Should We Tax Churches?

Why are churches still protected from taxation? What tangible goods do they offer?

Why don't we offer tax shelter for therapists too? They don't offer tangible goods but also make money off of the suffering of others.

How is the organization of groups committed to selling emotional placation so beneficial that they deserve our government's financial protection?

How much money is our government losing annually by not taxing churches? Billions? Imagine what kind of real public help programs could be funded with that kind of money.

Should we tax churches? Why or why not?

Well, I think cutting off government funding for chruches is the first step.

Yes, I think we need to Tax churches... And not just tax them but force Churches to pay Back taxes going back 230 or so years for some churches.

Churches do not deserve a Tax Break. Churches often break the law. Case in point.


A Pastor stands before his flock and says, "I will not tell you who to vote for but If you see me in private I will give you my opinion"

While he is standing there, he is holding an oversized picture of George the Second. And behind him on stands are pics of George W. Bush.

That is breaking the law, and yet the George The Second Whitehouse will not go after them.

You should tax EVERY religious institution ...... and tax sermons and preaching too .... make them pay $100 a word.......

Seriously though, American politics, more and more seem driven by the agenda of the christian fundamentalist far right (hand in hand with corporate greed). Fundamentalism of ANY nature is vile, evil, and leads to intolerance, and ultimately violence. So yes, tax these hate breeding institutions out of existance ... you know it makes sense.

The original idea (at least as far as I know) was from the Levite priests. Why it carried over to the US tax code, I do not know.

As far as churches helping out, you can see that all over. In our community, two days after Katrina hit, six local churches of different denominations banded together and took six truck loads of supplies (food, water, clothing, toiletries, etc.) to those in need.

My church in particular holds a 'Lilies of the field' day twice a year. At this event, locals are invited to take clothing, furniture, and other items free of charge. We also serve hamburgers and hot dogs. All of the items are donated (not exclusively from church members). The food is either donated or purchased with church funds. There are 'tracts' available at these events, but they are not pushed on any of the attendees.

If you Google around about Christian giving, you will find lots of these examples.

All this being said, there are a lot of unscrupulous folks that will take advantage of the tax exemption as well.

Well, I have never heard of a therapists offering their services for free to all, have you?

Following in that line, if a therapist does give to a charity (religious or not), do they not enjoy a tax benefit?

I may be wrong here, but I don't believe that funds raised by religious literature are tax-exempt. I have never looked into it, but I would think that this was personal gain of the author, not church business.

Good question on the amount.

But, have you ever looked at what the government bureaucracy does with money?

Here is an example (non-religious in nature):
I was hired by the government to produce a program for a rural community. The budget was $900,000 (both state and federal funds). Out of that money, $300,000 was used to purchase hardware and software. The other $600,000 basically evaporated. It went for things like the 'grand unveiling', dinners, and media spots (local radio, so it couldn't have amounted to much). I can only imagine that money given to most public programs enjoys the same amount of usefulness.

Yes and no. First, we would have to create a bureaucracy to decide what does and what does not need to be taxed. Then we would have to have someone to decide which is which.

There are some things that churches do that certainly should be tax-free.

Actually, the reason churches aren't taxed in the US is very simple.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No law in regards to an establishment of religion means no law.

The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding.

~Ulrika~

Interesting argumnet.

However, as I see it not taxing churces is a law that very much establishes religion. If the state did not recognise churches as anything other than another form of assembly by the people, then the curches would be taxed and there would be no law in violation of the establishment clause.

It's not an "interesting argument", but the one used, for real, in real life, by real people.

Now, one may quite rationally hold an opinion as to whether this is a correct reading, or if there should be a further amendment or Supreme Court ruling that does not take the establishment clause in such a way, but that's the way it is now. Don't blame me, I just live here.

"Well, gee, Ulrika, I didn't know that"... except, you know, I did.

I'm confused. A couple of posts back you implied that the Establishment Clause prevented the passing of any law (including one which sanctions the taxation of churches) relating to a religious organization. I was just clarifying that the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. It has nothing to do with taxation.

Personally, I'd like to see the massive religious corporations charged tax such as Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.

~Ulrika~

Of course it's an interesting argument.

I don't remember blaming anyone, just offering a conterpoint.

Considering what tax money goes for (or lack thereof), and who actually pays those taxes (and who doesn't), shouldn't the question really be, why isn't our tax system being overhauled all together?

The taxes that I pay are taken before I give to my church, so in effect, that money is already taxed. That being said, so is the money I give to Wal-Mart (yes Ulrika, Wal-Mart).

