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.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
We're getting here though, to a time where the average human can't afford health insurance, and food at the same time. They can't afford home insurance, and electricity at the same time. They can't afford tolls, and tires at the same time.

We've got to figure out a way where the combined wealth of this planet is spread amongst the combined all of us in it.

A billionaire pays a paltry tax, as he spends millions on lobbyists to get even that reduced.

A poor man spends five dollars on a hamburger, and he's called trying to live above his means.

And I think governments are the reason for the situation. Without governments, people would have better chance to use their money wisely and usefully.

A nice sentiment, but the fact remains that so many rich folks use their funds to keep from having to put up their fair share to fund the very government that's provided for their gains.

But, obviously also then it is possible that there are people who have difficulties. But, if people would not have to pay for corrupted rulers, they would have more money for to help those who are in bad situation.

Our problem here's where the poor are blamed for just the being it.

Then we gotta fuss on "corrupted rulers" and how Repubs pushed through trillions of dollars in new spending / tax cuts for the rich, only to now have a crises of conscience when asked to actually pay for it.

I think it would be better for all, except to the rich tyrants who would have to do something useful to get money.

That's the thing about tyrants, ya don't meet the poorn's.

[Bradskii]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #34

As I understand it, the LDS Church -- or rather one of its subsidiaries, which directly owns that land in Florida -- pays property tax on that land.

So what is the problem?

The problem is that the big issue isn't property tax; it's income tax.

The LDS church got itself into some hot water with its congregants a while back for building a shopping center with money people had tithed for the purpose of social work. The church may have paid property taxes on the land it bought for its new mall, but the project didn't go over well with church members.

Churches sometimes do meddle in politics but they're not supposed to, and if they do they should certainly lose their tax exemptions. If they claim a right to be tax-exempt, they have no room to gripe about the separation of church and state.

[Athetotheist]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

Actually, the current system----at least where I live----is a system in which people pay money into a communal fund and those elected to control the fund use the money to subsidize the private sector, get the money back as campaign contributions when they run for re-election and then tell the people who paid the money in that there isn't enough money to fix their roads, fund their schools or provide universal health care.

[historia]

Exactly how is the Mormon church being the biggest land owner in Florida to the *publics benefit*

As I understand it, the LDS Church -- or rather one of its subsidiaries, which directly owns that land in Florida -- pays property tax on that land.

So what is the problem?

The problem is that the big issue isn't property tax; it's income tax.

Much of the land that the LDS church owns in Florida is undeveloped, so it generates no income.

As I understand it, the subsidiary that owns the land does run a farming operation on a portion of it, and pays corporate income tax accordingly.

So, again, what is the problem?

[historia]

I don't have an issue with creating a building to come together in, I do have a problem when it's lavishly created/decorated.

Why do you hate nice architecture so much, benchwarmer?

Some of the most interesting and aesthetically pleasing buildings in any city are built by nonprofit organizations, like churches, museums, and universities.

A world in which nonprofit organizations are penalized unless they construct purely utilitarian buildings would be much duller, don't you think?

[benchwarmer]

I don't have an issue with creating a building to come together in, I do have a problem when it's lavishly created/decorated.

Why do you hate nice architecture so much, benchwarmer?

Some of the most interesting and aesthetically pleasing buildings in any city are built by nonprofit organizations, like churches, museums, and universities.

A world in which nonprofit organizations are penalized unless they construct purely utilitarian buildings would be much duller, don't you think?

I think you are purposely missing my point.

Should a church spend millions on gold encrusted statues or should it instead build a modest, functional space and use the extra money to help the needy. I never said they should make dull buildings. I said they should not make them 'lavish'. If you want to debate what lavish means enjoy. I think my point is made.

[JoeyKnothead]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

Actually, the current system----at least where I live----is a system in which people pay money into a communal fund and those elected to control the fund use the money to subsidize the private sector, get the money back as campaign contributions when they run for re-election and then tell the people who paid the money in that there isn't enough money to fix their roads, fund their schools or provide universal health care.

"Tell me ya live in 'Murica' without actually saying ya do."

[Athetotheist]

Exactly how is the Mormon church being the biggest land owner in Florida to the *publics benefit*

As I understand it, the LDS Church -- or rather one of its subsidiaries, which directly owns that land in Florida -- pays property tax on that land.

So what is the problem?

The problem is that the big issue isn't property tax; it's income tax.

Much of the land that the LDS church owns in Florida is undeveloped, so it generates no income.

As I understand it, the subsidiary that owns the land does run a farming operation on a portion of it, and pays corporate income tax accordingly.

So, again, what is the problem?

Again, the problem is income. A church's primary income is what people put in the collection plate. And the trade-off for being tax-exempt is not engaging in partisan politics.

[Bradskii]

So you want to organise a system where people pay money into a communal fund which is then spent for the benefit of those who contribute. Sounds like a great idea!

I think that would be better than the current system, if people would be free to decide do they participate and how they do it.

That IS the current system. If you want to opt out then go live in the woods in a 'state of nature' as Locke described it. Otherwise, thanks for your contribution.

Actually, the current system----at least where I live----is a system in which people pay money into a communal fund and those elected to control the fund use the money to subsidize the private sector, get the money back as campaign contributions when they run for re-election and then tell the people who paid the money in that there isn't enough money to fix their roads, fund their schools or provide universal health care.

Democracy, eh? If it only enabled you to vote those people out of office.

Oh, wait...you said 'when they run for re-election'. So I guess that you could. In which case I wonder why you don't.