Should Religious Organizations Be Taxed???

[Proud_Democratt]

It is my opinion that there are too many places of worship and too many homeless people.
I wonder what would happen if these religious organizations were MORE serious about "helping the poor".

Vote your conscience and discuss if you'd like.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. When did the tax-free church rule start? Does it apply to every country

in which taxes are paid by its citizens to the government?

[ikojo]

3. I think in Germany religious groups get some kind of

stipend from the government.

[Proud_Democratt]

45. That is because the emphasis in on God, not money.

[tocqueville]

7. in France it's prohibited in now 100 years

and seen as THE BASE of the separation of Church and State. Compare with the 1st amendment :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

to establish a religion you need money. Unless you are a shaman or a Buddhist munk of course...

[Warpy]

11. Churches have become a business like any other

and that friendly little building two streets over that most of the neighbors went to is no more, closed, bulldozed and turned into a gas station with megachurches preaching the politics of hatred taking up the slack.

Businesses need to be taxed, even when the business says it's peddling morals and righteousness. Televangelists need to be taxed through the nose because they do little beyond right wing politicking.

It would be nice if the few small mainstream community churches that engage in charitable outreach programs could be left alone, but I don't see how.

[BrklynLiberal]

17. I think that the actual church and the land it is on should be tax exempt.

Cash donations made by members of the congregation can be tax exempt.

Any other property that a church of any denomination owns should be subject to taxation.

If it not used for actual worship, why should the money it earns be tax exempt? There are churches that own hotels and huge commercial office buildings. The income from these properties should not be tax exempt.

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. I agree with you on the businesses: they should be taxed

If a church owns a bookstore, for example, the profits from that bookstore should be taxed, unless for some reason the church if offering low-cost books to the poor and taking a loss on every book.

Either they should take the profits from the business and give them ALL to charity work, or they should pay taxes on it like any other business.

I think taxing the for-profit businesses owned by non-profits would help quite a bit, and even-out the playing field more.

[Warpy]

53. What about megachurches?

They're glorified concert venues pushing political propaganda. You'll find very little (if any) religious symbolism in any of them. When the fad is over, they'll convert nicely to rock halls and play houses with no renovation.

That may be where attendance comes in, too.

There has to be a way to keep mainstream neighborhood churches in business while taxing the bad business guys. Taxing commercial property is one way. Enforcing the laws against preaching political propaganda is another. Focusing on size may be a third.

[TreasonousBastard]

62. Profit-making enterprises that are church owned are...

often taxed, just like university and other non-profit owned businesses.

I'd have to dig into it further, but it has something to do with what the profits are used for.

[Critters2]

89. Here's how I understand it...

If you receive a service or product as a direct result of giving a specified amount (ie, if you buy a book for 14.95), the transaction is taxable. IF you simply donate to a church (or any other non-profit), and don't immediately get something in return, it's tax exempt.

[Proud_Democratt]

57. I like how you think...

I'll be watching you.:toast:

[ikojo]

2. I also notice that the rabbis/ministers/pastors don't

drive old cars either. It's not like churches are hurting that's for sure.

Question: Those who work for a place of worship, do they pay taxes?

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. Yes, anyone who earns money pays taxes.

Whether in business, religion, or other no-profit.

Ministers pay taxes just as any other person, as do all church employees.

[Critters2]

91. Clergy pay as self-employed,

though I don't know why. We pay income on salary from the church, and self-eployment taxes on that and housing allowance or parsonage. I've always lived in parsonages, so the self-employment hits hard. I pay taxes on the value of the house, but don't get money to pay that out of. Actually, the church pays a SS stipend, but the government doesn't recognize such a provision, so I pay income and self-employment taxes on that, too.

Trust me, we pay taxes.

[Critters2]

90. What?!

I drive a 2002 Ford Focus. Before that, a 1995 Taurus. Not 30 years old, but not limos.

[rzemanfl]

4. Only the ones that can't show results, like messages from

satified customers in "heaven" or demonstrable observed "miracles." No other businesses stay in operation for hundreds of years without ever producing a product or a satisfied customer who collected on their guarantee.

[William769]

5. No.

If you tax them, then they can throw their hat into the political ring.

The one's that are political now need to be reeled in.

[Proud_Democratt]

10. They already are in the political ring...

in the current administration.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. Great point

[Rabrrrrrr]

8. No, they shouldn't - we'd lose an awful lot of good stuff

being done.

