Split Thread Should we tax religions? (split from ACLU defends shirts)

KingMerv00 said:
"Churches" do not abide by the same rules as other charities. They don't have to apply for exempt status, they file less paperwork on a regular basis, and it is harder to audit a church than another non-profit organization. (See the IRS tax guide for churches.)
Click to expand...

This is the point I'm making. The church tax exemption is the same exemption any other 501(c)(3) organization enjoys. In fact, a tax exempt church is tax exempt under 501(c)(3) as is any other tax exempt organization. From the document you cite here:

Churches and religious organizations, like many other
charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from
federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and
are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contri-
butions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an
organization must meet the following requirements
(covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
■ the organization must be organized and operated
exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other
charitable purposes,
■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any
private individual or shareholder,
■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting
to influence legislation,
■ the organization may not intervene in political
campaigns, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
Click to expand...
Under the heading "Tax Exempt Status" on page 3.

These are the rules that all tax exempt organizations must abide by.

ETA: I think there is a misconception that churches enjoy a tax exempt status that is somehow unique or based on different law than other tax exempt organizations.

Here is a link to the code itself: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000501----000-.html
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
This is the point I'm making. The church tax exemption is the same exemption any other 501(c)(3) organization enjoys. In fact, a tax exempt church is tax exempt under 501(c)(3) as is any other tax exempt organization. From the document you cite here:

These are the rules that all tax exempt organizations must abide by.
Click to expand...

Yes. Churches follow the same rules but they have an easier time breaking those rules because of their special protections.
 
Fnord said:
I think all religious institutions should be fully taxed, just like any secular corporation. This may not solve the feuds between them, but it would at least take money away from them that would otherwise be used for tracts, lawyers, and other annoyances.
Click to expand...
I agree. The mega churches contribute nothing to society outside of what they provide their own congregations and I believe they owe the neighborhood in which they cause traffic jams, monopolise parking space and use what could be an area that could employ people who would pay taxes and contribute to society.


Churches should be taxed like any other money making organization.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
Yes. Churches follow the same rules but they have an easier time breaking those rules because of their special protections.
Click to expand...

And I agree it shouldn't be easier for them. I'm definitely in favor of tightening things up and treating all 501(c)(3) organizations more even-handedly.

In particular, I think the IRS should crack down on churches that campaign from the pulpit.

Once again, I'd like to mention Americans United (another tax exempt 501(c)(3) organization, by the way), and their Project Fair Play.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
See what I mean, KingMerv?
Click to expand...

I think the dispute is over whether or not churches are automatically a benefit to society. Charities that help the poor or educatate children are clearly a good thing and deserve a special status. Churches don't need to directly benefit anyone to get tax exemption. Is that fair?
 
KingMerv00 said:
If you think people can hide profit, surely you think they can hide income. Doing as you suggest wouldn't solve the problem, it would just change it.



You want to tax businesses that are losing money?
Click to expand...

Again my issues come from my perspective solely and may not be that generalizable.

Why not?

Hiding icome is possible but much harder than cooking expenses to run at a low profit.

Again personal experience dominates.

Taxing income is very simple and somewhat harsh, but hlek why should we support businesses that loose money and buy bussinesses that loose money.

That is thw whole point.

My family would loose a substantial tax benefit in the standard deductions, many people would loose depreciation, the whole point is to have zero loop holes, zero exemptions, zero ways to give peopel a chance to not pay taxes.

I am sorry to know that for years corporations have whined about their tax burden, when many write off so much that they don't pay taxes.

My solution is sort of the cutting of the Gordian knot.

Tax it all. Businesses, individuals, charities and churches. All of them. Now I am not saying this would happen or that it is reasonable. But it would make sure that lobbies no longer got to influences laws that allow people/corporation to make huge sums of money and never pay taxes.

Why should we allow deductions for business lunches, and travel? No more private equity doesn't pay taxes, no more I bought equipment and can write it off, no more I have a fancy house and drive a fancy car and get to write off my second mortage. And no more my business buys a crappy business so I can have a tax write off.

Now there may be the double taxation issue in some cases and that would be a huge area of litigation, inheritance tax will be the income tax. No more trusting it, no more sheltering it.

If you make a billion dollars in capital gains, then you pay the tax.

Granted it would really torque people off but my issue is that corporate america does not pay its fair share of taxes, they make huge profits and then don't pay taxes. Like TV shows somehow they get all this revenue but never make a profit, why is that?
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the reason to not tax religions and churches to keep them out of politics in the first place?
 
Dancing David said:
Again my issues come from my perspective solely and may not be that generalizable.

Why not?

Hiding icome is possible but much harder than cooking expenses to run at a low profit.

Again personal experience dominates.

Taxing income is very simple and somewhat harsh, but hlek why should we support businesses that loose money and buy bussinesses that loose money.

