Should Churches Remain Untaxed?

Curious George said:

You are missing the point, you cannot be blind to religion. Suggesting that you can is an untenable position.

The law still must see religion.

Click to expand...

I don't see why this should be the case.

Is this an issue with definition of terms? What I'm talking about is not giving special regard to religion. This just means that, for example, the work of a priest would not be held in higher regard under the tax system than the work of a plumber. We would still need to decide whether "priestly" things are relevant to the job of a priest, but only in the context of a larger question that has nothing to do with religion per se: "are these deductions and writeoffs reasonably associated with the job this person is paid to do?" The priest claim the cost of his vestments the same way the plumber can claim the cost of his tools, but the law doesn't give any special regard to the plumber than what it gives to the priest.

That's the sort of system I'm talking about.

Curious George said:

You are missing the point, you cannot be blind to religion. Suggesting that you can is an untenable position.

The law still must see religion.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is not true. Being blind to religion is the ideal arrangement far as laws go.

LuisDantas said:

Actually, that is not true. Being blind to religion is the ideal arrangement far as laws go.

Click to expand...

How can you be blind to religion Luis?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

You know, something strikes me about the issue of taxation and religion. So far (in this thread, at least), we've really only focused on one side of things: taxes (or exemptions) for churches themselves. There's another aspect to this whole thing: taxes on people.

There are two main ways that religious people get special tax benefits for themselves:

- donations to churches are deductible from personal income tax
- religious ministers can receive a portion of their income tax-free thanks to the clergy residence deduction (Canadian term)/parsonage allowance (American term, IIRC).

Thanks to these measures, people who tithe to a church pay less tax than people who don't tithe to any church, and religious ministers pay less tax than people in similar situations.

IOW, religious donations and religious ministry are subsidized by the government.

Now... those of you who say that taxation of the churches would be a violation of church-state separation; can you provide a good argument for why these things shouldn't be seen as a violation of that separation?

Click to expand...

So I have been thinking about this...

You are suggesting if Joe gives x to religion a

And Sally gives x to charity b

Joe gets more bang for his Buck, correct.

Because in Canada or the U.S. both can get deduction x

However if religion a the pays the minister x he gets a tax exemption and pockets x dollars;

Whereas, if charity b pays worker x, they do not get a tax exemption and therefore pockets x - y where y = applicable taxes

Why not just create exemptions for employees of charities that operate on donations.

Curious George said:

How can you be blind to religion Luis?

Click to expand...

I personally can't. But I am not a government. I don't have the duties that a governmental authority would.

In any case, it is real simple in such a context. Just forget about the concept entirely and give all entities the same opportunities to apply for exemptions and other benefits as they see fit. Don't waste time attempting to create a reason why some group should be considered a religion while some other should not.

Fair is fair. Religion is neither necessary nor easy to apply in that recipe.

Curious George said:

So I have been thinking about this...

You are suggesting if Joe gives x to religion a

And Sally gives x to charity b

Joe gets more bang for his Buck, correct.

Because in Canada or the U.S. both can get deduction x

However if religion a the pays the minister x he gets a tax exemption and pockets x dollars;

Whereas, if charity b pays worker x, they do not get a tax exemption and therefore pockets x - y where y = applicable taxes

Why not just create exemptions for employees of charities that operate on donations.

Click to expand...

Precisely.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

What I'm talking about is not giving special regard to religion.

Click to expand...

Yes, you have made your position quite clear.

Thank God that is not how things are in real life.

LuisDantas said:

I personally can't. But I am not a government. I don't have the duties that a governmental authority would.

In any case, it is real simple in such a context. Just forget about the concept entirely and give all entities the same opportunities to apply for exemptions and other benefits as they see fit. Don't waste time attempting to create a reason why some group should be considered a religion while some other should not.

Fair is fair. Religion is neither necessary nor easy to apply in that recipe.

Click to expand...

If you are an elected official, you get sworn in and promise to support and DEFEND the constitution that just so happens to put religion in high reguards.

People came to our country to enjoy religious freedom and to not be controlled by religion as well.

What do you have against people in another country other than your own who champion their feedom of religion, speech, and to bear arms?

Our forefathers came here to live differently from other countries, not be just like them. That was the whole point of coming to America.

The inclusion of freedom of religion in its constitution is the single biggest mistake any political entity can possibly make.

Not because people should somehow be banned from following the stirring of their heart. It cannot be done in any case.

But because it allows well-thought-out businesses to take advantage of something idealistically and stupidly enshrined to protect individual conscience.

If we can bring "nuance" in on other applications of your (as-yet unsupported) version of "no taxation without representation"

Click to expand...

The nuanced whole referenced was the interconnected benefits and obligations of citizenship of with representation and taxation are one respectively.

That said you have yet to address the thrust of the point.

I'll refer to your first post in this thread, if you have changed positions since then I apologise.

