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

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.
 
Darat said:
I can see where you made your mistake, remove the word "planned" from your statement.
Click to expand...

True.

I saw some historical reconstruction/archeology on the London street "plan" and many of the streets follow tracks that animals were droved over in the 13th century and some appear to be trackways far more ancient. You'd think that the Great London Fire would have caused some rectification of the street plan and to a VERY small degree it did, but mostly people had rights to a space and rebuilt on it, and the street remained where it was.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Of course churchs don't have to play by such rules.

I say churches should play by the same rules as everyone else. If they fit the rules to be tax exempt they are tax exempt, if they don't they pay their taxes.
Click to expand...
And those rules change depending on the circumstances.

Hay business B, you want to bring 50 jobs to this community. We'll reduce your taxes to give you an incentive to do so. What’s' that company A? I don't care if you've been providing 100 jobs in this community for the last 20 years. No special privileges for you.
 
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...

My understanding is that, in the U.S., they have to abide by the same non-profit corporation status as any secular non-profit does. That is, they're not getting tax exemption because they're religions, but because they're non-profit organizations.

That's why the stuff about campaigning for a candidate from the pulpit is such an important issue. It's a violation of the laws that any other non-profit has to abide by to maintain a tax exempt status.
 
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...

My church will be ecstatic to hear this. The Pastor, who is already paid by a housing allowance and nothing else will be thrilled to hear that now that Church can no longer afford to even pay for his mortgage. Likewise, the Church President will be enthusiastic to cut off the small amount of aid that we are able to send to our sister churches, like those in Madagascar. Fantastic. They didn't need any new schools over there anyways.

We will be quite saddened that charlatans and snake-oil salesman in the giant mega-churches won't be able to afford quite as large as a yacht because they'll have to pay a few taxes.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I think that's fine in theory but not in practice. The problem is that churches are defined as "charities" by fiat not because they meet a set of requirements.
Click to expand...
See above (but change "charity" to non-profit). They don't get that status because they're a religion, but because they abide by the same laws that any secular "charity" or non-profit corporation abides by.

FWIW, I'm in favor of periodic mandatory audits into these large churches that obviously handle lots of money (as instigated by Sen. Grassley a couple of years ago).
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
That said, we should crack down on the ones that do stick their noses into politics.
Click to expand...

This. Religious institutions that limit themselves and their operations to religious things can keep their tax exemption. Any religious organization that lobbies lawmakers, pays for ads for/against a political issue, or encourages members to vote their way should lose their tax exempt status.
 
BardKesnit said:
Any religious organization that lobbies lawmakers, pays for ads for/against a political issue, or encourages members to vote their way should lose their tax exempt status.
Click to expand...

They already do, but the government does nothing.

Tax them. Tax them unitil the lying, cheating altar-boy frackers bleed.

If it helps cure the cancer common known as "God." So, much the better.
 
Last edited:
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...

And there's the crux of the problem right there. This kind of enforcement of the current tax-exempt rules is sorely lacking in the U.S. So while technically churches & religious groups aren't supposed to interfere in politics, far too many do and get away with it on a regular basis.

The system needs to have better regulation & enforcement of the current rules. That would fix a lot of things - but the real question is one of political will to do so at the risk of sounding "anti-religion" or (gasp!) "godless" :jaw-dropp

And point out one high-profile politician willing to do that.
 
Last edited:
BardKesnit said:
This. Religious institutions that limit themselves and their operations to religious things can keep their tax exemption. Any religious organization that lobbies lawmakers, pays for ads for/against a political issue, or encourages members to vote their way should lose their tax exempt status.
Click to expand...

Key word there... they should lose their tax exempt status, but for reasons I outlined above, too many don't. So they can get away with all the b.s. which pisses me and others here off so much.
 
MattusMaximus said:
And there's the crux of the problem right there. This kind of enforcement of the current tax-exempt rules is sorely lacking in the U.S. So while technically churches & religious groups aren't supposed to interfere in politics, far too many do and get away with it on a regular basis.

The system needs to have better regulation & enforcement of the current rules. That would fix a lot of things - but the real question is one of political will to do so at the risk of sounding "anti-religion" or (gasp!) "godless" :jaw-dropp

And point out one high-profile politician willing to do that.
Click to expand...

Americans United has taken some action on this issue.

While it's not quite on the same issue, but I did mention the audits led by Sen. Grassley.

I agree we need to do more of that. (Join Americans United!)
 
Joe,

You may be wrong or right depending on the definitions of the words you are using. It is hard to explain but I'll try my best.

JoeTheJuggler said:
They don't get that status because they're a religion...
Click to expand...

"Churches" get tax exempt status merely for being "churches". See IRS.gov.

The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.
Click to expand...

Note that "advancement of religion" is separate from the other definitions of charitable. A "church" can be tax exempt even without helping the poor, caring for the sick, etc.

That being said, there is a semantics issue here because you used the word "religion". A tax-exempt "church" can be atheistic, so technically churches "don't get that status because they're a religion" they get it because they are an organization that explores things like morality and the ultimate meaning of life. In reality, however, the vast majority of "churches" are based in the supernatural.

...they abide by the same laws that any secular "charity" or non-profit corporation abides by.
Click to expand...

"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.)

I'm trying to think of a simple way to explain the semantics involved but I feel I am failing. Am I making sense? It might help if you specifically defined your terms.
 
Last edited:
godofpie said:
I think a non profit should have to prove that it doesn't make a profit. If a church is spending it's excess cash to help starving kittens in Uganda, then so be it. If the money is going to buy a Rolls for the preacher, then this church is clearly making a profit.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree, tax all income, profit can be manipulated. If you raise any funds or get icome of any sort , pay taxes. Now if they want exeptions for youths under 18 who run lemonade stands, that would be reasonable. BUt it opens the door.

Now the only money I would consider not as income would be government granst to not for profits, but that is the the slippery slope.
 
Dancing David said:
I respectfully disagree, tax all income, profit can be manipulated.
Click to expand...

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.

If you raise any funds or get icome of any sort , pay taxes.
Click to expand...

You want to tax businesses that are losing money?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom