Id say yes they should pay taxes. I never read anywhere in the bible where there was any kind of "organization". Following an organization is following men and their ideas. I dont buy it and I think they shouldnt be exempt unless they were ALL on the same page as far as beliefs go.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should religious organizations pay taxes?
- Thread starter Imagist
- Start date
darkmage121
Member
Religious institutions should not pay taxes, that don't have an income like a business.
I don't follow you. Why so?
As for the OP, I don't see why not. The way I see it, separation of Church and State in fact demands so - it is very dangerous indeed to allow for the State to even decide what is a true Chuch and what is not.
I can see the worry about taxation making some congregations (and the accompanying social benefits) inviable. But that IMO is an argument for special considerations for smaller organizations and social benefits, not for recognizing churches.
Last edited:
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
The Holy City does turn over a heck of a lot of money though http://www.indexmundi.com/holy_see_(vatican_city)/budget.html
I'd be curious as to how much of the reaches people who need support.
cardero
Citizen Mod
It might have been a bit of an exaggeration. But it just seems like trouble to me. I wouldn't mind some of the positive things that would come of it. But I feel more negative would come of taxing churches (of all religions), than good in the long run.
I must insist. How so? Why so?
EverChanging
Well-Known Member
How is that not evidence of a church that makes profit?
That a Mormon church? Looks like one. That is one thing I always liked about them. Great Church designs. Simply beautiful. Churches like this don't bother me. Its churches with multiple 15ft x 25ft t.v. screens. I have seen bigger than that. /sigh
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
I think 90% of the money used on architects and engineers and in construction should have been donated to the needy, because thats a rather extravegant church is it not?
It is extravagant. I like the look of those churches. But if given the opportunity and money to build one, I would build a much simpler cheaper church, and spent the rest on Bible study workshops, and programs for the poor, homeless, etc.
cardero
Citizen Mod
I see that your priorities are in order.
Well it goes along with the phrase "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his days". I could just donate all the money to the poor but it would be used up in absolutely no time and not do that much good really. If you built a church and allowed for room of a homeless shelter, learning center, and a free health clinic you can help people on a long term basis, and hopefully get them back on their feet. Just throwing money at the poor does not work. Teach them job skills, life skills, AA meetings for drug and alcohol addicts, and give them the opportunity to study the Bible if they choose, and let them become contributing members of the community. Or I could just throw a $100 bill at them and them spend it in 5 mins on crack/booze/whatever.
cardero
Citizen Mod
This is true but I fail to see where churches and bibles are incorporated into this example.
Or people could build a house of worship to a deity who may not require it or to an organization that thinks that they do. I’m not saying that the poor will go away but neither are the monthly utility bills and the responsibility needed to support a house of worship.
If you will, please point out the location of the homeless shelters, learning centers and free health clinics in these buildings.
Last edited:
whereismynotecard
Treasure Hunter
No one should have to pay taxes. But if I have to, I think everyone should.
Because the topic is religious organizations and taxes. Not non-profit non-religious organizations and taxes. That is why we are talking about churches.
Any building for the homeless will have bills, so it will not matter if it is a church or not. Just because it is a church will not make the bills any more or less expensive. If I am in charge of doing it, it would be a church. Nothing stopping you from making a non-religious outreach program. But don't knock anyone who would want to do it through a church.
Don't point your finger at me for those other churches, because I had nothing to do with them. And I sure don't appreciate the attitude.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
I think Enoch does have a point. Do we really want them to pay taxes and then claim a stake of government funding if they ever need money? At first I thought, "well why not" but when you bring true economics into it, and you see that tax payers all get a say in where their taxes go, I feel less confident that I'd want the Church of any denomination to have a say in the matter.
Buttons*
Glass half Panda'd
Linwood, while I usually agree with you on matters of this sort, I'm afraid I have to disagree. Most of the Mormon temples are built with private donations. Aside from that Mormons are NOTORIOUSLY noted for helping out the public when they can. They send food and money where it is needed and they put a lot of effort into helping those who aren't even Mormon. So, while they do have flash buildings, they don't just sit back and let the rest of the world suffer, they do a lot to help in the community.
cardero
Citizen Mod
GOD cannot declare bankruptcy and governments don't fund faith but they do tax businesses and properties and they do give slight returns for people who are charitable.
Last edited:
They do already.
The US has its "faith-based initiatives". Here, religiously-affiliated charities can get government grants to provide community services.
Personally, as long as they meet normal government requirements (e.g. providing services on an equitable basis to the whole community, non-discrimination in hiring, and a prohibition on using charity as a promotional or evangelizational tool), I think that religious charities should be eligible just like secular charities for government grants and other funding.
I think it needs to be managed properly, but I think church-affiliated charities can have a role. Most fundamentally, they (like secular charities) have people and organizations in place that are capable of providing beneificial services to communities. Taking advantage of this fact (or at least not excluding them all as a group) allows us to reach more people and to do it more cost-effectively... when programs are managed and overseen properly.
Also, whatever else you want to say about them, churches do form the focus of many different communities within a city. Just as, say, Chinese Family Services (to use the example of one charity near me) is uniquely equipped to serve one specific segment of the population and much likely more effectively than some jack-of-all-trades organization, Catholic Community Services or the Jewish Family and Child Service also have their own niches where working through them would result in more effective delivery of services to the segments of society they focus on than could be acheived without them.
Now... I certainly don't think that any of these groups should turn anybody away who comes to them in need. If a Muslim or an atheist were to go to the Jewish Family and Child Service seeking government-funded services, I think he or she should be served just like any of their other clients. However, I also recognize that these sorts of organizations are often the best way to provide services within specific communities, and can be an effective part of an overall strategy to provide those services to the entire population.