Yes, there are those religious organizations that aren't doing diddly, but for the most part every religious group is providing money, space, and/or other resources to help the poor, hungry, needy, etc. Their benefit to society, even with the bad effects of the few assholes, far outweighs any benefit we'd receive from taxing them.

I do think it would be okay to reform the covenant between the religious organizations (and all non-profits, actually) and have the government say "If you want us to maintain the part of our covenant that we don't tax you, then you need to maintain your part of the covenant and demonstrate that at least 20% of your income is going directly to charity work, and that you providing your tax-free land and tax-free building to other organizations/groups that are helping the community".

[Proud_Democratt]

12. Maybe ALL should be required to either "feed the hungry"

by running an established "kitchen".....or be required to operate a "shelter".

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Or at least open their buildings to groups that need space,

that help the community, like AA or NA, boy scouts, FFA, after-school programs, Head Start, even stuff like community theater groups, performance groups, etc. that don't really take in any money.

If an organization is gonna get a nice chunk of land and not have to pay taxes on it, the building and the land should be in as much use as possible for community-related activities. Doesn't have to be a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter, necessarily, but the building should be expected to be used for non-church (or whatever the building owner organizaiton is) related activities for some percentage of time.

And I would exclude things like groups who "cure" homosexuals from the list of valid uses.

[BrklynLiberal]

22. So let their tax rate be determined by how much of their assets are

actually being used to benefit the community or the needy, or the homeless, or whatever other public good activity that they claim their money goes to.
They need to be held accountable...down to the penny.

[Proud_Democratt]

25. Agreed...accountable like all businesses.

[panader0]

9. Goddamn right!!

Why should they be free to do as they please when the rest of us are hit so hard. Take away the f'ing "Golden Parachute" for the pols too!

[Book Lover]

13. Certain taxes, yes

Any organization that purchases or leases a building that is served by police, fire, and water/sewer should pay for those services. I don't understand why it is deemed fair that I should help shoulder a religious organization's portion of that tax burden. What do I get out of it?

[William769]

14. Salvation.

[Book Lover]

15. LOL!

Thanks for the giggle :-)

on edit: xxx
on further edit: My apologies for all my confusing posts! I replied to the wrong one. I think I'll back away from the kayboard slowly and get some coffee...

[William769]

18. Glad to be of service.

[Proud_Democratt]

19. The subject is taxes, not salvation....besides one can receive

salvation anywhere. I am going to ask you nicely to refrain from "flaming" this topic. Start your own topic on "Salvation". It would be interesting to some people.:) ...thank you.

[William769]

21. Who's flaming? I was serious.

On Edit: She asked the question, I gave the answer.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Probably all churches are paying for sewer and water

Granted, I'm not familiar with every church in the country, but I don't know of any church that doesn't pay water and sewage if they have a municipal water supply.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. REALLY? So they are required to pay for some of the "commons" that

they use. How is it decided which they pay for and which get subsidized by the other people in the community..services like the police and the fire departments, road maintenance, etc.?

I know people who are pissed off that they have to pay property taxes to support a local public school when they do not even have kids in the school.It does not matter to them that a good school district will increase the value of their home. How would they react if they realized that their taxes are underwriting all the public services to all the local religious establishments, whether they belong to them or not?

[Proud_Democratt]

26. This depends on which state.

[Rabrrrrrr]

29. While I am no expert, I would imagine that they are expected to pay

for those things that are tangibly used up - such as water and sewage, being assessed along with other businesses and homes when street repairs are done, etc., paying the same taxes on phone lines and electrical lines and fuel use as anyone else, etc.

I know of churches that ARE paying assessments for repairs to the roads they are on.

But intangibles, such as police and fire department protection, so far as I can assume, are not being paid for by the non-profits, since the community views non-profits as providing services that benefit the community, so the community pays for those intangibles.

[Proud_Democratt]

32. Utlilty bills are usually paid by the church, tabernacle, temple, etc.

depending on the state tax laws.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

59. Yes, churches pay utility bills, just like everyone else

I know, because I used to be on the vestry (governing committee) of a small Episcopal parish in Portland. The city even assessed it a fee for construction of a new streetcar line that was going to pass within a block.

Also, I have repeatedly seen assertions on DU that clergy's incomes are not taxed. That is a MYTH. My father was a Lutheran pastor, and I distinctly remember him doing his income taxes in April like everyone else.

[Critters2]

95. I know people who believe this, even some of my parishioners

I pay taxes like everyone else. More than some, less than others. Clergy can, technically, opt out of social security. You're supposed to have a moral objection to it. Since we don't, my denomination frowns on using this provision. I know a couple of clergy in other churches that have opted out. Of course, they can't draw SS or Medicare when the time comes, either.

