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.

[Purple Knight]

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.

The People deciding how to use that money is exactly what government is supposed to be. If it's not that, then it's corrupt and should be overturned.

Saying there should be no government is basically saying people should not be able to work together to decide how to use that money.

Governments use money poorly because people allow them to. Thomas Jefferson seemed to intend that people ought to start shooting if a government becomes corrupt. I'm not advocating violence, because obviously, I haven't done it either because I'm not currently in jail. I'm simply saying that if the People had behaved how the Founders intended there would not be this issue.

To the issue, I think taxation should never be discriminatory. No one, because they are A, or B, or X, or Y, should pay more taxes or less taxes or no taxes. I think charities and churches should pay taxes on their profits. If they take no profits, then they can pay no taxes, the same as any other organisation. If they decide to funnel all their money into the salaries of their top elite so as not to take profit, well, then those elite can pay heavy taxes because they make such ludicrous incomes.

Edit: On the subject of government, I do agree with the AnCap side about public schools. Close them. Abolish them. They're a travesty.

[Miles]

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.

It would kill all incentive to make more money among those who could, and universal wealth would plummet to a bare subsistence level.


.

[Purple Knight]

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.

It would kill all incentive to make more money among those who could, and universal wealth would plummet to a bare subsistence level.


.

Whether that would be worse or better for most people depends on whether the free market works as advertised, and most of the people making most of the money are doing so by providing things that make lives better - if they are, good, no change needed. But if most of the people making most of the money are manipulating supply and demand, middlemanning, finding new ways to collect various forms of rent, then just having socialism would actually raise the standard of living since it would stop energy from being wasted on everyone attempting to weasel money out of everyone else without adding value to the system.

That's completely aside from the question of whether redistributing wealth is ethical. If it's not, then it doesn't matter what would raise the standard of living. Frankly the ethical question is the only one that matters. Is redistribution stealing? Is stealing wrong? If yes and yes then nothing else matters.

I'll give you an example of the free market and market failure: The breeding of Rhodesian Ridgeback dogs. It's common practice to cull (in other words, kill) pups born without the trademark ridge. Those ridgeless ridgebacks would make great pets and there are people who want them. Trouble is, they're nonstandard so they don't sell for as much, and every house that got a free or cheap puppy with that small defect would not purchase a perhaps thousand dollar perfect standard one. So because of money, because the thing to do is maximise money, they simply kill those pups. I have every reason to believe that people become animal breeders because they want to produce fine animals to make people happy and that if it weren't for the need to maximise money and compete to stay afloat, these pups would be given away. There would be another problem which would be that the free market would no longer provide free discovery service of the number of dogs people want, and breeders would have to monitor that themselves, but I think people who are willing to kill dogs to make sure they're sitting on the rosier side of supply and demand can be trusted not to create hordes of dogs people didn't ask for. Now if the people did ask, and because there are no deposits if there isn't any money, you get more flakes, that might be an issue.

[historia]

[Replying to historia in post #13]

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?

[nobspeople]

I would have no problem with churches being tax exempt, IF their primary purpose were to help the poor or otherwise provide charitable resources. Instead, they seem more like social clubs with most of their income going to support the church itself, rather than helping others. The Mormons and the Roman Catholic church have vast business and real estate holdings. Are they at least taxed on those properties?

Another issue is their increasing function as political action forces, rather than as spiritual guides.

I think many would agree with you here, in that many churches are more 'social' settings than anything else. Many churches you have to 'join', there are boards with 'members', not to mention 'dues' oft disguised are 'tithes and offerings'.
Personally, I'm all for taxing the b*tt off all churches.
For info, here's some IRS info - not sure how up-to-date it is
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

[1213]

...
The People deciding how to use that money is exactly what government is supposed to be. If it's not that, then it's corrupt and should be overturned.
...

I could accept government, if it would be good and not corrupted. The problem is that human governments always seem to become corrupted. And when that happens, it is very difficult to correct it. That is why I think it would be better to not have it at all.

[1213]

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.

[1213]

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

[Purple Knight]

...
The People deciding how to use that money is exactly what government is supposed to be. If it's not that, then it's corrupt and should be overturned.
...

I could accept government, if it would be good and not corrupted. The problem is that human governments always seem to become corrupted. And when that happens, it is very difficult to correct it. That is why I think it would be better to not have it at all.

Deleting the word government wouldn't stop people from banding together to do things, and some of those things will be to hurt others. "We shouldn't have government" is just saying that people should overturn bad collaborative systems if they happen to be called government, but not necessarily if they happen to be called, "Onigumo's Band of Bandits."

The idea that government is illegitimate doesn't get around the fact that when people band together to hurt others, blood has to be spilled to fight them or they're just going to keep it up. It's a true fact whether they call themselves government or not, and they probably ought to be overturned whether they call themselves government or not.

You can't just have a society where government doesn't happen because it's illegal. That would require a government to enforce the law that there shall be no government.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

It would kill all incentive to make more money among those who could, and universal wealth would plummet to a bare subsistence level.

Greed's its own motivator. If ya think a tax on rich folks'll upset em so much they don't wanna be em it no more, well how bout that.


That there atrickling down on ya ain't the kool-aid ya was expecting it to be.