Should we tax the churches?

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1685658

Quite frankly, I don't understand why they're tax-exempt in the first place.

public policy should be taxed.

That's a Constitutional problem you do not want to venture into.

the separation of Church and State. Don't tax those that obey the laws.

I think under church-state separation, they should not be taxed.

But on the other hand, a mega-Baptist church near me is building a new church and on the church land they are including a STRIP SHOPPING CENTER!

Now, THAT OUGHTA BE TAXED!

(Side note: Man, I do not know how folks get ANYTHING out of a Sunday service at a church that seats 3,000....seems so much more like a sporting event to me.)

Or am I reading that wrong?

Looks pretty sketchy.

Then again, one might read all kinds of kinky things into it all.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to the "unrelated business income tax" which provides that income from an active trade or business not related to their exempt purpose is subject to income tax as if they were a taxable corporation or trust. While UBI usually excludes passive income such as interest, dividends and rents, it does include passive income financed by debt (e.g., if they took a mortgage to build the strip mall, the rents are debt financed and therefore subject to UBIT)

Also, most states do not exempt from property tax all real estate owned by a Section 501(c)(3) organization, only that real estate that is actually being used for charitable purposes (other than raising funds). So I'd be surprised if they got a property tax exemption for that.

If they insist in getting involved in politics then tax them!!!

More of them would go political. There'd be no incentive not to.

(Strategy!)

time they'd have to start paying taxes.

That's already there with the tax code we have now.

Churches are not now being taxed. Yet many of them are now interfering in our political and legal systems. A new tax code which enforced a new tax on any church engaging in such activity would act as a deterrent from such activity. The last thing these churches want to do is pay taxes.

...they can lose their tax-exempt status already. The Church at Pierce Creek had it revoked in 1992.

The Bush administration certainly isn't enforcing any such laws against any of the fundie churches actively supporting his policies with their political inolvement. Nor is it taxing the Catholic Church - to the contrary, the Bush administration is encouraging churches, including the Catholic church to interfere in our political and legal institutions.

The are enforcing the law against a few churches that had Kerry show up!

The political prohibition is in the language of Sectino 501(c)(3)--enforcement is quite a different matter. There are, however, special 1st amendment concerns for churches, which is why the IRS should be loathe to pick that fight.

The argument goes that churches should get special treatment among Section 501(c)(3) organizations because of the intersection between tax law and the 1st A. Generally, tax exemption is a matter of legislative grace and its terms are strictly construed--don't want to pay taxes? Then's here's what you've got to do.

Churches argue that they have a constitutional right not to pay taxes--separation of church and state, you know (convenient when it works the other way around, no?). Therefore, as their exemption derives not from the tax code but from the constitution, those pesky requirements of Section 501(c)(3) (like no political activity) don't apply to them. Heretofore, they haven't been very successful, but the religious right is well funded and I'd like to think they'd like to make that argument at some point.

There is a bit of truth to that. The Lemon test specifically talks about excessive entanglement. As a result, churches do not have to file the From 1023 to get exempt status, nor do they need to file the Form 990, the annual information return, like all other Section 501(c)(3) orgs, in order to avoid excessive entanglement. There are also special audit procedures for churches. But exempting them from filings is far different from the root of their exemption.

More narrowly, churches argue that limits on political speeech among to limits on freedom to practice their religion in violation of the 1st A. For example, if its a tenet of your religion that abortion is murder, limiting someone's ability to say that from the pulpit it tantamount violating free exercise. Of course, there is nothing in Section 501(c)(3) that says you can't say abortion if murder. What Section 501(c)(3) says is that you can't then add... so vote for * because Kerry is a baby killer. But I suppose there are some fundies out there who argue that * is the second coming, and therefore it is a tenet of their religion to vote for him. I jest... sort of....

So its a sticky problem. Note that the IRS isn't having any problem pursuing NAACP for political issues, being that its not a church, plus, none of those black people vote Repub, you know. Again, I jest... sort of...

put it another way, "selectively" enforcing 501(c)(3)? Or is the tax courts? Or other legislation beyond the tax code?

Didn't we just witness a national election where millions and millions of voters were persuaded by their pastors and televangelists that a vote for * is a vote for "morals" (an anti-gay marriage, "pro-life" Jeeeezus), so just forget about the fact that * is cutting their Medicare, sending their children off to die in Iraq, and sending their jobs overseas?

