Tax on churches

[nobspeople]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?

In the USA, churches have been officially tax exempt since the late 1800s.
Some say this prevents churches from becoming involved in politics (though that's not true in today's world). Others say, by allowing them to be tax exempt, it allows them to funnel more money into social causes. Additionally, some say donations to churches would lessen if churches lost their tax exempt status (though I find that hard to believe - surely crafty churches would find a work-around to keep that ca$h coming in to pay dem bills!).

Opponents say, basically, churches make too much money (especially mega-churches) to not be taxed - that money would benefit all instead of specific, church affiliated charities. They point out that churches tend to get involved in politics and public organizations such as public schools and, thus, should be taxed.

Some claim there's a potential of billions of dollars that can (and should) be taxed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... on-a-year/
https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/w ... pay-taxes/

So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?





* Churches, synagogues, mosques, et al.

[bjs1]

No, churches (etc.) should not be taxed. I support the separation of church and state. It means that the church does not have direct power over the state and the state does not have direct power over the church. The state taxing churches would put an end to that by giving one direction power over the other.

It is true that the state has indirect power over the church. A person cannot claim a religious exemption that allows for murder. It is also true that the church has indirect power over the state. People’s faith affects the way they vote. But neither has direct power over the other.

One might say that the separation no longer keeps the church out of politics, and I agree that some parts of the church have become too political. That said, I doubt anyone would deny that the separation of church and state vastly limits the power the church has over the state. Just look at nation where the separation does not exist, such as in Afghanistan, and the difference becomes obvious.

Taxing churches would break the wall that separates church and state. There is no telling what the consequences would be, and there would be no going back. I have heard people on both sides arguing that the separation of church and state benefits the other side too much. There is no doubt in my mind that both the state and the church, the atheist and the Christian, gain far more than they lose by maintaining the separation.

[nobspeople]

No, churches (etc.) should not be taxed. I support the separation of church and state. It means that the church does not have direct power over the state and the state does not have direct power over the church. The state taxing churches would put an end to that by giving one direction power over the other.

It is true that the state has indirect power over the church. A person cannot claim a religious exemption that allows for murder. It is also true that the church has indirect power over the state. People’s faith affects the way they vote. But neither has direct power over the other.

One might say that the separation no longer keeps the church out of politics, and I agree that some parts of the church have become too political. That said, I doubt anyone would deny that the separation of church and state vastly limits the power the church has over the state. Just look at nation where the separation does not exist, such as in Afghanistan, and the difference becomes obvious.

Taxing churches would break the wall that separates church and state. There is no telling what the consequences would be, and there would be no going back. I have heard people on both sides arguing that the separation of church and state benefits the other side too much. There is no doubt in my mind that both the state and the church, the atheist and the Christian, gain far more than they lose by maintaining the separation.

If I follow, how would taxing churches break the wall that separates church and state? As you said, there are laws that limit what can be done 'religiously', so there isn't a total wall separating the two and churches do participate in politics. So while there may be a wall there, is this another 'slippery slope' type of argument?

[1213]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?
...
So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?
...

I think no one, or nothing should be taxed, because governments use the money poorly. It would be better that people decide by themselves how they want to use their money.

[2ndpillar2]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?

In the USA, churches have been officially tax exempt since the late 1800s.
Some say this prevents churches from becoming involved in politics (though that's not true in today's world). Others say, by allowing them to be tax exempt, it allows them to funnel more money into social causes. Additionally, some say donations to churches would lessen if churches lost their tax exempt status (though I find that hard to believe - surely crafty churches would find a work-around to keep that ca$h coming in to pay dem bills!).

Opponents say, basically, taxes make too much money (especially mega-churches) to not be taxed - that money would benefit all instead of specific, church affiliated charities. They point out that churches tend to get involved in politics and public organizations such as public schools and, thus, should be taxed.

Some claim there's a potential of billions of dollars that can (and should) be taxed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... on-a-year/
https://bigthink.com/culture-religion/w ... pay-taxes/

So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?

* Churches, synagogues, mosques, et al.

There should be no income to be taxed. Any money given for the poor and widows should be given to the poor and widows, leaving no net money to be taxed. As for property tax, if they own property, they should pay taxes on the property to pay for the libraries, mental health, police, and roads, at the same rate as anyone else, or borrow a tent, and preach from there. The original disciples went from town to town, and simply stayed at someone's else's home, but on the other hand, healed the sick. I think the Amish switch from house to house, or barn to barn, for their church services. As for preachers, if they earn income from pretending to be gods, they should pay taxes just like the trash collector, or the dog catcher, who actually perform services. The preachers shouldn't be given status above the laborer. Actually, the preacher should be a laborer, who preaches for free. In Canada, the churches have to become non profit organizations to get any tax benefits. I am sure that there are regulations for a non profit, like spending all their money on what ever crazy ideas they promote. As for non profits, they can and do have political influence, just as churches have political influence, whether taxed or not taxed.

[benchwarmer]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?
...
So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?
...

I think no one, or nothing should be taxed, because governments use the money poorly. It would be better that people decide by themselves how they want to use their money.

That's all well and good if you live in the forest somewhere and don't use any public roads, sewers, hospitals, etc. I think a better solution is to work on getting governments to spend money better. I suppose another alternative is pay per use. That doesn't sound fun and is basically just taxes done another way.

As for the OP, I think churches should be treated like any other entity that collect money. They should be taxed on their income and pay taxes for property, etc. If they donate some of the income then they should also get the same benefits any group gets by donating i.e. tax breaks. In other words, I don't think they should get special treatment just because they are religious in nature.

[Miles]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?
...
So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?
...

I think no one, or nothing should be taxed, because governments use the money poorly. It would be better that people decide by themselves how they want to use their money.

Yeah! Let the people decide.

.

[Bradskii]

Simple question: Should churches* be taxed?
...
So, should churches remain tax exempt in the USA?
What's the pros and cons of taxing churches?
...

I think no one, or nothing should be taxed, because governments use the money poorly. It would be better that people decide by themselves how they want to use their money.

Well, that's not the most nonsensical argument I've heard all week. Hang on. No, actually it is.

[historia]

As for preachers . . . they should pay taxes just like the trash collector, or the dog catcher, who actually perform services. The preachers shouldn't be given status above the laborer.

Clergy do pay income tax, of course.

I am sure that there are regulations for a non profit, like spending all their money on what ever crazy ideas they promote.

Nonprofits do not have to spend all their money.

[historia]

I think churches should be treated like any other entity that collect money. They should be taxed on their income and pay taxes for property, etc.

The problem here, of course, is that not all "entities that collect money" pay income or property tax.

Nonprofit organizations are exempt from those. And churches are clearly nonprofit organizations.