Explain to me why I'm wrong about tax exempt status for churches.

[Rustynaerduwell]

It seems to me that a law granting tax free status to any church is itself "a law respecting an establishment of religion". Shouldn't it be unconstitutional for the federal government to give any legal recognition of or special status to religious entities? What am I missing?

[Phoenix61]

1. Lots of non-profits enjoy tax free status. nt

[spanone]

2. Including the NRA

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nra-tax-exempt-non-profit/

[Rustynaerduwell]

6. Yes, maybe "Save the Children" should be granted tax free status, but

"Save the Children in Christ's Name" maybe should not. Invoking Jesus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster should nullify the status. Helping your community survive- yes. Saving souls in your community- no. The latter is selling something completely intangible. The former is not.

[wnylib]

45. I don't know any churches that are giving

charity aid for the purpose of "winning souls" except possibly some RW fundies.

I do know several churches that give aid without regard to anyone's beliefs or interest in religion.

[wnylib]

37. +1000

[Handler]

3. I think you are absolutely correct

[Hugh_Lebowski]

4. Because 'people believe' that the 2000 year old scribblings of some random Bronze-Age nomads

with virtual no scientific understanding, that describe the magical sky daddy(s) they were currently imagining are controlling the universe ... are somehow super-special?

[former9thward]

15. Would you tell that to Joe Biden?

Since he is one of the "people" you denigrate? Just wondering.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

21. I didn't denigrate anybody, I just said 'people believe'

and that's the justification for the question at hand in the OP.

To your point, though, the answer is 'Yes, I would' if Joe Biden was trying to shove his Catholicism down our collective throats.

I'm kind of an asshole like that

[wnylib]

40. Which non profit religious organization

is shoving their religion onto you?

[SouthernDem4ever]

54. Your taxes support those religions

so they are pretty much in our face, whether we like it or not. Kinda pisses me off when I see these TV preachers with all the diamonds and private jets.

[wnylib]

91. How are tax dollars supporting churches?

Do you believe that televangelists swearing diamonds are representative of all clergy? Of all religions?

[SouthernDem4ever]

109. Ok well if you can figure out a way to stop the pilfering in some without affecting the others

good luck. The problem is, who will judge which one is entitled? Of course, none of them are in my opinion.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

55. I didn't say there were any, now did I?

I insinuated that I feel like Joe Biden is not doing that, in response to the question posed.

[wnylib]

92. But why bring up the idea at all?

[Hugh_Lebowski]

115. I was saying since Joe Biden is NOT doing this, I don't have a problem

That does not logically demand that 'I think someone else is'.

You are arguing based on a logical/rhetorical fallacy.

[Voltaire2]

65. Pretty much all religious organizations?

Was this a trick question? It is what most religions do: try to recruit people into their belief system.

[wnylib]

93. Voltaire, I would expect more discernment

from someone by that name.

Recruiting members is what organizations do, especially charity groups, regardless of whether they are religious or secular.

[Sky Jewels]

82. The Roman Catholic Church is shoving religion onto EVERYONE.

The Opus Dei lunatics on the Supreme Court are taking us back to the RCC's golden age -- medieval times.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. I Would

Why not? It's an honest statement & Joe is president, not god-emperor.

[former9thward]

52. So you would tell him:

Because 'people believe' that the 2000 year old scribblings of some random Bronze-Age nomads with virtual no scientific understanding, that describe the magical sky daddy(s) they were currently imagining are controlling the universe.

Yeah, Ok...

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Comprehension Problems?

I said what i said. I told you i would do it. I feel that aggressive about it.
You're not implying I'm a liar, are you?
Or is this part of your tired devil's advocate routine?

[Sky Jewels]

81. So just because some prominent Democrats are religious

nobody is supposed to criticize silly primitive mythology? That's mythology that affects us all because it's imposed on us all the time. It recently made me and my daughter into second class citizens thanks to Supreme Ct. justices who believe in convoluted patriarchal supernatural nonsense and use it as a weapon to further their raging misogyny.

Calling something "faith" (which is literally belief without evidence) doesn't put it off limits to criticism.

[Ferrets are Cool]

30. I'm with him.

No matter WHO it speaks too. I FUCKING HATE RELIGION.

[wnylib]

49. You sound as fanatical and dogmatic about

your anti religion stance as a Jehovah's Witness who pushes their beliefs.

Flip sides of the same coin.

[SouthernDem4ever]

58. Talk about mind control

JW's practice that to an art form. It's just another belief system made up by men.

