Time to End Tax Exemption for Religions?

[Major-Tom]

I don't know. A community church without a large income stream I'd feel bad taxing, megachurches that prey instead of pray I'd have no problem taxing like the corporations they are. It's tough to strike that balance without violating the equality clause, however.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

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 the death of all good tax ideas. You tie the revenue to funding some "good cause" (which can be anything depending on your politics), then the revenue drops off due to economic restructuring or tax avoidance. At best you look like a chump, and at worse the opposition refuses to give more funds to the "good cause" because you promised your big bad tax would cover it.

No actually, there is worse. If you want to abolish either the tax or the spend you have to amend legislation for the other.

You have a Budget every year. So don't make the promise for more than a year. "Our new tax will raise -- woohoo, that much? -- and we will fund the Good Cause to the same amount. This should get Good Cause off to a great start and it may have to be adjusted up or down in future Budgets"

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

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.

Well that is an issue. I'd have all donations going to pure charity (through a church or not) tax-deductible. But loss-making non-profit businesses kept afloat by a church are more like a charitable subsidy of their customers: quite a grey area since it's not clear if the businesses are just badly managed, or whether the customers are getting some help through low prices.

[The Free Joy State]

I think religious organisations should receive tax relief, not based on size or the fact that they are a religion, but depending on the amount of actual charitable work they do (and by charitable work, I mean for the wider community and not only for members of the same religion).

So, for example, a small community church that runs a little local food bank or other similar service should receive tax relief but those large megachurches that are run as corporations should not.

Also, the quality of charitable works provided should be assessed. Are the orphanages they run unhygienic and with inept care, or is a religion using donations to the poor to plug a budget deficit? Or does a religion use donations for charitable works to prop up businesses?

In such cases, the amount of tax relief should be proportionally reassessed in accordance to how much goes to good causes that genuinely help the community. As a bonus, this might encourage a greater amount of charitable outreach works, so more people would benefit.

[-Ocelot-]

I don't know. A community church without a large income stream I'd feel bad taxing, megachurches that prey instead of pray I'd have no problem taxing like the corporations they are. It's tough to strike that balance without violating the equality clause, however.

If a church can't sustain itself, why should it exist in the first place? Any other corporation, big or small, with frequent income would get taxed. Why should a church receive special treatment? They make income by providing a service for the purpose of profit.

[AKANTUMUN]

I'm passionate about my faith and frankly I don't see it as a responsibility of the state's to maintain a temple or shrine for me.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I think religious organisations should receive tax relief, not based on size or the fact that they are a religion, but depending on the amount of actual charitable work they do (and by charitable work, I mean for the wider community and not only for members of the same religion).

So, for example, a small community church that runs a little local food bank or other similar service should receive tax relief but those large megachurches that are run as corporations should not.

Also, the quality of charitable works provided should be assessed. Are the orphanages they run unhygienic and with inept care, or is a religion using donations to the poor to plug a budget deficit? Or does a religion use donations for charitable works to prop up businesses?

In such cases, the amount of tax relief should be proportionally reassessed in accordance to how much goes to good causes that genuinely help the community. As a bonus, this might encourage a greater amount of charitable outreach works, so more people would benefit.

Taxing the internals of each church would require them to keep records and receipts. Auditing the smallest churches would cost the IRS more than they would ever recover in fraud. It's a step up in what they will call the War On God to prosecute a small or average church, if they are caught participating in tax fraud.

The idea of taxing the income of a church inversely to the percentage they spend on charitable works is sound: donations going ultimately to a good cause, should be deductible, but donations supporting a church itself, not deductible.

I would add to your idea "brackets" like
(a) micro-churches, unaffiliated with <20 regular members: donations are deductible and only basic book-keeping expected. IRS never audits.
(b) small-to-medium churches: trusted to declare percentage spent on good causes, then IRS uses that to calculate deductions from anyone declaring a donation to that church.
(c) large churches, including closely affiliated "chains": can be expected to have an accountant travelling from diocese to diocese and to keep good records of charitable spending. If they over-declare the percentage they will be audited and fined.
(d) Megachurches: no deductions, plus internal intervention to tax income and fringe benefits going to the leader(s)' personal use. Taxed as income, or corporate profits, whichever is the higher rate.

The idea of brackets is to avoid levying taxes where revenue to government would be negligible. Also reduce the regulatory burden on smaller churches using a trust system. But it also gives churches an incentive to be charitable: their own donors get something back from government. Coincidentally, it gives people looking for a church in a new area, financial incentive to try the more charitable church first. This is significant if you consider that the most generous future donors get the most financial incentive (deductions).

