Time to End Tax Exemption for Religions?

[Punished UMN]

What's a harsher tax regimen: 10% of a net-income of $30K or 90% (an unreasonably high rate anyway given current tax law) of a net-income of one-hundred million?

Didn't the UK have a 97.5% top income tax bracket during the Second World War?

We should bring that back. And make that the normal, peacetime rate this time. >:D

I mean, all those megareverends with their private proselytising jets can clearly afford it.

Yes, but my point is that the rich (and this is true of organizations as well as people) have such a huge profit that virtually no tax rate would inflict a great harm on them, but poor people (and organizations) are so poor that virtually any tax rate could inflict great harm on them. I'm fine with taxing religion, but as you said, there needs to be a level of income at which, below this level, there are no taxes paid.

[Senkaku]

Okay, but if we're talking about a tax regime on religious organizations that's so intense that even small organizations aren't spared from crushing tax bills that're sending them out of operation, then megachurches and the like are probably get shafted way, way harder. Even if they're the last ones left standing and religious "power" is consolidated, those organizations would be having most of their political and economic power stripped away. So, again, what's the issue?

That's not how taxation works, fam. The more money you make, the higher percentage of taxes you can comfortably pay. If I make $30K, then even a 10% tax would be financially crippling, but if I make two or three million US$, then I could pay a 90% tax rate and still have far more net-revenue than the person who makes 30K. You have a lot of small congregations who are barely able to cover basic overhead costs, even a relatively small tax could bankrupt them, but megachurches are so profitable that even with a high tax rate, they would remain profitable, and if people congregate to them in larger numbers because other churches fail, then their ability to pay these taxes will become even greater.

Okay? This isn't an argument for keeping the small ones in and of themselves. It's just an argument for someone who believes they should be saved, saying we should figure out a tier structure of the tax for different sizes of organization (which can and has been done plenty of times before).

I'm not saying we shouldn't do something like that (it would make it politically easier to swallow for sure), I just don't see any specific reason why we should.

Is there any reason we want to incentivize the preservation or creation of smaller sects? Yeah, we give tax breaks to people below certain income thresholds and to small businesses below certain revenue/profit/capitalization thresholds or whatever, but that's because we think those policies will create outcomes we want (poor people not starving, small businesses remaining dynamic, etc.). If you can articulate a positive case for why shielding these small groups is good for the rest of society, I'd love to hear it, because I can't think of one myself.

The gigantic megachurches tend towards wasting their money on their own self aggrandisement, private jets for the ministry and so on, whereas smaller community churches are almost always involved in a myriad of charities and good works.

Are they? Can't almost anyone form a small religious organization? Maybe my brain is just being poisoned by the atheist liberal media and Hollywood, but I was under the impression that there were lots of money-laundering/tax-evasion related schemes involving small, newly-minted "churches."

That said, I know there are also tons of small churches that are like this, so this seems like the best reason to argue for a tiered tax structure that gives little churches more breathing room. But it doesn't seem to rise to the degree of justifying no taxation of them whatsoever-- someone just needs to model how much financial burden they could realistically take.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I'm fine with taxing religion, but as you said, there needs to be a level of income at which, below this level, there are no taxes paid.

I'm agreeable to this. Provided that the same standard will apply to secular organisations.

[Punished UMN]

That's not how taxation works, fam. The more money you make, the higher percentage of taxes you can comfortably pay. If I make $30K, then even a 10% tax would be financially crippling, but if I make two or three million US$, then I could pay a 90% tax rate and still have far more net-revenue than the person who makes 30K. You have a lot of small congregations who are barely able to cover basic overhead costs, even a relatively small tax could bankrupt them, but megachurches are so profitable that even with a high tax rate, they would remain profitable, and if people congregate to them in larger numbers because other churches fail, then their ability to pay these taxes will become even greater.

Okay? This isn't an argument for keeping the small ones in and of themselves. It's just an argument for someone who believes they should be saved, saying we should figure out a tier structure of the tax for different sizes of organization (which can and has been done plenty of times before).

I'm not saying we shouldn't do something like that (it would make it politically easier to swallow for sure), I just don't see any specific reason why we should.

For the same reason poor people in particular should be spared the tax burden: because it's the fair thing to do.

[Punished UMN]

I'm fine with taxing religion, but as you said, there needs to be a level of income at which, below this level, there are no taxes paid.

I'm agreeable to this. Provided that the same standard will apply to secular organisations.

Yeah, I'm in favor of that and in favor of it for individual citizens as well.

[Albrenia]

Are they? Can't almost anyone form a small religious organization? Maybe my brain is just being poisoned by the atheist liberal media and Hollywood, but I was under the impression that there were lots of money-laundering/tax-evasion related schemes involving small, newly-minted "churches."