The legislation is pretty darn clear, so its not other legislation. And these cases rarely get to tax court or federal court.

There are really three things going on, in my estimation--although this is IMHO, so take it for what its worth (not very much):

-the IRS budget was gutted for the longest period of time--primarily by Repubs who didn't like the "invasive" IRS--and then, lo and behold, they found that tax fraud ran rampant. Imagine that... no enforcment, crime goes up. Geez whiz, who da thunk it? We are seeing greater enforcement attention now, honestly long over due--you may have seen the thread about gettin g$3.2 bn out of the Son of Boss tax shelter settlement. The next one they are going to go after involves charities.

--The IRS, already hated by most Americans, doesn't want to be seen as the agency that pulled __________ (fill in your denomination here) tax exemption. You'll see the flat taxers who don't want the IRS come crawling out of the woodwork. So, in the meanwhile, they go after single churches here and there and not whole denominations. Until they go after somone big and take them out, there will be no deterrent effect, which leads me to...

--In order for the IRS to take on one of the big boys, they need to have the moral support of the administration behind them, and I seriously doubt its coming... after all, its bad precendent either way.

So, in the mean time, the IRS will pick at the edges with the most egregious cases, and that will be that.

But, that's just my opinion....

Depressing as it is, I think you're right - the current administration certainly won't be the one to induce the IRS to alter its current practice of merely picking on the small fish in the big pond.

Actual experience: Went into the local <some protestant denomination I am unfamiliar with> church to pick up a friend's SHARE groceries when she had the flu. (SHARE, if you don't know, is a bulk food program where a collective buys at wholesale prices and by maintaining no employees, inventory, or warehousing, and by buying in bulk, gets groceries at near cost.) This church knows that one of the SHARE requirements is that no one is turned away who can pay the fees (which are very low, and food stamp eligible). Still, in the hallway one must pass through to get to the rec room, the walls were lined with Neo-Con talking points: Gay Marriage hurts families, Abortion kills babies, Child Discipline takes a strong faith, a strong heart and a strong arm (that one bugged the SHIT out of me), Rely on God, not government, etc. There were probably 20 of them, nearly all things that have a political bent, but can be considered issues rather than candidate advocacy.

However, in our area, where the candidates are very strongly divided along political lines, and the parties are very divided as well, speech on those sorts of issues is effectively an endorsement of one political party and set of candidates.

To me, that is political speech, and should not be allowed without taxation. Further, since few of the churches in my area actually do much in the way of public service (SHARE is an ecumenical program, run by the Catholic Diocese and the random protestant church does 1 day a month of work with SHARE), their mission as organizations of public aid is not being met. Therefore, they're no different from any other couch potato out there who has to dish out.

If they want the exemption, they need to earn it by a) keeping their mouths shut and b) serving their communities.

So if they are now PACs, I say tax 'em. They are using the $$ they save on taxes to force their will on others through the political process.

and tax the living hell outa those that defile the name of God and confuse Christianity with public displays of piety. US a Christian nation? Good. Then render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's...........

weathiest entities in the world (the Catholic Church).


FUCK-YEAH WE SHOULD TAX THEM!

I doubt that the Catholic Church covers 30% of your town, so what's that land being used for? Does it generate a profit? Do you realize that local diocese receive zero funds from the Catholic Church and that if they can't afford to maintain their resources locally, they get shut down?

Taxing your local Catholic properties doesn't hurt the global Catholic Church one bit. It only hurts your Catholic neighbors.

They're a good investment.

Until the 1950s, the single largest landowner in New York City was the Episcopalian Church. They owned hundreds of apartment buildings, donated or bought as investment, and reaped much profit (all tax free) from the rents.

Locally, one of the churches owns one of the few low-income apartment buildings available in this town. Of course, the place is also a pit; the church does little to no upkeep, and the health department has condemned it a couple of times. The church, however, has attack lawyers who get the condemn order lifted by injunction due to "violation of the separation clause" and moral issues. And while $200-300 a month is very low for this area for a 2 bedroom apartment, there's no maintenance, there are no property taxes, and no mortgage to pay. The church keeps nearly all of that money.

