Should religious organizations pay taxes?

[Green Gaia]

I would like to note that the church I attended while growing up was not like this at all. The church ran a daycare during the week which paid most of the church's expenses.

Good for them. The church I attended before I moved had a preschool, but most of what the school made went to the expenses of the school.

 

[Green Gaia]

No. When I go to the grocery store and buy food, the grocery store has to pay taxes on the money I give them. In no way is that a double tax on me.

Unless you are the owner of the grocery store. Just as the congregants are the church. They are donating their already taxed money from income and you want to tax them again (as a church) for using public services.

 

[linwood]

Uh.... I'm pretty sure that most folks who attend churches also pay taxes on their incomes, etc., thus paying for those public services. Are you suggesting that religious people should be doubly taxed?

The people who stay at my hotel also pay taxes on their incomes and property too.
Why does my Hotel have to be doubly taxed as it is?

Of course Churches should pay taxes.

The only people who would say they should not are people deeply involved with those churches.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would like to note that the church I attended while growing up was not like this at all. The church ran a daycare during the week which paid most of the church's expenses.

Actually, that's the sort of activity that I'd want taxed, myself. A for-profit daycare shouldn't be exempt from tax just because a church runs it.

Of course, if the church spun off its charitable activities into some foundation or the like, then I'd also have no problem with the daycare reducing its tax burden (perhaps even to zero) by making tax-deductible donations to the charity... but businesses should be treated like businesses.

 

[linwood]

Unless you are the owner of the grocery store. Just as the congregants are the church. They are donating their already taxed money from income and you want to tax them again (as a church) for using public services.

But Gaia this argument doesn`t work as many organizations that do pay taxes are staffed and frequented by those who pay taxes too.

It is not a "double tax".

 

[Storm]

Of course Churches should pay taxes.

Why? Why should one form of non-profit organization be singled out for taxation?

The only people who would say they should not are people deeply involved with those churches.

Like Penguin? :sarcastic

 

[gnomon]

From what I understand churches do pay certain taxes.

The question, "Should churches pay taxes" doesn't really make any sense unless the discussion ranges around the specific tax exemptions churches receive.

The tax exemption the IRS applies to churches is the same exemption applied to charitable organizations.

Also, the statement that religion provides to the community is false. More accurate is that some religions do provide services open to the community be it all members or some members of the community.

You also have to define "church"? A church, i.e. religious organization is often more than a building or real property. It could include ten whack nuts meeting in the basement of some home. Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious organization, as defined by a number of appellate courts, that indirectly pays taxes as individual clubs through the rent they pay for non-religious grounds to meet.

Should exclusive religious organizations receive any tax exemption at all? Not in my opinion.

 

[Green Gaia]

But Gaia this argument doesn`t work as many organizations that do pay taxes are staffed and frequented by those who pay taxes too.

It is not a "double tax".

Actually that was in response to Imagist saying religions should be allowed to use things like roads and public services if it does not pay taxes. I was trying to make a comparison that the church is tax-paying people that have already paid for those services and should be taxed twice. I shouldn't have brought the grocery store owner in on it, sorry. Bad comparision.

 

[linwood]

Why? Why should one form of non-profit organization be singled out for taxation?

I`m not singling out non-profits.
I`m singling out churches.
If you`re going to make the argument that most churches are non-profit I`m going to ask for some evidence.
I`ve seen the Vatican and Salt Lake city.

Don`t tell me these churches are non-profit.

Have you seen Ted Haggard`s house?

I have no problem with churches making tax deductable filing for whatever good work they do and if that documented good work comes to the total of the churches income then don`t tax them.
Hell if that total exceeds the churches income pay them the difference.

However, a flat "no tax" law for anything decided to be a church is obviously unfair.

 

[Green Gaia]

The people who stay at my hotel also pay taxes on their incomes and property too.
Why does my Hotel have to be doubly taxed as it is?

Of course Churches should pay taxes.

The only people who would say they should not are people deeply involved with those churches.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree with what a lot of churches do, but I'm pretty sure that without that tax-exempt status my church would not exist. I think that would be a great loss to our community as we are one of the few liberal faith bastions in the area and offer a place to people who are turned away elsewhere.

 

[Imagist]

Unless you are the owner of the grocery store. Just as the congregants are the church. They are donating their already taxed money from income and you want to tax them again (as a church) for using public services.

The congregants do not own the church.

