Taxes on Churches?

[Caninope]

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?

The point at which the IRS says they are. The IRS does allow churches, as with all 501(c)3's, quite a bit of leniency.

[Caninope]

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.

Taxing churches, like you pointed out, isn't unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has mentioned some very valid reasons not to tax churches (as well as some to allow the taxation), most prominently that taxing churches would create a greater entanglement than just keeping your hands clean altogether.

[Augarundus]

Got a better idea.

[New Chalcedon]

Got a better idea.

Erm, no.

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.

Taxing churches, like you pointed out, isn't unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court has mentioned some very valid reasons not to tax churches (as well as some to allow the taxation), most prominently that taxing churches would create a greater entanglement than just keeping your hands clean altogether.

Surely, the greater entanglement is in allowing them special status, rather than cleanly and simply applying property taxes ot everyone? Like I said, let them keep their nonprofit status for income taxes, but other nonprofits are subject to property taxes, so I see no reason why not the churches, too.

[Caninope]

Surely, the greater entanglement is in allowing them special status, rather than cleanly and simply applying property taxes ot everyone? Like I said, let them keep their nonprofit status for income taxes, but other nonprofits are subject to property taxes, so I see no reason why not the churches, too.

Not according to SCOTUS, Chalcey. I can understand the reasoning behind it- let's say my brother is an accountant. Are we more involved in each other's lives if he did my taxes?

[New Chalcedon]

Surely, the greater entanglement is in allowing them special status, rather than cleanly and simply applying property taxes ot everyone? Like I said, let them keep their nonprofit status for income taxes, but other nonprofits are subject to property taxes, so I see no reason why not the churches, too.

Not according to SCOTUS, Chalcey. I can understand the reasoning behind it- let's say my brother is an accountant. Are we more involved in each other's lives if he did my taxes?

Caninope, where did the SCOTUS rule - or imply - that property taxes on churches were unconstitutional, or even an untidy fashion of dealing with things? Also, I understand that per the concept of separation of Church and State, the two are in fact not brothers.

[Tao Empire]

If it were in Tapeka, Kansas and that church in question happened to be named "Westboro Baptist Church," I'd say tax the hell out of them.

[Cybach]

I don't see how exempting religious institutions from the rules that every single other organization in our society is legally obligated to follow is "separation of church and state," but it appears to be the norm in our society.

You're an idiot. By not taxing the Church the State is keeping separate from the Church. If the State would tax the Church it would break the well-defined line of separation of Church and State. Which trust me, considering the amount of religious people in the US you don't want. Since the sword cuts both ways, if separation of Church and State is removed and Churches are taxed. Do you want to even imagine the damage that religious people, who are now no longer blocked by the separation line due to the State abolishing it, can do to the State in return?

[Dyakovo]

I don't see how exempting religious institutions from the rules that every single other organization in our society is legally obligated to follow is "separation of church and state," but it appears to be the norm in our society.

If the State would tax the Church it would break the well-defined line of separation of Church and State.

No, it wouldn't.

[Cybach]

If the State would tax the Church it would break the well-defined line of separation of Church and State.

No, it wouldn't.

Yes it would. The Church lies outside of the State. The State lies outside of the Church. That is the general agreement. Neither considers itself the superior of the other. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, the Church does not involve itself in the political State affairs and the State stays completely out of the Churchs affairs. Taxing Church would abolish the separation of Church and State, since it would mean the State considers itself the owner of the Church. Which means they're no longer two separate entities.

[New Chalcedon]

No, it wouldn't.

Yes it would. The Church lies outside of the State. The State lies outside of the Church. That is the general agreement. Neither considers itself the superior of the other. Give unto Caesar what is Caesars, the Church does not involve itself in the political State affairs and the State stays completely out of the Churchs affairs. Taxing Church would abolish the separation of Church and State, since it would mean the State considers itself the owner of the Church. Which means they're no longer two separate entities.

One little problem with your "argument": The church is quite happy to meddle in politics, such as by donating $500,000 in Maine to an anti-gay marriage referendum effort, or by threatening elected representatives with excommunication if they vote they way the Church doesn't like.

The Church - each of them- considers itself the sublime superior of the State, entitled to meddle at whim in the affairs of the latter, whilst sanctimoniously proclaiming anyting other than kowtowing to this twisted ideal to be "interference with the church". Newsflash: They can get down from their nice little thrones (bringing their altarboys with them), and accept that they live in a secular nation now. If they want to interfere in the State's affairs, then they can jolly well pay their share of the tax bill.

[ElectTheDead]

Well, if churches didn't seem to want huge towers of gold, they wouldn't need copious amounts of money to fund their repairs and such, so yes, I do think churches should be taxed. They need to get their eyes off greed.

[Cybach]

Out of pure curiosity. You can write off donations off your taxes no? Wouldn't this mean that most Churches would never have to pay taxes anyways due to the copious amounts of charity drives and donations they have? Nothing would happen and the State wouldn't get more money, the only thing that would come out of it is more paperwork and some weird religious cults having to pay taxes.