That said, I know there are also tons of small churches that are like this, so this seems like the best reason to argue for a tiered tax structure that gives little churches more breathing room. But it doesn't seem to rise to the degree of justifying no taxation of them whatsoever-- someone just needs to model how much financial burden they could realistically take.

That's true, but to my knowledge Priests still pay 'normal' tax on stuff so inventing your own religion to dodge a tax one doesn't pay as a singular person.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Yeah, I'm in favor of that and in favor of it for individual citizens as well.

I looked it up quickly, and it appears that I was misremembering; the 97.5% was the post-war recovery rate. The wartime top income tax bracket was 99.25%.

Tax exemptions for the corner church's food bank and 99.25% on the megareverend's second jet. Sounds agreeable. I don't believe in a God, but I pray for this future. :p

[Galloism]

If it's a matter of can't rather than won't then you're just depriving poor communities of their right to practice religion.

Poor people necessarily are splintered only among small religious groups? Someone go tell the Catholic masses of Latin America's most impoverished regions know they have to get schism-ing, ASAP!

Taxation is often a matter of effective accounting. There’s a reason small churches would likely face a higher effective burden than mega churches unless you set a particularly steep progressive taxation with payroll deductibility limits and punishing tax credit limitations.

The mega churches will put people like me on the payroll, who will work the code thoroughly to count every building, lawn service, stapler, and paper clip as a business expense needed to produce income and therefore deductible, and take advantage of every investment, opportunity zone, and business credit in the entire system.

And it will be easier to win than Joe’s Biker Church who’s son does the bookkeeping because he’s taking bookkeeping in high school.

I’d also make it perfectly legal and defensible, and keep good paperwork.

That’s my secret Cap.

[Albrenia]

Yeah, I'm in favor of that and in favor of it for individual citizens as well.

I looked it up quickly, and it appears that I was misremembering; the 97.5% was the post-war recovery rate. The wartime top income tax bracket was 99.25%.

Tax exemptions for the corner church's food back and 99.25% on the megareverend's second jet. Sounds agreeable. I don't believe in a God, but I pray for this future.

Sounds perfect to me. Economic conservatives would likely point out that all the rich people would move somewhere else and thus we'd all starve though because we all need rich people and should be greatful for them.

[Senkaku]

Are they? Can't almost anyone form a small religious organization? Maybe my brain is just being poisoned by the atheist liberal media and Hollywood, but I was under the impression that there were lots of money-laundering/tax-evasion related schemes involving small, newly-minted "churches."

That said, I know there are also tons of small churches that are like this, so this seems like the best reason to argue for a tiered tax structure that gives little churches more breathing room. But it doesn't seem to rise to the degree of justifying no taxation of them whatsoever-- someone just needs to model how much financial burden they could realistically take.

That's true, but to my knowledge Priests still pay 'normal' tax on stuff so inventing your own religion to dodge a tax one doesn't pay as a singular person.

No, my understanding (which again, almost entirely fed to me by completely fictitious media portrayals! ) is it's not an individual thing, but more something that criminal organizations or larger groups trying to launder money and evade taxes might create and use. Making a church of one would just draw attention (plus I'm guessing people have tried and the state said no, pay up).

[Albrenia]

That's true, but to my knowledge Priests still pay 'normal' tax on stuff so inventing your own religion to dodge a tax one doesn't pay as a singular person.

No, my understanding (which again, almost entirely fed to me by completely fictitious media portrayals! ) is it's not an individual thing, but more something that criminal organizations or larger groups trying to launder money and evade taxes might create and use. Making a church of one would just draw attention (plus I'm guessing people have tried and the state said no, pay up).

That is a bastard of a good point. I guess one would have to figure out a way of determining a 'real' religious organisation over a fraudulent one.

[Punished UMN]

Also, and idk if this is a hot take, but I'd be more inclined to support religious organizations being taxed some if I could have some kind of assurance that that tax money was going to be spent on things that help the community like healthcare, aid for the homeless, rehabilitation facilities, etc. and not on Raytheon contracts and tax breaks for Exxon.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Sounds perfect to me. Economic conservatives would likely point out that all the rich people would move somewhere else and thus we'd all starve though because we all need rich people and should be greatful for them.

A little off topic for this thread, but that's why I support things like world government and international tax agreements. Can't run away with your blood money if there's nowhere to run. >:D

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Also, and idk if this is a hot take, but I'd be more inclined to support religious organizations being taxed some if I could have some kind of assurance that that tax money was going to be spent on things that help the community like healthcare, aid for the homeless, rehabilitation facilities, etc. and not on Raytheon contracts and tax breaks for Exxon.

