Taxes on Churches?

[Caninope]

The problem that many associate with the Church of LDS has nothing to do with that. The belief system of Mormon has led to certain voting tendencies, and there is a large group of Mormons who are politically active.

Strong Belief System + Large Group of Activists = Influence. It has little to do with the church contributing itself. Prop 8 (I believe that's the one) found a vast sum of money to the movement against it, not from the Church, but from it's members.

I seem to recall the opposite being true... I admit I could be remembering incorrectly though...

I did looking- Prop 8 was passed, thanks in part to the Mormons. The leadership said that (and didn't cross the line in doing, so I might add) this bill supported their beliefs and to support it, and the members did so. A church is allowed to support an idea.

[FREEaquaticdancelesson]

Only on property tax should Religious establishments be taxed. Otherwise income tax, sales tax, and any other tax that may be associated should keep out of the church.

In my perfect world, the religion would be taken out of the church entirely, and it would be used as a community center for bringing people together. It would feed people, give people shelter, teach them to sing and all without the help of God.

Best part, no sermons. Meetings in the Chapel perhaps, like city hall meetings.
But no bullshit.

[Revolutopia]

The problem is even through they don't paying taxes now many churches still hold the view that they deserve the right to dictate and influence government actions just as much tax-paying individuals, corporations, and unions all the while being immune to government pressures.

Except they are legally bound by law on the limits of their actions to keep from losing tax-exempt status.

You still have churches performing actions such as blackmailing members if they support certain positions. Such as Catholic Priests denying communion to Pro-Choice politicians and their supporters, yes they have the right to state that Catholic position is one of pro-life this action undue pressure to force members into pressuring government policy.

[Minotzia]

Legalize taxing of churches and let them file for non-profit status. Right now, this is used by a cop-out from paying taxes by a rather large number of rather questionable groups (i.e. Scientology).

You do realize that you actually have to qualify for tax-exempt status... This is essentially what happens in the status quo, but the overwhelming majority of churches that file for tax-exempt status do indeed qualify for that status.

You still have churches performing actions such as blackmailing members if they support certain positions. Such as Catholic Priests denying communion to Pro-Choice politicians and their supporters, yes they have the right to state that Catholic position is one of pro-life this action undue pressure to force members into pressuring government policy.

You can't expect to receive Holy Communion if you aren't in communion with the Church. They have a right to say whatever they want and do whatever they want regarding religious matters. It'd be absurd for the state to intervene and require that the Church grant Communion to people who are prohibited by Church dogma from getting it.

[Caninope]

Legalize taxing of churches and let them file for non-profit status. Right now, this is used by a cop-out from paying taxes by a rather large number of rather questionable groups (i.e. Scientology).

You do realize that you actually have to qualify for tax-exempt status... This is essentially what happens in the status quo, but the overwhelming majority of churches that file for tax-exempt status do indeed qualify for that status.

Kinda-sorta. It's not quite on the same level of other 501(c)3 organizations, IIRC. Religious organizations, once qualified, are essentially good to go without the IRS scouring their books, unless their purpose is called into question.Once again, I might be wrong though, and this applies only at the Federal level.

[Minotzia]

You do realize that you actually have to qualify for tax-exempt status... This is essentially what happens in the status quo, but the overwhelming majority of churches that file for tax-exempt status do indeed qualify for that status.

Kinda-sorta. It's not quite on the same level of other 501(c)3 organizations, IIRC. Religious organizations, once qualified, are essentially good to go without the IRS scouring their books, unless their purpose is called into question.Once again, I might be wrong though, and this applies only at the Federal level.

They are treated exactly like 501(c)3s, because that's what they are. The majority of 501(c)3s aren't fact-checked either, unless there is strong suspicion of fraud.

[Caninope]

Kinda-sorta. It's not quite on the same level of other 501(c)3 organizations, IIRC. Religious organizations, once qualified, are essentially good to go without the IRS scouring their books, unless their purpose is called into question.Once again, I might be wrong though, and this applies only at the Federal level.

They are treated exactly like 501(c)3s, because that's what they are. The majority of 501(c)3s aren't fact-checked either, unless there is strong suspicion of fraud.

I know they're 501(c)3's, I just thought they had more in the way of leniency.

[Minotzia]

They are treated exactly like 501(c)3s, because that's what they are. The majority of 501(c)3s aren't fact-checked either, unless there is strong suspicion of fraud.

I know they're 501(c)3's, I just thought they had more in the way of leniency.