That is thw whole point.

My family would loose a substantial tax benefit in the standard deductions, many people would loose depreciation, the whole point is to have zero loop holes, zero exemptions, zero ways to give peopel a chance to not pay taxes.

I am sorry to know that for years corporations have whined about their tax burden, when many write off so much that they don't pay taxes.

My solution is sort of the cutting of the Gordian knot.

Tax it all. Businesses, individuals, charities and churches. All of them. Now I am not saying this would happen or that it is reasonable. But it would make sure that lobbies no longer got to influences laws that allow people/corporation to make huge sums of money and never pay taxes.

Why should we allow deductions for business lunches, and travel? No more private equity doesn't pay taxes, no more I bought equipment and can write it off, no more I have a fancy house and drive a fancy car and get to write off my second mortage. And no more my business buys a crappy business so I can have a tax write off.

Now there may be the double taxation issue in some cases and that would be a huge area of litigation, inheritance tax will be the income tax. No more trusting it, no more sheltering it.

If you make a billion dollars in capital gains, then you pay the tax.

Granted it would really torque people off but my issue is that corporate america does not pay its fair share of taxes, they make huge profits and then don't pay taxes. Like TV shows somehow they get all this revenue but never make a profit, why is that?
Click to expand...

I think your heart is in the right place but closing loopholes in that way may do more harm than good. Yes, evil corporations would pay a price but they are just imaginary constructs and most of the damage would be inflicted on John Q. Citizen.

Consider a company that makes 500 million dollars in a year but costs 1 billion to run. As a result, the company downsizes hundreds of jobs. If you tax the 500 million, they will simply cut more jobs. That hardly teaches evil CEOs a lesson.
 
i don't understand why its ok for a religious institution to vehemently support or oppose a specific policy or legislation, and that still gets them tax-free status.
 
Fiona said:
Why is such a company in business at all?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they were successful until an economic downturn caused a drop in consumer confidence.

Besides the amount lost is not particularly important. Say the company breaks even. If you tax the money they manage to take in, they may downsize when they otherwise would not.
 
parky76 said:
i don't understand why its ok for a religious institution to vehemently support or oppose a specific policy or legislation, and that still gets them tax-free status.
Click to expand...

Two answers (both of which are correct IMO):

1) Non-profits are legally allowed to lobby to a limited extent.

2) Some churches exceed that limit but the government is afraid of them.
 
Last edited:
KingMerv00 said:
Perhaps they were successful until an economic downturn caused a drop in consumer confidence.

Besides the amount lost is not particularly important. Say the company breaks even. If you tax the money they manage to take in, they may downsize when they otherwise would not.
Click to expand...

Yes ok: a temporary thing like that can happen: but are they not legally required to put share-holder's interests first? And, if so, then the reason for keeping the work force would be a view of the long term interests of the company surely? If that is correct that calculation will not change if they have to pay tax on what they take in. It might make all the difference but I cannot think it will be often: they ride it out either way or they don't /can't.

In the second case I am not sure if you mean in that same downturn: when the same considerations would apply. Of if you mean long term: if that then it is not viable at all. Often times companies which are making a loss are subs of groups making a profit and they shift the money about so they won't pay so much tax. Or does that not happen in america?
 
Fiona said:
Yes ok: a temporary thing like that can happen...
Click to expand...

The downturn may be temporary but the impact may be long-lasting or permanent. Just look at last year's collapse.

but are they not legally required to put share-holder's interests first? And, if so, then the reason for keeping the work force would be a view of the long term interests of the company surely?
Click to expand...

Sometimes it is in the best interest of the shareholders to reduce the size of the workforce.

In the second case I am not sure if you mean in that same downturn: when the same considerations would apply. Of if you mean long term: if that then it is not viable at all. Often times companies which are making a loss are subs of groups making a profit and they shift the money about so they won't pay so much tax. Or does that not happen in america?
Click to expand...

Of course it happens. I just think the answer is to take on dishonest businesses, not ones that are struggling.
 
Last edited:
i agree. The profits that are made by churches should be taxed. That they do not have to pay taxes has always bothered me. glad to see that i'm not the only one.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Yes and no. They have the same standards as other charities but statutes prevent the effective gathering of information and the effective use of punishment when it comes to churches. Check out this Swift article (sorry to plug myself but it is just too relevant and too much fun).
Click to expand...

Yea right. Look at Benny Hinn, the poster child for using a church for personal enrichment and no one cares.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
No, we should not. Those taxed should be represented politically (we went to war over that one once), and I'd prefer the churches (and synagogues and mosques and whatnots) stay out of politics.

That said, we should crack down on the ones that do stick their noses into politics.
Click to expand...

Churches are politically represented better than most other organizations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom