09-08-2003 10:51									#1
	Should churches have tax exempt status? Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

There has been a little bit of talk about churches having their tax-exempt status taken away. I'm not prepared to support this yet, but it is decent idea. And a new way to generate revenue for the goverment.

What do you think?

	09-08-2003 11:04									#2
	Support Apolyton

As long as they meet the legal requirements for their status, it's a constitutional issue.

	09-08-2003 11:23									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

... and if that's the case, fuggidaboudit.

	09-08-2003 11:50									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'd say no (unless they got that status by some means that was not related to them being a church like other non-profit organizations).

	09-08-2003 12:19									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

always thought this kind of violated seperation of church and state (even though that is just a custom and is not expressed in the constitution), especially as certain churches (ie- cults) do not get church status...

however, i don't want to see churches and mosques shutting down because they can't afford to stay active cause they got to pay taxes all the time.

	09-08-2003 13:51									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm not sure it is a constitutional issue. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That would seem to clearly exempt taxing Church income, as well as property taxes on properties related to the practice of religion.

But I'm pretty sure that, currently, ALL property owned by a religious organization is exempt from property tax. That's just wrong, and it should be well within the scope of the 1st Amendment to tax it.

	09-08-2003 18:42									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Churches generally aren't owned by anybody, they make no profits and they do not issue stock, so they meet all the requirements for not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they should not be taxed.

	09-08-2003 18:55									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

How's the situation elsewhere in the world?

	09-08-2003 19:09									#9
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think a non-establishment clause isn't typical, at least in the West (perhaps the Euros could correct me if I'm wrong). Because of this, the debate dynamics are different in those countries. Churches are considered more like public institutions of the state, rather than public institutions outside of government purview. But perhaps the results for taxation are the same under all of these systems.

It's amazing that this clause has been so durable, even if so simple. Kudos to the constitutional framers.

	09-08-2003 20:24									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Churches generally aren't owned by anybody, they make no profits and they do not issue stock, so they meet all the requirements for not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they should not be taxed.

True of churches themselves, but what of, say, income-producing property (office buildings, for example) owned by a Catholic diocese? The income is plowed back into the diocese, which then spends it in ways that allow it to be "non-profit"; but the property itself has absolutely no status as religious.

quote: It's amazing that this clause has been so durable, even if so simple. Kudos to the constitutional framers.

I agree wholeheartedly, but let's be clear: the framers would probably disagree with much that has been done in the name of the Establishment Clause.

	09-08-2003 20:26									#11
	Support Apolyton

Any organization that is dedicated to helping others should not have their hands tied by paying a portion of that which is given freely stolen by the government. How can Government claim that they can do a better job? Supposedly they are persuing the same goal in many respects...i.e. the relief of those in need.

	09-08-2003 20:31									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Churches generally aren't owned by anybody, they make no profits and they do not issue stock, so they meet all the requirements for not-for-profit organizations. Therefore they should not be taxed.

Down the street from me, there is a giant church taking up close to half a block of prime Manhattan real estate. Now somebody owns that, and is not paying the high ass property tases that would otherwise be leveled on it. Frankly, the city really needs that revenue

Churches should be taxed for two reasons:

(1) Music stores sell CDs and pay taxes; bookstores sell books and get taxed. Churches sell "salvation" and superstition - all sales operations should get taxed. But seriously ...

(2) Not taxing churches is in effect a government subsidy of religion. Think about it. The big church down the street is not paying taxes on its property. Any other operation would be paying property tax - ergo, the city is losing the revenue that property taxes would be generating. That is a classic subsidy.

Now if you want to talk about separation of church and state - giving a subsidy to religion is certainly not neutral. The way I see it, if religion is so important to the religious, they should put more in the collection plate to cover the property taxes. If they don't want to pay the full cost, then they really don't find religion that important. It's as simple as that.

	09-08-2003 20:34									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Any organization that is dedicated to helping others should not have their hands tied by paying a portion of that which is given freely stolen by the government. How can Government claim that they can do a better job? Supposedly they are persuing the same goal in many respects...i.e. the relief of those in need.

Well, first of all, "helping others" is a great phrase, but what if it is at odds with the goals of the government? Here's a concrete example: Given that the Supreme Court has upheld abortion as a Constitutional right, why should the government subsidize attempts to undermine that right by the Catholic Church? Because by allowing the Church to own tax-exempt non-religious property, then plow the money it saves on taxes into anti-abortion efforts, that's exactly what it's doing.

Beyond that, I would suggest that government does do a better job of helping others; even a cursory look at both the Progressive Era and the New Deal provides a good indication that government programs help more people, more effectively, than does private charity.

	09-08-2003 20:35									#14
	Put an end to popups!

Does anyone know if the pastors,reverends,priests, ministers pay any taxes if they work exclusively for the church?

	09-08-2003 20:39									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by PLATO Any organization that is dedicated to helping others should not have their hands tied by paying a portion of that which is given freely stolen by the government. How can Government claim that they can do a better job? Supposedly they are persuing the same goal in many respects...i.e. the relief of those in need.

More libertoid ranting.

	09-08-2003 20:39									#16
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by CorpusScorpius Does anyone know if the pastors,reverends,priests, ministers pay any taxes if they work exclusively for the church?

Nope. That strikes me as appropriate, and wholly in keeping with the Non-Establishment Clause.

	09-08-2003 20:40									#17
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Given that the Supreme Court has upheld abortion as a Constitutional right, why should teh government subsidize attempts to undermine that right by the Catholic Church? Because by allowing the Church to own tax-exempt non-religious property, then plow teh money it saves on taxes into anti-abortion efforts, that's exactly what it's doing.

Well, one of the counterarguments I can use is that it isn't necessarily illegal or immoral to disagree with your government.

Secondly, I would say that the idea of non-taxed religious organizations has helped the proliferation of tax exempt secular organizations - and note that these tax-exempt secular organizations commonly run counter to the desires of the government. You want to start taxing the ACLU* now?

So if your favorite political action group is tax-exempt, and you like that, be sure to thank your local church.

*In all honesty, I don't know if the ACLU is a tax exempt organization, they're just a handy example.

	09-08-2003 20:40									#18
	Remove this text

I say any Church that endorses a political candidate or whose minister runs for political office should immediately, and permanently lose its tax exempt status. The separation between church and state must be maintained both ways.

Are you listening Reverend Jackson?

	09-08-2003 20:42									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ned I say any Church that endorses a political candidate or whose minister runs for political office should immediately, and permanently lose its tax exempt status. The separation between church and state must be maintained both ways. Are you listening Reverend Jackson?

Ned and I agree on something.

Of course, every evangelical church in Texas (maybe even in the whole south) would then lose its tax exempt status.

	09-08-2003 20:45									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Well, first of all, "helping others" is a great phrase, but what if it is at odds with the goals of the government? Here's a concrete example: Given that the Supreme Court has upheld abortion as a Constitutional right, why should the government subsidize attempts to undermine that right by the Catholic Church? Because by allowing the Church to own tax-exempt non-religious property, then plow the money it saves on taxes into anti-abortion efforts, that's exactly what it's doing. Beyond that, I would suggest that government does do a better job of helping others; even a cursory look at both the Progressive Era and the New Deal provides a good indication that government programs help more people, more effectively, than does private charity.

First of all, because the government has ruled one way does not end the right of people to persue change. You cannot tie someones rights to ask for redress to any taxation issue.

Second, while the governments effort to assist people is bigger in scope, it can hardly be called more efficient. Charitable organizations recieve huge amounts of free labor and materials which they use to stretch the money they do get. It would be hard to imagine the government competeing with them of efficiency.

	09-08-2003 20:55									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by PLATO First of all, because the government has ruled one way does not end the right of people to persue change. You cannot tie someones rights to ask for redress to any taxation issue.

Nonsense. We're not talking about curtailing their right; we're talking about financing their activities. Other people who "do good" pay taxes; "doing good" is not, in and of itself, an entitlement to tax relief. The issue is not whether they're doing good, but whether the government is subsidizing their activities above and beyond what is required by the Non-Establishment Clause. And they are.

Don't tax the churches, don't tax the schools or the cemetaries or the soup kicthens, but I see no reason why secular, commercial investments shouldn't be taxed. I'd say the same even if the Church and I agreed on absolutely everything.

	09-08-2003 21:01									#22
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly Nonsense. We're not talking about curtailing their right; we're talking about financing their activities.

So those who receive the Earned Income Credit should not be allowed a voice?

	09-08-2003 21:02									#23
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Only if synagogues, mosques, etc etc get the same status. Ideally, none of them should, they are businesses like any other, and don't do any DIRECT charitable work.

	09-08-2003 21:03									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by elijah Only if synagogues, mosques, etc etc get the same status. Ideally, none of them should, they are businesses like any other, and don't do any DIRECT charitable work.

I have no problem with synagogues, mosques, etc.. having tax exempt status. In fact, they should have.

	09-08-2003 21:12									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think it's highly naive to say churches are no profit organizations when I look at the Catholic church... The Catholics (and not only them) own firms, banks, estates and other economic institutions, hold back large amounts of capital etc. etc. Economic activity from those enterprises should be taxed like any other similar institution or we'd give them an undeserved advantage over comparable non-church organizations.
With aid programs from churches it should be different of course.

And let's finally not forget that one could be a bit suspicious that SOME organizations could disguise as religions while being profit oriented or some people make their economic activities be part of their church... (Scientology anyone?)
Maybe I'm wrong in the last part - how difficult/easy is it in the US to be considered a church and get the benefits?

	09-08-2003 21:13									#26
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by PLATO So those who receive the Earned Income Credit should not be allowed a voice?

You win; that's the dumbest analogy I've ever seen on Poly. Your trophy's in the mail.

Here's a proper analogy, just so you can tell the difference. Suppose, as a private citizen, I own a strip mall in suburban Chicago; suppose I donate all the money I make from the mall -- beyond what's required to feed and clothe my family -- to charity. (1) Is the strip-mall itself exempt from property taxes? (Answer: No). (2) Should it be?

	09-08-2003 21:16									#27
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly I'm not sure it is a constitutional issue. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That would seem to clearly exempt taxing Church income, as well as property taxes on properties related to the practice of religion. But I'm pretty sure that, currently, ALL property owned by a religious organization is exempt from property tax. That's just wrong, and it should be well within the scope of the 1st Amendment to tax it.

The purpose, like with most amendments, was to counteract specific examples of abuse known to the framers. If you have a property tax on all churches, then selectively enforce payment and collection on those you don't like, you give the state power to enforce a religious preference. That's harder to do in modern times, so the more subtle method is to play with the assessed value of the improvements to the property.

The tax exemptions apply only to qualifying activities, so if a church was to own a commercial business, that in itself is a violation of status. The solution (the same thing is done when a for profit business wants to create a not for profit charitable foundation) is to have two chartered organizations, one for the for profit enterprise, and one for the not for profit enterprise. The for profit enterprise is taxed, but is a separate entity for all legal and accounting purposes.

	09-08-2003 21:19									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Wernazuma III And let's finally not forget that one could be a bit suspicious that SOME organizations could disguise as religions while being profit oriented or some people make their economic activities be part of their church... (Scientology anyone?) Maybe I'm wrong in the last part - how difficult/easy is it in the US to be considered a church and get the benefits?

Fairly easy to get, and fairly hard to revoke. Both the Church of Scientology and Jimmy Swaggart Ministries had extensive battles with the IRS. Then there's ol' Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and a few others that have gotten.

	09-08-2003 21:21									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Then tax them, otherwise it's just a legal hole for all kinds of unscrupulous "businessmen".

	09-08-2003 21:22									#30
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by elijah Only if synagogues, mosques, etc etc get the same status.

IIRC, they do.