Well since their qualification is pretty hard to prove against, it may seem that way. A tax-exempt religious organization doesn't need to donate a substantial amount of its earnings to charity in order to stay tax-exempt, since that's not what gave them the status in the first place. It does need to prove that it advances religion in one form or another, but again, this is very difficult to disprove. Still, most 501(c)3s that are religious organizations aren't such because somebody is trying to weasel out of paying taxes; it's because they actually do perform the "typical" NPO work.

[Czwick]

What the hell is the rationale for charging a fee for using a driveway?

+1

[Banlieue 47]

If it goes against the Constitution and the Constitution has not been ammended, it is Unconstitutional. End of.

If people feel so strongly about the Constitution being so bad in this aspect, then they should lobby for an ammendment, until then this law should be removed and whatever law-maker passed it should be put back through Law School.

[Kobeanare]

If it goes against the Constitution and the Constitution has not been ammended, it is Unconstitutional. End of.

If people feel so strongly about the Constitution being so bad in this aspect, then they should lobby for an ammendment, until then this law should be removed and whatever law-maker passed it should be put back through Law School.

Alternatively, you could read the thread.

[Ifreann]

If it goes against the Constitution and the Constitution has not been ammended, it is Unconstitutional. End of.

If people feel so strongly about the Constitution being so bad in this aspect, then they should lobby for an ammendment, until then this law should be removed and whatever law-maker passed it should be put back through Law School.

Alternatively, you could read the thread.

Read the thread? COMMUNISM!

[JJ Place]

Churches are Mega - Corporations, International businesses providing a service in exchange for monetary funds. That's what churches are. Should, or need, churches be taxed? That's a different question.

[Greed and Death]

I know they're 501(c)3's, I just thought they had more in the way of leniency.

Well since their qualification is pretty hard to prove against, it may seem that way. A tax-exempt religious organization doesn't need to donate a substantial amount of its earnings to charity in order to stay tax-exempt, since that's not what gave them the status in the first place. It does need to prove that it advances religion in one form or another, but again, this is very difficult to disprove. Still, most 501(c)3s that are religious organizations aren't such because somebody is trying to weasel out of paying taxes; it's because they actually do perform the "typical" NPO work.

except the church of Scientology.

[Greed and Death]

I know they're 501(c)3's, I just thought they had more in the way of leniency.

Well since their qualification is pretty hard to prove against, it may seem that way. A tax-exempt religious organization doesn't need to donate a substantial amount of its earnings to charity in order to stay tax-exempt, since that's not what gave them the status in the first place. It does need to prove that it advances religion in one form or another, but again, this is very difficult to disprove. Still, most 501(c)3s that are religious organizations aren't such because somebody is trying to weasel out of paying taxes; it's because they actually do perform the "typical" NPO work.

except the church of Scientology.

[GeneralHaNor]

Actually I'm more annoyed by the existance of a driveway tax to begin with
How many times I use my own driveway is none of the states damm business, I sure as hell wouldn't pay 72 dollars a year just to park in front of my own house

Before you statists get on my nuts, is the state responsible for fixing my driveway?, no?
then they have no right to charge me for it's use.

[New Chalcedon]

MISSION, KANSAS:
The government can tax your life and can tax your death, but they’re not supposed to tax your church.

And that’s exactly what he said is happening in Mission.

“The city of Mission is taxing churches,” he said. “And that’s clearly unconstitutional.”

In August, the small town just north of Kansas City passed the so-called “driveway tax,” a controversial charge, in addition to property taxes, for residents and businesses based on the number of times their driveway is used.

A big box store like Target can pay over $60,000 annually, while residents pay a flat rate of $72 dollars a year.

The purpose of the “Transportation Utility Fee” is to raise money for public works projects in Mission like street construction and road repair.

It’s unpopular among residents, some of whom have put up protest signs on their yards.

But it’s particularly controversial because the town has included churches in the program.

The Baptist church for instance has to pay 900 dollars a year, while the more popular St. Pius is charged $1700 a year.

Stanley, who is an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization that protects religious rights, is now representing the two churches in a lawsuit against Mission.

He calls the revenue program “a tax on church attendance.”

“The city of mission is taxing churches based on the number of people that come in and out of their driveway, the number of people that come to church,” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/10/ta ... z1GJoPQkcb

Now, the Constitution clearly dictates a separation of church and state. I think that this is a violation of the Constitution. Its only generating a few thousand dollars a year, so all it does is discourage church attendance and violate people's rights. I have a few questions for NS:

Is it Constitutionally acceptable for the city of Mission, Kansas to tax churches?
Is it morally acceptable for the city of Mission, Kansas to tax churches?
Should the federal or state government do something about this?
AND Why?