Other than that, we pay income taxes on salary, honoraria and bonuses. We pay income taxes and self-employment taxes on those things plus a housing allowance or parsonage/manse/rectory.

[Book Lover]

27. Which ones do?

I was under the impression that no religious organization per se ever got a tax bill from anyone. I do know preachers are taxed on income.

[Rabrrrrrr]

34. Not tax bills, no - but sewage and water bills, yes.

And also assessments for road repairs or other community property improvements, though I have no idea if that's universally true around the country.

But, truly, one needs an expert, not me, to go into any more detail.

[BrklynLiberal]

28. Are they exempt from sales tax?

[Proud_Democratt]

30. In most states, yes. All purchases made for the organization

are tax exempt.

[Rabrrrrrr]

31. For anything they buy that is used for the non-profit.

And not being bought for resale, then yes, they are sales tax exempt.

And that is for ALL non-profits.

[Proud_Democratt]

33. You are correct, sir, but not in political organizations.

[Rabrrrrrr]

35. Yes, this is true - thank you!

I forgot that political organizations are also non-profits, though a different kind of animal than the rest of the non-profits.

[Proud_Democratt]

37. However political expenditures can be written off...

and you know how that goes!!!

[Critters2]

92. If they're billed for it, they pay like anyone else

We don't pay property taxes on the church, parsonage, or any property used for religious purposes. I don't feel good about this, btw. We use the streets like everyone else. I honestly think we should pay.

[BrklynLiberal]

36. Ulysses S. Grant never went to church,and was for taxation of churches.

Well, he would NEVER get elected today!!!! :O

In an annual address to Congress in 1875, he warned of “the importance of correcting an evil that if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land . . . It is the acquisition of vast amounts of untaxed Church property. . . I would suggest the taxation of all property equally.

http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/04/27/happy-birthday-to-fellow-freethinker-ulysses-s-grant/

[xchrom]

38. i do think churches should be taxed.

i go to a liberal church -- and there's no way taxing us would stop us from doing the ''good-work'' we do.

now i can get along with idea suggesting that the businesses of churches should be taxed -- but yes -- there should be some form of taxation.

there is now way that churches -- especially conservative ones aren't political anymore.

it's become part and parcel of the field.

[rbrison]

39. Just couldn't hold it in. But I tried.

To tax them would give them way too much influence in Washington. Think of the way corporations use their wealth to influence votes and legislation. The idea of non-taxed religion stems from the idea that churches will use the money to help the community. Ha ha , I know. Where I am from a church hasn't made the scene until it has a full sized climate controlled gym. Rather than tax,I think it would be far better to limit a churches holdings to only that which is necessary to practice their respective faith. I realize that dispossession wouldn't go down easily but maybe it would restore some integrity to the dog and pony show that the major faiths have become. Aw, the hell with it! I won't attempt to rectify the morass of hypocrisy and greed that modern religion has become. I despise them all. I think I will hit them where it hurts and teach my children how to think!

[Proud_Democratt]

40. It's too late....the religious business is already influencing D.C.

[rbrison]

41. Just trying to be ironic.

:D :D

[BrklynLiberal]

42. Some excellent ideas, with which I agree, but as was said above,

the Churches are ALREADY influencing the government, thanks to Dimson and his cronies..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=67390&mesg_id=67412

[Poppyseedman]

43. I'm shocked

What happened to the concept of separation of Church and state?

[dogman]

44. The majority of Churches have rejected that concept.

Instead of what is Caesar's give to Caesar, what is God's give to God, they have involved themselves in the state's governance beyond simply stating their moral message.

[Critters2]

93. Maybe some have

But most of us are keenly aware that we can be sanctioned if we take a stand for a party or candidate in a religious setting--like from the pulpit. We are allowed, btw, to take a position on things like referenda which are not partisan. Many lay people don't know this, and get pretty cranky when their pastor speaks out on such things.

Those who push these things get lots of attention, but they're in the minority.

[Proud_Democratt]

46. Religious organizations should be taxed like all businesses.

[Zebedeo]

47. Appalling

That over 80% of respondents to this poll would have the government tax churches. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Imagine if the results of this poll were publicized on the nightly news. Imagine the reaction of all of the church-going populace of this nation. Is that really what you want the Democratic Party to stand for? What if voters thought that if the Democrats gain control of Congress, they will impose taxation on churches? What do you think would be the results of the election?

