How much tax revenue could be raised by taxing churches, synagogues, mosques, etc.

[bluestateguy]

As long as tax rates were equitable across different faiths, I don't see a constitutional problem. And of course, tax deductions could still be in place for legitimate charitable work (serving food in a soup kitchen, yes; ministering to "change" gay people, no).

Of course, one unintended consequence would be that churches, etc. would pass those costs down to members by charging official dues, but it might be worth it anyway.

This is just a think piece, so I humbly ask for no abusive invective in response.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Recommended. Our religious tax exemption seems discriminatory to me because not all religions

one.

[Earth_First]

2. Not as much as raising corporate taxes to appropriate levels... n/t

[Initech]

16. Yeah, seriously. Corporate profits are absolutely obscene and the don't pay.

I remember reading a couple weeks back how GE was threatening MA to get a $200 million tax credit or they'd close a plant and layoff 3000 workers. Yet another symptom of Mad Billionaires Disease. :eyes:

[WingDinger]

3. Churches serve a function in society. Televangelist, is the culprit you dread.

Small churches need protection against slowly losing their capital. So thought the framers. Now if we can weed out the televangelists, now you're talkin'.

[Yavapai]

13. Ham radio serves a function in society, but they don't hold inquisitions,

or proselytize, or try to bring about a theocracy, lie about candidates, vote as a religious block, brain-wash children with bullshit, teach creationism, or even exclude none Ham radio enthusiasts from attending their functions.

The same can be said for many organizations that do good out of a sense of wanting to improve society, not to make their leadership wealthy, politically powerful or hold the levers of freedom over the public.

I am an atheist, when does my property become tax exempt?

Parrots are the true messengers of God! Bring crackers as a sacrifice or else I will tell Santa clause that you have been naughty (and you know the consequences of that!)

[Curmudgeoness]

4. I have wondered this for years. There is no good reason

to give exemptions for churches. But I think there is a problem with charities, since who is to say which charity is legitimate or worthy. I will say that soup kitchens would have no net income from what I have seen. I think maybe we could tax charities also, it there is anything to tax.

[Tesha]

18. Many legitimate organizations have no trouble segregating their 501(c)3 (tax-exempt charitable)

work from their 501(c)4 (non-tax-exempt lobbying,
etc.) work. Given how politicized modern churches
are (either directly through their local work or
indirectly through their payments to the franchise
operator), it's long since time for the IRS to
start enforcing this same policy on churches.

And they can start paying property taxes on their
clubhouses as well.

Tesha

[Curmudgeoness]

21. Very good points. This could be a good first step and I would agree

with it. However, I am opposed to tax-exempt status just because you say you are a church, or even if you are a legitimate church. The rest of us, and all the businesses, pay taxes. Our town has budget problems all the time because there is such a large number of churches, charities, and government buildings. I have been told it is over 50% of the property in town that is exempt. No fair.

[upi402]

5. Lets drop the pretense

Corporatists use them as a voter base to validate their control of the government and economy.

[social_critic]

6. I never heard of anybody taxing religion.

It sure sounds unconstitutional. It's like trying to tax jokes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Read the establishment clause

you tax them, they can freely participate in politics and they do... you want it more open and worst?

To paraphrase the queen every time they bring up taxing the royal family... oh goody, now I have a right to express my opinion.

[cali]

8. I think 1st amendment stands in the way

Taxes spring from laws. The 1st Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Aside from that, if you overcame that hurdle, most religious establishments call themselves non-profits. In any case, it would be hard as hell to accomplish taxing churches, etc.

[rbixby]

34. If you think about it though....

taxing any profits churches make wouldn't prohibit the free exercise of the faith, by taxing them like everyone else, they would be giving them equal treatment under the law.

[bluerum]

9. When they advocate a political cause or candidate they should lose tax exempt status.

[cali]

10. OK, you got me interested and I found a lot of stuff, including this very recent

article:

“THE constitution does not require the government to exempt churches from federal income taxation or from filing tax and information returns.” The potential implications of this comment, in a report earlier this month by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, are starting to dawn on a large chunk of America’s charitable sector, which has until now taken for granted that it is exempt from tax.

Currently, an estimated 1.8m “churches” are exempted from income tax—as they have been since America created its modern income tax system in 1894—and indeed from the many other reporting requirements imposed by the Inland Revenue Service on secular charities, which have to file IRS form 990 each year detailing their finances. The influential Mr Grassley, who has long championed greater transparency and accountability in the charitable sector, has become increasingly convinced that this privilege is being abused to the tune of many millions of dollars.

Although his report was triggered by tales of televangelists running lucrative things such as recording studios and selling oil and gas under cover of the religious exemption, it highlights a serious regulatory failure at the heart of America’s charitable sector. The 14-point guide which the IRS uses to judge whether an organisation is exempt is open to broad interpretation. There is inconsistency even among prominent evangelistic organisations. Billy Graham, for example, long ago opted not to classify his empire as a church, and thus files a 990, in part because he wanted to encourage other religious charities to be transparent and accountable.

On the other hand, some of America’s biggest charities, such as the Salvation Army and Volunteers of America, which use the bulk of their billions of dollars in revenue to provide social services that might equally be supplied by a secular charity or the public sector, are designated as churches. Thus they need not reveal anything about their finances or their governance, and are largely unaccountable to the public. Senior members of staff, whom they call ministers but who might easily be confused for bureaucrats, can benefit from perks such as the “parsonage allowance”—essentially tax-free money to pay their mortgage.