I've said this before many times, but I think the best approach is to simply ignore the religious nature of an organization and allow them to qualify for preferred status just like any secular group.

Can you qualify as a legitimate charity? Fine - be a charity. Do you operate as a for-profit business? Fine - be taxed as a business.

Click to expand...

The point of contention is, churches cannot be treated positively in the manner of a business or charitable secular organization in a secular society informed by a sentiment similar to America's First Amendment. You say that if they operate as a for-profit business tax them. Would you be willing to give them the advantages of a business? Could the religion "industry" ask for a subsidy to make the operation of a church easier, as can the corn or steel industry?

Could the local mega church seek imminent domain just as a corporation does to acquire desirable property?

There are grants to help businesses in certain areas expand or start-up, would you find it acceptable for there to be a church expansion grant giving a church money for a conversion push?

I find those things unacceptable because I know the manner in which the scenario plays out: some churches would get all the grants/subsidies/etc and others(hello muslims, satanists, and everyone else not some form of Traditional Christian Church in America) would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any government aid. You'd have de facto state religions.

And if you tax them without those benefits then you are not being secular, you are being anti-religious, you are putting religions in a second-class situation whereby they bear the burden of obligation but receive not the benefit.

That is why churches aren't taxed, because the alternative does not move you further in a secular path, it trends towards one of the poles. You are either unjust in your taxation or you create inequality among religions.

If some are unscrupulous and use the status of religion as outside of government to enrich themselves materially instead of the believer spiritually, then that is the unfortunate side effect of the best possible human response.

Mister Emu said:

The nuanced whole referenced was the interconnected benefits and obligations of citizenship of with representation and taxation are one respectively.

That said you have yet to address the thrust of the point.

I'll refer to your first post in this thread, if you have changed positions since then I apologise.

The point of contention is, churches cannot be treated positively in the manner of a business or charitable secular organization in a secular society informed by a sentiment similar to America's First Amendment. You say that if they operate as a for-profit business tax them. Would you be willing to give them the advantages of a business? Could the religion "industry" ask for a subsidy to make the operation of a church easier, as can the corn or steel industry?

Could the local mega church seek imminent domain just as a corporation does to acquire desirable property?

There are grants to help businesses in certain areas expand or start-up, would you find it acceptable for there to be a church expansion grant giving a church money for a conversion push?

I find those things unacceptable because I know the manner in which the scenario plays out: some churches would get all the grants/subsidies/etc and others(hello muslims, satanists, and everyone else not some form of Traditional Christian Church in America) would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any government aid. You'd have de facto state religions.

And if you tax them without those benefits then you are not being secular, you are being anti-religious, you are putting religions in a second-class situation whereby they bear the burden of obligation but receive not the benefit.

That is why churches aren't taxed, because the alternative does not move you further in a secular path, it trends towards one of the poles. You are either unjust in your taxation or you create inequality among religions.

If some are unscrupulous and use the status of religion as outside of government to enrich themselves materially instead of the believer spiritually, then that is the unfortunate side effect of the best possible human response.

Click to expand...

Friggin' frubaled

Emu:

There are grants to help businesses in certain areas expand or start-up,

Click to expand...

I've been looking all over for legitimate ones of those, they say they exist but it seems they're mostly on the same level of the Prince of Nigeria's pleas for my bank account number.

http://extension.missouri.edu/extensioninfonet/article.asp?id=5027

There are quite a few PRIVATE legitimate grants for some businesses and non-profits however. People say they exist, but I think finding a government grant for the average start up business is like hunting for bigfoot. The best we have is a tiny, impotent SBA that gives out a handful of loans to a tiny few businesses each year. Why do some (if any) businesses get SBA loans while other's don't? Well that's something I'd be willing to accept if some Churches were given SBA loans and others weren't. I don't see why one category should be different than the other. If the government does give grants, it's usually if not always for businesses that they are directly working with/contracting/given graft by. The establishment clause would prevent the government from working directly with a Church beyond any secular enterprise.

would you find it acceptable for there to be a church expansion grant giving a church money for a conversion push?

Click to expand...

If there were actually government grants for small businesses and start ups, no problem, except for the little Establishment clause which could be interpreted as preventing such actions. As for PRIVATE start up grants, I don't see the problem. Why would anyone have a problem with churches getting private grants? Are you talking about SUBSIDIES which big companies LOBBY for?

With that said, pretty much ALL government grants for "independent businesses" involve science, research, and study. If churches had laboratories and were engaging in some serious research, I'd see no problem with them getting the same grants that the government gives to other businesses. But seeing as that the government does not actually give grants to businesses, you'd have no case really. I'd suggest you research this for yourself if this is the first time you've heard that government does not actually give grants. I'm guessing you heard about this from one of those grant-finding scams?