[Orrex]

80. We can put this to rest easily:

Prove the existence of your god, then prove that the bible is the word of that god.

Otherwise, please explain how the bible and the religions based upon it are ultimately any different from other mythologies?

But here's a hint: the fact that billions believe in it is not proof of veracity; it's only proof that billions believe in it.

Here's another hint: personal testimony and allegedly "revealed" wisdom are not proof of veracity either.

[wnylib]

90. Such a stereotyped narrow view

Last edited Mon Jul 11, 2022, 11:32 PM - Edit history (1)

of religious people. You apparently think that everyone who follows a Biblical religion takes the Bible at literal face value. Many of us don't.

For some people, religion is the kind of literal simplistic stuff that you describe. For others it is a collection of stories that mix fables with embellished history that show how cultural values change over time and have some meaning in guiding people's lives today if they choose to follow a religion.

For still others, religion is a philosophy for living told in story form. Some people see religion as a means of personal growth in relation to self, society, and the physical, natural world. When I considered attending a Catholic college for its very good anthropology department, I saw that the college required Catholic religion courses for Catholic students, but non Catholics like myself could take philosophy courses in place of religion.

Many people see religious stories metaphorically rather than literally.

People approach religion differently simply because that's how people are - varying views on anything, from religion to politics to philosophy or to how to make a good sub sandwich.

To some people, God is a being similar to a parental figure. To others God is a spirit. Some view God as an energy force that permeates everything. To many people, God is a concept rather than an actual being. It is a concept of a higher self, or of things outside of and beyond one's self.

Most Christian churches teach that God has certain attributes like love, mercy, forgiveness, as well as being powerful, knowledgeable, and present everywhere, including within people. In those descriptions, God is aspirational, a representation of the highest values in life, and also a representation of an objective world beyond oneself and of all that is beyond the ability of one person, one culture, or all cultures together to know. In other words, no matter how much we learn and know, there will always be new discoveries, new knowledge of things beyond ourselves and knowledge beyond what we presently have.

For pantheists, God is one spirit that permeates everything. For deists, God is a spiritual being outside of or apart from everything and separate from creation. In panentheism, the world is part of God who is greater than creation. In Buddhism, there is no god.

Religion is not science, regardless of what the creationists try to claim. So your demands for scientific proofs are pointless. Religion is beliefs about finding purpose in life and how to live one's life in relation to self, others, and the world around us. In that respect, it is a philosophy of life. There are many philosophies and many religious views. Religion does not need to reject science except in the minds of literalists who have perspectives so limited that they can't see the forest for the trees.

[Orrex]

100. If any law is based in any religion, then that religion MUST prove its veracity

Otherwise we are already a theocracy. That's true regardless of whatever self-serving assumptions you make about my views.

You're gerrymandering the definition of "religion" to the point that it means nothing and everything, as convenient to the moment or to any calls of accountability. You follow with a condescending and pedestrian summary easily gleaned from any Religious Studies 101 lecture.

I don't give a shit about what anyone believes, but as soon as those beliefs play into the public policies of a nation that is secular by charter, then those beliefs are absolutely fair game for mockery and condemnation, as are their apologists.

[SouthernDem4ever]

110. Don't know if you were trying but you just made the perfect case why

there should be a clear separation between church and state. One is up to anyone's interpretation and the other is reality.

[Ferrets are Cool]

89. I NEVER FUCKING EVER push my beliefs on others

AND I damned well resent you implying such. In fact, I know NO atheist who push their beliefs on others. Nor have any wars been waged in the name of Atheism. Nor has any atheist ever ruled that women couldn't have control of their own bodies.

[wnylib]

97. How could an atheist force beliefs

on anyone since they have no beliefs - except for the ones who believe that no religion should exist. That is a belief that many atheists push hard, rather dogmatically for people who have no dogma.

Wars started by atheists - when have they ever been organized enough to start a war, massacre, or purge? Except, of course, in the Soviet Union.

Women's control of their own bodies - forced abortions in China, forced abortions and sterilization by secular eugenics laws in the US and elsewhere.

Relax. At least we agree on something - pro choice for women.

[July]

96. Not a fair comparison

Jehovah’s Witnesses actively proselytiize. A DUer’s post is nothing more than an opinion on a message board. The poster is not trying to convert you to his point of view, as a JW does, but rather is stating strongly held views.

“Flip side of the same coin” is also an effort to cast atheism as religion in a different form. If atheism is a religion, I’ve missed all the services, church hierarchy, and categorized guidelines. There is no organized Atheist Church. Atheism is an individual determination, not even remotely akin to any religion.

