should churches pay taxes?

[huginnmuninn]

i think churches should pay taxes. what do you think?

[Nexus]

I think there should be a tighter watch on Churches' finances. If they're bringing in an over-abundance of money I think it should be subject to taxation as any establishment would be.

A good example would be the Church Of Scientology. They've been denied tax exempt status for decades now due to the fact that they're practices are more centered around financial gain than anything.

All in all, tax exempt status should be granted in accordance to the circumstances, not because an organization wishes to call itself a place of worship.

[DarkHorses]

I think they should have to pay taxes too. Government and religion should always be separated, and the government funding the churches essentially means that the church depends on the government to operate. Plus I don't like the idea that people who are not religious pay taxes and that some of those taxes go to churches, which they are not even a part of. It should be the responsibility of the people who are in charge of the church and the parishioners to fund the church.

[Amnesiac]

I think there should be a tighter watch on Churches' finances. If they're bringing in an over-abundance of money I think it should be subject to taxation as any establishment would be.

A good example would be the Church Of Scientology. They've been denied tax exempt status for decades now due to the fact that they're practices are more centered around financial gain than anything.

All in all, tax exempt status should be granted in accordance to the circumstances, not because an organization wishes to call itself a place of worship.

I agree. Simply labeling something as a religious institution is no basis for getting away with income tax-free. I don't see why organized religion gets to hoard money, but we regular people and even corporations have to cough up money to the government.

I can respect tax exemption for small community churches, but not for the megachurches like that one here in Houston... Lakewood Baptist Church, it has thousands upon thousands of members. I also don't think churches that spread political messages, such as Westboro Baptist Church, should be eligible for tax exemption.

[Suicune]

I can respect tax exemption for small community churches, but not for the megachurches like that one here in Houston... Lakewood Baptist Church, it has thousands upon thousands of members. I also don't think churches that spread political messages, such as Westboro Baptist Church, should be eligible for tax exemption.

Agreed. ( I hate the WBC -_-)

Jesus can't help you everywhere.

[Sage]

I also don't think churches that spread political messages, such as Westboro Baptist Church, should be eligible for tax exemption.

Westboro Baptist Church doesn't spread any political message.

[Trickster]

I think they should. Because just because something is "labeled" as a religious center doesnt mean it is all it focuses on. People could easily take advantage of this and make money although for the wrong reason. A church doesnt have to be fancy, have air conditions, nice seats and fun to be a church. It could just use four walls, a bible and people, thats whats makes a church in my opinion.

[Amnesiac]

Agreed. ( I hate the WBC -_-)

Jesus can't help you everywhere.

:D

Westboro Baptist Church doesn't spread any political message.

Technically, you could call some of their comments calling for the United States to oppress gays as political.

Adding to that, I don't think churches that spread a discriminatory viewpoint towards particular segments of the population should be eligible for tax exemption.

[Nexus]

It could just use four walls, a bible and people, thats whats makes a church in my opinion.

And that is probably what the government had in mind when exempting them from paying taxes. I swear, some places just strap a cross on their door and call it a day.

[Azunite]

Churches aren't a special place. It is only special beause a priest calls people and reads bible to them.
They should pay taxes

[Sith Lord 13]

If there is, as Thomas Jefferson proposed, a wall between church and state, then you cannot tax churches, as that would cause them to interact. Also, taxation would go against the establishment clause, as it would end up promoting some churches over others, especially if only some churches were taxed.

[Amnesiac]

If there is, as Thomas Jefferson proposed, a wall between church and state, then you cannot tax churches, as that would cause them to interact. Also, taxation would go against the establishment clause, as it would end up promoting some churches over others, especially if only some churches were taxed.

Unfortunately, the government and churches are much more intertwined than you think. Look at Bush's "faith based initiatives", it's pretty much handing out money to churches.

As long as churches are taxed at a flat percentage, without fluctuation between certain churches, then I think it wouldn't violate the establishment clause. One could argue that not taxing churches is in itself "promoting" religion.

[Sith Lord 13]

Unfortunately, the government and churches are much more intertwined than you think. Look at Bush's "faith based initiatives", it's pretty much handing out money to churches.

As long as churches are taxed at a flat percentage, without fluctuation between certain churches, then I think it wouldn't violate the establishment clause. One could argue that not taxing churches is in itself "promoting" religion.

No, as some churches would be unable to afford that tax and be forced to close. This would mean that churches that serve wealthy parishes would be OK, and ones in poorer neighborhoods would not. The "faith based initiatives", were centered around the fact that previously, an organization had difficulty obtaining federal funds for doing things like fighting poverty, just because it was affiliated with a religious group. That's discrimination against religion, as a secular organization doing the same thing would have a much easier time obtaining federal funds. Also none of the funds were put towards religious aspects. It could be used to buy the soup, or heat the shelter, but not buy bibles (or Qur'an, or any other religious book).

