Religion, taxes, and policy

[Rapscallion]

I got thinking recently about religion, the state, and taxes.

In the US, at least, and possibly even the UK (can't be bothered looking it up) and other countries, religious institutions don't pay taxes.

Religions exist to tell others how to behave (if this is good or bad is fuel for another thread), even telling governments what they should be doing.

So, no taxation without representation. Does that mean without taxation there should be no representation? Should we tax churches above a certain income level? Should only tax-paying religious institutions get a say? Surely a large group of people speaking as one voice should be heard?

Go for it!

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

The reason they don't pay taxes is because apparently the church has no say in what the government does. While some of us know this is a complete load of crap, we just don't waste our time doing much about it because there's really not much we can do. It's too easy for politicians to deny that their reasoning behind certain laws are religion. And since churches generally help people and don't cause trouble, people turn a blind eye to them.

[Sylvia727]

I always thought that it was because until relatively recently, the vast majority of charity was through religious institutions. Churchs, their staff, and their parishoners ran the soup kitchens, the orphanages, the hospitals, the schools, etc. If one wanted to donate time or money to charity, one went to one's local church.

Now that there are alternative options, maybe tax laws will change. I can't see a change to the status quo going over well, though.

[protege]

But, then you have the "Mega-Churches." I was flipping through Businessweek at work last night, and was reading about them. There's one, I think in Texas somewhere, that brings in *millions* each year, yet doesn't pay taxes on either that, or their lavish facilities, nor do they help out the community. I don't know if they're all like that but, aren't these supposed to be charitable organizations? Why not practice what they preach, and send some of that wealth to some of the smaller churches?

Compare that with my grandmother's church. It's been around well over 150 years...and does plenty of charity. They have a soup kitchen, mentoring programs, and other community assistance programs. The majority of the money received each week goes back into those programs. Whatever is left goes into maintenance and repairs.

[CancelMyService]

Churches that have million dollar profits should have some sort of windfall tax, since obviously they aren't doing the charity thing too well. Same with non-profit companies like UPMC, which is the big healthcare company in Pittsburgh. Part of the reason the city is in such bad financial shape is that they own huge chunks of city land and pay zero taxes on it despite being a billion dollar company.

[Boozy]

The reason churches do not pay taxes is because of the separation of church and state. Charity work is nice, but has nothing to do with it from a constitutional standpoint (although I expect it makes the idea more palatable to the public). The idea is that religion doesn't get involved in government and government doesn't get involved with religion.

Of course, everyone knows that many churches are highly involved in politics, but still don't pay a dime in taxes. As far as I'm concerned, they can't have their cake and eat it too. They should get the hell out of government or pay for the privilege.

[AFPheonix]

But, then you have the "Mega-Churches." I was flipping through Businessweek at work last night, and was reading about them. There's one, I think in Texas somewhere, that brings in *millions* each year, yet doesn't pay taxes on either that, or their lavish facilities, nor do they help out the community. I don't know if they're all like that but, aren't these supposed to be charitable organizations? Why not practice what they preach, and send some of that wealth to some of the smaller churches?

Compare that with my grandmother's church. It's been around well over 150 years...and does plenty of charity. They have a soup kitchen, mentoring programs, and other community assistance programs. The majority of the money received each week goes back into those programs. Whatever is left goes into maintenance and repairs.

A lot of them really do help, you may just not see it.
For example there's a big ass church out this way called New Hope Church. It runs its own drug rehab place where people can go live for a year and get their shit together.
They also contribute and host conferences by Northwest Medical Teams and many other local NPCs. They also participate in, fund, and run quite a few other outreach programs in the Portland area.

I may not like the road churches have been heading down in the last decade or two, but you have to admit there is no better available outlet for mobilizing people to help each other than through community churches.

[Sylvia727]

The reason churches do not pay taxes is because of the separation of church and state.

So taxes is a state concern that the churches are separated from? That doesn't sound right to me. They own land in the city, they benefit from the state's services like police and fire, why should they get a pass on taxes just because they talk to god(s)?

[Boozy]

Don't look at me to answer that one. You're preaching to the choir, as it were. :D

[CancelMyService]

I may not like the road churches have been heading down in the last decade or two, but you have to admit there is no better available outlet for mobilizing people to help each other than through community churches.



There are several non-faith based community groups out there, the idea that churches have a lock on such groups is one of the things religious folks put out there when someone calls them to task for requiring the people they assist to be members of the church first (as many of these groups tend to do).

[Sylvia727]

You're preaching to the choir, as it were. :D

:p Sneaky, sneaky.

