Eliminate church (and ALL other) tax exemptions?

[Zzyzx]

.
In another thread I posted:

Floating an idea

Why not eliminate church tax-exemptions and ALL tax-exemptions?

Reasoning: If we donate to an organization and take a tax exemption for our donation, OTHERS have to pay more tax to cover what we do not pay. Therefore, THEY are forced to subsidize our donation (and thereby our choice of where to donate – and the organization itself).

Tax exemption favors certain types of organizations -- many of which find ways to game the system and enrich select people.

1) Should our decision to donate to a certain cause or organization obligate others to support our decision by paying more taxes to make up for what we don't pay -- even if they disagree with the cause or organization?

2) Should non-believers pay extra tax to make up for exemptions for religious organizations?

I understand "freedom of (and from) religion" and how taxation could be used to favor certain sects; however, if all churches were taxes at equal rates there would be no favoritism.

[dianaiad]

.
In another thread I posted:

Floating an idea

Why not eliminate church tax-exemptions and ALL tax-exemptions?

Reasoning: If we donate to an organization and take a tax exemption for our donation, OTHERS have to pay more tax to cover what we do not pay. Therefore, THEY are forced to subsidize our donation (and thereby our choice of where to donate – and the organization itself).

Tax exemption favors certain types of organizations -- many of which find ways to game the system and enrich select people.

1) Should our decision to donate to a certain cause or organization obligate others to support our decision by paying more taxes to make up for what we don't pay -- even if they disagree with the cause or organization?

2) Should non-believers pay extra tax to make up for exemptions for religious organizations?

I understand "freedom of (and from) religion" and how taxation could be used to favor certain sects; however, if all churches were taxes at equal rates there would be no favoritism.

I believe that the idea is to tax one's income. You know, the money you keep. If you choose to give away your money (and thus it is not yours) why should you be taxed on it?

It seems like a fairly easy concept...and one that the government actually encourages. The more money one gives to charity, the less the government has to spend on the programs that charity supports.

Now the government doesn't give a hoot what that tax exempt money goes for: you can contribute to the local museum of dog prints. You can contribute to an organization whose sole function is to provide rainbow colored Solo cups to beach goers so that it will be easier to spot them when the folks serving community service have to go pick up the litter. You can contribute to the folks who hand out scholarships based on essays entitled 'why religion is dying and what I can do to finish it off." You can contribute to the guys who want to buy bright red vests for the sea turtle crossing guards.

You can contribute to the folks who rescue abandoned guinea pigs. You can support the folks building the biggest monument to the hot dog ever, and continue to contribute toward the maintenance and upkeep of that monument. You can contribute to the museum that houses "The Piss Christ" so that it will have extra security around the display.

It's your choice.

I don't see that anybody is having snit fits over contributions to non-profit organizations along those lines.

Personally, I figure that, if you give away your money, the government shouldn't have any right to that part. No matter who you give it to.

Now, if someone could come up with a really fair flat tax that handles everything, I'd listen, but until then.....nah. Religion, secular, whatever; if you want to give your money away, it's your money.

And the government should keep its greedy sticky fingers off of it.

[bluethread]

You are talking about tax deductions as if it's the government's money and we are being permitted to keep some of it. What is worse than allowing people to spend that money as they please is the government, based on the religious practice of wealth redistribution, takes peoples hard earned money and gives it to people who do not work.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

1) It shouldn't, but it happens across the board. I mean, I may donate to a cause that christians dont' like, so some of their tax $ may be used to make up for the lack of my tax due to my donation. It happens in both (all) directions
2) I think it would be wonderful if believer pay 3X the tax of a non-believer. This way, there would be, in theory, less believers and it would make the lives of everyone else so much easier But how would we determine who is/isn't a believer? In reality, this won't happen no matter how much I wish it would. However, I think all churches should be taxed like a business: they make money, they are involved in much of society, they influence others, they have 'memberships' even some have elected boards. Rax the living c*ap out of 'em.

[McCulloch]

1) Should our decision to donate to a certain cause or organization obligate others to support our decision by paying more taxes to make up for what we don't pay -- even if they disagree with the cause or organization?

2) Should non-believers pay extra tax to make up for exemptions for religious organizations?

I understand "freedom of (and from) religion" and how taxation could be used to favor certain sects; however, if all churches were taxes at equal rates there would be no favoritism.

The concept with income tax is that you are to be taxed on an approximation of amount of income you have earned beyond what you need to survive. This is why there is a basic personal exemption, exemption for dependents and exemptions for disabilities. The idea is that money you donate to charities (unlike money you spend on yourself or money you invest) should be paid out of pre-tax income, in that it is money you did not keep or use for your own benefit, but selflessly used for the betterment of society.

I strongly believe in the principle of the separation of religion from government. To me, that means that our governments should be blind to religion. The religious affiliation of an organization should make no difference at all to how our governments deal with that organization. If a religious organization meets the requirements under the tax laws to qualify as a non-profit registered charity, then it should be allowed to grant tax receipts. Otherwise, it should not. Under our tax laws, the War Amps should be treated the same as the Main Street Baptist Church.

To be considered charitable under Canadian law (and I suspect that it is similar elsewhere), an organization must have purposes that fall under one or more of the four categories of charity:

1. the relief of poverty;
2. the advancement of education;
3. the advancement of religion; and
4. certain other purposes that benefit the community in a way the courts have said is charitable.

Now this raises the issue of whether the advancement of religion should be considered to be a charitable activity, which may be at the heart of this question.

Now the government doesn't give a hoot what that tax exempt money goes for: [...]
Personally, I figure that, if you give away your money, the government shouldn't have any right to that part. No matter who you give it to.