The point of contention is, churches cannot be treated positively in the manner of a business or charitable secular organization in a secular society informed by a sentiment similar to America's First Amendment.

Click to expand...

This point has not been anywhere close to substantiated. In fact, some of the arguments for this matter are very anti-religious. You apparently would rather your church be silenced and unable to lobby and unable to talk politics in the pulpit. Sounds like selling out, literally, to me.

That said you have yet to address the thrust of the point.

Click to expand...

There is no point, and the thrust behind that point is shot down before it leaves the ground.

find those things unacceptable because I know the manner in which the scenario plays out: some churches would get all the grants/subsidies/etc and others(hello muslims, satanists, and everyone else not some form of Traditional Christian Church in America) would have a snowball's chance in hell of getting any government aid. You'd have de facto state religions.

Click to expand...

So basically your argument is that Muslims and Satanists would get all this magical government grant money for some reason, just because, (I'm imagining its because you believe the government hates Traditional Christianity and will not listen whatsoever to the huge Christian Right voting block, especially in the Republican house), so therefore because it will be automatically unfair, therefore it shouldn't be. I think you have a misunderstanding of how such things work. In the event that there was actually going to be government grants to churches, which would likely not happen, the Christian Right would smother the tiny Muslim and Satanist lobby in an instant. Why would you think otherwise? Because of a big government conspiracy against Christianity?

I'm guessing you also apply this logic to large corporations who lobby for subsidies, so are you advocating the dissolution of Large companies being able to lobby for the lion's share, if not monopoly of the corporate welfare?

That is why churches aren't taxed, because the alternative does not move you further in a secular path, it trends towards one of the poles. You are either unjust in your taxation or you create inequality among religions.

Click to expand...

Churches aren't taxed because it's a convenient way of shutting them up in the pulpit regarding political matters. It seems you're all too ready to trade in your right to incorporate political action into your religious basis.

If some are unscrupulous and use the status of religion as outside of government to enrich themselves materially instead of the believer spiritually, then that is the unfortunate side effect of the best possible human response.

Click to expand...

The best possible human response is to put Uncle Sam's gun to their back and make them actually use their money for the good of humanity in what they were originally thought to provide charity for: Food for the body, not just the soul.

If only Garfield lived long enough to get his vision across, he was a very wise man...

Shermana said:

If only Garfield lived long enough to get his vision across, he was a very wise man...

Click to expand...

I am just not sure what you want, you are simply putting your head in the sand. Grants won't exist, loopholes won't exist, everything is just going to be peachy keen. That is why despite churches lengthy exemption status, the tired argument to tax them, never won
Not even with great debaters like Garfield. Bit I'll see your president with a law degree and raise you a few judges

The exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

Supreme court... and while you have a dead president, I have stare decisis.

Curious George said:

I am just not sure what you want, you are simply putting your head in the sand. Grants won't exist, loopholes won't exist, everything is just going to be peachy keen. That is why despite churches lengthy exemption status, the tired argument to tax them, never won
Not even with great debaters like Garfield. Bit I'll see your president with a law degree and raise you a few judges

The exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

Supreme court... and while you have a dead president, I have stare decisis.

Click to expand...

So because you're unable to deal with anything I said, you simply say I'm putting my head in the sand. I suppose you actually think government grants for businesses besides research operations exist. Some of us actually have researched this stuff instead of acting as if what we saw on a late night TV commercial was true. I ask you to provide examples for your generalities that you think count as examples, it takes several attempts, after you kick and scream and insult me the whole way and then you provide some attempts at examples that aren't actually examples but simply gross misunderstandings of how the process works, when I debunk them and provide links, you simply brush it aside and blunder on as if not a dent has been put in your argument.
Your link on google's tax breaks didn't even bolster your own case that much, because google is still in hot water nonetheless.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/19/fo...ompanys-tax-avoidance-machinations-in-the-uk/

You actually think businesses are allowed to shuffle around their money as if it's "good bookkeeping", where did you learn that, Bernie Madoff's School of Accounting Tricks?

The reason the argument to tax them never won was because the Christian Right and their dupes on the Left has had the majority for awhile, that majority is slipping. People may be willing to listen to reason and not dubious arguments from those with their heads in the sand now. People may be willing to accept that the 501c3 is nothing more than a way to shut them up. I like how you believe you're on the side of freedom of religion while you support the cozy silencing relationship of the 501c3. You basically revealed earlier that you mainly just don't want Churches directly lobbying and advocating for political positions and foreign policies you don't want them to. You're just defending the status quo ultimately.

Do you honestly think responses like this make your side look any better?

Shermana said:

So because you're unable to deal with anything I said, you simply say I'm putting my head in the sand. I suppose you actually think government grants for businesses besides research operations exist. I ask you to provide examples, it takes several attempts, after you kick and scream the whole way and then you provide examples that aren't actually examples, when I debunk them and provide links, you simply brush it aside and blunder on as if not a dent has been put in your argument.