That's probably true for every kind of taxpayer. They'd be less upset about paying up if the money stopped disappearing into political black holes.

[Galloism]

Sounds perfect to me. Economic conservatives would likely point out that all the rich people would move somewhere else and thus we'd all starve though because we all need rich people and should be greatful for them.

A little off topic for this thread, but that's why I support things like world government and international tax agreements. Can't run away with your blood money if there's nowhere to run. >:D

<angry Elon musk noises>

[Senkaku]

Also, and idk if this is a hot take, but I'd be more inclined to support religious organizations being taxed some if I could have some kind of assurance that that tax money was going to be spent on things that help the community like healthcare, aid for the homeless, rehabilitation facilities, etc. and not on Raytheon contracts and tax breaks for Exxon.

This is America. Silence your hot takes, ungrateful wretch, and give thanks to our Pentagon! May capital's total dominion over all life draw nearer by my deeds!

[Washington Resistance Army]

The gigantic megachurches tend towards wasting their money on their own self aggrandisement, private jets for the ministry and so on, whereas smaller community churches are almost always involved in a myriad of charities and good works.

Are they? Can't almost anyone form a small religious organization? Maybe my brain is just being poisoned by the atheist liberal media and Hollywood, but I was under the impression that there were lots of money-laundering/tax-evasion related schemes involving small, newly-minted "churches."

That said, I know there are also tons of small churches that are like this, so this seems like the best reason to argue for a tiered tax structure that gives little churches more breathing room. But it doesn't seem to rise to the degree of justifying no taxation of them whatsoever-- someone just needs to model how much financial burden they could realistically take.

It's a lot harder than you think tbh. It's something the pagan community has been struggling with over the past decade. While on paper the process is simple actually moving that into the real world and becoming a 501c3 is a difficult one unless you already have a lot of money.

[People republie of alaska]

I don't care Tax Exemption for Religions. everybody have to pay taxes all governments around world need money keep governments going they down fall from uprising or civil war.

[Kowani]

Also, and idk if this is a hot take, but I'd be more inclined to support religious organizations being taxed some if I could have some kind of assurance that that tax money was going to be spent on things that help the community like healthcare, aid for the homeless, rehabilitation facilities, etc. and not on Raytheon contracts and tax breaks for Exxon.

i mean
that's not a hot take
it's
not how taxes work
but the sentiment is there

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Didn't the UK have a 97.5% top income tax bracket during the Second World War?

We should bring that back. And make that the normal, peacetime rate this time. >:D

I mean, all those megareverends with their private proselytising jets can clearly afford it.

Yes, but my point is that the rich (and this is true of organizations as well as people) have such a huge profit that virtually no tax rate would inflict a great harm on them, but poor people (and organizations) are so poor that virtually any tax rate could inflict great harm on them. I'm fine with taxing religion, but as you said, there needs to be a level of income at which, below this level, there are no taxes paid.

Food for thought, what about a negative income tax? The rich pay taxes and the money goes to the poor to help them survive.

[Ard al Islam]

Call me Libertarian, but I think the solution isn't taxing religions but removing taxes from other organizations.

I just don't like taxes

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Call me Libertarian, but I think the solution isn't taxing religions but removing taxes from other organizations.

I just don't like taxes

Taxes keep a society running. Where do you think road money comes from?

[Ard al Islam]

Call me Libertarian, but I think the solution isn't taxing religions but removing taxes from other organizations.

I just don't like taxes

Taxes keep a society running. Where do you think road money comes from?

Road money. It's always road money

[UniversalCommons]

If religious organizations should not be taxed, should they be running businesses like bookstores, housing for their parishioners, and be allowed to run candidates like their local pastor for office. Where is the division between a church and a business. Put aside the ideology.

[Postauthoritarian America]

First Amendment.

Precisely. And therefore not politically feasible in the United States. Americans regard their constitution with an almost reverent outlook.

Well we do regard it as the supreme law of the land, which it is. Recall many of the original white invaders illegal immigrants were religious minorities fleeing persecution, forced to support established religions in the countries they came from. Also the Founders, largely admirers of the Enlightenment, had a strong bias in favor of freedom of thought, including in religious matters. Under the current interpretation of Amendment I, government in the US must be neutral both as between religions and as between religion and non-religion.

But taxing or not taxing religions has nothing to do with freedom of exercize. No one is forcing anyone to organize into a body that then builds and maintains a building to meet in, furnishes it with pipe organs and kitchens, sets up pulpits behind which to endorse political parties and candidates, etc.