[July]

98. Not a fair comparison

Jehovah’s Witnesses actively proselytiize. A DUer’s post is nothing more than an opinion on a message board. The poster is not trying to convert you to his point of view, as a JW does, but rather is stating strongly held views.

“Flip side of the same coin” is also an effort to cast atheism as religion in a different form. If atheism is a religion, I’ve missed all the services, church hierarchy, and categorized guidelines. There is no organized Atheist Church. Atheism is an individual determination, not even remotely akin to any religion.

[Beachnutt]

5. Bet you didn't know this too

NullTuples wrote this on another thread
In addition can we please revoke the church exclusion to IRS financial reporting?
All other NPO's must report money-in, money-out on a yearly basis. It lets the public know that the organization is not being used for money laundering and that those running it are spending donated money for its stated purpose, typically with churches that would be charity work and to financially keep the church operating.

Only Churches are exempt, and for no reason. It makes them the perfect black box financial vehicle for moving money, laundering money and appropriating money.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Would love to see some of those reports on the mega churches and the televangelists...nt

[Rebl2]

39. Same here

I don’t care for those mega churches.
There is a small church two doors down from me and don’t know how they keep their doors open. The vast majority are elderly. I am sure they depend on tax exemptions. Maybe it should depend on the size of the church membership.

[wnylib]

63. However, any church that earns money which

is a business not related to charity or church operation is required to report it on a special form as taxable income.

[Orrex]

83. "Related to church operation" is a miraculously large umbrella

Pastor's private lear jet? Related to church operation.
Pastor's nine-figure home? Related to church operation.
Pastor's garage full of luxury cars? Related to church operation.

etc.

At this point someone always says "my local church is tiny and does lots of charitable work! You want to tax them too?"

Yep. Tax them. Let them deduct their legitimately charity-related expenses when they file. Simply being a church should carry no more inherent tax exemption than being a vape shop or a strip club.

[Zeitghost]

85. That is basically how it works now

Any for profit activity a church engages in is taxable, like operating a cafe or coffee shop on premises.

If you hold a church to the same rules on expenses as a business, there is very little if anything that they spend their money on that would not be a write off. All salaries and benefits (including "excessive" salaries for executives), building maintenance, utilities, insurance, vehicles (including aircraft) are all write offs. Ironically, treating them like a business would exclude some charitable giving for a church as a business las limits to how much it can write off for those expenses.

So what is the calculation used to determine their tax basis? And how do you stop them from using accounting tricks like returning donations at the end of the year with an understood agreement that the person who donated it originally would simply return it at the beginning of the next tax period?

[Orrex]

102. That's funny, because:

Literally every time I say "tax all churches," I get a procession of advocates wailing on behalf of this or that noble church which couldn't possibly survive if it had to do exactly what you're claiming that they already do.

So what is the calculation used to determine their tax basis? And how do you stop them from using accounting tricks like returning donations at the end of the year with an understood agreement that the person who donated it originally would simply return it at the beginning of the next tax period?

Simple. Audit every church every year, and if one is found to have fucked with the numbers, it permanently loses tax exempt status retroactive to inception, and all property owned by that church permanently loses tax exempt status as well.

And if such a church magically reincorporates as a substantially identical entity, then it can't claim tax exempt status for at least 100 years, long enough for the bad actors in the previous incarnation to die.

Regarding your suggested money laundering tip, I offer this: short of some gross and demonstrable lack of fitness on the part of the donor, there is no legitimate reason for a church to return a donation; the only reason to do so is to cook the books, and such activity should be an immediate red flag subjecting that church to an extremely detailed and thorough audit.

I am sick to death of churches avoiding financial responsibility, and I have even less patience for the hand-waving apologists who present all manner of silly reasons why churches should enjoy this special privileged status.

And don't bother me with that nonsense about "ThEy'Re JuSt NoNpRoFiTs" either, because I don't believe that any more than you do.



I honestly think that I get into these discussions just to remind myself how close we are to theocracy and how many people on both sides of the aisle are totally fine with that.

[Zeitghost]

105. That is unconstitutional

Unless you want to hold all non-profits to such a standard.

It's clear to me you would like to use the power of the government to punish religious organizations. That's not in the best interest of the party or the country for that matter. So, good luck with that.

And no, returning donations under that hypothetical situation is not, in any way, money laundering. It's strategic tax avoidance, no different than any number of things individuals and businesses avoid taxes every day.

