2017 Tax Bill Has Churches Start Paying Some Taxes

[Brickjectivity]

I have my problems with the 16th Amendment too, eg, no limit on
the percentage they can take, no requirement for GAAP (generally
accepted accounting practices), no presumption of innocence.
But it is nonetheless part of the Constitution.

States were abolished by this teensy amendment and allowed to exist as useless extras that have steadily lost influence since.

Yes, this is something the rest of us all face.
It's no big deal.

Its a big deal that you have had to concede yes the IRS would be pursuing information about donors. The federal state potentially researches out who is in which church in order to properly audit.

I read the Drudge report daily.
Many diverse newspapers show up there.

Many diverse, dying, soon to be gone newspapers that need the drudge report to get noticed and read? With profit margins slipping the taxes become relatively more cumbersome.

k
Language there, kitten!

meow sorry meow

Print papers are dying not because of taxes, but due to
the cost of newsprint & labor, & electronic competition.
But the above is not the issue.
You argued that freedom of religion requires exemption
from taxes. But freedom of the press doesn't have this
same requirement. So something is wrong with your

Not every exemption is a subsidy. Things that are untaxable aren't subsidies. For example your breaths are not subsidized as they are untaxable. If it were taxable then not taxing it would be subsidizing it.

 

[Revoltingest]

States were abolished by this teensy amendment and allowed to exist as useless extras that have steadily lost influence since.

While I object to Washington's attempt to federalize all things, the states are still with us.

Its a big deal that you have had to concede yes the IRS would be pursuing information about donors. The federal state potentially researches out who is in which church in order to properly audit.

The fed is free to pursue all my sources of income.
Churches shouldn't have more right against this than do I.
Besides, the subsidy they receive is too high to justify their
desire for extreme member anonymity.

Many diverse, dying, soon to be gone newspapers that need the drudge report to get noticed and read? With profit margins slipping the taxes become relatively more cumbersome.

Taxes are cumbersome.
When you're ready to eliminate them for the rest
of us, then churches may enjoy that benefit too.

Not every exemption is a subsidy. Things that are untaxable aren't subsidies. For example your breaths are not subsidized as they are untaxable. If it were taxable then not taxing it would be subsidizing it.

The subsidy exists in several ways....
We non-church goers pay property taxes which provide churches with service (eg, fire, police).
Their getting these services for free is a subsidy. And before the 2017 tax changes, they could
give tax free compensation (unavailable to the rest of us) to their workers.

 

[Mister Emu]

A link supporting the claim would be nice.

Walz v Tax Commission, Burger in the majority opinion "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) #3 under "Held".

Would you go so far as to say that church shouldn't pay any payroll taxes on employees?

I'd go so far as to say that the government has no authority to tax Churches in any manner so long as the constitution demands that government cannot favor churches as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

Walz v Tax Commission, Burger in the majority opinion "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) #3 under "Held".

This is interesting.
In effect, the federal government requires that taxpayers provide free services to churches.
But this is only if the churches obey rules like not endorsing political candidates.
Sounds like a whole lotta entanglement to me.

About the ruling....
In the link, I read reasoning based upon the establishment cause.
It made sense. But it didn't reason based upon the broader originalist
reading of the Constitution, ie, the separation of church & state.
Instead of establishing one religion, it's about subsidizing all state
recognized religions. This is not separation, particularly since taxpayers
foot so much of the bill. So the ruling strikes me as a strict constructionist
rationalization of subsidized religion. I'll wager that there were no atheists
on that court.

I'd go so far as to say that the government has no authority to tax Churches in any manner so long as the constitution demands that government cannot favor churches as well.

Would this mean churches shouldn't pay payroll taxes (eg,
Social Security, unemployment insurance) on employees?
Should churches be subject to the minimum wage or OSHA?

 

[Cougarbear]

Churches may have to pay taxes, and members of Congress may pay politically







Some complain that complying with paying taxes is too complicated for churches.
It's difficult & expensive to handle the procedures.

Poor babies!
Welcome to the world the rest of us live in..

This is a good change.
Let's hope that it survives the next election cycle.