Actually the government does care. Organizations that provide personal benefits (directly or indirectly) to its own members do not qualify as charitable. Organizations established to benefit a particular individual or a private group, are considered to be established for private benevolence and will not qualify as charitable. To qualify, an organization must show that its purposes and activities provide a tangible benefit to the public as a whole or a significant section of it. Organizations that undertake illegal activities (e.g., fraud, or money laundering) do not qualify. In Canada, organizations with activities contrary to Canadian public policy do not qualify. And organizations that make their resources available either directly or indirectly to further terrorism will not qualify.

You are talking about tax deductions as if it's the government's money and we are being permitted to keep some of it.

Take a close look at some of your money. There is a clear indication on it who has issued the money. That agency is a branch of the government. It is the governments that print money, regulate money and who tax money. Jesus famously said something along these very same lines.

[McCulloch]

It shouldn't, but it happens across the board. I mean, I may donate to a cause that christians dont' like, so some of their tax $ may be used to make up for the lack of my tax due to my donation. It happens in both (all) directions

It is similar to donations to registered political parties. To encourage participation in the electoral process and to help fund political parties' activities, there are tax exemptions for donating to registered political parties. Cost-cutting ideologues would not like that my donation may go to the New Democrats, but I don't like that their donations go to the Conservative Party. But as it is, donations to all parties provide a tax benefit to the donor, regardless of affiliation.

I think it would be wonderful if believer pay 3X the tax of a non-believer. This way, there would be, in theory, less believers and it would make the lives of everyone else so much easier But how would we determine who is/isn't a believer? In reality, this won't happen no matter how much I wish it would.

No, even in principle this is a really bad idea. People should not be taxed for their ideas and thoughts.

However, I think all churches should be taxed like a business: they make money, they are involved in much of society, they influence others, they have 'memberships' even some have elected boards. Rax the living c*ap out of 'em.

Churches do not make money. They are voluntary associations of individuals and are funded by voluntary donations from those individuals. Unlike business that operate on a set fee for product or service and operate for the express purpose of providing profit to the shareholders.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 6 by McCulloch]

No, even in principle this is a really bad idea. People should not be taxed for their ideas and thoughts.

It absolutely is & I can see how this would create problems for everyone. However, it's still nice to think about - at least for me.

Churches do not make money.

Yes they do.
I've been in many churches where the church leaders themselves make a lot of money for what they do - usually more than 90-95% of the attendees. That is what I was referring to. After all, the pope didn't pay for his own hat or pay for his own city.

[McCulloch]

it's still nice to think about - at least for me.

I would prefer to keep our fantasies out of debate.

Churches do not make money.

Yes they do.

No, by definition they do not. They are not-for-profit organizations. They have money and they spend money but they do not make money. Money collected must be spent on defined charitable purposes, including wages and salaries, facilities and promotional material. Since the advancement of religion is defined as a charitable objective in law, any activity or acquisition that can be described as advancing religion is, under the law, a charitable expenditure.

I've been in many churches where the church leaders themselves make a lot of money for what they do - usually more than 90-95% of the attendees. That is what I was referring to. After all, the pope didn't pay for his own hat or pay for his own city.

Church leaders are employees of the church and as such can be paid for their services. I, for one, would not like to see legislation regulating a cap on the salaries and wages for church employees paid from the free will donations of the participants. If the people who are paying for their leaders believe that they are overpaid, then I would suggest that they redirect their money elsewhere. Since I am not paying, I have no interest.

I don't pay for the pope's hat nor for the maintenance of his city.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 8 by McCulloch]

I would prefer to keep our fantasies out of debate.

Then you are in the WRONG forum my friend

No, by definition they do not.

I have already showed how they are a business. Though not in the pure definition, they make money, the divy out money, they have members with official memberships, boards, a leader, followers, etc. Much like a business.
They may not have stocks to sell, but they are fundamentally a business. And should be taxed as such.
No need to argue over it really.

Church leaders are employees of the church and as such can be paid for their services.

Much like a CEO, CIO, CFO, etc.

I, for one, would not like to see legislation regulating a cap on the salaries and wages for church employees paid from the free will donations of the participants.

A cap....now there's an interesing idea....

I don't pay for the pope's hat nor for the maintenance of his city.

I wonder how true that is. Not that I'm accusing you of lying, but what relationship do non-believers (or everyone) actually have with believers?
After all, in this world we are all, basically, connected in some way. You may not be paying $ to Mr Popey Pope, but what ever are you 'paying' for TRCC which, in turn, pays for Popey's hat?

I know I don't pay for the local church in donational $, but on Sundays I do have to sit in the middle of the street at certain times, wasting gas, while a policeman, a public servant, getting paid for 'special duty' stops free flowing traffic while all the church members are allowed to leave because someone, in their infinite wisdom, decided to build a church on the middle of a busy road with no easy egress.

[McCulloch]

I have already showed how they [churches] are a business.

No, you have not. You have pointed out some irrelevant similarities between churches and businesses. Many secular charities have employees, take in money, divvy it out, have memberships, boards and all of that other stuff. It makes them organizations not businesses.

Church leaders are employees of the church and as such can be paid for their services.

Much like a CEO, CIO, CFO, etc.

Or an Executive Director of a charity.

I don't pay for the pope's hat nor for the maintenance of his city.

I wonder how true that is. Not that I'm accusing you of lying, but what relationship do non-believers (or everyone) actually have with believers?
After all, in this world we are all, basically, connected in some way. You may not be paying $ to Mr Popey Pope, but what ever are you 'paying' for TRCC which, in turn, pays for Popey's hat?

You lost me on TRCC. Whatever I give to the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre, I am fairly sure does not contribute at all to Papal haberdashery. Heck, I won't even eat at the restaurant called PopeYes.