[Orrex]

106. Punish them? No, that's your fantasy.

And it frankly resonates perfectly with the religionists' most sacrosanct myth wherein they imagine that society's least failure to acquiesce to the church's whims is proof that the poor, beleaguered believers are persecuted.

I want to hold churches accountable for the free ride they've enjoyed for centuries here and for millennia elsewhere.

Holding an entity accountable is not punishing that entity, unless the entity is avoiding accountability specifically to conceal wrongdoing. In which case, tax them into oblivion.

"Strategic tax avoidance" is a divine euphemism for stealing. If only Christian churches had some sort of rule about stealing.

[Zeitghost]

107. It's pretty clear

You don't have a solid grasp on the subject of taxation. Avoiding taxes is not stealing, it's avoiding activities that trigger a tax.


From one atheist to I assume another, have a great night!

[Orrex]

108. Whatever

[wnylib]

94. So, in other words, no charitable deductions

for any charity or nonprofit organizations, like medical research at non profit hospitals. And no tax deductions for individuals or businesses that donate to charities.

Bah humbug to you, too, Mr. Scrooge.

[Orrex]

101. Or, as you would apparently prefer it:

Everything is tax exempt if the organization says so. We can totally trust them for sure!


I absolutely love it when someone starts their subject line with "so" followed by a sharply skewed misstatement of my position.

It shows us at least 4 things:

1. They think I don't know what the fuck a straw man argument is
2. They think I won't see exactly what they did and know exactly why they did it
3. They can't support their own argument, so they reframe mine to suit their needs
4. They aren't worth any further waste of time

[Silent3]

7. I'm not a fan of churches getting tax-free status, but "establishment of religion"...

...is about the government establishing or favoring a particular religion or sect. As long as Buddhists and Hindus and Christians and Satanists all enjoy the same tax breaks, their is no violation of the establishment clause.

I personally don't think it's right to favor religion over non-religion, but not too many judges or Constitutional scholars see it that way.

I think the original idea of this tax break (apart from the view many people seem to have "better to have some religion, no matter the variety, than no religion at all" ) was to prevent taxation as being used as a weapon against disfavored faiths.

[Rustynaerduwell]

12. No- the 1st am says ... "shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion"-

Not "shall make no law ESTABLISHING a religion"

[Silent3]

14. That use of "respecting" is in the sense "in regards to", "pertaining to"...

...not "respect for", "holding in esteem".

[Rustynaerduwell]

17. Exactly- No "law pertaining to" something-

A law granting tax free status to something is a law pertaining to that something.

[Silent3]

29. But then you have to attach "establish"

To give a church a tax break does not pertain to causing that church to be established. A church exists first, has been established on its own and not by the government, and then you give it a tax break which does not favor that church over any other church/temple/shrine/synagogue/etc.

Even if I'm not perfectly phrasing my explanation to your satisfaction, clearly the history of American jurisprudence doesn't support your view -- if though I personally wish that it did.

[Walleye]

20. Exactly. I think it could just as easily have said a religious establishment, like a business establ

[dickthegrouch]

27. And "Establishment"s in the vernacular of the 1770's didn't mean that either

Establishments were more like tenets today.
It doesn't "The establishment of a religion", just establishments of religion
I think those refer to things like bibles, marriages, sacraments, vestments, punishments for violations, etc.
It can also be construed to mean no State religion, if the State can't regulate those establishments.

One way or the other it means separation of church and State is absolute.

Tax the bastards. Preferably out of existence since most are highly toxic.

[PoliticAverse]

19. The problem is when you give a benefit to a religion that non-religions don't get is you...

are effectively "respecting an establishment of religion" because the government is placed in the position of deciding what is a "valid religion" and what isn't (Is the church of Satan a religion? Pastafarianism?).

The "establishment clause" was meant to only apply to the Federal Government ("Congress" ) not state governments which could (and sometimes did) have officially supported religions. When the 14th Amendment passed and the courts applied the establishment clause to the states things became complicated.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

71. Plenty of non-religious organizations

are non-profits, and so get the same tax benefits as religions. American Atheists is a non-profit, as is the American Humanist Association.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Tax the churches! nt

[Zeitghost]

34. Okay. But how?

We tax businesses on profit. Churches have no profit and no incentive to make one because there is no ownership to transfer those profits to. Taxing them on any income above and beyond expenses would result in them increasing expenses by paying staff more, spending it on church run programs or improving and maintaining buildings. Or they could reduce income by returning donations to membership.