If you don't like churches, don't attend church. It's that simple. Leave other people alone.

[Proud_Democratt]

48. This poll is "Democracy in action"...people voted..... If you don't

like the results, that is your perrogative. I didn't "sway" anyone to vote either way.

[Zebedeo]

71. I don't like the results.

Am I not permitted to express my opinion about the results?

I didn't suggest you swayed anyone. The question is fine. It's the responses that are upsetting.

I am concerned that the following dynamic is occurring or is poised to occur:

1. People in the Democratic party are ticked off at certain religious conservatives and their influence on elections.

which leads to

2. People in the Democratic party become hostile to religion.

which leads to

3. People in the Democratic party advocate suppression of religion, and/or government control over religion (such as through taxation of religious institutions).

which leads to

4. The Democratic party becomes a permanent minority party in this country, as the overwhelming majority of religious people reject this attack on their religious freedom.

[Proud_Democratt]

73. Your scenario is plausable and makes sense, except this might

only affect "practicing" believers of faith, ones more in touch with their organization or religion.
This nation is changing in it's religious stance! Christian Fundamentalism is on a downward slide. Everyday...you hear or read about someone ridiculing Fundys or Evangelicals. It's usually a joke told by some commentator or comedian.
The same happened to Bush...the jokes came more frequently and his approval ratings fell.

Many of us are just plain tired of God, Jesus, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and other religious nuts "running our country". There is not much of a separation of church and state anymore.
I contend that these rich, (legal) tax-evaders should be pulling their financial weight in this nation.
A person who has a job and NO home, making $5.25 /hr....is taxed. Some obese Baptist minister is making $100,000 annually, is telling Bush how to run this country.

[The Magistrate]

49. Why Should Churches Not Be Taxed, Mr. Zebedeo?

Many, after all, show a profit at the year's end. They provide livings for their clergy. Many own valuable real estate, and investment portfolios. Why should any of this get a free ride on the shoulders of taxpayers at large?

[Zebedeo]

72. It's not a free ride; it is freedom from interference and control

by the government. Exemption from taxation is critical to the independence and autonomy of religious institutions. I agree with most of the points made by Professor Zelinsky in

this article.

BTW, would you advocate the imposition of income taxes on secular nonprofit institutions? What effect do you think that would have on the public services that these nonprofits perform?

[The Magistrate]

77. The Question, Sir

Is not one of Constitutionality, but whether it is the right or best course.

While it is pretty well accepted the government should not establish an official religion, it does not necessarily follow from this that religion, whether as an organization or as the individuals adhereing to a religious belief, should necessarily be free of government interference and control. Indeed, there are a number of instances where it is pretty generally agreed government should interfere and exercise control. If your religious belief stigmatizes a blood transfusion as damnable abomination, and you refuse permission for one to doctors caring for your injured child, when in their judgement the child will die without it, the state will strip you of custody and appoint a guardian for the child in short order. If your religious belief includes direction that a man should have multiple wives, you remain open to criminal prosecution for bigamy.

There are a number of religious practices involving money that really should come under similar interference and control. When a minister proclaims the healing power of whatever diety and promises cures and collects love offerings, he should be prosecuted just as a quack who claims he can cure disease with colored lights or miracle extract of narwhale horn. Even if the minister is sincere in his belief, it makes no difference to the fact that he is a mere grifter, preying on human suffering and cheating hopes for his living. When a minister preaches the prosperity gospel and assures his flock that seed donations to his ministry will be returned ten-fold by the diety, he is no different than any grifter promoting a Ponzi scheme or selling shares in the Beefsteak Mine, and again, it does not matter if his belief is sincere and whole-hearted: he is getting his living by fraud, and should pay criminal penalties like any other grifter caught at it. Enforcement of these two items would practically shut down religious telecasting in its present form, and put many of its leading lights in jail, and the doing to my mind would be no more an interference with religious liberty then would the rounding up by police of Gangster Disciples congregated in a corner drug market be an interference with the liberty to freely assemble and petition for the redress of grievances. No Constitrutional liberty is a lisence for criminal actions, whether these are permutations of the grifter's art or the pusher's trade.

The fact is that a great many churches are profit-oriented enterprises, after their own and their denomination's material aggrandizement. It does not matter if they are constituted as non-profit enterprises, and spend much of their income on things that enhance their prestige in one way or another rather than putting it into bank accounts: those things, like a clean suit and fancy watch on a mortgage swindler, are simply tools to enable the mulcting of the target to proceed more efficiently. For better or worse, the religious, and particularly the fundamentalist believers, are nowadays simply one more market to be fleeced and shorn by those who can master the lingo sufficiently. There is no reason to treat the masters of the Christ-mongerer's art any differently than one treats any other business enterprise, particularly since the balance of rectitude must be acknowledged to be in favor of the ordinary businessman, who at least delivers some useful product or material service for the profit he gains, in most instances, while the other delivers nothing but empty air when all is said and done.