One more thing. Plenty of donations are never even claimed back from tax. In a sense, churches are taxed already! The standard deduction to income tax (which is a great idea, but should not exclude itemizing) is not in any sense a rebate for charitable giving, since it's the same whether a taxpayer gives half their income to charity or none at all. It might sweeten the churches up to make charitable spending (ie the charitable component of donations to the church) partly or fully deductible on top of a standard deduction. Well I hope they would view that positively because lower income people who don't itemize should not be paying more tax than higher-income people who do itemize, for charitable giving.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I'm passionate about my faith and frankly I don't see it as a responsibility of the state's to maintain a temple or shrine for me.

Don't you also keep slaves?

I mean no offense, but your views are so dated they can be carbon dated!

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I don't know. A community church without a large income stream I'd feel bad taxing, megachurches that prey instead of pray I'd have no problem taxing like the corporations they are. It's tough to strike that balance without violating the equality clause, however.

If a church can't sustain itself, why should it exist in the first place? Any other corporation, big or small, with frequent income would get taxed. Why should a church receive special treatment? They make income by providing a service for the purpose of profit.

I think there's an argument for churches not paying land tax, since in it's function as a place to gather and listen to a sermon, or sing carols, or pray, or seek spiritual advice from a cleric, it's not housing (a benefit people commonly pay FOR) and nor is it commercial (purposed to make profit).

Clerics getting paid by the church, including benefits like a house to live in, I think should be subject to income tax. And unless their church guarantees them lifetime income and they're prepared to sign away their rights to Social Security, they should be paying that tax too.

I'm still not absolutely sure about tax deductibility of donations to churches. Effectively favoring higher income donors over lower income ones could be good or bad, depending on one's approach to charity but I'm not calling for an overhaul of the standard deduction system because it's not going to happen, but also it's a carrot to get some church support for the opposite: progressive not recessive taxation of donations.

[-Ocelot-]

If a church can't sustain itself, why should it exist in the first place? Any other corporation, big or small, with frequent income would get taxed. Why should a church receive special treatment? They make income by providing a service for the purpose of profit.

I think there's an argument for churches not paying land tax, since in it's function as a place to gather and listen to a sermon, or sing carols, or pray, or seek spiritual advice from a cleric, it's not housing (a benefit people commonly pay FOR) and nor is it commercial (purposed to make profit).

Clerics getting paid by the church, including benefits like a house to live in, I think should be subject to income tax. And unless their church guarantees them lifetime income and they're prepared to sign away their rights to Social Security, they should be paying that tax too.

I'm still not absolutely sure about tax deductibility of donations to churches. Effectively favoring higher income donors over lower income ones could be good or bad, depending on one's approach to charity but I'm not calling for an overhaul of the standard deduction system because it's not going to happen, but also it's a carrot to get some church support for the opposite: progressive not recessive taxation of donations.

I can't agree with this. To me, it looks like semantics. How is it any different than a cafeteria that provides various forms of services? The fact that a church can disguise such activities under the name of "charity" or w/e other term should guarantee even more extensive tax laws, not less.

Organized religions can survive taxation. The big churches have enough money and land to create their own countries, in theory. Maybe we should not overlook this kind of legalized plunder that's been going on for centuries.

[Ifreann]

So he just owns a literal palace and opts not to live in it.

He doesn't own St. Peter's Basilica. It's the burial site of St. Peter.

Well St. Peter certainly doesn't own it.

I am not proposing that the Catholic Church be taxed on the basis of the crimes it and its subsidiary organisation have committed. I am refuting your suggestion that the Catholic Church has faithfully upheld its responsibility to the poor.

That's a fair criticism, but it's also not fair to then ignore all that the church has done for the poor. From eradicating disease to providing food, clothing, and shelter to the needy.

I seem to recall Jesus saying something about whatever one does to the least of God's children, that you do unto him. I don't know how moved he would be to hear "Yes, there were all those bad things we did, but we did good things too".

---

So he just owns a literal palace and opts not to live in it.

---

I understand the difference perfectly well.

Then you would understand that the Church's non-liquid assets are largely irrelevant to most of its financial activity, except as liabilities.

Very substantial liabilities. Which they are continuing to maintain. With expenditures of money. I'm sure the people who sweep the streets in the Vatican aren't buying their groceries in Rome with slivers of priceless Medieval artefacts.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that an organisation that can afford the upkeep on a microstate can be called rich, even if some of their employees are underpaid.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I think there's an argument for churches not paying land tax, since in it's function as a place to gather and listen to a sermon, or sing carols, or pray, or seek spiritual advice from a cleric, it's not housing (a benefit people commonly pay FOR) and nor is it commercial (purposed to make profit).