Should they be at the very least required to conform to health department rules?? Yes. But that property also has nothing to do with the religion; it's a money making venture that literally takes advantage of the laws. So I believe they should pay property taxes on that property, just like any other land-lord.

say yes they should.What do churches do for the poor anymore?I know in my city we have one church that seems to do all the soup kitchen and pantry and all the charity stuff,When was the last time you heard of a catholic church doing any charity work?

they should pay the price for that privilege.


:bounce:

absolutely YES

Sorry, but the majority of Americans, and the majority of DEMOCRATS, identify themselves as Christian. There are profound differences in how they see their faith in relation to their world, but they are Christians just the same.

If you were to do this, every pastor and priest in America would paint it as a direct attack on the churches themselves (especially since taxation would shut many churches down). You'd have sermons every Sunday equating the attacks from the Democratic party with those of Satan himself. By the time they were done, you'd lose nearly all of the Hispanic vote (the majority of whom are church-going Catholics), a huge chunk of the black vote, a massive bloc of the midwestern and northeastern union workers (many blue collar workers are also devout Christians), and scattered voters from other voting contingents. Hell, I'd abandon the party myself if they did that.

If our party tried this, we'd be left with little more than urban atheists within a year or two. It would probably lead to a division of the party and the end of the Democrats as we know the party.

Any and all church money that is not used to help the community should be taxed. There are a few mega-churches in my city - I'm talking buildings worth tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars each. All have multi-millionaire ministers. None pay taxes because they are "churches."

Everyday I drive by one of those monstrosities on my way home from work and wonder how many homeless people could be given shelter with that money? How many single mothers could be provided with daycare for that money? How many people without healthcare could go to the doctor with that money? How many kids could be sent to college with that money? How many starving people could be fed with that money?

It's time to start treating the business masquerading as churches as the businesses they really are.

n/t

Warning - it's pretty sickening. They even have our tax-payer funded police directing traffic out front on church nights.

http://www.bellevue.org/templates/cusbellevue1103/details.asp?id=1360&PID=178247&mast=

The view of the front makes it appear that there's so much land that it must cost a lot more than the building.

Than you tour inside and in the courtyard and it takes on the look of a really huge, fancy convention center.

And for what? You're right - think of all the poor people all the money that went into that grotesque monstrosity could help.

Except for the cross above the door it doesn't even resemble a church.

The list goes on.

In fact, Longmont is trying desperately to prevent a megachurch from building a campus that would include a gated housing community for church members only (under Fair Housing laws), a shopping center, and a clinic (for church members only). It would cover 22 acres, all be church owned, and effectively non-taxable. Residents would lease their houses on 99 year leases at X% etc.

That is not a community serving the community. It's a business serving itself.

Churches are businesses

some of these mega-fundie McChurches have endowments that could feed third-world countries. Time for them to start paying taxes.

why the hell not???

places of worship...since not all places of worship cross that line..

and I do have some rather draconian ideas on how to enforce it...desparate times and all that... ;)

I think some of those really wealthy churches you hear about on TV definely should be but small churches shouldn't be really or they shouldn't have the pay the same tax as the larger one. I also agree with SollyMack in that I would rather see Seperation of Church and State enforced than punish all the churches for what some do.

Religion and Government are seperated for a very important reason. Government has the power to hold power over people. Religion has power to demand moral definitions over its adherants. Taxes are the price we pay in order to have a voice in our government. If churchs begin paying taxes then they will demand their voice in the government.

Furthermore Churchs are about ideas. They are people coming together to discuss and share in their notions of the nature of truth and the universe. Taxing them will favor the existing orthodox religions. It will be a road block to any new group looking to explore ideas in their own way. It will freeze the existing religions in their place and cement their hold.

All in all taxing churchs is a very bad idea. However controling what a church can invest in and market may have some merrit. Discussing ideas and the universe is one thing. But creating entire economic powerhouses is another.

Meanwhile, with 90 votes, about 4 out of 5 DU'ers who voted think churches ought to be taxed, at least those engaging in political activities.

82% - the same percentage as in the CBS poll which found 82% disapproved of Congress passing that Terri Schiavo bill.

Tax church income and property.

as well as external methods of fundraising should be taxed.

BUT

I think it should only be taxed by states, and NOT federally.

I think that all the tax revenue from all the churches in a state should be pooled and then evenly distributed to all districts in the state. That money should go directly to fund community programs.