Without a profit incentive it's very difficult to tax an organization.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Property Taxes?

And revenues minus expenses minus charitable giving is profit. The designation as an NPO should not matter.
A carve out could be made for modest accumulation of capital for future expansion or upgrades. I'd tie tuat carve out relative to overall revenue.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. As I said in another post

sure, our church could pay property taxes...and then they'd have much less money for the charitable work they do.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Who Accounts For The Charity Donations?

Besides, if it's organizationally sound charity work, it could be defined as expenses, so the margins are already greatly reduced.
It feels like that should be sufficient financial incentive to keep charity work at a maximum.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

59. We get an annual financial statement

that lays out how much came in via donations, including types of donations, and where it went - maintenance, salaries, support to the church school, and the various charitable categories, such as how much we pay out in utility bills for people who need help, gift cards for food & household items, medical assistance, support for mothers with young children, etc.

But none of that has anything to do with property taxes. If our church had to pay (making up a number here) $50k a year in property tax, that's $50k we wouldn't have for charitable work.

The only money that's retained for the next year is when we know or anticipate high dollar maintenance actions...a few years ago, the church needed a new roof, HVAC has been replaced within the last ten years, etc.

[ProfessorGAC]

66. Sorry

That elicits little sympathy from me.
Now, if that church stays COMPLETELY out of politics & governance, we'd have a different conversation.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

68. Wasn't doing it to elicit sympathy

Just answering your question.

I can't speak for other churches, but ours sticks to the rules regarding politics - voter guides are available in the vestibule, we can pick them up or not, and no party or candidate is endorsed.

I am interested in whether you're supportive of ending the idea of tax exemption for all non-profits, or just for churches.

[ProfessorGAC]

72. Rules Apply Across The Board

However, here in Illinois nonprofit organizations DO pay property taxes, but not churches.
Technically, a credit union is an NPO. I was on the BoD of a >$300 million CU, with 3 locations. All 3 paid property taxes across 2 different counties.
So does the big catholic high school in the sizeable city to our north because they're in the business of educating. The religion aspect is incidental.
So, my perspective on this is framed by that.
If a Catholic high school can be taxed, so could the cathedral in that same city.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

73. You're comparing apples to pears

The Catholic high school is not primarily a charitable entity, but the Catholic cathedral in town is, which seems to be the breakout in Illinois for property taxes.

A better comparison would be does a non-religious charitable organization in Illinois pay property taxes? If not, then the cathedral (or other church for that matter) is not getting special treatment. If so, then I agree, that's definitely showing a preference for religious entities.

[ProfessorGAC]

74. You Completely Missed The Point

So, I'm done.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

75. Just because I don't agree

Doesn't mean I missed the point. I just don't happen to agree with your point.

[Zeitghost]

44. Property taxes might work, but that's only at the local level.

When there is no incentive to return profit to an owner, it's basically impossible to set up a tax scheme that can't be avoided. If a church or any non-profit were taxed on any revenue above and beyond expenses, the excess donated income would just be returned to the donor on 12/31 with the expectation to have it re-donated 1/1. Or in the case of the mega churches most are concerned about, it would be used to pad the pastors income which then makes it a business expense.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. Yep

It seems that people are missing the point that taking away tax exempt status from churches means taking it away from other non-profits as well, including the ones that they support.

[SouthernDem4ever]

111. Ok, then let's bring church status in parity with other non-profits

property taxes, etc. Also, there should be a limit in salaries and/or compensation for employees in non-profits/churches. Anything past that limit is taxable.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

113. I agree 100% on the salary limitations

so long as it's across the board for all non-profits.

[SouthernDem4ever]

114. Definitely. I was disappointed when I heard what United Way was paying execs

[slightlv]

42. How can you say they have no profit

when the "pastors" can have enough money to buy jets and limos and grand mansions? These "religions" today are nothing more than businesses run under a different name in order to keep their tax exempt status. And that's just not right. To my mind, that's akin to money laundering.

[peppertree]

46. +1

They just like to call themselves that to the IRS - much the same way Cheeto liked to call his scams "foundations."

Praise the Lawd! (and pass the loot)

[Zeitghost]

47. Pastors Wages

Are expenses. Not profit, even if churches were taxed.

[SouthernDem4ever]

112. Makes it easy to blur the line between necessary and extravagant.

[Ziggysmom]

10. Government has come to rely on churches and other NGOs to provide assistance to the needy.

Along the way, these "Charities" have learned to make a few bucks themselves and/or gain political power!

