How To Make $71 Billion A Year: Tax the Churches

[Compassionist]

Source: http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirit ... e-churches

While the desire to tax churches is not new, it seems as far from reality as possible at this moment. As has been commented, no atheist could possibly hope to win an election in today’s political climate—a freethinking man like Robert Ingersoll would have no influence with the majority of our electorate. Our cultural dependency on the necessity of faith is affecting our society: According to a University of Tampa study, not taxing churches is taking an estimated $71 billion from our economy every year, and this fact remains largely unquestioned.

The general argument over why churches do not pay taxes goes like this: If there is a separation of church and state, then the state (or fed) has no right to collect money from the church. In exchange, churches cannot use their clout to influence politics. While this would seem to make for cozy bedfellows, it’s impossible to believe that none of the 335,000 congregations in the United States are using their resources for political purposes, especially when just last week the Kansas governor called for a 'Day of Salvation' in his state.

Churches not paying property and federal income taxes (along with a host of others, including reduced rates on for-profit properties and parsonage subsidies) is filed into that part of our brain marked ‘always been.’ Never mind the conundrum that the most religious are often the most patriotic—what could be less patriotic than not paying your fair share for the good of the country, especially when church structures and those who work for them use the same public utilities as the rest of us?

As noted in the Tampa study, churches fall into the category of ‘charitable’ entities. This is often a stretch. The researchers calculated the Mormon church, for example, spends roughly .7% of its annual income on charity. Their study of 271 congregations found an average of 71% of revenues going to ‘operating expenses,’ while help to the poor is somewhere within the remaining 29%. Compare this to the American Red Cross, which uses 92.1% of revenues for physical assistance and just 7.9% on operating expenses. The authors also note that

Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.

Which brings us to the second category of giving, or ‘spiritual charities.’ Unfortunately, churches do not meet the requirement of a charitable organization for tax purposes. Here’s why: Church employees pay taxes on their salaries (although clergy get a handful of write-offs that the commoner cannot, including their physical living expenses). Therefore, when they are doing things like praying for god’s intervention or to heal sick children, that's not charity. They're doing what they are paid to do.

The most important distinction the study makes, however, is the difference between physical and spiritual assistance. There’s an Internet meme of a pair of white adults handing bibles to African children, while the children ask how they can eat them. Prayers may make those praying feel good about themselves, but do nothing to eradicate poverty or feed the meek. I’m not sure what glitch in human psychology allows us to confuse the two, but the longer we do, the less actual assistance we can offer.

Yet this is the vicious feedback loop we’ve found ourselves in. Today’s religious entities offer either a) abundance (in the style of Joel Osteen/Creflo Dollar) or b) salvation (the fantasy of heavenly return); we donate or tithe for such services; they grow bigger and wealthier while expanding their power, using a considerably small amount of revenue for real-world charitable work. More always wants more, because more can never have enough, regardless of the mask it wears.

A main GOP talking point against raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is that it wouldn’t raise enough revenue to put a serious dent in the deficit. But it’s a start, despite their claims that it would ruin trickle-down economics. The same holds true with taxing churches. Seventy-one billion dollars a year would not wipe out the current total debt of $16.369 trillion. Yet it would hold church leaders accountable for their political participation, and bring them back to the same level as the 'rest of us.'

Our current Congress has passed a record number of abortion restrictions. Mormons may be light on charitable givings, yet they have deep pockets for opposing gay marriage. Such ‘culture war’ issues affect policy, and policy is the realm of the state. Telling a woman what she cannot do with her body and stopping two people from partaking in ceremony has nothing to do with charity. If anything, it’s the exact opposite.

Church leaders have every right to express their opinions and help craft legislation while influencing public sentiment, so long as they play by the same rules as those they preach to. We have to understand the difference between real help and the imagined rules of gods. The world does not need more bigotry masquerading as spirituality. It needs actual charity, the kind that does not demand a reward. Taxing churches is one step in that direction.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 8 by bluethread]

This is about churches, not other non-profit organizations.

That said, taxing theistic organizations would not make one penny. It would only expand the transfer by extortion of funds from one citizen to another, with a hefty percent transferred to the ones who facilitate the extortion and redistribution.

While that statement is made as fact when it's an unsubstantiated opinion, I'd still be fine with it. Tax the churches. All of them. Each and every one no matter the size.

Compassionist supported his position with the following: "According to a University of Tampa study, not taxing churches is taking an estimated $71 billion from our economy every year, and this fact remains largely unquestioned."

This is demonstrably false. Not taxing churches does not take a dollar out of the economy. What it does is remove those dollars from the economy supported by the churches and transfer them to the economy supported by the government. Now, you have every right to your opinion on whether that is the right thing to do, but that does not make the statement an "unquestioned" "fact". It is not only a highly questionable opinion, it is also factually wrong. Personally, I do not think any taxes should be collected based on the nature of the taxpayer. They should be collected based on the purpose for which the money collected is going to be used.

The tax collectors of Yeshua's time are honorable by comparison.

That made me smile. I wonder though: why hasn't this Yeshua, in all its mighty power, not leveled cities with these terrible people who are so much worse than the ones in Yeshua's day?

Unlike my point, yours is off topic. We are talking about governmental taxation, not theistic doctrine.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

I disagree with the idea of taxing churches, although govenements are within their rights to do so. I contribute regularly to my "church".

JW

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

Let's be honest. Suppose the government had taxed the churches since 'day one'. Does anyone think we would have been better off as a result?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the question of taxing religious organizations should be answered with an appeal to the principle of separation of church and state. As it stands now, if I decide that I want tax exemptions, I might claim that I am starting a church. My claim is clearly a fraudulent one but someone at the Revenue Agency (a department of the executive branch of government) would have to make that determination. If I decide to appeal their decision, then the judicial branch of government would be in a position to decide if my religion is legitimate.

I'm not comfortable with governments judging the legitimacy of religions. Wouldn't it be better if governments could get out of that line of business? They could, if they just treated the churches the same way as they treat other charities. If the Kiwanis has to pay property tax on their facility then so should the Baptist church. If the Diabetes Association is exempt from income tax so should the Buddhist temple.

[JehovahsWitness]

They could, if they just treated the churches the same way as they treat other charities.

I believe many countries do judge on this basis or something similar ie an organization that can prove it provides some kind of charitable or educational service for the community and is non-profit in nature.

I'm no expert, so I could be wrong.

JW