Furthermore, a grocery store owner pays taxes twice: once as a grocery store, and once as a person making income from that store.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You also have to define "church"? A church, i.e. religious organization is often more than a building or real property. It could include ten whack nuts meeting in the basement of some home. Alcoholics Anonymous is a religious organization, as defined by a number of appellate courts, that indirectly pays taxes as individual clubs through the rent they pay for non-religious grounds to meet.

In terms of taxes, I don't think the question of whether ten people meeting in someone's basement is a church is all that relevant. Until an organization has assets or income that can be taxed, what its tax status would be if it did have assets or income is pretty well a moot point.

 

[Storm]

I`m not singling out non-profits.
I`m singling out churches.
If you`re going to make the argument that most churches are non-profit I`m going to ask for some evidence.

That would be shifting the burden, since you're the one making the claim that they aren't.

I`ve seen the Vatican and Salt Lake city.

Don`t tell me these churches are non-profit.

Have you seen Ted Haggard`s house?

Nobody's saying there aren't exceptions. Personally I find the ones you listed disgusting, too. But they're the exceptions, not the rule.

 

[Storm]

The congregants do not own the church.

No? Who does, then?

 

[Imagist]

Actually, that's the sort of activity that I'd want taxed, myself. A for-profit daycare shouldn't be exempt from tax just because a church runs it.

Of course, if the church spun off its charitable activities into some foundation or the like, then I'd also have no problem with the daycare reducing its tax burden (perhaps even to zero) by making tax-deductible donations to the charity... but businesses should be treated like businesses.

They did pay taxes, although some of their profit was given as tax-deductible donations.

 

[Green Gaia]

I`m not singling out non-profits.
I`m singling out churches.
If you`re going to make the argument that most churches are non-profit I`m going to ask for some evidence.
I`ve seen the Vatican and Salt Lake city.

Don`t tell me these churches are non-profit.

Have you seen Ted Haggard`s house?

I have no problem with churches making tax deductable filing for whatever good work they do and if that documented good work comes to the total of the churches income then don`t tax them.
Hell if that total exceeds the churches income pay them the difference.

However, a flat "no tax" law for anything decided to be a church is obviously unfair.

But those who are obviously benefiting financially can afford to pay the taxes, just means one or two less churches will be built that year. It won't matter to them. They will just tell their adherents to give more, and they will. But what of the small churches that are struggling just to pay the utilities? This issue has come up lately in UU discussion with the lagging economy and people giving less to their churches. Many have had to cut services and positions, add a tax on top of that and they go under.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No? Who does, then?

I know that's a nuanced question for a non-profit organization without share capital, and it's likely just as nuanced for a church.

If anyone can be truly said to own it I think it would be the congregation, but it's not like they'd have the legal right to hold a vote, sell the church and divide the money amongst themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They did pay taxes, although some of their profit was given as tax-deductible donations.

Wait - so if people donated to the daycare, it was tax deductible?

 

[gnomon]

In terms of taxes, I don't think the question of whether ten people meeting in someone's basement is a church is all that relevant. Until an organization has assets or income that can be taxed, what its tax status would be if it did have assets or income is pretty well a moot point.

It is relevant.

Alcoholics Anonymous is a very large organization that has "clubhouses" in members homes, donated rooms from charitable organizations or churches or property that must be rented.

If AA, a clearly spiritual/religious organization that offers a service to the community as a whole, rents property should the clubhouse receive tax relief. On book publications.

Any group which has an expense or makes use of property can make some claim.

The point is that a group or organization does not have to own property with a central meeting place to define themselves as a church or religious organizations. The IRS isn't handing out tax relief to churches but organizations.

 

[linwood]

But Gaia your statement here is evidence of my accusation.
I said only those deeply involved in these churches would say they shouldn`t be taxed.
(Implying a personal bais)
Then you say...

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree with what a lot of churches do, but I'm pretty sure that without that tax-exempt status my church would not exist.

That`s a personal bias.

I think that would be a great loss to our community as we are one of the few liberal faith bastions in the area and offer a place to people who are turned away elsewhere.

I understand your dilemma but if a church cannot support itself I don`t see why taxpayers should have to.

It really irks me that in some way through the tax system I am supporting the likes of organizations that spread AIDs in Africa and promote things like Prop 8 in Cali.

To me the harm done far outweighs the good done by churches as a whole.

I do sympathize with you and have to tell you that if I needed a church yours would be the one I chose.
I just don`t see any more equitable way of arranging it.