Clerics getting paid by the church, including benefits like a house to live in, I think should be subject to income tax. And unless their church guarantees them lifetime income and they're prepared to sign away their rights to Social Security, they should be paying that tax too.

I'm still not absolutely sure about tax deductibility of donations to churches. Effectively favoring higher income donors over lower income ones could be good or bad, depending on one's approach to charity but I'm not calling for an overhaul of the standard deduction system because it's not going to happen, but also it's a carrot to get some church support for the opposite: progressive not recessive taxation of donations.

I can't agree with this. To me, it looks like semantics. How is it any different than a cafeteria that provides various forms of services? The fact that a church can disguise such activities under the name of "charity" or w/e other term should guarantee even more extensive tax laws, not less.

I've seen cafeterias where you could get a coffee and then walk out without paying. But guess what? Those were charities.

Charities should properly been seen as a type of business, but to do that we'd have to put a value on free goods and services they provide

At the smallest end, a church with no financial connection to a bigger network and only a half dozen regulars, there's no point in taxing them. The paperwork (theirs and the IRS, including investigation) isn't worth it for the revenue gained.

Larger churches, and those financially interacting with a bigger church hierarchy, can only be correctly taxed by requiring them to keep records like a business. Any charitable offshoots they operate (financially) would also have to keep records.

I'll go back to my earlier idea, of using differential taxes on donations, to separate that part of a donation which goes to upkeep and pay in the church, from the part which goes to charity. While admittedly more complex, taxing donations to churches but NOT donations through churches to charity, would encourage donors to donate directly to the charity (with a tax deduction) endorsed and named by their church. They would have a direct measure of how much that church spends 'on itself' by getting appeals from them for more donations ... that don't mention charity at all. That would be covered by existing laws against fraud.

Being charitable, and supporting your church SHOULD be separate acts. The church can still take credit with God for inspiring charity in you by preaching. But taking credit for the money that was originally yours, is promoting themselves to the public at your expense. It should be strongly discouraged.

Organized religions can survive taxation. The big churches have enough money and land to create their own countries, in theory. Maybe we should not overlook this kind of legalized plunder that's been going on for centuries.

The Vatican IS a country! Anyway, I'm all for taxing churches, but I suggest an exemption for little ones and more strict taxation of the megachurches. The idea of "brackets" is to provide tax transparency to each church: they know how they'll be treated each year. If they move into another bracket, they'll be taxed as if in the old bracket but a polite warning issued of the conditions which will apply the next year.

There are obviously some churches that are in it for the money. But I think most can be trusted not to steal the money of their own parishioners then lie about it to the tax machine.

[Sundiata]

He doesn't own St. Peter's Basilica. It's the burial site of St. Peter.

Well St. Peter certainly doesn't own it.

Pope Francis is the apostolic successor to St. Peter.

[Christian Confederation]

Your every day Church/Temple/Mosque at the corner of Main and first street should be Tax exempt. Your Megachurches and Televangelists should have to pay taxes. Fake religions like Scientology need to have there protection as a religion removed.

[AKANTUMUN]

I'm passionate about my faith and frankly I don't see it as a responsibility of the state's to maintain a temple or shrine for me.

Don't you also keep slaves?

I mean no offense, but your views are so dated they can be carbon dated!

Zoroastrianism is still practiced even today in both the Middle East and the US particularly. The fact that your attaching slavery to it simply because it’s ancient sadly reeks of ignorance. The ancient days of temple slaves are well and done, the faith itself can linger.

Of course you said my “views”, not my “religion”. I mean I’d assume leftism isn’t outdated and based on slavery...

Seriously do better and educate yourself.

[Insaanistan]

Don't you also keep slaves?

I mean no offense, but your views are so dated they can be carbon dated!

Zoroastrianism is still practiced even today in both the Middle East and the US particularly. The fact that your attaching slavery to it simply because it’s ancient sadly reeks of ignorance.

^This

[Sungoldy-China]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/german-nu ... ays-report
German Nuns Sold Orphaned Children to Sexual Predators: Report

If the government collects taxes on this business, how much revenue can it earn?

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/german-nuns-sold-orphaned-children-to-sexual-predators-says-report
German Nuns Sold Orphaned Children to Sexual Predators: Report

If the government collects taxes on this business, how much revenue can it earn?

