Taxes on Churches?

[Caninope]

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

Walz v Tax Commission of NYC disagrees.

[Caninope]

Unconstitutional.

Pardon? Tax exemption is a form of government endorsement, so surely not taxing the churches is unconstitutional?

Walz v Tax Commision of the City of New York found that not only did it not establish a church, but it also helped minimize the interactions between the two.

[Los Cabreddes]

Pardon? Tax exemption is a form of government endorsement, so surely not taxing the churches is unconstitutional?

Walz v Tax Commision of the City of New York found that not only did it not establish a church, but it also helped minimize the interactions between the two.

Further, as long as this applies equally to all churches and all religious organizations it establishes nothing.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

Walz v Tax Commision of the City of New York found that not only did it not establish a church, but it also helped minimize the interactions between the two.

Further, as long as this applies equally to all churches and all religious organizations it establishes nothing.

I would assume that since equal exemption of religious organizations is constitutional, then equal taxation must also be constitutional.

[Minotzia]

Walz v Tax Commision of the City of New York found that not only did it not establish a church, but it also helped minimize the interactions between the two.

Further, as long as this applies equally to all churches and all religious organizations it establishes nothing.

The qualification for being a tax-exempt NPO (as churches are considered) is pretty plainly stated on the previous page. I know there are a few qualifications for actually meeting the "religious" portion of the clause, but they are relatively simple to prove. Churches should always be tax-exempt.

[Caninope]

Further, as long as this applies equally to all churches and all religious organizations it establishes nothing.

I would assume that since equal exemption of religious organizations is constitutional, then equal taxation must also be constitutional.

No one was arguing that it wasn't.

[Cool Egg Sandwich]

I would assume that since equal exemption of religious organizations is constitutional, then equal taxation must also be constitutional.

No one was arguing that it wasn't.

Actually, plenty of people in this thread were arguing just that: that taxation of churches in any form was unconstitutional. Either you haven't read the majority of posts in this thread, or you misread my post.

[Coccygia]

AFAIK there is nothing unconstitutional about taxing churches. It's just that no legislature dares to tax churches. Tax the bastards, I say! Tax 'em DOUBLE or TRIPLE to make up for the free ride they've had, in fact!

[Wikkiwallana]

They were saying that so as to not antagonize the Berber (Muslim) pirates of the Barbary coast.

So an official document by the government talking about said government only has meaning if it agrees with your predetermined view point, good to know for future reference.

-snip- We are guaranteed a free press, yet we pay sales taxes on books and newspapers (in some states, at least). -snip-

Wrong definition of free. There's a fancy word for that fallacy, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.

[Ifreann]

This nation was founded on christian values.

Do please elaborate. I don't see anything particularly Christian about the values of the US.

[Ifreann]

They were saying that so as to not antagonize the Berber (Muslim) pirates of the Barbary coast.

So an official document by the government talking about said government only has meaning if it agrees with your predetermined view point, good to know for future reference.

-snip- We are guaranteed a free press, yet we pay sales taxes on books and newspapers (in some states, at least). -snip-

Wrong definition of free. There's a fancy word for that fallacy, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.

Equivocation.

[Siorafrica]

Guess what?
We've had a thread on this before.Why not just use that one and lock this one?

[TheKanadian Federation]

We charge other organizations that bring in revenue, and churches should be no exception. If they want tax exemption, they can claim it for the charity work they supposedly do, and NOT for the robes the Pope only wears once (I kid you not. They burn them after he wears them.)

[Ifreann]

We charge other organizations that bring in revenue, and churches should be no exception. If they want tax exemption, they can claim it for the charity work they supposedly do, and NOT for the robes the Pope only wears once (I kid you not. They burn them after he wears them.)

The Pope doesn't pay taxes in the US because he lives and works in the Vatican, several thousand miles outside the jurisdiction of the US, not because of his alleged wasteful behaviour towards clothing.

[Republicke]

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

Walz v Tax Commission of NYC disagrees.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to suggest that I was giving an authoritative legal opinion. Just, in terms of the actual principles, then I believe it holds true.

[Rambhutan]

Guess what?
We've had a thread on this before.Why not just use that one and lock this one?

Because if it is older than a couple of weeks posting in it would be gravedigging and frowned on by the mods. Most threads on NSG have been discussed before, possibly multiple times.

[Cosmopoles]

Most churches shouldn't be taxed. Like a charity, they provide a service the community demands for no profit.

[Itinerate Tree Dweller]

"Sorry, Mr. Taxman, I don't park my car in the driveway, I park it in the grass."

What is the logic behind the driveway tax anyways? Driveways are private property.

[Innsmothe]

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?

"Give to caesers what is caesers, and to God what is God's"

[Caninope]

AFAIK there is nothing unconstitutional about taxing churches. It's just that no legislature dares to tax churches. Tax the bastards, I say! Tax 'em DOUBLE or TRIPLE to make up for the free ride they've had, in fact!

That would create more entanglement between the church and state than not doing so, to paraphrase the Supreme Court.

[Coccygia]

AFAIK there is nothing unconstitutional about taxing churches. It's just that no legislature dares to tax churches. Tax the bastards, I say! Tax 'em DOUBLE or TRIPLE to make up for the free ride they've had, in fact!

That would create more entanglement between the church and state than not doing so, to paraphrase the Supreme Court.

To paraphrase myself, bull-oney.

[Jasarite]

they may not be charities, but they do almost the same things as a charity (providing a community service) so should not be taxed.

[Innsmothe]

they may not be charities, but they do almost the same things as a charity (providing a community service) so should not be taxed.

Bible says other wise.

It calls you to pay whatever the state commands you to pay, because money means nothing when you have God.

[Teotan]

Sure why not?

[The Rich Port]

Tax the lilly-livered religious institutes.

All of this "Christian" this and "Christian" that is making me ill.