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.

[historia]

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.

Okay, but it's hard to take this point seriously when the examples you've given have veered into hyperbole. If "lavish" means having million-dollar, gold-encrusted statues, for example, then very few, if any, churches can said to be "lavish."

[brunumb]

...
So no roads, schools and hospitals where you live. Maybe you do live in the woods...

For example here in Finland all taxes compined are about 50 % of what one gets (income tax+ VAT +...). If it would really be only for the commonly useful matters like roads, schools and hospitals, they would be good and it would take less money than 50 % of what person earns to arrange them properly.

Maybe it is better in where you live, but here, even though the taxman is utterly greedy, we don't have free healtcare for all, and most workers have healthcare from separate work healthcare system that is in addition to the "free tax based healthcare". And that public health care has also service fees, if you dare to use it. Goverment collects more and more, still all useful services are getting worse every year. It would be better, if people would decide by themselves how their money is used, insted of government tyrants using them like ########.

That doesn't sound very good at all. I'm guessing that prayer is not working for you in Finland.

[nobspeople]

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.

Okay, but it's hard to take this point seriously when the examples you've given have veered into hyperbole. If "lavish" means having million-dollar, gold-encrusted statues, for example, then very few, if any, churches can said to be "lavish."

Maybe BW was talking more about simple buildings without ornate ornamentation, stained glass windows, state of the art sound systems, etc. Granted not every church has these and, indeed, some are simple, but there seems to be little to no need to spend extra money on something that's not simple.
Then there's the whole 'what's simple and what's not' argument, but maybe that's the point BW was trying to make?

[benchwarmer]

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.

Okay, but it's hard to take this point seriously when the examples you've given have veered into hyperbole. If "lavish" means having million-dollar, gold-encrusted statues, for example, then very few, if any, churches can said to be "lavish."

Maybe BW was talking more about simple buildings without ornate ornamentation, stained glass windows, state of the art sound systems, etc. Granted not every church has these and, indeed, some are simple, but there seems to be little to no need to spend extra money on something that's not simple.
Then there's the whole 'what's simple and what's not' argument, but maybe that's the point BW was trying to make?

Yes, this is basically the point I was making. Apparently historia does want to debate what lavish means, but I have no interest. I think most people know what my point is. Some churches are very ornately decorated, obviously beyond functional and nice. Some churches are simple, functional, and nicely decorated without going 'over the top'. Is this a little subjective? Yes. Is the main point that hard to grasp? I don't think so, but this is a debate site after all.

Perhaps if nothing else comes of this, some practicing Christians who are regular church goers might inquire about the finances of their church and judge for themselves.

[historia]

Apparently historia does want to debate what lavish means

Not especially. I'm just pointing out that what you are advocating for here -- that organizations be stripped of their non-profit status unless they only build "simple," "modest," and "functional" buildings -- will have the net effect of eliminating most of the interesting architecture in our cities.

Consider these examples from the city of Seattle: The downtown public library, the pop-culture museum, and the Suzzallo Library at the University of Washington are, I think, by any definition "ornate." But this is also what I mean by "nice" architecture -- buildings that are interesting, beautiful, and even inspiring.

You are effectively arguing that these kinds of buildings should not exist, or at least non-profit organizations that build structures like these should be heavily penalized for doing so. You can protest that that's not what you intend, but unless you want to more clearly define your terms and your argument, it is, I think, the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from your posts.

[historia]

[T]here seems to be little to no need to spend extra money on something that's not simple.

But even if you don't personally appreciate the need for nice art and grand architecture, why do you want to impose your preference for purely utilitarian buildings on others?

If the Jewish community in Los Angeles, for example, wants to build a large, architecturally interesting (some might say "ornate" or "lavish") extension next to their already large, interesting synagogue on Wilshire Boulevard, why should that bother me?

This building will provide community services to the people of Koreatown, who are mostly not Jewish. Why should we deprive them of this beautiful building, which will enrich the aesthetic quality of their neighborhood, in favor of a simple one?

[nobspeople]

[T]here seems to be little to no need to spend extra money on something that's not simple.

But even if you don't personally appreciate the need for nice art and grand architecture, why do you want to impose your preference for purely utilitarian buildings on others?

If the Jewish community in Los Angeles, for example, wants to build a large, architecturally interesting (some might say "ornate" or "lavish") extension next to their already large, interesting synagogue on Wilshire Boulevard, why should that bother me?

This building will provide community services to the people of Koreatown, who are mostly not Jewish. Why should we deprive them of this beautiful building, which will enrich the aesthetic quality of their neighborhood, in favor of a simple one?

That is an issue: what's lavish and what's not. Even if someone decides the building will be 4 walls and a roof, how big is too big? Then let's go further: how low do we need to set the AC? 72° of 84°?
It's not an easy issue to address, unless one wants to implement communism-like control.

Then we can get into the whole 'prosperity gospel' talk: does god want you to have a Maybach or a Mitsubishi to drive around? How much is too much?

Maybe the deeper discussion should be less about 'aesthetic beauty' and more about the service they provide?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #66]

If the Jewish community in Los Angeles, for example, wants to build a large, architecturally interesting (some might say "ornate" or "lavish") extension next to their already large, interesting synagogue on Wilshire Boulevard, why should that bother me?

This building will provide community services to the people of Koreatown, who are mostly not Jewish. Why should we deprive them of this beautiful building, which will enrich the aesthetic quality of their neighborhood, in favor of a simple one?

The only requirement should be that they either (1.) use the extension exclusively for nonsectarian purposes or (2.) use only their own privately raised money for it.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I've always rather been charmed by the idea of an 'opt out of society' option. One can opt out of paying taxes, insurance, health contributions, religious tithes TV licence and see how you get on. With the option of buying back in if one find they are missing out. A few months of not having your bins emptied and they'd be back paying their taxers. Either that or hoping they don't get caught fly -tipping.

[Athetotheist]

I am sure that in a capitalist society, the government taxes everything that is possible.

Correction: in a capitalist society, the government taxes the lower classes and uses the money to subsidize the upper classes.