It's not about the rest of the world. In the U.S. we have a Constitution and the 1st amendment requires separation between Church and State according to liberals. Yet, you are saying that there is not separation? Is that your answer? Many small businesses have been hurt by the same kind of liberal big government thinking concerning taxes. Small businesses were destroyed by new regulations requiring new forms and things. They had to spend money they didn't have and went out of business. Trump has been trying to eliminate the bureaucracy and extra burdens on large businesses. So, this tax regulation requirement will put many small churches out of business. I believe that it was mentioned today in the daily briefing at the White House and they are looking at it and I bet they end that stupid regulation.

 

[Cougarbear]

Walz v Tax Commission, Burger in the majority opinion "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970) #3 under "Held".


I'd go so far as to say that the government has no authority to tax Churches in any manner so long as the constitution demands that government cannot favor churches as well.

If this law is allowed to stand, watch out! Churches will get hugely involved in politics much more than before. If liberals don't like Religion in politics, then they better fight to keep this out of the tax code.

 

[Cougarbear]

Aye, let them pay property taxes like the rest of us.

Then we can enter heavily into politics as well too, right! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Careful what you wish for.

 

[Cougarbear]

I'm surprised that this is coming from republicans, given their hatred of taxes and love of churches.

It's one of those things that was probably put in after the vote. New regulations and all by some liberals deep state person at the IRS.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not about the rest of the world. In the U.S. we have a Constitution and the 1st amendment requires separation between Church and State according to liberals. Yet, you are saying that there is not separation?

Oh, I never claimed there is no separation...only
that separation is insufficient for 2 reasons...
1) Subsidizing services to churches
2) Restricting political speech of churches.
I say that both should end.

Many small businesses have been hurt by the same kind of liberal big government thinking concerning taxes. Small businesses were destroyed by new regulations requiring new forms and things. They had to spend money they didn't have and went out of business. Trump has been trying to eliminate the bureaucracy and extra burdens on large businesses. So, this tax regulation requirement will put many small churches out of business. I believe that it was mentioned today in the daily briefing at the White House and they are looking at it and I bet they end that stupid regulation.

The new taxation policy will have little effect.
It's only a tax on worker compensation in the form of benefits.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then we can enter heavily into politics as well too, right!

I advocate for the same.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's one of those things that was probably put in after the vote. New regulations and all by some liberals deep state person at the IRS.

Ah, yes, that pesky "deep state".

 

[fantome profane]

If this law is allowed to stand, watch out! Churches will get hugely involved in politics much more than before. If liberals don't like Religion in politics, then they better fight to keep this out of the tax code.

Yes you are right. The idea of churches being even more involved in politics than they already are is scary. But it is scary in the same way that democracy is scary, the way freedom of speech is scary.

It is downright terrifying. But it is fair. So I say make them pay their fair share of taxes, and let them say whatever they want. And just hang on tight ( and if you are so inclined - pray.)

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes you are right. The idea of churches being even more involved in politics than they already are is scary. But it is scary in the same way that democracy is scary, the way freedom of speech is scary.

It is downright terrifying. But it is fair. So I say make them pay their fair share of taxes, and let them say whatever they want. And just hang on tight ( and if you are so inclined - pray.)

Well, the founding fathers felt differently. Not only did they want Government to stay out of controlling doctrine and the messages of religion, they also don’t want churches controlling government. To be clear, I’m not talking about the individual persons in churches. I’m talking about a church or group being the government. That is similar to fascism. That’s why there needs to be separation of money.
Now, there are churches that do invest money in buying up land and stocks of corporations. That money is different than the tithing and offerings to the poor. Investment money should be taxed.

 

[Cougarbear]

Oh, I never claimed there is no separation...only
that separation is insufficient for 2 reasons...
1) Subsidizing services to churches
2) Restricting political speech of churches.
I say that both should end.

The new taxation policy will have little effect.
It's only a tax on worker compensation in the form of benefits.

Benefits can be a huge amount. Health insurance and 401k money to say. Also, when more regulations are introduced then businesses have to hire people to donthe extra work and that costs money they were not expecting. Many businesses went out of business because of Obama’s huge expansion of regulations. Churches will close as well hitting the economy. The cost analysis will show more revenue will be lost with this regulation than brought in.