Do you honestly think responses like this make your side look any better?

Click to expand...

You mean those tax loopholes that first you said I couldn't imagine, then you said didn't exist, then you said existed but wouldn't work for religion? Like I said you just leave your head in the sand.

I do not think my responses make my side easier to accept. But the truth is there. The loopholes are there. The supreme court is on my side. The taxes are there. I have no problem admitting when I am mistaken, I even did it in this thread. Can you say the same?

Curious George said:

You mean those tax loopholes that first you said I couldn't imagine, then you said didn't exist, then you said existed but wouldn't work for religion? Like I said you just leave your head in the sand.

Click to expand...

What tax loopholes did you actually bring up? I said I'd grant that SOME deductions would exist, but then I showed you that the IRS is in fact cracking down on them and that Google is trying to figure out how to bring their money home safely, which is why they're lobbying for a tax holiday. You actually think businesses are legally allowed to shuffle money around from a successful location to a poor location, seriously, where did you learn that? Why don't you admit you're mistaken on that.

Your entire argument rests on vague generalities and mistaken assumptions involving ignorance of how the system works.

You can't just completely ignore everything against your side of the argument and then act like I didn't address it.

You should reconsider who is putting their head in the sand.

I'll be happy to say I'm mistaken when you can actually prove how I'm mistaken. So far you've just shrugged off everything I've shown you. You don't even understand how punitive damages work, they have to apply for SPECIFIC types. You're trying to tell me that the American people would tolerate a Molestation-payout subsidy?

Shermana said:

What tax loopholes did you actually bring up? I said I'd grant that SOME deductions would exist, but then I showed you that the IRS is in fact cracking down on them and that Google is trying to figure out how to bring their money home safely, which is why they're lobbying for a tax holiday.

You can't just completely ignore everything against your side of the argument and then act like I didn't address it.

You should reconsider who is putting their head in the sand.

I'll be happy to say I'm mistaken when you can actually prove how I'm mistaken. So far you've just shrugged off everything I've shown you. You don't even understand how punitive damages work, they have to apply for SPECIFIC types. You're trying to tell me that the American people would tolerate a Molestation-payout subsidy?

Click to expand...

What ate you rambling about punative damages? Are you talking about the exemption or punative damages in general?

No you said that it was illegal to use offshore accounts. I tried to tell you that while it is illegal to hide monies it is not illegal to stream monies overseas to an established business entity. You gave a link, I gave a link. I assume you either finally realized what I was talking about or you did some reading. But suffice it to say, it is there. Yes there is work to close the loophole, there has been for some time now. But the point is that loopholes are there and big churches can capitalize while little churches suffer. There is a lot wrong with corporate America today, and what you suggest will simply superimpose the the big churches into that. I don't even know if we could get tax money from little churches because you can have a 501c3 for you and your buddies drinking beer and playing cards. Sure donations could be taxed in these instances, but lets face it the little churches aren't raking in millions. The churches that do act heavily as charities could get exemption for the charity work, big churches might pay some, but there is plenty of space in a big business to account for funds. And if we are talking the heavy hitters of the western religions, well let us just assume they will pay tax on a small percentage. Many churches might not make the transition at all... how is that for freedom of religion? The shenanigans that come with the business world is not the only thing to worry about. You are creating a larger connection between church and state, you are giving the government the power to destroy a church. I am done with these what could happen problems though. What will happen is that the potential for the government to destroy a church will be there. Our system is built on separations, and you are removing a n important one. Freedom of religion was very important, it still is very important and we should take the necessary steps to preserve it. Giving the government the power to destroy a church, whether they will or will not is a mistake. Power does corrupt. And while you 9/10, and Luis may believe a government can be blind to religion, this is just not the case; because, as Luis suggested, people can't be blind to religion-- and, people run the government. You have made constant claims that the government silences religion through tax breaks.
How often do religious sermons contain material about politics. But this is not entirely true. They cannot make political endorsements or renunciations of political candidates. They cannot spend excessive amounts in lobbying causes though. These ate relatively minor limitations, and a church can always create a separate legal entity that can make such endorsements but the donations the members give to that entity will not be deductible. So religious organizations can pretty much achieve any amount of political effort under the current system as long as theyand their members are willing to forgo the exemption tax on donations.

Furthermore, there was the complaint that we are subsidizing religious activity. Now this concern spoke to subsidizing a faith to which one does not ascribe. Since any faith could create a religious club and be tax exempt based on their non profit status as a club, you will still be subsidizing faiths to which you do not ascribe. The donations will not be tax exempt so the people paying for the club could theoretically pay for the club through the taxes they pay on their donations. However, say they collect no donations, they just congregate. You are still paying for roads, fire, etc. And therefore subsidizing a religion to which you don't ascribe.