[PoliticAverse]

11. And the Amish shouldn't be exempt from Social Security taxes...

but we are on the losing side of these arguments:

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/972/taxation-of-religious-entities

8-1 Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970)

In Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), the Supreme Court held that there was “no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion.”

[Bettie]

13. As I understand it, churches were made exempt from taxes

to avoid them becoming political actors.

Well, that ship sailed a while ago.

Maybe the first step is to drop the "no financial disclosures" rule. That will weed out the ones who are only "churches" for the sake of not telling anyone where their money comes from or goes to.

But, if they're going to be involved in politics, they should pay taxes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

32. That's a result not a cause

Churches can't endorse political candidates because they are non-profit rather than they are non-profits so that they don't endorse political candidates.

And that rule doesn't apply just to churches, it applies to any non-profit.

Providing voter guides that outline policy positions for candidates and political parties is permissible.
Providing voter guides that recommend which candidate or party to vote for is not permissible.

Additionally, individual clergy and employees of the non-profits do not have the same restrictions, so a member of the clergy can have a bumper sticker on his car that says "vote Trump" or "vote Biden", but the church can't have a sign in the front saying the same thing.

[H2O Man]

16. For a starter,

research the USSC cases on this issue. You might not agree with those decisions, but it should increase your understanding.

[Ferrets are Cool]

31. You mean like the lastest from Thomas increased my understanding?

[H2O Man]

35. There have been decent

one in the past. But you are correct that Clarence has corrupted it, and will continue to at least try to.

[AllaN01Bear]

18. let me put it this way, many of us put our money where our mouth is , ie feeding the poor,

instead of those yahoos storming the capital , why wernt they in a soup line serving soup or giving backbacks to the poor with sanitary items or starting up a shower bus for homeless folk. our and other churches in my area do said same . we also have a meal program and a food bank as well. my county also has a intertenominational service for these as well .those churches are only for them selves . and i feel it should be case by case . example during desert scam 1 somone in a church in pasadiena ca complained about the priest speaking against that war. the church got investigated by the fbi for criticiing the war . after duybya left office the charges were dropped . the church was higly liberal and the parishener who complained was a , yep u guessed it a ar.
so i have to be careful about painitng with a broad brush.

[Walleye]

22. If all churches were like yours we would have no beef at all

[AllaN01Bear]

28. if the tammy and husband and pat roberts were convicted of wire fraund wed have no issues

we have a couple of churches that are for themselves .

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Their tax exempt status

is granted not because they are churches (or synagogues or mosques) but because they are charitable organizations.

If my church were to be taxed, the only thing that would be paying would be property taxes, and yes, it would be a substantial amount of money, but that money would then not be available for the charity work the church supports. Personally, I'd rather the money be going to help individuals, but I can see where some might disagree.

[treestar]

24. It is a nonprofit

entity. It's probably couched in those terms. If they could not have it, then neither could NARAL or any other liberal entity. They have to go through hoops to show nonprofit status.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. Exactly

If tax exemption is taken away from churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., but permitted for the other non-profits, then it is discrimination against religion, which isn't permitted.

[budkin]

25. You're not... it's ludicrous

Not sure why it was ever allowed.

[Igel]

33. You skipped a definition.

respecting
rĭ-spĕk?tĭng
preposition
With respect to; concerning.
With regard or relation to; regarding; concerning.

So Congress shall not pass a law concerning the establishing (one reading) or concerning a religious tenet or practice (another reading). It ruled out a state church (note that at the time some US states had state religions).

The two readings have a fair amount of overlap: Congress declares Saturday to be the day of rest, you've gone towards institutionalizing some denominations.

[Caliman73]

36. Simply, because not taxing does not equal endorsing a particular religion...

As long as the tax code is applied equitably and fairly to all entities calling themselves a religious organization (I.E. Temples, mosques, the Church of Satan, etc...) then the government is not favoring or establishing a religion. Atheist organizations can also get tax exempt status if they apply under charitable or educational organization.

The part that is being challenged and which has been eroding is that by applying for tax exemption you accept that you cannot promote or endorse political candidates or engage in political organizing.

[azureblue]

51. because

The law does not in itself establish a religion. It does, however, place the government in the position of decided what is a bona fide religion, to be tax exempt.