[ozone_man]

82. Well stated Sir.

I think you've captured the essence of why religious institutions should be taxed just like any other corporation.

[Zebedeo]

83. Who shall decide

which religious institutions are mere Ponzi schemes and grifters and which are beneficent charitable organizations?

Either you have to tax all religious and charitable institutions, or you have the greater evil of setting up a government tribunal to determine which are worthy of tax exemption and which are not - with the obvious potential for abuse, and the inevitable favoritism and discrimination exercised by government in favor of some religions and against others.

If you tax all religious and charitable institutions, a lot of them will be eliminated, and activity will certainly be stifled at many of them. That, to me, doesn't seem like "the right or best course."

Should government prohibit the Amish from driving their buggies on public highways? Should Quakers be forced to submit to a military draft? Should Christmas cease to be a federal holiday? If religion is to be disregarded, all of these consequences would naturally result.

I don't want to live in a society in which religion is ghettoized or in which religious people are discriminated against by the government on the basis of their beliefs. To me, that would be contrary to the ideals and values of this great nation - and of the Democratic Party.

[The Magistrate]

84. And For Your Part, Sir

What are you willing to see done to rein in the confidence tricksters with divinity degrees? Surely you will not be so bold as to deny their existance? Or will you be so bold as to proclaim they should be allowed to steal by deceit without hinderance because their vocabulary, and target audience, differs by a whisker from that of a fellow plying the pigeon drop, or passing off a stove door in the right stapled carton as a flat-screen television at a loading dock?

For it interests me you do not deny the charge, but merely seek to obscure it in application. Do you accept that a minister who claims a diety will heal through him and solicits love offerings in exchange for the service is a thief and a scoundrel deserving a stretch of years in the penitentiary? Do you accept that a minister who claims a "seed money" donation to his ministry to spread the gospel will be repaid ten fold by the diety is a thief and a scoundrel deserving a stretch of years in the penitentiary? If you do accept these are criminals, what objection do you have to the state treating them like any other criminal, and making the necessary inquiries into their actions, without reference to the veil of religion they erect to conceal them from a proper oprobrium? What difference would it make if some portion of the proceeds of their thievery was dispensed out as charity? Al Capone set up soup kitchens in Chicago in the Depression days: did he not deserve prosecution for his crimes on that account? Or do you, in fact, believe that these "healing ministries" and "prosperity ministries" are in fact legitimate sacred enterprises that ought, as a matter of Constitutional liberty, be allowed to proceed as expressions of freedom of religion?

You wish me to worry about the potential for abuse of some hypothetical means set up to control abuse that is already occuring, and on a grand scale. Sufficient to each day, Sir, are the troubles thereof, and in my view, when the abuses already in existance have been checked, then you may rely on me to turn my mind to rectifying any abuses occuring during the process set up to curb them. Doubtless there will be some; there are in any human enterprise. Thousands of times a day police abuse their power and citizens break the law, yet it would surprise me very much if you took this as a text to argue we should have no police and no laws. Government is no more fallible than a church; do you imagine there are never abuses in the latter's actions, in the hiring and firing of ministers, the disbursement of monies, the programs they embark on their communities? The logic you rest your opposition to government doing its duty against clerical criminals on could just as easily be turned to the abolition of churches entirely, since there can be no doubt they commit abuses on occassion in their activities.

Government already discriminates against people owing to their religious beliefs in numerous ways, some outlined already in my first comments to you. Where there are numerous and conflicting religious beliefs, all must to some degree be put to the sidelines of public life, particularly those that assert as part of the doctrine claims to esclusive possession of the truth and the duty to acquaint with and persuade to it all who do not already agree, for if these are not to some degree curbed, they must by their very nature and doctrine act to force themselves on all, and thus are a threat to the liberty of every citizen of profound depth. It would be intolerable to me, intolerable to the point of violence, to live in a society where such did not exist under some curb. There are people, Sir, as you well know, who feel that if called upon to do so by their god, would be willing to kill, and do so in certainty the act was right, for their god would never command them to what was wrong.

