wouldn't put a dent in Scientology -- but it would stop "Dr." Dino pretty cold....

 

[Philip]

I agree with those that say churches should be taxed like regular non-profit organizations if they can follow the laws for non-profit organizations. If a chuch can't hold to those rules, it should be taxed like any other for-profit business.

 

[Lonewulf]

If churches pay taxes, its really going to screw up the whole separation of chuch and state thing. The Pope for president, yeah baby.

I disagree. I think that making churches the exception in being the only for-profit business, free of all tax laws, makes it treated exceptionally. It should be treated secularly, and thus, it's a non-profit organization, or it's a business of some sort.

Also, the Pope couldn't be president. He wasn't born in America.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

However, there is a lot of anti-religion bias being spouted off here. Some is warranted. But some is based off of the opinions of some person trying to drive to the supermarket past a "megachurch" to go buy beer for the 1PM football game and all they see what that church does is "collect money".

Would that be an example of unwarranted anti-religious bias then?

I'm not defending mega-churches, I think they're an abomination and a blight. But there is a lot of knee jerk reaction of people hating churches in general that they don't see that maybe, just maybe, that church is funding a soup kitchen, helping battered wives get on with their lives, helping someone get over an addiction, or even just transitioning from prison life to the outside world. All they see is the bad image.

Anyways, All those philanthropic things churches DO provide, if they're taxed, guess who ends up making up for it... that's right... the tax payers. Paying for social services that the church may have provided, with less bureaucratic overhead.

Wrong.

If they are charitable activities they don't get taxed, same as any other non-profit organisation carrying out those activities. All the examples you gave should be fine.

However what religion gets at the moment is a free pass on ALL its activities, whether they are philanthropic or not. That is what people are suggesting ending, the special treatment for religion.

But keep on hating if that makes you feel better.

Look, there is the anti-religious bigotry again!

 

[The Painter]

No more than newspapers paying taxes messes up the "freedom of the press" thing.

Wrong.
Does the New York Times endorse candidates? When was the last time the Catholic Church endorsed a candidate? It had to be pre 1954

I think that churches either should pay taxes, or be treated like any non-profit organization, with all the restrictions of such.

That is exactly how they are treated.

Thus, religious organizations are treated no differently than schools, hospitals,
social services agencies, colleges and universities, scientific organizations,
museums and all other charitable organizations exempt under section 501(c)(3)
of the Code. None of these organizations may intervene in political campaigns.

Here's the big bugaboo. If they pay taxes, it is then OK for them to endorse candidates, take out full page ads, and actively participate in the campaign. The church (church meaning all religions) with the most money will have the biggest impact. By having a huge impact on the political system, it will in fact make it the unofficial "Official" religion of the USA, which is exactly what the Bill of Rights doesn't want.

Like it or not, there are more religious people in this country then non-religious people. I would hate to see political campaigns given over to the power of the church. Keep them tax free and out of politics.

http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/politicspulpit.pdf

 

[drkitten]

That is exactly how they are treated.

This statement is simply untrue.

Just as a simple example, "faith-based" organizations are not required to fill out IRS Form 990 (which is the public disclosure of expenditures that almost all other nonprofits must fill out).

The rest of the post is elided since you obviously don't have your facts straight.

 

[The Painter]

This statement is simply untrue.

Just as a simple example, "faith-based" organizations are not required to fill out IRS Form 990 (which is the public disclosure of expenditures that almost all other nonprofits must fill out).

The rest of the post is elided since you obviously don't have your facts straight.

Apparently it's more than just faith based who are not required to file a 990. I guess they are treated the same as other groups. Go figure. You should get your facts straight.

http://www.guidestar.org/help/faq_990.jsp

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i990-ez.pdf

 

[drkitten]

Apparently it's more than just faith based who are not required to file a 990.

Yes, the other groups that are not required to fill out 990s are organizations that are too small and subsidiary organizations that are covered by their parent's 990. See the IRS FAQ (which you cited).

6. Which organizations are not required to file Form 990?
In general:

* Nonprofits that have not received tax-exempt status from the IRS
* Most faith-based organizations
* Nonprofits with incomes of $25,000 or less
* Subsidiary organizations

The IRS explicitly recognizes that churches are treated specially.

I guess they are treated the same as other groups.

Let's see.
Independent university with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent museum with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent orchestra with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent research foundation with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent church with $1 million in annual revenue. Not required to fill out a 990.

Nope, no difference here, not at all.

As I said, get your facts straight.

 

[fredcarr]

I am in the wierd position of being a total disbeliever in religon,but thinking a lot of the anti religious rheteoric I hear is really,really,over the top. Some of it is almost like a Bizarro version of religious fundamentalists.
I don't believe in God, but see no reason to automatically despise and hate those who do.

Nice post.

Fred

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, one suggestion that I would make, as a start. ANY non-profit organization must spend at least X% of its annual income or Y% of its total assets, whichever is greater, on external charitable activities -- charitable being defined in the text of the bill as including things like direct charity, education, cultural activities, etc. that are not restricted to the membership of the organization itself. (Most charitable "foundations" already operate under something like this; I can't create the "drkitten foundation" and collect donations which I simply put in a cookie jar on my refrigerator; I actually need to spend some of the money for the benefit of all mankind.) Buildings and capital investment, salaries for workers, administrative costs, and so forth, would specifically not count.

And closed "religious" activities would not count, either. If it isn't public (and available to the public), it's not charitable.

Running a soup kitchen? Great. Financing a hospital? Most excellent. Giving chocolate FSM's to homeless children every Mad Hatter Day? Rock on. Buying a new Caddy for the guru? Not "charitable," even if one of the tenets of your church is that the guru needs a new Caddy each year to get into Heaven.

As I said, this isn't that unusual a restriction in general -- "normal" nonprofits operate under these rules all the time. What would be unusual is simply levelling the playing field so that religions had to follow them.

But I think this would make "religion" a much less lucrative tax-dodge. It probably wouldn't put a dent in Scientology -- but it would stop "Dr." Dino pretty cold....

I am not sure I totally agree with that definition. What about say something that runs a historic land mark site? Should that be a non profit organization or not?

I am in agreement with the people who say that the government shouldn't get in the business of recognizing religion and that all similar organizations should be treated the same independent of their status as religions.

 

[The Painter]

Let's see.
Independent university with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent museum with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent orchestra with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent research foundation with $1 million in annual revenue. Required to fill out a 990.
Independent church with $1 million in annual revenue. Not required to fill out a 990.

OMG you mean they have to fill out a form?? The Horror. A 990 is not a tax, a fee or a charge. It's nothing but a declaration of purpose. Another piece of bureaucratic paper. BFD It's a non-issue