1) I do not recall anything in the US Constitution stating that churches are exempt from taxation; or, indeed, that they should receive any special treatment from the govenrment on account of their vocation. Therefore, it is Constitutionally acceptable - from any obkective reading of the Constitution - to subject churches to the same law as any other institution. If there is a driveway tax - which I will not argue the merits or otherwise of as a policy - then the Constitution has no problem, so far as I can see, with the churches being subject to the same tax. To address the rather asinine point raised by the OP (bolded), that same tax discouraged people from visiting Target - is that not also a violation of peoples' rights? No, it is not - neither churches nor department stores are excused from paying their fair share of taxes, and nor should they be.

2) Why not? The churches are occupying property within city boundaries - why should not the city levy the same rate of property taxes on churches as on delicatessens, Wal-Marts, service stations and theatres? You could make a different argument for income taxes and churchly exemptions therefrom, given the non-profit-seeking nature of (most) churches, but the Red Cross needs to pay property tax on its HQ (as does the Salvation Army, Amnesty International or other NGOs seeking to do good), so it is fair that a church should pay property tax on the assessed value of its lands. I, for one, do not feel that a piece of land should disappear from the tax rolls from the instant it becomes owned/occupied/leased by a church.

3) No. The Federal and State governments need to actually practice what they preach, and let Mission fix its finances as it sees fit.

[New Chalcedon]

Actually I'm more annoyed by the existance of a driveway tax to begin with
How many times I use my own driveway is none of the states damm business, I sure as hell wouldn't pay 72 dollars a year just to park in front of my own house

Before you statists get on my nuts, is the state responsible for fixing my driveway?, no?
then they have no right to charge me for it's use.

The state is, however, responsible for ensuring that the road leading to/from your driveway is driveable, and I believe that driveway taxes are typically used to fund road mainenance. Given that a driveway tax is as reasonable a measure of road usage as any other I can think of (other than fuel excises, but those impinge on Big Oil and are therefore eeeeeeeeeebil according to the GOP), why not levy them to maintain the road networks?

[New Chalcedon]

I seem to recall the opposite being true... I admit I could be remembering incorrectly though...

I did looking- Prop 8 was passed, thanks in part to the Mormons. The leadership said that (and didn't cross the line in doing, so I might add) this bill supported their beliefs and to support it, and the members did so. A church is allowed to support an idea.

A church is allowed to espouse any beliefs it sees fit, and I neither question nor disagree with this prerogative. However, at what point should a church's advocacy/lobbying for principle X (the $500k spent on the gay marriage vote in Maine by the Catholic Church alone comes to mind) disqualify them from churchly status? At what point are they getting so wrapped up ni the temporal issue du jour that they are neglecting their spiritual responsibilities?

[New Chalcedon]

Well since their qualification is pretty hard to prove against, it may seem that way. A tax-exempt religious organization doesn't need to donate a substantial amount of its earnings to charity in order to stay tax-exempt, since that's not what gave them the status in the first place. It does need to prove that it advances religion in one form or another, but again, this is very difficult to disprove. Still, most 501(c)3s that are religious organizations aren't such because somebody is trying to weasel out of paying taxes; it's because they actually do perform the "typical" NPO work.

except the church of Scientology.

Sssh! Do you want NS to get sued? They do that to people who question their churchly status.

[Dyakovo]

If it goes against the Constitution and the Constitution has not been ammended, it is Unconstitutional.

It doesn't go against the constitution. Thus it is constitutional.

[Dyakovo]

Actually I'm more annoyed by the existance of a driveway tax to begin with
How many times I use my own driveway is none of the states damm business, I sure as hell wouldn't pay 72 dollars a year just to park in front of my own house

Before you statists get on my nuts, is the state responsible for fixing my driveway?, no?
then they have no right to charge me for it's use.

I'm a "statist" or at least so I've been told and I agree with you 100%.

[Arakais]

Yes, I agree to the unconstitutionality of this; however, what exactly is a 'church'. I think that a lot of these swine use religion to make themselves rich simply because they are aware of the immunity to the IRS.

So what makes a church, a church??

[Wamitoria]

Yes, I agree to the unconstitutionality of this; however, what exactly is a 'church'. I think that a lot of these swine use religion to make themselves rich simply because they are aware of the immunity to the IRS.

So what makes a church, a church??

It's not unconstitutional, though...

[Ursiroth]

Of course! Why should anyone be exempt from taxes? As far as I can tell, there's nothing that makes religious buildings special enough that they can avoid the taxes that everyone else pays.