[Zebedeo]

86. Thank you for that thoughtful response

Mr. Magistrate: We seem to be talking about two different things. The subject of this thread, as I understand it, is whether religious institutions should be taxed by the government. Your point seems to be somewhat different - that the practices of religious institutions should be regulated to prevent fraud, and that religious leaders should be subject to criminal penalties if found to have abused the trust of their flock.

I think that your sentiments are worthy, but that in practice, your proposed regulation would do more harm than good. Who shall decide what is fraudulent in the realm of religion? Is is fraudulent for a church to pass a collection plate? Is is fraudulent for a synagogue to require its membership to tithe? If the promise is worldly blessings or everlasting life after death, how shall the accuracy of the promise be measured? What standards should be applied for determining whether a religious promise is fraudulent? Should the same standards be applied to solicitations by secular nonprofit organizations for donations? Should government be in the business of regulating the religious practices of its citizens? Mormons are told that they can convert their ancestors to Mormonism centuries after their deaths. How do you propose to determine whether this is a fraudulent claim?

Donations are voluntary in most religious institutions, and so I hardly think that it constitutes criminal fraud to request them. Even when they are required, the requirement is not absolute, it is a requirement as a condition of remaining a member of the organization.

While I do believe that advantage is frequently taken of some people by those wearing the cloak of religion, I see your proposed cure as worse than the illness.

Ultimately, I think that the curb against such abuses is simply the ability of each of us to exercise our free and intelligent choice to either participate in a religious enterprise or not to do so; to donate money as our consciences dictate, or not to donate. There are many things in life that one may say constitute a bad choice - buying more items than one can afford from QVC, for example. But to prohibit QVC from offering items for sale, while effective in eliminating the opportunity to make this bad choice, would work a greater evil in preventing people from exercising free choice in their purchases. How much greater damage is done where the choice of which people are deprived is the choice to worship as they wish?

[Proud_Democratt]

85. Religion doing just fine in Europe.

[Proud_Democratt]

79. Socialist countries do it..

I'm speaking mainly of the EU. Haven't you noticed that not many Western Europeans come to live here anymore???

[Bill McBlueState]

50. "The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Yeah, that's a real progressive viewpoint. Geez.

[Zebedeo]

70. Geez what?

It was Chief Justice Marshall who said this in 1819. He's the guy that created the concept of judicial review, which didn't previously exist. That's not progressive enough for you?

The power to tax = power to destroy came from this opinion:

McCulloch vs. Maryland

[Goblinmonger]

51. Haven't we had enough

of that argument as Democrats. God forbid we actually fucking do something. But, no, we can't do jack shit because we might lose some moderates. We said that about not letting the Republicans go nuclear. We have to save it for a SCOTUS battle. And look how well that went. Fucking Satan himself is sitting on the bench. But at least our power is dry. For what, I don't know.

We need to stop making our decisions based on what the fucking middle wants and actually start standing for something again as a party. Good your god.

I am sick and tired of the Catholic church, Pat Robertson, and a million other churches getting MILLIONS of dollars from its membership and then using that money to shit on people's rights all over the world. If those churches (and show me one that doesn't) are going to put their fingers in the political realm, then they need to be taxed.

[Proud_Democratt]

54. Exactly....and we Democrats need to start being more

Pro-active instead of reactive.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Ramen, brother

RAMEN.

I am sick of sitting back and waiting for the shitheads to collapse. I am sick of our party not doing things because it might:
1. make some moderates not vote for the dems
2. give O'Reilly something to blather about (like he is usually at a loss)
3. give Limbaugh something to blather about (like he is usually at a loss)
4. provide fodder for the MSM to talk about us
5. blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah

I wish every dem had the balls of Feingold and Colbert. THEN we'd be getting someplace.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Proud_Democratt]

52. And I don't care about the reactions of the church-going

populace. I'm not running for a political position of any sorts.
There is an increasing number of homeless and poor in our country and there are MEGA-sized, religiously-based organizations that do not pay federal income taxes. I don't see how the members of these legal tax evaders cannot feel remorse for the displaced, needy citizens.

People that give offerings, tithes, sacrifices, pledges, etc. OFTEN "write" these $$$$$$s off as "Charitable Contributions".

[jonnyblitz]

58. i find it appalling they are exempt from taxes. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. Then should all non-profits be taxed?

Should we tax secular charities like your local AIDS hospice, your local homeless shelter, your local free clinic, and your local food shelf? All of them have buildings and employees and use the services of the police and fire departments.

Because believe me, even though the megachurches are the most visible, the average church is more like the one I attended in Portland, just scraping by and doing a great deal of good in the community.