Man, the circles that can be created when you follow the taxed money is dizzying...

Tax Code that will work.

1. Taxes for Citizens. 10% of their income, no matter how rich or poor they are.

2. All Businesses would no longer be considered an person or individual. (Why this is done I have no ideal and I may be saying this wrong)

Businesses Tax Scale:

1. Businesses that make over 1 trillion dollars a year would pay 350 billion a year in taxes.
2. Businesses that make over 1 Billion Dollars a year would pay 250 million a year in Taxes
3. Businesses that make over 1 million a year would pay 150,000 a year in taxes.

No exemptions. No shelters,

I estimate that this will bring in somewhere around 40 Trillion or more a year in tax money

With a reduction of military spending from 450 billion a year to 25 billion a year, We would have money for Welfare, we coudl spend 50 billion for the Space Program, 100 billion on schools. And it may even be possiable to give each citizen of this nation a 100,000 dollar tax free re-bate each year.

For those businesses that try to move to other nations to avoid taxes, their executives would be jailed and their businesses sold to their competition in exchange of contracts saying they will never move out of the U.S. All foreign nations with factories or even just 1 person in the US would also have to pay the Business scale taxes. no exceptions.

For the civilian tax system, even illegal aliens and students studying in the US would have to pay.

And Churches would be taxed 115%

But some of our taxes ARE going to churches, which isn't right. I don't think churches should be taxed, because they are just another group as far as I'm concerned. However, government money shouldn't be going to relegious organizations, which is the case now.

What motivates you to ask the question?

Theoretically, churches (i.e., religious institutions of many flavors) are expected to provide many of the social welfare services that central governments may or may not actually provide. In that sense, churches are providing (or helping to provide) a social safety net, and thus, they warrant tax exempt status. Contributions to a church or religious charity, therefore, are a means by which individuals can selectively choose where some of their tax dollars are channelled.

So, whether or not you agree with a particular doctrine, can you really make a plausible argument against the tangible contribution churches make/have made to society? Food pantries, counseling services, and a myriad of support services are made available via religious institutions. Why, even Habitat for Humanity has it's roots in a religious tradition.

Besides generating revenue, though, taxation is a social engineering mechanism that is used to promote the then-current social agenda of the party in power. In that sense, I would advocate a minimalist, Libertarian approach to taxation that levels the field for all citizens. I don't think taxing the church will solve the problem your question implies.

No tax - but the feds should STRICKLY enforce the tax-exempt laws requireing no political lobbying in churches even handedly - regardless of political right, left, center, etc.

Here is the clencher. If this could be enacted, the rest is easy.

Are you just trying to troll?

Certainly, but your tone seemed to be that you disagreed with the interpretation. I apologize if I misunderstood.

Sorry, Jill. Guess I'm just too used to the usual forum snarkiness... most of the time, people saying "that's an interesting argument" seem to be really saying "that's the dumbest thing I ever heard", y'know?

I should know better.

Nope I believe that percentage will make up for not paying taxes for 230 years

Churches should not be taxed because taxation is theft. No one should be taxed for anything. Economic activity, in order to be considered legitimate, should be voluntary. Those who attempt to tax should be treated like any other burglars, robbers, thieves, etc.

Quakers should not be forced to pay for killing people in Iraq.

Then explain who will pay for kids schooling?

Who will build our bridges?

Who will pay for the Armed Forces?

Who will pay for water works?

Who will pay for our Highways

Who will pay for our Police fire and hospitals?

Who will pay for rebuilding after disasters?

Who will pay for space exploration?

Who will pay for protecting our enviroment?

Who Will pay for college grants?

Big wig business will not!!!

The world wonders

Well then, while we are doing reparations, how about I get my fair share of money for the wrongs done me as an American Indian, and I also have some African American in me as well, should I get some of that money too? Should I get some interest in it while we are at it?

Speaking of which, I think it is the US government’s job to go abroad and snag some of the European monies owed me for sending their ilk over here, committing genocide on my race. Same goes for the tribal chiefs in Africa for taking my forefathers captive and selling them to the slave traders (oh, and go ahead and add the slave traders debt to me while you are at it).

Why do you think you would have the right to impose hardship on existing bodies for things in the past (several generations past)?

Did your grand parents (or even further back) do anything to mine? Should I be going after you to get reparations for those actions?

OK, I am done with my rant... Back to it, should we tax churches from this point forward? My vote would be no, unless you revoke ALL charitable organization's tax free status.