The problem is some churches exploit loophole in the "what is exempt" laws - like huge mansions for the leader that are classified as a resident for the pastor, or a meeting place outside of the church. Like all they have to do is put a meeting room, in, and there it is. Like wise, all the cars and planes that are classified as "transportation for clerics". Stupid expensive suits for the pastor. Lavish meals. There is no ceiling on expense, and there is the problem. And, if a church gets called by the IRS about dubious accounting, then the church hollers "religious persecution!"

The sad thing is the mega churches spending millions on itself, while people go hungry, without housing, and care. The very stuff Jesus said to do.

[Orrex]

53. Tax every church, big or small.

Those that do legitimate charitable work can write off those expenses when they file. But unless they do nothing but charity 24/7/365 (and absolutely none do so), then they should be taxed as fully as any other business.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

60. Will you hold other non-profits to the same regulation?

Or just churches?

[Orrex]

78. Are those other non-profits hiding from taxes under the banner of religion?

Let's be clear: churches as a group enjoy tax-exempt status first and foremost because they are religious organizations. Their charitable works, whatever they may be, barely figure into that status, if at all. So a church that does zero or minimal charitable work is cheating the system, full stop.

So here's a great solution:
Tax all churches, big or small. Those that do legitimate charitable work can write off those expenses when they file.

If they want to be reclassified as "non-profit entities," then let them apply as such, and if they qualify then bully for them. Simply being a church shouldn't count for shit when seeking that exemption.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. Actually, they're not tax-exempt

primarily because they're churches, they're tax-exempt primarily because they're non-profits. Our church does a lot of charitable work, as I'm sure most churches, synagogues, and mosques do, but they wouldn't have to.

They don't actually need to be "reclassified" as non-profit entities because they're already classified that way.

Also, I note that you didn't really answer the question - should all non-profits have to pay taxes, or just churches?

[Orrex]

99. Any time there's talk of taxing churches, the zealots howl about the first amendment

Specifically, about their bastardized reading of "no law respecting the establishment of religion," which they invoke as carte blanche to fleece millions from the faithful while shirking their tax responsibility as corporate citizens.

I have, in my professional life, spoken with representatives of quite a few churches from quite a few states who have said "we shouldn't be taxed on that, we're a church." Not "we're a non-profit." So I'm sure the "nonprofit first and foremost" tale holds just enough legal water to satisfy church-friendly auditors, but it's obvious nonsense.

So frankly I'm not interested in claims of tax exemption due to their non-profit status. The NFL as a non-profit for a ridiculously long time, too. Does anyone foolishly imagine that it, like the church, hasn't always been a for-profit enterprise?

If so, I have a tabernacle to sell you.

For purposes of this conversation I also don't give a hoot about any given person's church and the lovely works it does. If a strip club holds a monthly bake sale to benefit a local dog pound, does that establishment get to pretend that it's likewise a tax exempt non-profit?

And, to answer the attempted gotcha question: Yes. Especially if the "nonprofit" is used as a vehicle for generating vast wealth for its "officers," then that's a grotesque misuse of nonprofit status and should subject the organization to massive taxation.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

103. Sorry, I don't play gorxha

It was a serious question, thanks for answering it.

[Zeitghost]

62. Other businesses

Are taxed on profit and they have an incentive to make that profit in order to return it to ownership.

A church has no profit incentive because they have no ownership to return the profit to. Any excess "profit" could be returned to membership on 12/31 thereby reducing income or spent on church programs, added to staff salaries as a bonus or used to maintain and improve assets thereby increasing expenses.

[Orrex]

79. Tax their property just like any other business.

And audit the fuck out of any church big or small that claims to generate zero net profit.

A church has no profit incentive because they have no ownership to return the profit to.

LOL.

[Zeitghost]

84. Property taxes would work

for a small amount of state and local taxes.

Churches can not return profit to anyone, there is no mechanism to do so. The rich mega-church pastors get money as salary. Salaries paid to employees are a tax write-off in a normal business, not taxable profit.


I've asked this countless times and still can't get an answer from anyone proposing taxing churches; what money are you going to tax, how is it going to be calculated and how are you going to manage tax avoidance?


If a church has an extra $100 of income left after their expenses for the year, how do you stop them from returning that income back to the members that donated it on 12/31 (only to have it re-donated on 1/1?) in order to avoid taxes?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

87. You won't get an answer

Just like I won't get an answer as to whether all non-profits should be taxed or just churches.

[Orrex]

95. Sounds exactly like you're endorsing church-based money laundering

Don't feel lonely about that; it's been going on for millennia.

It's interesting that salaries are such a windfall for corporations, because I have never once heard of a company saying "I'm so glad that we have such high payroll costs because it saves us a shitload on taxes."