<snip>

http://www.economist.com/node/18010759?story_id=18010759&fsrc=rss

[supernova]

11. No, I'm for keeping them out of our tax base, here's why

If churches and other religious institutions start paying taxes, they will want to offically run for office with "official" representation on on school boards, town councils, any elective body and office you can name. Just think of it, your town town council, and county commisioners littered with the Rep for Enron, The Rep for the Southern Baptist Church, The Tire King Store, The RCC, etc.

Now, you could argue that they do that already by inserting themselves into our national civil debate, so be it. But it's the difference between a philosophical stance and giving that philosophical stance a legal legitimacy. I prefer not to do that.

[Lost-in-FL]

12. +1000 x +1000

You really don't want such institutions to pay taxes. If it is bad now, imagine how much damage this can inflict. Like my mom used to say "No es lo mismo llamar al diablo que verlo venir" .

[supernova]

14. The real reason for Citizens United

to make way for the eventual official participation by churches and other organizations, NOT individuals.

I will fight this with every fiber of my being.

[virgogal]

17. We had a Jesuit Congressman in Massachusetts.

[Xithras]

23. Good point. I can see the headlines now...

"Catholic Church reminds voters that supporting Obama means eternal damnation."

Tax them, and that becomes a perfectly legal thing for them to do.

[Tesha]

26. They do it today (illegally, of course, but they do it none-the-less).

'Might as well collect the revenue.

Tesha

[apocalypsehow]

15. Mixed thoughts about this. Catholic charities does a lot of good work for people who need it, and

that kind of work would be affected. On the other hand, there is a lot of nonsense that goes on with televangelists, hucksters, haters, etc., etc., that really chaps me that they're all "tax exempt." And yet, back again on the other hand, yank their tax exemptions, and then they're free to participate in politics to their heart's desire.

It's not cut & dried, at least not for me.

[Tesha]

20. As I mentioned above, just require them to operate separate 501(c)3 and 501(c)4...

...operations, just like every other similar organization
that isn't a church.

Tesha

[blondeatlast]

19. Start with the think tanks like the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation first.

They are a major reason we are where we are now--and yes, unlike DU, they are tax-exempt 50(c)s.

[Xithras]

22. Well, for one, you couldn't discriminate among "charitable works" as you suggest.

Let me give you three charitable works:

1. Feeding the poor.

2. Saving the souls of gays by turning them straight.

3. Providing clothing to poor pagans in exchange for them converting.

Which of these is legitimate?

Under the 1st Amendment, any attempt by the government to discern between these would be unconstitutional on its face. By supporting some activities and not others, the government is essentially endorsing one set of religious beliefs and rejecting another. In this country, that's not an option.

Either you allow ALL "charitable works" to be deducted (whether you agree with them or not), or you don't allow ANY charitable works to be deducted. There's really no middle ground here that will pass a Constitutional challenge.

[provis99]

24. we can tax atheists and agnostic institutions, but not religious ones?

In what way can this be considered fair?

[Lost-in-FL]

27. Atheism is NOT a religion. That is why they pay taxes.

:hi:

[slackmaster]

32. Are you familiar with the concept of "non-profit organizations"?

There are plenty of non-religious charities that don't pay taxes on their income.

[Lost-in-FL]

33. I work for one...

A non-profit, religious organization... that is neither non-profit or religious in their actions. Their business practices are appalling or at least the management is. They exert a lot of power in the community.


I don't see the point of the "non-profit" organizations in this issue. I am talking about religion qua religion.

Religious institutions are culturally protected and with more power than non-religious independently if they are non-per-profit. I think we are talking about different subjects... or maybe I don't get you (or I just confused myself).

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

25. Good subject however

I'd argue your premise treats the symptom rather than the disease. Multi national corporations do not, have not, never have paid their fair share of taxes. That is the Giant that must be tamed..... :bounce:

[Statistical]

28. The only net change would be less charitable work.

Churches are essentially operate as non-profits.

Revenue (mostly donations) - expenses (mortgages, operating costs, etc) = $$$ for charitable works.
Taxes would simply increase the expenses leaving less money for charitable works.

Why not tax the Red Cross, and other charitable organizations while you are at it?

[Iggo]

29. Shitloads. (n/t)

[NutmegYankee]

30. Very little likely. Most are non-profit.

Many mainline Protestant churches are barely able to afford the utilities and payroll let alone fund mission trips to the 3rd world. Taxes would collapse many good progressive churches and leave the fundamentalist ones intact.

[JoeyT]

31. A lot.

Of course we'd have to hear a bunch of handwringing over how it just takes away from charitable works. So let them take it off their taxes, same as we can. Hell, just making them pay property taxes would be a start. Or let them do what corporations that sponsor charities have to do, and keep the stuff that goes to the charity separate from the regular church income.

We'll also have to deal with claims that they'd have to be represented, which are utterly nonsensical. Corporations have to pay taxes and they don't get any special representation, other than what they can buy. Microsoft and GE don't get a special vote. Churches in the US are already balls deep in our political system, they can't get much worse. They're already promoting candidates from the pulpit and buying as much access as they can afford, so let them pay taxes like everyone else.