My current church is larger, but it is feeding the hungry, including a meal for homeless youth cooked by a volunteer who is studying to be a professional chef, a drop-in center and "post office" for street people, regular Habitat for Humanity teams, mentoring for young single parents, sponsorship and tutoring of refugees (without proselytization), cooking meals for a women's shelter, providing business clothes for poor people who are going on job interviews, furnishing a church-owned apartment building for low-income youth, actively welcoming GLBT members, and sponsoring work trips to help people in need (I went on a volunteer trip to Mississippi this winter).

I believe in taxing churches that support specific political parties or candidates or that don't spend any of their funds on community service or that don't allow their accounts to be audited.

But if all the churches suddenly stopped doing what they quietly do week after week, you'd notice, and not in a good way. It would make the immigrants' one-day strike look like peanuts.

[Proud_Democratt]

64. Me too!

[beam me up scottie]

61. Of course.

After all, they are now greedily sucking up MY tax dollars for their so called faith based charities (translation: preying on the vulnerable).

Once that practice has been ruled unconstitutional (although these days I have my doubts that it ever will be), I'll reconsider.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. It's not just about religion, but about the...

concept of "non-profit."

Just because there are some mega-churches around and very much for-profit ministries doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Most churches do vast amounts of community work and far too many would be closed down if they had to pay property taxes at going commercial rates. Income taxes they might be able to handle since most would ended up claiming very little net income, but that's still a foot in the door for government to further control non-profits.

Don't anyone confuse your disdain for religion with the massive ability of the state to influence things with tax policy.

[Book Lover]

65. So what taxes are they exempt from?

Upthread, I discovered that churches pay local sewage, fire and police taxes. Their employees pay income taxes. So what are they *not* paying?

[Lars39]

66. Property taxes.

Church building itself and sometimes a 'parsonage'.

[charlie]

69. Charity expenses

There are often sales, use, and service exemptions for equipment and other expenses used for charity work. Those are parts of tax code that are much abused by serial grifters like Pat Robertson.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. If religious organizations pay taxes

doesn't that eliminate the separation of church and state?

[Proud_Democratt]

76. Is there still such a thing, T. Grannie?

[Lars39]

78. That line was crossed when churches began receiving

faith-based funding

[Proud_Democratt]

80. Thanks for the update. And where did this funding come from?

Everyone needs to hear this.

[Lars39]

81. bush did an end-run around Congress and signed faith-based funding

by Executive Order.

[Proud_Democratt]

87. But yet people say they shouldn't be taxed.

:sarcasm:

[Proud_Democratt]

88. Faith-based funding....this reinforces my stance

on this subject.

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. Churches are, in theory, non-profits

And all non-profits get the same tax benefits. This factoid tends to get overlooked in the hoopla over the tax status of religious organizations.

Churches do not an automatic tax exemption: like all other wanna-be non-profits, they must first apply. There are many churches that do not apply.

Along with religious organizations, status as a 501(c)(3) organization can be extended to any charitable, educational, scientific or literary organization, as well as to any organization that exists for testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competitions or preventing cruelty to children or animals. To pick just a very few groups that have this status:

* Animal shelters
* Community sports, including Little League and pee-wee football
* Astronomy clubs
* Mutual aid societies
* Underwriters' Laboratories
* Private libraries and museums that are open to the public
* The American Heart Association
* Homeless shelters
* The Nature Conservancy
* The American Olympic Committee
* The American Atheist Association

Theoretically, churches provide charitable and educational benefits to their communities. I would not favor eliminating religious organizations from non-profit status just because they offend someone's sensibilities. Rather, they should be strictly and publicly audited, like other non-profits, to guarantee that they are, in fact, meeting these obligations. If they are not, then existing tax law is sufficient to strip them of non-profit status and see to it that they are held accountable for back taxes.

[Critters2]

94. Well said

There's no special provision for churches. They fall under 501c3 status, as you said. I know of a congregation of my denomination that left the denom over our pro-gay position. What they didn't realize is that our federal exemption comes as being part of the denomination, which does all the paperwork for the federal 501c3.(We are responsible for our state status) They soon learned that they had to hire a lawyer and get their own tax-exempt status, or start paying taxes. They're now debating whether to return or join another denomination.

[ozone_man]

75. Yes, we should tax churches.

Here are a few opinions in favor of taxation, which I endorse.