Tax all church-issued allowances and stipends, because there's no way you'll convince me that these aren't used specifically to avoid tax liability. Also tax any expense accounts maintained by the church for pastor or member use. Again, if these are used for charitable works, then let these charitable souls write off their magnanimity like all the rest of us. But these "not-income" income streams should absolutely be subject to tax.

I'm also not convinced that property taxes would be "a small amount." I mean, we're leaving out the slave states, because they suckle at the corrupt church money nozzle until until we reach every last one of those ancient galaxies that the Webb just showed us, but that leaves a lot of other real estate to consider.

My small town has far too many Dollar General stores, but for every Dollar General there are least half a dozen churches, and most of those churches occupy property far larger than any taxpaying family's lot. So right there you're talking quite a few thousands annually in my small town alone.

Add to that the vast property holdings of church campuses, and we're talking a nice chunk of change. In fact, let's rule that the tax-exempt status of churches was improperly granted in the first place and tax these properties retroactive to date of acquisition.


I frankly have to ask why you're going out of your way to insist that churches couldn't possibly be taxed. The church is the only organization more certainly guaranteed to be corrupt than government and corporations, so we're centuries past due to collect on their vast aggregate tax-free wealth.

[Zeitghost]

104. I'm pointing out the problems with treating churches like for profit businesses

You can't do it because there is no incentive for a church to engage in profit making activity like there is for a corporation.

A corporation doesn't want excessive salaries/wages because it takes money from the bottom line and the shareholders/owners have less to take at the end of the year. Without shareholders to distribute that profit to, there is no incentive to have excess funds above and beyond expenses at the end of the tax period. Pastors who enrich themselves do so through salaries, not through dividends.


I'm not defending churches, I'm only pointing out the logistical problems with taxing a non-profit. I have a formal education in taxation and it's clear many people do not understand the devil in the details.

[oldsoftie]

56. The 16th Amendment exempts churches & other religious orgs from taxation.

So y'all can whine all you want but unless that Amendment is changed it is what it is.

[Geechie]

57. You're not wrong, and here's what you can do about it.

[link:https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/irs-complaint-process-tax-exempt-organizations|]

[scipan]

76. Here's a list of possible violations for tax exempt entities:

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s213/sh/62233ebe-2d07-8aa3-619d-e6b023e371ae/25387653ad3a62c8af5bf11a2fb631c7

Sorry I don't know how to embed it

[patphil]

61. You're not missing a thing.

Religion is big business. It takes in well over a hundred billion dollars in the United States each year.
Not only do churches bring in more money than most corporations, they have vast real estate holdings, yet pay no real estate taxes.

Just my guess, but I think it would add perhaps 30 billion dollars to tax revenues across the United States if they were taxed.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

70. Property taxes are local not federal

So where do you think the $30B would come from? Taxes on what?

[patphil]

77. Income and tax on real estate holdings.

They have a incredible amount of property that should be taxed, and almost every state has an income tax.
Even at the state and local level, the income tax would generate $10-15 billion annually.
Their properties are certainly worth hundreds of billions of dollars, which would generate the rest of my guesstimate in state and local property tax.
I think $30 billion is not out of line, given the vast wealth of American churches.

[calimary]

64. Sure does seem like it!

[Kablooie]

69. If a church deals with influencing government it should lose tax exempt status.

If government is hands off religion, religion must be hands off government.
If religion reaches out to influence government they will be using government resources so should be taxed like everyone else.

[quaker bill]

88. "Establishment" was a very specific thing

England and a number of the colonies had "established" churches. What this meant was that the "established" church was the official state church, like the Church of England, and so with the Puritans in Mass. and the Anglican/Episcopal Church in Virginia. The constitution prohibited 'establishment' both to prevent conflict with the colonies that had already done so, and conlict with other colonies like PA and NJ which had not established because they disagreed with the practice.

Now the established Church of England, did act as a tax collector, which is why it was illegal to not attend and pay the tithe. Quakers, Seekers, Anabaptists, Jesuits and others went to prison, had their property seized, and occasionally were executed or simply died of disease in prison, for failing to adhere to the state church and pay the tithe tax. All the clergy in the established church were paid by the crown and were the only licensed officiants for weddings, so if you wanted to marry, you paid a fee to the state church and got an official marriage, if you did not, your children were illegitimate and could not inherit your estate, in which case all the assets and property were taken by the state.

There were a lot of good reasons to not 'establish' churches back then.