[Chazicaria]

Only the "Church" of $cientology should be taxed. Other religions, unless they are obviously in it soley for money, shouldn't be taxed because many, like the Catholic church, are very big charity organizations.

[Sapphista]

This nation was founded on christian values. We can't just drop the Christian element of society altogether, and it would be foolish to try.

Source?

I seem to remember it being a product of Enlightenment Values, myself.

^-- This

[Sapphista]

The driveway tax doesn't make sense...

Is there some representative watching each driveway and counting how many cars use it? O.o

Anyway, I don't see an issue taxing churches. Churches, to me at least, seem like a corporation. Besides, what constitutes a religion? Couldn't anyone get enough followers to start a tax-exempt community of like-minded people?

[Dyakovo]

No, it wouldn't.

Give unto Caesar what is Caesars.

Your argument hinges on a supposed quote from Yeshua, seriously? I hate to be the one to break it to you, but christianity doies not make the rules in a secular nation.

[Bottle]

Only the "Church" of $cientology should be taxed. Other religions, unless they are obviously in it soley for money, shouldn't be taxed because many, like the Catholic church, are very big charity organizations.

Very big charity organizations which use "donations" to build and stock golden palaces for their leaders.

[Chazicaria]

Only the "Church" of $cientology should be taxed. Other religions, unless they are obviously in it soley for money, shouldn't be taxed because many, like the Catholic church, are very big charity organizations.

Very big charity organizations which use "donations" to build and stock golden palaces for their leaders.

Or homes in Haiti for the poor...
Or hospitals...
Or food...

[Der Teutoniker]

Surely they should pay tax? Otherwise the government is endorsing religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) over other kinds of belief?

No. This doesn't really make sense. No "church" is taxed - that isn't an endorsement of some religion over no religion, it's a realization that many churches bring in very little money, or have statements near the red. For some churches this is not the case, but I believe that for most churches it is. "Churches" as I've used the word in this little paragraph is used to denote general religious structures - not solely Christians buildings.

[Cybach]

Only the "Church" of $cientology should be taxed. Other religions, unless they are obviously in it soley for money, shouldn't be taxed because many, like the Catholic church, are very big charity organizations.

Very big charity organizations which use "donations" to build and stock golden palaces for their leaders.

More like fund Catholic schools, hospitals and universities. Which I believe are all legally deductible from your taxes. I honestly think if Churches can be taxed, the Catholic Church for one remains completely unaffected. The main brunt will go to smaller Churches or cults which don't make the necessary donations to be exempted from taxes by simply using their donations as write-offs.

[Der Teutoniker]

Churches, to me at least, seem like a corporation.

I don't mean to sound like a dick (prepare for it, though) but I think you should actually research the two words. In some cases, yes, churches can look like corporations. To my knowledge, many don't.

Besides, what constitutes a religion? Couldn't anyone get enough followers to start a tax-exempt community of like-minded people?[/quote]

I think that reasonable rules should be set-up for non-profit organizations, and whatever the cause, those shouldn't be taxed (some churches would fall out from this definition, I'm sure.) If you want a religious commune... so long as you didn't make a profit, I'm sure it's possible that you could indeed do this. It wouldn't be as simple as "we're religious - can't tax us" though.

[Caninope]

Not according to SCOTUS, Chalcey. I can understand the reasoning behind it- let's say my brother is an accountant. Are we more involved in each other's lives if he did my taxes?

Caninope, where did the SCOTUS rule - or imply - that property taxes on churches were unconstitutional, or even an untidy fashion of dealing with things? Also, I understand that per the concept of separation of Church and State, the two are in fact not brothers.

At no point have the acknowledged that property taxes on churches are unconstitutional. I went so far as to state that in the first post you quoted, IIRC. However, I noted that they acknowledged some very good arguments against them.

Also, I wasn't referring to the Church and State as brothers, per se, I was trying to use an analogy that was good enough for you, me, and other laymen reading this thread.

[Caninope]

Well, if churches didn't seem to want huge towers of gold, they wouldn't need copious amounts of money to fund their repairs and such, so yes, I do think churches should be taxed. They need to get their eyes off greed.

Except most churches don't want huge towers of gold, nor do they get it. In fact, they have been several recent years when the Catholic Church ran a deficit.

[New Chalcedon]

Caninope, where did the SCOTUS rule - or imply - that property taxes on churches were unconstitutional, or even an untidy fashion of dealing with things? Also, I understand that per the concept of separation of Church and State, the two are in fact not brothers.

At no point have the acknowledged that property taxes on churches are unconstitutional. I went so far as to state that in the first post you quoted, IIRC. However, I noted that they acknowledged some very good arguments against them.

Also, I wasn't referring to the Church and State as brothers, per se, I was trying to use an analogy that was good enough for you, me, and other laymen reading this thread.

1) Fair enough; I apologise for the misreading. However (and I apologise if you've done so earlier in this thread) could you please provide me with some links to cases in which they did so?
2) And I was trying to (indirectly) highlight the fatal flaw in your analogy: your 'brothers' analogy implied a degree of intrinsic connection between the two which is simply not permitted under a doctrine of separation of church and state.