Taxes on Churches?

[Conserative Morality]

In this case, hopefully by liquidating all their assets and going out of business.

And why is that a good thing?

[Bottle]

In this case, hopefully by liquidating all their assets and going out of business.

Then churches would just leave liberal states. Just like businesses and taxpayers.

Works for me!

[Lerro]

Then churches would just leave liberal states. Just like businesses and taxpayers.

Works for me!

I'm glad we could come to this agreement.

[Bottle]

In this case, hopefully by liquidating all their assets and going out of business.

And why is that a good thing?

I like having money more than I like having religious organizations.

But I'm willing to compromise and only tax religious organizations at twice the rate of secular organizations. I think that'd be an OK start, although they have centuries of backtaxes that they really should have been paying, so I figure I'm cutting them a pretty massive break.

[Caninope]

http://www.vaticanbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/vatican-bank.jpg

http://www.hyperborea.org/photos/full/e ... atican.jpg

look well funded to me.

The Vatican has run several deficits fairly recently.

[Lerro]

http://www.vaticanbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/vatican-bank.jpg

http://www.hyperborea.org/photos/full/e ... atican.jpg

look well funded to me.

The Vatican has run several deficits fairly recently.

So has every other country in existence. Doesn't mean that Andorra isn't a wealthy country.

[Conserative Morality]

I like having money more than I like having religious organizations.

I don't follow. Such a move would eliminate legal religious organizations, and eliminate possible revenue from said organizations. You end up with no money and a large number of illegal religious organizations, coupled with international condemnation and possible violation of the Constitution.

But I'm willing to compromise and only tax religious organizations at twice the rate of secular organizations. I think that'd be an OK start, although they have centuries of backtaxes that they really should have been paying, so I figure I'm cutting them a pretty massive break.

I don't think that's much of a compromise. In fact, I think that's an absolutely foolish idea. Why is Religious oppression so condemned amongst atheists, but secular oppression (And such a thing is possible, if not common) is completely and wholeheartedly supported? This is a blatant attempt to get the government to favor irreligious organizations by taxing them at a lower rate. Furthermore, since when have retroactive laws been legal?

And I say this as a goddamn atheist, for Christ's sake.

[SaintB]

I don't see the problem here. Churches should still be responsible for paying property taxes, and a driveway tax is just another form of property tax. They should also be responsible for proving that any income earned is through charitable donations or used in such a way that that the income they earn is totally exempt by their charitable use the same as other 'non-profit' organizations.

[Bottle]

I like having money more than I like having religious organizations.

I don't follow. Such a move would eliminate legal religious organizations, and eliminate possible revenue from said organizations. You end up with no money and a large number of illegal religious organizations, coupled with international condemnation and possible violation of the Constitution.

Oh, I'm not arguing we actually could get such laws passed in the USA! Of course we couldn't. I don't think the USA will ever even be willing to treat religious organizations EQUALLY compared to secular organizations, let alone treat them with the contempt that I think would be appropriate.

But I'm willing to compromise and only tax religious organizations at twice the rate of secular organizations. I think that'd be an OK start, although they have centuries of backtaxes that they really should have been paying, so I figure I'm cutting them a pretty massive break.

I don't think that's much of a compromise. In fact, I think that's an absolutely foolish idea. Why is Religious oppression so condemned amongst atheists, but secular oppression (And such a thing is possible, if not common) is completely and wholeheartedly supported? This is a blatant attempt to get the government to favor irreligious organizations by taxing them at a lower rate. Furthermore, since when have retroactive laws been legal?

I never claimed that my opinions are consistent with American law. I'm simply pointing out that, for me, taxing the income of religious organizations at MERELY the same rate as others would be a compromise. I think the ideal case would be one in which religious organizations were pushed out of business through a combination of broad social and cultural change and aggressive taxation and regulation. But, as I said, I know this won't happen, so I'm willing to compromise.

And I say this as a goddamn atheist, for Christ's sake.

The thing is, I'm not even advocating "oppression" of the religious, yet you can see the strong reaction it gets. I'm simply looking at the fact that religious organizations have been enjoying unfair and unearned perks for centuries, and I think it would be nice if they paid back their debt to society. If I wanted to OPPRESS them I'd just advocate that we pass laws forbidding them to exist.

[Bottle]

I don't see the problem here. Churches should still be responsible for paying property taxes, and a driveway tax is just another form of property tax. They should also be responsible for proving that any income earned is through charitable donations or used in such a way that that the income they earn is totally exempt by their charitable use the same as other 'non-profit' organizations.

Shhh, come on now, I'm trying to move the Overton Window here.

[Conserative Morality]

Oh, I'm not arguing we actually could get such laws passed in the USA! Of course we couldn't. I don't think the USA will ever even be willing to treat religious organizations EQUALLY compared to secular organizations, let alone treat them with the contempt that I think would be appropriate.

I don't believe they should be treated with contempt. Why should they be treated with contempt?