Orphanages should be on a list of charities that churches are forbidden to be involved with. And nuns or celibate priests in particular: their blind spot towards sex in general makes them too insensitive to any distinction between sex and rape. "Oh the poor boy is lost to sin, but hate the sin not the sinner" and such blame-the-victim bull-crap.

I'm reluctant to extend that beyond the Christian-leaning west, because in the developing world orphans and street children are at more risk of sexual assault and sex slavery outside an orphanage than in. It comes down to government's ability and willingness to pay for orphan care: where that is sufficient, religions should be banned from having such power over children.

Secular non-profits aren't that great either. However government should try to out-compete them, on the level playing field of religious "child donors" not having a religious option. This approach would induce government services to provide better outcomes for children and maintain their standards without their budget being sucked up by the deadly combination of over-management and mis-management. A port or a mine can run OK as a government monopoly, because outcomes can be measured on a daily basis. Any industry or service where it's difficult to measure outcomes at all (eg young-adult happiness and prospects) and even that with a lag of years, it's good for non-government and government services to compete.

Btw, orphanages suck and should be avoided where possible. However if non-profits want to walk that legal minefield, orphanages with individual rooms and plenty of staff might be better for some kids than the dodgy end of foster-parent supply.

[AKANTUMUN]

Zoroastrianism is still practiced even today in both the Middle East and the US particularly. The fact that your attaching slavery to it simply because it’s ancient sadly reeks of ignorance.

^This

Westerners and their slave obsession I tell you. Slavery was a part of life in the ancient world from religion to housekeeping to mining. It was very morally wrong of course but this concept of everything pre-1900 being directly linked to slavery is cringe.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Zoroastrianism is still practiced even today in both the Middle East and the US particularly. The fact that your attaching slavery to it simply because it’s ancient sadly reeks of ignorance.

^This

It's a joke. Based on the posters nation name and flag.

I was ignorant, yes. I was ignorant of the poster's religion. And you know? I'm not ashamed of that.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

^This

Westerners and their slave obsession I tell you. Slavery was a part of life in the ancient world from religion to housekeeping to mining. It was very morally wrong of course but this concept of everything pre-1900 being directly linked to slavery is cringe.

What I find cringe is that people inculcated in religious "knowledge" can take a dumb joke so personally. I guess they're so accustomed to taking laughably wrong stuff seriously ...

[AKANTUMUN]

^This

It's a joke. Based on the posters nation name and flag.

I was ignorant, yes. I was ignorant of the poster's religion. And you know? I'm not ashamed of that.

Word of advice; make sure you clarify on a joke being a joke be it emoticons or parenthesizing something such as “this is a joke.” The Internet can be confusing due to a lack of personal interaction and can lead to misunderstandings. I maintain, clarify and do better.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

It's a joke. Based on the posters nation name and flag.

I was ignorant, yes. I was ignorant of the poster's religion. And you know? I'm not ashamed of that.

Word of advice; make sure you clarify on a joke being a joke be it emoticons or parenthesizing something such as “this is a joke.” The Internet can be confusing due to a lack of personal interaction and can lead to misunderstandings. I maintain, clarify and do better.

No. I have admitted to my ignorance of what religion you are. Now that I'm aware you're a Zoroastrian I will try to put a grin on any jokes I may tell to you or about you or about Zoroastrianism ... though that's not saying much because there probably won't be any.

That's the closest to an apology you'll get from me.

[AKANTUMUN]

Word of advice; make sure you clarify on a joke being a joke be it emoticons or parenthesizing something such as “this is a joke.” The Internet can be confusing due to a lack of personal interaction and can lead to misunderstandings. I maintain, clarify and do better.

No. I have admitted to my ignorance of what religion you are. Now that I'm aware you're a Zoroastrian I will try to put a grin on any jokes I may tell to you or about you or about Zoroastrianism ... though that's not saying much because there probably won't be any.

That's the closest to an apology you'll get from me.

Well that works for me. And I’m not demanding an apology. What you said right there is my definition of “doing better”. Now let us move along on our new understanding.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Don't you also keep slaves?

I mean no offense, but your views are so dated they can be carbon dated!

Zoroastrianism is still practiced even today in both the Middle East and the US particularly. The fact that your attaching slavery to it simply because it’s ancient sadly reeks of ignorance. The ancient days of temple slaves are well and done, the faith itself can linger.

Of course you said my “views”, not my “religion”. I mean I’d assume leftism isn’t outdated and based on slavery...

Seriously do better and educate yourself.

You're a persian?