The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt for equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.
— James A Garfield, 20th U.S. President (1881)

(In Germany) they recognize two sects, Catholic and (Protestant)... These receive State support; and their schools receive State support. Other sects are taxed to support these sects and schools, and have to run their own churches and schools at their own cost. It is infamous.
Just as infamous as it is with us – where no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused.
— Mark Twain

I would call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land before the close of the Nineteenth century. It is the acquisition of vast amounts of untaxed church property.... In a growing country, where real estate enhances so rapidly with time as in the United States, there is scarcely a limit to the wealth that may be acquired by corporations, religious or otherwise, if allowed to retain real estate without taxation. The contemplation of so vast a property as here alluded to, without taxation, may lead to sequestration, and through blood. I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation.
— Ulysses S. Grant, 18th U.S. President (1875)

http://www.taxchurches.com/

SHOULD THE CHURCHES BE TAXED?

by Leiand W. Ruble

Should organized religion be taxed? And if not, why not? For most of the population, religion exists in a peculiar, rarefied atmosphere. It is for most people (even though they may have some doubts) the only source of hope they have for continuing their existence after the body has expired. Naturally they expect restitution in heaven, a sort of reward for countless prayers; a moral life; and obedience to God. Obviously, taxation of a faith based on a biblical God, would be a desecration of this image.

Religion therefore, has been able to develop and prosper without the payment of taxes that are required from most other organizations that teach a certain philosophy or concept of existence. The majority do not think of religious mysticism as an ideology that is taxable. They feel you cannot tax a church whose reverend is a representative of God. A person who has conversations and visions with the Lord of all, the Almighty.

Presumably because religion is more concerned with the afterlife, Heaven, Hell, and a government presided over by an assembly of angels, saints, and evangelists, and considers sin as the main cause of discord on this planet, it has been exempted from taxation. It is a privilege that has granted religion an elite status that few other organizations, activities, and the productivity of human labor is immune from. The mystical exploitation of religion has created a hierarchy of sanctimonious pedagogues who prosper in an environment free of obligation to the society from which they profit immensely. There is no such thing as a non-profit religion. If there were non-profit religions, most established religions would not exist.

Why then, is religion exempt from taxation? There are those who assume that it is to prevent government influence into the activities of religion, and to prevent the same from interfering in the affairs of government. It is also thought that taxation of religion would restrict its growth, thus constricting the freedom of worship and making it difficult for religious activity to flourish. This does not make sense. If a mystical organization cannot prosper or survive because of taxation, it must not have a message or purpose worth sustaining, nor the ability to communicate a concept that appeals to the public. If it requires exemption from taxation as the only way it can exist, then it is a religion based on a superficial concept of Biblical nonsense that eventually the public will ignore.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/y2k/tax_churches.htm

[LWolf]

96. Any group that proselytizes should be.

They are in the business of conversion, and they spend their money to achieve that. Conversions are profit, since they gain $$ and power by them. Charity is simply the door to the customer.

Also, any group that uses the pulpit for political messages.

[Igel]

97. Either all non-profits should be, or none.

I worked for a church that owned no land, and barely covered its expenses. People contributed to cover the expenses, each as s/he could, and all got essentially equal services. It helped the poor a little, but that certainly wasn't its primary function. NGOs do many things. Some are educational, even if you don't agree with the kind of education they do, or their political/social bent; some are philanthropic; some engage in policy-related work ('educational' of a different stripe); others do other things. All count as some sort of 'service' to the public, or some section of the public.

I also was on the board of a non-profit that was heavily into retail operations. It had few educational services, as such. Food service, book store, clothing; it maintained meeting rooms and funded activities, but 'educational' seems a stretch for most of it. It was set up in 1919 by students to provide services for students, and never officially incorporated as a non-profit. It paid sales tax as required by law, but the ground it was on would have been tax-exempt, the profits were tax exempt as long as they resulted from providing services to the 'membership'. The food service had an interesting feature: if you were a student, you paid no sales tax on the food; if you weren't a student, you had to pay sales tax. Such was the law, obscure, to be sure. It kept a fairly clean distinction between income from students and from non-students: emblematic apparel sales to alumni and non-students produced taxable revenue, food sales to non-student produced taxable revenue. Most profits went into offsetting depreciation and into infrastructure, new enterprises, although some were distributed to student organizations. The last year I was involved it had gross revenue of over $79 million and I'm guessing they paid maybe $10k in income taxes (with what a for-profit business would call "retained earnings" and "profits" of a couple million dollars). It was a glorified co-op.

[Proud_Democratt]

98. I guess the key phrase is what I'm trying to highlight..."Non-profit"

and "religious". Political organizations pay taxes.