I never claimed that my opinions are consistent with American law. I'm simply pointing out that, for me, taxing the income of religious organizations at MERELY the same rate as others would be a compromise. I think the ideal case would be one in which religious organizations were pushed out of business through a combination of broad social and cultural change and aggressive taxation and regulation. But, as I said, I know this won't happen, so I'm willing to compromise.

And why is that ideal? Why is the destruction of religion a good thing?

The thing is, I'm not even advocating "oppression" of the religious, yet you can see the strong reaction it gets. I'm simply looking at the fact that religious organizations have been enjoying unfair and unearned perks for centuries, and I think it would be nice if they paid back their debt to society. If I wanted to OPPRESS them I'd just advocate that we pass laws forbidding them to exist.

Oppression includes preference of one kind of organization or people over another through unfair and burdensome taxes. Like the Ottoman Empire and their positions on Jews and Christians. A little oppression is still oppression, and I don't like oppression fueled on nothing but petty vengeance and disagreements in opinion.

[Minotzia]

Oppression includes preference of one kind of organization or people over another through unfair and burdensome taxes. Like the Ottoman Empire and their positions on Jews and Christians. A little oppression is still oppression, and I don't like oppression fueled on nothing but petty vengeance and disagreements in opinion.

A sensible atheist on NSG? Quick kids, grab the camera!

[Genivar]

Oppression includes preference of one kind of organization or people over another through unfair and burdensome taxes. Like the Ottoman Empire and their positions on Jews and Christians. A little oppression is still oppression, and I don't like oppression fueled on nothing but petty vengeance and disagreements in opinion.

A sensible atheist on NSG? Quick kids, grab the camera!

Excuse me?

[Tekania]

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?

This is a tax upon road use, I have no issue with this. The more a road is used, the more money it will require for upkeep. This makes perfect logical sense.

[Tekania]

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.

Normally they are exempted from so-called "income tax" and property taxes. We exempt other organizations from that as well how-ever, it's merely that religion is automatically exempted unlike some other organizations because of the doctrine of separation of church and state, whereas other organisation who are exempted under the same have to follow particular guidelines in order to maintain such because they don't have special protected status which is afforded to religion.

This case here however is not an issue, as they don't appear to be exempting anyone at all. Which is fine with me.

[Dusty Angels]

I think it is a good idea to put tax on churches. Just because the church consists of priests and nuns etc. that doesn't mean they shouldn't pay tax. If all CITIZENS must pay tax -- that means ALL citizens. I can't see the reason why the church shouldn't pay tax if us Christians/Atheists/Agnostics etc. should.

[North Defese]

Is it normal to tax non-profit organizations? Because rant and rave all you want on priests driving about in white gold cars or whatever, that's basically what churches are.

[North Donsville]

Yes we believe tax should be imposed on anyone, regardless of whether it is a church or not. Belonging to a religion does not make you anymore important the than the guy next door. In my state, belonging to a religion does not provide one with extra benefits. Land is land, even if it is supposedly "Holy Land".

[Mudhuts29]

What happened to the supposed separation of church and state (if you look at the constitution, it does not exist). But if there is a separation, then there should never be any taxes on religious affiliations. But, if you are like me, and know that there is no such thing as separation of church and state; you know that taxing these organizations that do the most good in local communities and offer people hope, is just plain criminal and, yes…..unconstitutional.

[The Pike Dynasty]

Sure, I don't mind my beloved Eastern Orthodox Church paying taxes. But, if that's the case; we are going to have a lobby as well, run priests for political office, and attempt to impose moral legislation which our particular church has been relatively silent about.

[Tekania]

Sure, I don't mind my beloved Eastern Orthodox Church paying taxes. But, if that's the case; we are going to have a lobby as well, run priests for political office, and attempt to impose moral legislation which our particular church has been relatively silent about.

Yep, there are three types of people:

1. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that government can't have a say in the church...
2. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that the church can't have a say in government...
and
3. Those who think the other two types had to have missed something in that phrase somewhere.

[The Pike Dynasty]

Sure, I don't mind my beloved Eastern Orthodox Church paying taxes. But, if that's the case; we are going to have a lobby as well, run priests for political office, and attempt to impose moral legislation which our particular church has been relatively silent about.

Yep, there are three types of people:

1. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that government can't have a say in the church...
2. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that the church can't have a say in government...
and
3. Those who think the other two types had to have missed something in that phrase somewhere.

You missed the fourth type,

4. Those who think that the separation of church and state is mentioned in the Constitution.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Taxation of major religious establishments may be a bit unfair on freedom of expression. Exemption does not affect the separation of church and state because it simply leaves the monetary affairs of religion alone. What is not separation of church and state is when other religions other than the official one is taxed.

[New Cassel]

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...

Or this humble "parsonage" of Joyce Meyer ...
http://endtimespropheticwords.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/joyce-meyers-home-or-one-of-them/

[Kobeanare]

Yep, there are three types of people:

1. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that government can't have a say in the church...
2. Those who think that the separation of church and state means that the church can't have a say in government...
and
3. Those who think the other two types had to have missed something in that phrase somewhere.

You missed the fourth type,

4. Those who think that the separation of church and state is mentioned in the Constitution.

It is. The fact that that phrase is not used exactly is irrelevant.