Partisan Politics Good For America?

[LazarusLong]

"Your tax dollars go to maintain the access to the church (roads, walk ways, etc.). Same as any business, except that the church doesn't have to pay any property tax like you and I do (and every business) to maintain that. Even if they are taking in more than most small businesses."

I understand that argument, to an extent. By not paying their share, we have to make up the difference. It's an indirect subsidy, though. And public infrastructure is a sunk cost.

[Ghost]

"Your tax dollars go to maintain the access to the church (roads, walk ways, etc.). Same as any business, except that the church doesn't have to pay any property tax like you and I do (and every business) to maintain that. Even if they are taking in more than most small businesses."

I understand that argument, to an extent. By not paying their share, we have to make up the difference. It's an indirect subsidy, though. And public infrastructure is a sunk cost.

True, but that's beside the point. There are parsonage exemptions for clergy that exempt them from some income tax and a number of other deductions that churches can take advantage of that simply aren't available to other businesses, even to other non-profits.

And make no mistake; a church is still a business, even if its primary purpose isn't to make money and get rich (those churches certainly exist, but are not the majority). So, while there may not be a line item on my tax forms showing the money I contributed to [insert religion here], and while the overall slice of the pie that goes to religious institutions may not be huge (it is in the billions range, though), it's pretty hard to look at tax law and not conclude that it is government supporting religion.

In a somewhat different arena, this has been proven over and over in cases over the past years regarding religious displays on government property, like city halls. If they make ground available to Religion A (OK, let's be honest...that's always Christianity), they have to make it available to people of every other faith. And so you get groups like the Satanic Temple (who are actually atheists and strident supporters of the separation of church and state) who get to put up Solstice displays next to Nativity scenes, and distribute Satanic coloring books because the Gideons have a deal with the school district.

It's all absurd. Churches weren't even officially tax-exempt until the late 1800s (1894, if I recall). It happened anyway, but that's when it was law. But the craziest part is that there are probably people here reading my post who view it as an actual attack on religion (meaning, Christianity) -- and it isn't, at all. The government is not supposed to be involved with religion. It is not an attack on someone's religious rights to expect them to play by the same rules as the rest of us. It does not infringe on their rights to worship wherever they please -- if they want to worship in a megachurch and pay their pastor $200k+, that's totally fine. Go for it!

But I shouldn't have to pay him too.

[Dan H]

Easiest fix to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field, if indeed that's what you're going for, would be no deductions and a flat rate, or a consumption-based tax at the point of sale. The latter you'd need to exempt groceries, and/or incorporate some sort of base living stipend as has been proposed in the Fair Tax. You could then drastically downsize the IRS and push tax collection responsibilities onto already-existing state sales tax collection systems.

It's been a while since I've read anything but as best I recall the thinking on the subject is that going to a consumption-based system would cause prices to drop anywhere from 20-25% so depending on the actual rate prices would be at a parity.

Additionally, not having a marriage "penalty" is pretty much the only reason the government needs to be involved in marriages as things stand, get rid of that and you can more easily reduce it to a contract as I've talked about before.

[Indy]

Easiest fix to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field, if indeed that's what you're going for, would be no deductions and a flat rate, or a consumption-based tax at the point of sale. The latter you'd need to exempt groceries, and/or incorporate some sort of base living stipend as has been proposed in the Fair Tax. You could then drastically downsize the IRS and push tax collection responsibilities onto already-existing state sales tax collection systems.

It's been a while since I've read anything but as best I recall the thinking on the subject is that going to a consumption-based system would cause prices to drop anywhere from 20-25% so depending on the actual rate prices would be at a parity.

Additionally, not having a marriage "penalty" is pretty much the only reason the government needs to be involved in marriages as things stand, get rid of that and you can more easily reduce it to a contract as I've talked about before.

Well, that seems like conflation of two different issues. The first step would be to stop treating churches differently.

[Ghost]

Easiest fix to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field, if indeed that's what you're going for, would be no deductions and a flat rate, or a consumption-based tax at the point of sale. The latter you'd need to exempt groceries, and/or incorporate some sort of base living stipend as has been proposed in the Fair Tax. You could then drastically downsize the IRS and push tax collection responsibilities onto already-existing state sales tax collection systems.

It's been a while since I've read anything but as best I recall the thinking on the subject is that going to a consumption-based system would cause prices to drop anywhere from 20-25% so depending on the actual rate prices would be at a parity.

Additionally, not having a marriage "penalty" is pretty much the only reason the government needs to be involved in marriages as things stand, get rid of that and you can more easily reduce it to a contract as I've talked about before.

How in the wold does any of what you said up there have anything to do with keeping churches out of the government and preventing taxpayer dollars from supporting them?

Or were you responding to an older post in the thread and I just am not following?

[OE32]

There's some serious intellectual heft in favor of a consumption tax, though I remain opposed. I think it fails to take into account the new normal, which is too much capital, not enough consumption. Historically, growth has strongly correlated with savings rates - a correlation that has deteriorated recently and I suspect going forward.

As far as eliminating deductions and going with a flat tax... (first of all, you'll still need some deductions to avoid a tax on gross income, which would be absurd), but just because the rules are simple doesn't mean a smart taxpayer won't be able to drive a truck through the sorts of loopholes that would create (most practitioners would warn that a flat tax would lead to far more egregious abuses of the tax system). People don't appreciate the fact that the tax code is a reflection of reality, and the Code's complexity is the result of the complexity of reality. And if you're not doing complicated things, the tax code isn't that complicated for you.

If you want to simplify the tax system, allow the IRS to prepare your audit for you. This was introduced in Congress, but the tax software companies lobbied to defeat the measure. The IRS has your information anyway. It makes too much sense. There's your fix for the complicated code right there.

You want to eliminate problems with the code? There's a lot you could do. Eliminate section 1014. Strengthen the estate tax (which - ahem - God's Own Party just voted to eliminate). Amend the recognition requirement so that if you have capital assets above a certain value, you have to pay tax on unrealized built-in gains and losses: suddenly, the disparity between the ordinary and capital gains rate isn't so bad. Like most in the tax world, I'm not in favor of the home mortgage interest deduction. But I would also get rid of accelerated depreciation: why provide structural boost for replacing people with machines, when we know there are positive externalities associated with employment?

Going the other way, I'm in favor of some form of dividends paid deduction for corporation (so that corporate income paid out as dividends is only subject to a single level of tax). Most very wealthy people use partnerships anyway; corporations are a bit more of an egalitarian investment vehicle, imo.

[Dan H]

Easiest fix to make sure that everyone is on the same playing field, if indeed that's what you're going for, would be no deductions and a flat rate, or a consumption-based tax at the point of sale. The latter you'd need to exempt groceries, and/or incorporate some sort of base living stipend as has been proposed in the Fair Tax. You could then drastically downsize the IRS and push tax collection responsibilities onto already-existing state sales tax collection systems.

It's been a while since I've read anything but as best I recall the thinking on the subject is that going to a consumption-based system would cause prices to drop anywhere from 20-25% so depending on the actual rate prices would be at a parity.

Additionally, not having a marriage "penalty" is pretty much the only reason the government needs to be involved in marriages as things stand, get rid of that and you can more easily reduce it to a contract as I've talked about before.

How in the wold does any of what you said up there have anything to do with keeping churches out of the government and preventing taxpayer dollars from supporting them?

Or were you responding to an older post in the thread and I just am not following?

You don't like churches getting exemptions from the tax code, I say why not go further and get rid of all exemptions while we're at it and simplify the tax code. It's less punitive than just saying let's tax the churches because you don't agree with them being tax exempt. With the consumption based example, church purchases would no longer be tax exempt and they'd have the same skin in the game as every other taxpayer and organization.

[Ghost]

You don't like churches getting exemptions from the tax code, I say why not go further and get rid of all exemptions while we're at it and simplify the tax code. It's less punitive than just saying let's tax the churches because you don't agree with them being tax exempt. With the consumption based example, church purchases would no longer be tax exempt and they'd have the same skin in the game as every other taxpayer and organization.

I don't disagree with the churches (well, I do, but in a different sense). I disagree with the government funding their religion, and I believe my disagreement is in accord with one of the most basic tenets of the Constitution. I don't have a problem with spending money on charities; these organizations serve a great social function that is necessary, and I already stated that I support those churches that actually do spend a large amount of their funding in charity work. I don't feel that debating an issue grounded in the words of the Constitution is a good place to expand the discussion into a much broader area, either. If we're talking about the meaning of the First Amendment and we want to bring in tax code, I'm not really comfortable with taxation being directly associated with my rights to free speech, religious belief, the press, and so on. Those are supposed to be fundamental rights; all other law falls under the proverbial social contract, and the discussion about them is a different one than fundamental rights.

You do bring up an interesting issue that certainly warrants it's own thread. I think that a flat tax, even the Fair Tax, has a lot of good points and a lot of very serious concerns. But I'm not in a position to debate that separate issue right now.

[Dan H]

"I disagree with the government funding their religion,"

An exemption from taxation does not equal being funded. They aren't receiving direct payment, they are merely being allowed to keep the money they are given by parishioners and what not. It's not the government's money to begin with - government doesn't 'own' anything that it isn't given by the citizens.

[Indy]

"I disagree with the government funding their religion,"

An exemption from taxation does not equal being funded. They aren't receiving direct payment, they are merely being allowed to keep the money they are given by parishioners and what not. It's not the government's money to begin with - government doesn't 'own' anything that it isn't given by the citizens.

Yes, it does equal being funded.

[Dan H]

Ah yes, the typical leftist stance that failure to tax somehow equals a cost to the government. How to argue with such a well-reasoned and defended position?

[Indy]

It has already been explained clearly in this thread. You must have skipped it.

[Mori Chu]

Many churches are charitable, and some are very charitable. But that's not their primary purpose. Not taxing them is special treatment that they don't deserve.

[Ghost]

"I disagree with the government funding their religion,"

An exemption from taxation does not equal being funded. They aren't receiving direct payment, they are merely being allowed to keep the money they are given by parishioners and what not.

Tell me what the difference is if the church's books show $10,000 in direct payment as opposed to $10,000 in savings? Or if they just remove that line item altogether? In any of those cases, the total comes out the same, and it's less than the person who paid those taxes. It's EXACTLY THE SAME.

Property tax (let's just focus on that one) goes to pay for services that enable a facility to function.
Not paying property tax means that someone else has to pay it, because those costs don't just disappear.
Paying for someone else's property tax constitutes "being funded" in every sense I can imagine. It could also be described as "endorsin" or, if we want to go old school, even "establishing."

It's not the government's money to begin with - government doesn't 'own' anything that it isn't given by the citizens.

Exactly. The government is using the citizens' money to pay for the church's property tax.

By your rationale, a parent who pays for their kids' food and clothing is not providing direct financial support to that kid.

Ah yes, the typical leftist stance that failure to tax somehow equals a cost to the government.

Let's say we were to abolish all taxes immediately (don't pee your pants with excitement; this is just hypothetical). Would there be a cost to the government? It's pretty hard to say that would not cost dearly.

[Nodack]

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

PRO Tax Exemption for Churches

Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." [5]


Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. [12] The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." [13]


Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. [14] Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. [15] These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.


Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. [2] Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all." [16]


A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion." [5]


Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past… We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." [17] Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.


US churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy. If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief." [18]


Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation. The late Rev. Dean M. Kelley, a leading proponent of religious freedom, explained that church members are already taxed on their individual incomes, so "to tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be 'double taxation' indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the up building of the fabric of democracy." [19]


The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature. [20] [21]


Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden. A 2010 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover. [22] If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression. [20]


The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. [1] [23] There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. [35] [58] The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.


Withdrawing the "parsonage exemption" on ministers' housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years, [60] which would be a major blow to modestly paid men and women who dedicate their lives to helping people in need. According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000. [59] As stated by D. August Boto, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, "the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury." [62]


CON Tax Exemption for Churches

Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." [24]


A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution. [25]


Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [1]


A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "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." [26]


A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income." [27]


The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. [8] In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." [28] The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," [29] was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes." [30]


Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified. Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [31]


Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [9] New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. [11] Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [32] [33]


Despite the 1954 law banning political campaigning by tax-exempt groups, many churches are clearly political and therefore should not be receiving tax exemptions. [9] [34] Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status. [35] In Oct. 2010, Minnesota pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church endorsed several Republican candidates and dared the "liberal media" to file complaints with the IRS. Brandon later announced on his radio program: "I'm going to explain to you what happened… Nothing happened." [35]


American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year. US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [36]


The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates. [1] As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place." [37]


The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense. The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. [61] In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, [63] and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. [64] Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [62]

[Ghost]

Thanks, Nodack, for the ridiculously long post that I'm about to make longer.

Note: I am not a Supreme Court Justice (go figure) or a lawyer. I only speak to what I think about these arguments.

http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

PRO Tax Exemption for Churches

Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." [5]

It does not uphold the separation of church and state. Even a minimal and remote (and I would say it is neither) relationship violates the First Amendment, unless anyone can declare themselves a clergyman and get the same subsidies. It does in no way complement or reinforce that separation.

Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. [12] The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." [13]

A church is a building, at least where taxation is concerned. The word "church" can also be used to describe a group of like-minded people who gather to share and celebrate their religion. In the latter sense, a "church" can meet anywhere they want. These are not the churches that would be taxed. The tax is on the land, not the people.

Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good. [14] Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc. [15] These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.

Well, the government would not be OBLIGATED, but otherwise, I agree that for many churches, this is true. Most churches, however, are quite small, and are not themselves the site of the soup kitchen or shelters. But I'm willing to mostly concede this one.

Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God. [2] Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all." [16]

IN NO POSSIBLE WAY IS TAKING A PASSAGE FROM THE BIBLE AS DEFENSE OF A LEGAL POLICY NOT A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I mean, that's a really f***ing stupid argument in a legal debate.

A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion." [5]

It is precisely a subsidy in any meaningful sense of the word. This is a silly semantic argument; if the accountants come out with the same number whether the subsidy was direct or indirect, it's a subsidy.

Taxing churches, on the other hand, is not asking the church to subsidize the state. Building owners pay property tax on their land and structures. This is the basic cost of doing business.

Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past… We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings." [17] Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.

LIkely not. Some churches may struggle for a time, but they would be able to balance things out. Also, the idea that the activities of the church can't exist without government support in the form of tax breaks seems to directly support the Con side of the argument.

US churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy. If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief." [18]

The US government is not a theocracy, but it is overwhelmingly pro-Christian. Also, this is a moot point, as the concept of separation of church and state is entirely different than the concept of establishing a theocracy.

Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation. The late Rev. Dean M. Kelley, a leading proponent of religious freedom, explained that church members are already taxed on their individual incomes, so "to tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be 'double taxation' indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the up building of the fabric of democracy." [19]

Same with any business owner? This is ridiculous.

The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature. [20] [21]

No, because of their business nature.

Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden. A 2010 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover. [22] If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression. [20]

In no way does the government NOT subsidizing a religion equal impeding religious expression. If it's that important, and your megachurch closes down, you can meet in a park. The tax is on the land, not the people who worship there.

The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates. [1] [23] There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011. [35] [58] The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.

Those 500 should be immediately stripped of their status, but that has only happened a handful of times, and it doesn't change the basic point that tax-exempt status is in and of itself providing support to the church.

Withdrawing the "parsonage exemption" on ministers' housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years, [60] which would be a major blow to modestly paid men and women who dedicate their lives to helping people in need. According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000. [59] As stated by D. August Boto, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, "the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury." [62]

OK, it would be hard on them, and that sucks, but the goal isn't to make them suffer. Also, there are probably hundreds of thousands of volunteers in America who work a job but dedicate their actual life to improving the lives of others. Do hospice workers get a parsonage exemption? What about the guy who devotes his life to running an AA group, or the Forest Service crew who sit in a lonely tower for hours each day trying to spot fires and prevent towns from being destroyed? None of them are getting rich, but they provide a vital service that in my mind is far greater.

CON Tax Exemption for Churches

Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." [24]

Yes, exactly. I don't even feel the need to respond to the rest of the Pro-points. But, you know me.

A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution. [25]

And it wasn't even a law until a 1894...certainly not in the Constitution, or more accurately, an Amendment modifying the First Amendment.

Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [1]

So, not only exemption, but no time spent on paperwork...so an added benefit. Why can't I call myself a church? I have a fairly unique set of beliefs.

A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "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." [26]

Yep.

A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income." [27]

Precisely.

The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. [8] In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars." [28] The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," [29] was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes." [30]

With the laws as they are and belief being what it is, I actually have no problem with this. Do Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Quaker, or any other religion have to PROVE their faith in order to qualify? If the answer is no, then there is no way of determining which faiths are real or not.

Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified. Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [31]

Also true. I'm OK with supporting their charitable acts, though.

Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [9] New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. [11] Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [32] [33]

Yep, math doesn't lie.

Despite the 1954 law banning political campaigning by tax-exempt groups, many churches are clearly political and therefore should not be receiving tax exemptions. [9] [34] Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status. [35] In Oct. 2010, Minnesota pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church endorsed several Republican candidates and dared the "liberal media" to file complaints with the IRS. Brandon later announced on his radio program: "I'm going to explain to you what happened… Nothing happened." [35]

This should be a moot point, since the exemption shouldn't be there at all (at least in its current form), but hell yes. They explicitly and defiantly violated the rules -- and celebrated that fact, and yet, nothing happened.

American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year. US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [36]

They are in the minority, but this is undeniable.

The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates. [1] As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place." [37]

This is a really fascinating argument. And it's completely true. I am going to think about this and may post more later. I really never thought about it in this way, mostly because of the Pulpit-Free robbers mentioned above.

The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense. The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. [61] In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, [63] and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. [64] Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [62]

I don't like making the case about the most affluent of pastors, but this is also undeniably true.

[Dan H]

The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature.

Interesting point that I hadn't considered. Removing the exemption just for churches would likely be a violation of equal protection. Which kind of rolls back around to the idea of a flat or consumption-based tax system.

Another point to consider is that the estimates for how much money is "lost" range from 70-100 billion a year. When we're running trillion dollar deficits that's a drop in the bucket.

And I fully agree that there are some pastors who abuse the benefits of their position. The same is true, however, for a lot of charities.

http://www.tampabay.com/americas-worst-charities/

That's why it's important to research any organization you give to, to make sure the lion's share of the funds are going to a worthy cause.

Since my pastor has two jobs and drives a late-90s Plymouth minivan I feel pretty secure in donating my time and money to my church.

[Indy]

The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature.

But that just isn't true. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the government from treating churches any different than other organizations. In fact, it specifically says NOT to single them out.

[Ghost]

Removing the exemption just for churches would likely be a violation of equal protection.

There are a vast number of for-profit charities that already exist. I can't get numbers on this, but it seems that even a for-profit charity whose dedicated cause is to serve that function would be apt to at least be on par with a non-profit charity whose primary mission is to serve as a place of worship for their congregation in terms of percentage of revenue going to the charity work. So, this would not in any way violate equal protection.

Which kind of rolls back around to the idea of a flat or consumption-based tax system.

No, it only rolls back to the intent and meaning of the First Amendment. There was almost no tax code in 1789.

Another point to consider is that the estimates for how much money is "lost" range from 70-100 billion a year. When we're running trillion dollar deficits that's a drop in the bucket.

100,000,000,000/1,000,000,000,000 = .10, or 10% of a trillion dollar deficit. That's a really big drop in the bucket. The kind of drop that would make lakes flood and wash out entire towns. Note, liquid water on Earth is 97%, while ice is only 3%. If only the ice already on the planet melted into the ocean at once, it would rise 230 feet. So, 10% would be around an eighth of a mile. Entire nations would be wiped out. Again, that's a REALLY big drop in the bucket.

Also, how much money being lost do you consider necessary to warrant a Constitutional violation to be considered important? If we were to arbitrarily impose a yearly registration renewal fee of 300 dollars per legally owned firearm in the US, it would come out to 88 billion dollars. Would you consider that drop in the bucket not worthy of being questioned, or the end of democracy as we know it? (Side note -- this would not actually violate the Second Amendment.)

Math on that: 85 billion/(.89 guns per capita * 318 million people) = 300 bucks per gun per year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country

(And for the record, I doubt your numbers are correct...that seems incredibly high. So let's just cut it down to 10 billion, or 1%...that's still a bloody huge drop in the bucket.)

And I fully agree that there are some pastors who abuse the benefits of their position. The same is true, however, for a lot of charities.

Not the point, but the pastors in question are only VERY rarely investigated for these violations. Charities are subject to higher levels of scrutiny.

That's why it's important to research any organization you give to, to make sure the lion's share of the funds are going to a worthy cause.

Since my pastor has two jobs and drives a late-90s Plymouth minivan I feel pretty secure in donating my time and money to my church.

How much of your church's revenue by percentage goes toward charity, as opposed to overhead, compared to that of a dedicated soup kitchen? Also, should the head of the dedicated soup kitchen -- let's say he or she is an atheist -- qualify for the parsonage exemption? This is not to rip on your church, pastor, or the good work that I am sure you do there. But it is a legitimate question to make sure we are comparing apples to apples.

[Nodack]

Here is a decent article on FOX News that I found interesting.


What Liberals Still Don’t Understand About Fox News

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... WIiFHBHarU