[AFPheonix]

There are several non-faith based community groups out there, the idea that churches have a lock on such groups is one of the things religious folks put out there when someone calls them to task for requiring the people they assist to be members of the church first (as many of these groups tend to do).

There are some non-religious ones, but the faith related ones are more numerous.
I would imagine some church groups would help their own first, but many more help all freely, like the Salvation Army, the Union Gospel Mission, Northwest Medical Teams, and the aformentioned Teen Challenge sponsored by New Hope in my area.

[Flyndaran]

There are some non-religious ones, but the faith related ones are more numerous.
I would imagine some church groups would help their own first, but many more help all freely, like the Salvation Army, the Union Gospel Mission, Northwest Medical Teams, and the aformentioned Teen Challenge sponsored by New Hope in my area.

So no church should get taxed because some help others haphazardly?
Charity is already tax deductable. This just brings us back to special treatment for religious instutitions. Me no likee.

[AFPheonix]

So no church should get taxed because some help others haphazardly?
Charity is already tax deductable. This just brings us back to special treatment for religious instutitions. Me no likee.

I did not draw the link between charitable assistance and tax exemption. In fact, I made no mention of tax at all in my post. I was simply asserting that they are an effective tool within a community for mobilizing the populace to do something good for others.

[Rapscallion]

Fascinating responses so far, folks. I've started to wonder if unions pay taxes as well, since they have some similarities.

For my thoughts, I'd be inclined to say that a religious establishment that takes in above a certain amount should pay tax above that amount (rather like UK personal income tax works - first Xthousand is tax free), and then they can claim the cost of their operational expenses (be that a food kitchen or a new roof for the chapel) against taxes. Of course, this is then going to result in accusations of fraud etc, but that happens with companies and the like already.

Rapscallion

[ThePhoneGoddess]

The 'official' reason churches do not pay taxes is because they are considered non-profit organizations, and non-profit organizations are tax-exempt. It's been that way since 1913.

The IRS regulations read in part:

"TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE; Sec. 501 Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc.; (c) List of exempt organizations; (3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sport competition... or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals... no substancial part of the activities of which is carry on propoganda, or likewise attempting, to influence legislation [except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)], and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) and political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

(Italics are my emphasis)

Unlike most non-profit orgs, however, churches are not required to to make their financial statements public. Most churches aren't even required to file annual reports. Unfortunately, IRS regulations do not even specifically define the word church, so it's all a muddled gray area.

Ministers of every faith are exempt from federal taxes for most of the money they spend on housing, as well as exempt from income tax withholding and can opt out of Social Security.

Puts tele-evangelism as a career into a new light, doesn't it?

[AFPheonix]

Puts tele-evangelism as a career into a new light, doesn't it?

Especially those ones that promise that if you pray for money and wealth that it comes.
I know there were some Congressional probes into the spending on some of the more flagrant ones, but I don't know what came of it.

[MadMike]

Of course, everyone knows that many churches are highly involved in politics, but still don't pay a dime in taxes. As far as I'm concerned, they can't have their cake and eat it too. They should get the hell out of government or pay for the privilege.

The late great George Carlin once said that churches should be taxed. He said, "If they're so interested in politics, let 'em pay their fucking admission like everyone else!"

I tend to agree with him.

[daleduke17]

The late great George Carlin once said that churches should be taxed. He said, "If they're so interested in politics, let 'em pay their fucking admission like everyone else!"

I tend to agree with him.

Ya know, George Carlin would have been a great person to have seen as a Mayor or Governor. Too bad he would have probably been recalled and thrown out, but at least there would have been something done during his short tenure.

[lordlundar]

So taxes is a state concern that the churches are separated from? That doesn't sound right to me. They own land in the city, they benefit from the state's services like police and fire, why should they get a pass on taxes just because they talk to god(s)?

The land issue is interesting. For recognized religions, the land their church is on is considered sovereign territory, and until such a time that the church is no longer there, there is no land taxes owned.

It's actually why sanctuary can still be granted, even in modern days.

[Sylvia727]

It's actually why sanctuary can still be granted, even in modern days.

I know that in certain states, and I assume it would be the same nationwide, there is absolutely no legal standing for sanctuary. The only reason it still holds any water at all is that the police and other goverernment officials are leery of the bad press that would be generated by an invasion of a holy place. They have the legal right to do so if they choose, but they almost always choose to find a less controversial method of extraction.

Also, I hadn't heard anything about "sovereign terrority" in regards to religion. Embassies, yes; churches, no. Of course, this could well vary between countries. The founders of the USA were concerned about the then-too-powerful institution of Christianity, and placed specific limits on the power of religions.