 

[Revoltingest]

Benefits can be a huge amount. Health insurance and 401k money to say. Also, when more regulations are introduced then businesses have to hire people to donthe extra work and that costs money they were not expecting. Many businesses went out of business because of Obama’s huge expansion of regulations. Churches will close as well hitting the economy. The cost analysis will show more revenue will be lost with this regulation than brought in.

If churches find dealing with tax paperwork unbearable,
they may simply cut out the benefits. I'm sure that the
recipient members aren't in it for tax free bennies.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, the founding fathers felt differently. Not only did they want Government to stay out of controlling doctrine and the messages of religion, they also don’t want churches controlling government. To be clear, I’m not talking about the individual persons in churches. I’m talking about a church or group being the government. That is similar to fascism. That’s why there needs to be separation of money.
Now, there are churches that do invest money in buying up land and stocks of corporations. That money is different than the tithing and offerings to the poor. Investment money should be taxed.

The founding fathers never decreed that churches should be exempt from taxes. Nor did they place restrictions on first amendment rights for religious institutions.

Yes, they intended a separation of church and state, but apparently I have a different understanding of what that might look like.

When a religious organization needs to apply to the government to get special status, and when the government can control the actions of that organization by threatening to remove that special status, the church and state are not as separate as they should be.

In my vision of this separation the state would not recognize the church in any way. The members of a church are just people, the building is just a building,

 

[Cougarbear]

If churches find dealing with tax paperwork unbearable,
they may simply cut out the benefits. I'm sure that the
recipient members aren't in it for tax free bennies.

Besides missing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution understanding, only large churches will be able to shoulder the extra costs squeezing small rural and other churches from existing. Which is fine for atheists. But, bad for America.

 

[Revoltingest]

Besides missing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution understanding, only large churches will be able to shoulder the extra costs squeezing small rural and other churches from existing. Which is fine for atheists. But, bad for America.

I completely disagree. For their employees, churches could simply take the approach
that smaller businesses like mine do in hiring workers, ie, outsource the the entire labor
compensation & administration management to a vendor. I once eliminated my full time
accountant by having an agency hire my workers & pay them. They handled all tax
payments, insurance payments, employee benefits, etc etc. My workers saw no difference
other than getting their checks from the bank of a different company. I paid the agency
as a contractor for the labor, saved a lot of money by doing this, not just in reduced
overhead, but also in lower unemployment insurance & workers compensation insurance
rates.

Would you argue that churches shouldn't have their employees covered with unemployment
or workers compensation insurance, would you? And of course, churches should pay
Social Security & other payroll taxes too, right?

But as I understand the change, it affects granting taxable (to business)
benefits to members. This is a very simple tax situation.
Churches will learn.
Coping with paying taxes isn't so devastating...the rest of us manage.

 

[Cougarbear]

I completely disagree. For their employees, churches could simply take the approach
that smaller businesses like mine do in hiring workers, ie, outsource the the entire labor
compensation & administration management to a vendor. I once eliminated my full time
accountant by having an agency hire my workers & pay them. They handled all tax
payments, insurance payments, employee benefits, etc etc. My workers saw no difference
other than getting their checks from the bank of a different company. I paid the agency
as a contractor for the labor, saved a lot of money by doing this, not just in reduced
overhead, but also in lower unemployment insurance & workers compensation insurance
rates.

Would you argue that churches shouldn't have their employees covered with unemployment
or workers compensation insurance, would you? And of course, churches should pay
Social Security & other payroll taxes too, right?

But as I understand the change, it affects granting taxable (to business)
benefits to members. This is a very simple tax situation.
Churches will learn.
Coping with paying taxes isn't so devastating...the rest of us manage.

You aren’t understanding a thing. Legally, this can’t be done. Unconstitutional period! Aside from that, most churches don’t have the money to do what you did. They don’t have the ability.

 

[Revoltingest]

You aren’t understanding a thing.

Oh, it's all my problem, eh?
Try answering my questions.
We'll see where this leads.