[Amnesiac]

No, as some churches would be unable to afford that tax and be forced to close. This would mean that churches that serve wealthy parishes would be OK, and ones in poorer neighborhoods would not. The "faith based initiatives", were centered around the fact that previously, an organization had difficulty obtaining federal funds for doing things like fighting poverty, just because it was affiliated with a religious group. That's discrimination against religion, as a secular organization doing the same thing would have a much easier time obtaining federal funds. Also none of the funds were put towards religious aspects. It could be used to buy the soup, or heat the shelter, but not buy bibles (or Qur'an, or any other religious book).

Well, if you're worried about small churches being hit too hard, some sort of progressive tax system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax) could be worked out where small community churches would be exempt, while megachurches would pay.

I know faith-based initiatives are meant to go to worthy causes and not the churches themselves. That's an honorable cause. However, why can't the government change the name to "community initiatives"? That way, it would seem less skewed towards religion and people wouldn't fret over it.

[Shortkid]

Its ok to tax the churches, but u have to let people give tax-free to the church. Cuz if u tax the money the people give and then also tax the church, that money gets taxed twice. Not fair.

[Amnesiac]

Its ok to tax the churches, but u have to let people give tax-free to the church. Cuz if u tax the money the people give and then also tax the church, that money gets taxed twice. Not fair.

We don't tax donations to museums, I don't see why we'd tax church donations.

[Sith Lord 13]

Well, if you're worried about small churches being hit too hard, some sort of progressive tax system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax) could be worked out where small community churches would be exempt, while megachurches would pay.

Then you're penalizing wealthier churches.

I know faith-based initiatives are meant to go to worthy causes and not the churches themselves. That's an honorable cause. However, why can't the government change the name to "community initiatives"? That way, it would seem less skewed towards religion and people wouldn't fret over it.

Because it was a political stunt to appeal to the religious nuts? But does it really matter?
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet

[Amnesiac]

Then you're penalizing wealthier churches.

Because it was a political stunt to appeal to the religious nuts? But does it really matter?

You could cap the rate at, let's say, 15% to 20% maximum. I'm not saying we should be whipping out a 95% tax rate on megachurches, I should've mentioned that earlier.

With all the money that some (SOME) churches pull in, some of it should go to the government unless they can prove that money is for a non-profit cause such as homeless shelters and such. You either tax churches, or make all organizations related to religion (including secular ones) tax exempt.

I guess it doesn't matter, just an extra point I was raising :P

[Sith Lord 13]

You could cap the rate at, let's say, 15% to 20% maximum. I'm not saying we should be whipping out a 95% tax rate on megachurches, I should've mentioned that earlier.

With all the money that some (SOME) churches pull in, some of it should go to the government unless they can prove that money is for a non-profit cause such as homeless shelters and such. You either tax churches, or make all organizations related to religion (including secular ones) tax exempt.

What kind of secular organizations?

I guess it doesn't matter, just an extra point I was raising :P

OK. I'm kinda glad you did because it gave me the chance to point out I'm NOT one of those religious nuts, even though it seems I've fallen on the side of religion in a couple of recent debates. :)

[Amnesiac]

What kind of secular organizations?

Linketh. (http://www.secular.org/)

They're not 100% tax exempt, unlike churches.

OK. I'm kinda glad you did because it gave me the chance to point out I'm NOT one of those religious nuts, even though it seems I've fallen on the side of religion in a couple of recent debates. :)

haha, good to know :D

[Sith Lord 13]

Linketh. (http://www.secular.org/)

They're not 100% tax exempt, unlike churches.

What kind of taxes are they paying? I would think they're a tax free non-for-profit, no?

[Amnesiac]

What kind of taxes are they paying? I would think they're a tax free non-for-profit, no?

They're 501(c)(4), which is slightly different from 501(c)(3) as certain actions such as political lobbying and donations to their organization can be taxed.

[Sith Lord 13]

They're 501(c)(4), which is slightly different from 501(c)(3) as certain actions such as political lobbying and donations to their organization can be taxed.

Well that's because they're a political lobbying organisation. If it were just a meeting group for atheists, I'd agree with you.

[Amnesiac]

Well that's because they're a political lobbying organisation. If it were just a meeting group for atheists, I'd agree with you.

I guess you're right, they do seem to lobby Congress. I'm having trouble finding a better example :P

[Sith Lord 13]

I guess you're right, they do seem to lobby Congress. I'm having trouble finding a better example :P

If you find one that doesn't lobby, I'll agree that it shouldn't pay taxes either.