Would taxing ALL the churches be more consistent with separation of church and state?

[Bill McBlueState]

There's a lot of talk about whether Trinity UCC should be stripped of its tax-exempt status. The crux of the issue is whether its pastors are violating IRS rules by promoting a particular candidacy.

The way the IRS monitors what gets said in a church in order to decide its tax status seems like an intrusion of government into religion. Pastors have to carefully follow IRS regulations when they write their sermons; otherwise they could be subject to investigation.

What if we just started taxing all churches? Then, the government wouldn't have to be in the business of deciding which speech is religious and which speech is political. This might actually be more consistent with the First Amendment.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Teh stupid! It BURNS!!

[Bill McBlueState]

2. thanks for the feedback?

[zbdent]

3. we could eliminate the national debt with the taxes recovered from churches

which campaigned with a nudge and a wink for Repukes ...

[KittyWampus]

9. we'd also hobble houses of worship that use their money to feed poor, provide daycare, help elderly

etc.

[Why Syzygy]

22. Unless they put

restrictions on the populations they serve based on constitutionally protected liberties, those funds should be exempt. The majority of their funds are not used for those purposes.

Churches are run just like a business, in case anyone is wondering. They already have profit and loss statements. There may not be a lot of profit in every church. But there are others that more than make up for it.

[WA98070]

4. I agree. All corporations, religious or secular, should be taxed. That would be real separation as..

churches would be treated as any corporation.

[KittyWampus]

10. Houses of Worship are non-profit and most have ministries to help people.

[damntexdem]

5. It's a judgement call. Which interferes less?

Is it better to tax, which might drive smaller, weaker congregations out of existence; or better to try to give them tax breaks to stay out of politics and then try to monitor their compliance? I find this a tough one, but generally support the idea of the tax breaks, so long as they are similar to those for other nonprofits, 501-C-3s and so on.

However, a further issue is whether UNDER THIS ADMINISTTATION the monitoring will be fair. I suspect that liberal churches will be targeted, while rightwing churches are given a free ride. But if this is the problem, then replacing the administration, particularly electing a Dem, should be the corrective. Still, the issue remains that rightwing/religiously-dominated administrations can apply the rules unfairly.

[Lerkfish]

6. they've never revoked those churches that fellated Delay and Frist in the past

nor any of the rightwing televangelists shills for Bush.

I agree with your suggestion otherwise. I think its wrong to inhibit free speech in the pulpit, and I think its wrong for especially megachurches, who make literally millions, to not be taxed.

[AllentownJake]

7. Huge Constitutional Question

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.

Some people interpret this as churches can't be taxxed.

[dems_rightnow]

13. We could tax....

...Baptists more than Mennonites. Basically, we could tax religious organizations we don't like as much.

No, most churches really are providing valuable and free services for people, including youth programs at nearly all of them.

We do need to stop the campaigning that's done from the pulpit. Hefty fine based on membership for the 1st offense, and revocation of tax-exempt status for the 2nd.

[LiberalFighter]

16. Not exactly free services when the taxpayers pay extra so churches don't.

Rather then expend resources and additional tax monies to regulate churches tax them.

The question is what to tax. At a minimum all churches should be taxed on the property and they should pay fees for street/road maintenance, lighting, garbage removal, etc.

Should all ministers receive their income tax free? Should their residence and utilities in lieu of some of their income be tax free? If owned by the church should the residence and utilities be assessed at fair market value as taxable income? How much of their phone bill should be considered church related and the remaining personal?

Do ministers make personal taxable purchases without paying a sales tax?


Rather than exempt all churches they should pay the appropriate taxes and fees and eliminate the need for IRS oversight of their exemption. Which would allow ministers to advocate in their sermons.

On the other side of receiving funding from states or the federal govt... NO FUNDING. The problem is that then their would be special preferences given to particular groups because their is a limited amount of funding available and they would be given preference based on who the committee chair would be at the time.

[graycem]

8. They should start collecting back taxes

on many churches in the 2004 elections that were actually giving out voting "advice" live and in literature because of the scary gay marriage and abortion issues. Then they can get to this election and Obama's church, because yes, Obama's church is clearly guilty of political speech promoting a certain candidate, and MANY churches back then were guilty of promoting Bush. If they want to inject themselves in our politics and affect the outcome as they have the potential to do, they shouldn't be treated as a non-politcal entity, when there is nothing non-political about them.

[H2O Man]

11. It will never happen n/t

[TexasObserver]

12. It will never happen because churches have too much power, but I think it would be fine.

Churches are boondoggles. They do not do the good that most charities or non profits do. If we look at real charities, we see a much greater dedication to actually doing charitable work. Churches are self aggrandizing social clubs, religious country clubs, that do virtually no charitable work, at least not as a percentage of the funds they take in. Real charities spend 2/3 or more of their revenues on real charitable activities. Churches spend money on themselves, primarily, money that finds its way into the pockets of many of their members, such as the contractors who build these monstrous buildings.

[cbayer]

15. As the daughter of a minister who has dedicated his life to social justice

I take exception to your remarks. I was raised in a church and have attended many, many churches that are totally dedicated to taking care of those who can not take care of themselves. In addition, these churches have led the charge against the war and for civil rights. There are certainly churches that meet your description, but there are a great many who bear no resemblance to what you describe.

As one example, look at Progressive Christians Uniting.

http://www.progressivechristiansuniting.org/

What you describe may be what you have personally experienced, and I regret that you have not seen the other side of this coin.

[Jersey Devil]

19. That's an awful thing to say and very untrue

Every single day there are poor people being fed, clothed, given a roof over their heads, protected from being battered by spouses, adoptions arranged, etc., etc., by churches of all denominations all over this country. Sure you don't read about it all that much because people are proud and don't want it to be public knowledge that they need help. The churches respect that need for privacy.

[TexasObserver]

21. Wrong. It's the truth, and if you don't know it, educate yourself.

Yes, many churches have programs to help people, but the percentage of money they spend on such charitable efforts is miniscule compared to what they spend on buildings, air conditioning, and such. Churches exist to aggrandize their members, and your chest thumping is evidence of that.

If you want to help the needy, the last place you want to give the money is a church.

[Andy823]

14. I agree, tax them.

If they do have activities that help the poor, they could get deductions just like other taxpayers, but to be totally not taxed is not right. Some of these mega churches have millions, maybe even billions stashed away tax free for them to use as they want, and their leaders have access to that money and waste it on things like jets, big houses, fancy cars etc. and live a lavish life style with the money the congregations give them.

[madrchsod]

17. no

[shayes51]

18. yes

[Why Syzygy]

20. I think it's a good idea. Exemptions should be made for funds that go

directly to serve populations as safeguarded by constitutional law only. Meaning, if the church sponsors a charity that serves a community without restrictions based on race, religion, color, gender, sexual preference, disabilities, or other inconsequential criteria. Just like a "real" charity.

edit.

This will never work though. The Vatican will never agree to be taxed.

[TexasObserver]

23. Tax them! They're not real charities and spend little of their $ on such.

Oh, they do love to tout their charitable activities, but those get very little of the money churches raise and spend. They mainly spend money on themselves, and that is a fact none of these religious zealots can deny.