Should churches pay taxes?

Page 4 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

SilverStar
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,058
Location: Ohio, USA

05 Sep 2015, 9:20 pm

ZenDen wrote:

I used to think churches should not pay taxes, per our original founding father's ideas. It seemed like a good idea: The government wouldn't try to involve themselves with religion and religion would be separate from government. A mutual "hands off" policy.

But for a while now I've thought religions should pay taxes like everyone else. This because of church's/religion's insistence in involving themselves in politics at all levels. It completely ruins the "separation of church and state" idea and allows church participation in secular government while reserving all church matters to only church officials and church laws.

I believe, if they insist on meddling in secular matters, they should pay taxes, just like the rest of us mere mortals.

I agree with you, but if you really think about it, paying federal taxes isn't even constitutional.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Sep 2015, 10:02 pm

Humanaut wrote:

Involuntarism rules.

Realistically, that's the only way government gets anything done.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

05 Sep 2015, 11:12 pm

Four pages and nobody's mentioned the "Church" of Scientology?

_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

05 Sep 2015, 11:17 pm

luan78zao wrote:

Four pages and nobody's mentioned the "Church" of Scientology?

Those mother f'ers definitely should be taxed.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

05 Sep 2015, 11:31 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:

Those mother f'ers definitely should be taxed.

Why?

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

05 Sep 2015, 11:54 pm

visagrunt wrote:

This is all very uncritical.

What taxes are we talking about? Income taxes, property taxes or consumption taxes?

On income, congregations are, typcially, not-for-profit corporations and registered charities. Why should one kind of not-for-profit organization pay tax on it's operating surplus, while the rest do not? Religious organizations should be treated no differently than schools, libraries, community centres, museums and all the other non-profit organizations out there.

On consumption, religious organizations DO pay tax in most jurisdictions. If you pay for goods or services, then sales taxes are added on whether you are a private individual, a non-profit or a business corporation.

Only in the area of property do I see a disconnect. It should be patently clear that buildings owned by congregations but used for secular purposes (e.g. schools, hospitals, shelters and the like) do not qualify for a religious exemption from tax. Clergy residences are in a gray area, but typically would not qualify either (at least in this country). Purely religious structures, such as churches, mosques, synagogues and missions normally would. I really see no reason why this should be, but the actual impact on municipal revenue is likely negligible.

charities don't pay sales tax in pennsylvania. churches around here preach about whom to vote for, so the IRS should crack down and make 'em pay.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

06 Sep 2015, 12:23 am

slave wrote:

I don't know about every country in the world, but I know that it is common for churches to not pay taxes.
How do you regard this issue?

I'm strongly in favor of requiring all property owners to pay property taxes on their property and that includes churches.

Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

06 Sep 2015, 12:27 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

Involuntarism rules.

Realistically, that's the only way government gets anything done.

I suspect idealism and realism are repelling forces.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2015, 12:39 am

Humanaut wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Humanaut wrote:

Involuntarism rules.

Realistically, that's the only way government gets anything done.

I suspect idealism and realism are repelling forces.

Too often they are.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2015, 12:41 am

luan78zao wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Those mother f'ers definitely should be taxed.

Why?

Because they're a phony religion rolling in dough by taking advantage of people. Same reason why I think mega church faith healers ought to be taxed.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

06 Sep 2015, 12:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Because they're a phony religion rolling in dough by taking advantage of people. Same reason why I think mega church faith healers ought to be taxed.

So the IRS should be empowered to distinguish between "phony" and "authentic" religions? What would be the objective criteria differentiating the two?

cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

06 Sep 2015, 12:59 am

luan78zao wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Because they're a phony religion rolling in dough by taking advantage of people. Same reason why I think mega church faith healers ought to be taxed.

So the IRS should be empowered to distinguish between "phony" and "authentic" religions? What would be the objective criteria differentiating the two?

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

06 Sep 2015, 1:11 am

luan78zao wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Because they're a phony religion rolling in dough by taking advantage of people. Same reason why I think mega church faith healers ought to be taxed.

So the IRS should be empowered to distinguish between "phony" and "authentic" religions? What would be the objective criteria differentiating the two?

No, it just gives me a certain satisfaction that people who use religion to exploit people get what's coming.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

06 Sep 2015, 1:24 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

luan78zao wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Because they're a phony religion rolling in dough by taking advantage of people. Same reason why I think mega church faith healers ought to be taxed.

So the IRS should be empowered to distinguish between "phony" and "authentic" religions? What would be the objective criteria differentiating the two?

No, it just gives me a certain satisfaction that people who use religion to exploit people get what's coming.

I figure they should have to behave like any other NFP. Don't care what the claimed belief is, just prove you didn't make money.

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

06 Sep 2015, 2:40 am

cathylynn wrote:

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

The Vatican ain't no shack, and when the Pope flies to Philadelphia I bet he won't ride in coach with the proles. So you'd tax the Roman Catholic Church?

How many major religions, sects, or denominations are there, whose top leaders live in modest apartments and get around by Greyhound bus? Not many, I'll bet.

glebel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 64
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

06 Sep 2015, 10:31 am

luan78zao wrote:

cathylynn wrote:

rather than phony and authentic, perhaps can be differentiated by the wealth of their higher ups. those with private jets and housing compounds may not really be "non-profit."

Actually, I think you would find that many live modest lives. A lot of the people that have advocated taxing religious institutions are judging all religions by looking at a selected minority. The particular Lutheran synod (AALC) that I belong to has no rigid hierarchy. Our Presiding Pastor leads a congregation, and also administers the synod. The pastor in my local church is a seminarian and does pastoral support, so he flies around the country a lot, and I know we don't pay him much money. I know of one pastor in Colorado who shepherds a congregation for free. Most are not like these televangelists.

_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.

Page 4 of 9 [ 136 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Should churches pay taxes? Post Reply New Topic

Should churches pay taxes?