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.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

$71 billion dollars would just about pay for Trump's wall across Mexico. And the next several year's of church taxation could be used to pay for a wall to keep out our pinko liberal neighbors to the north. And then of course walls to contain the pinko liberals on the west coast and in the northeast. And a wall entirely around Colorado, which went blue.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

I disagree with taxing religious institutions in general, I think the current law has it right. The only thing is it's not enforced in the least this needs to change.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

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.


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.

You obviously don't understand doublespeak! You better get used to doublespeak because it is being used more and more today after its unexpected successful use in the Republican campaign just prior to the 2016 presidential election.

You ain't seen nuthin' yet as the man in the high chair continues His spin on reality. Benjamin Franklin once warned a questioning Philadelphia citizen on July 4, 1776: "What kind of a government have you made us, Mr. Franklin?" Franklin answered, "A Republic . . . if you can keep it." Well, as Strider said in his farewell post (in this sub-forum), "My country has died . . ." He may well have been right.

So man-up and dumb down . . . get to know and LOVE doublespeak. It is the ticket to survival for the next four years.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

I disagree with taxing religious institutions in general, I think the current law has it right. The only thing is it's not enforced in the least this needs to change.

I am curious about this statement. While no law is followed perfectly, the laws regarding politics and the church seemed to be obeyed and enforced reasonably well the overwhelming majority of the time. Why do you think otherwise?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

I disagree with taxing religious institutions in general, I think the current law has it right. The only thing is it's not enforced in the least this needs to change.

I am curious about this statement. While no law is followed perfectly, the laws regarding politics and the church seemed to be obeyed and enforced reasonably well the overwhelming majority of the time. Why do you think otherwise?

If by reasonably well you mean barely at all then I would disagree. Back in 2014 a group of churches who disagree with the 501.C provision that prevents tax free organizations from making political endorsements or lose their tax free status sent videos to the IRS of them making political endorsements daring the IRS to tax them. Of the hundreds of churches that did this no enforcement of the law took place spurring a lawsuit from theFreedom From Religion organization.

To this day I am still unaware of any churches losing their tax free status for making political endorsements.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

Churches are businesses. They can create a metric butt-ton of ca$h. They should all be taxed as far as I'm concerned no matter how many members each may have.
My biasness aside, any church that uses its influence to promote any political agenda/idea on the masses, it should be taxed. As there's no good way to patrol which church does or doesn't do this (they all do) every church/synagogue/mosque/etc should be taxed at least 37% if not more.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

Churches are businesses. They can create a metric butt-ton of ca$h. They should all be taxed as far as I'm concerned no matter how many members each may have.
My biasness aside, any church that uses its influence to promote any political agenda/idea on the masses, it should be taxed. As there's no good way to patrol which church does or doesn't do this (they all do) every church/synagogue/mosque/etc should be taxed at least 37% if not more.

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but nonprofit partisan organizations are also tax exempt. 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. The tax collectors of Yeshua's time are honorable by comparison.

[Youkilledkenny]

[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.

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? After all, he level cities for sins and even drowned the whole world, if modern stories are believed.
Hmm....
Maybe he's OK with all these church leaders and tax collectors? He seems to be getting his joys of all his leaders taking $ from people - many who would be better off using it for their own good.
His leaders need Bentleys and private jets I suppose. After all, they're doing "God's work".

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

I admit I go back and forth on this topic. Currently I am of the mind that religious institutions should not be considered not-for-profit organizations. Most religious bank accounts will attest to this.

But there is also one very pertinent political fact that makes the whole discussion moot - The majority of this country is religious and/or believes in a personal god, and there's no way a change to the current tax code will ever happen by Congress.