Should the press be taxed?

[Revoltingest]

Maybe, although I think tax collectors might be afraid to go into churches, just like we see in this footage of a future tax collector being scared of a church:

I hadn't seen that documentary.
But the right tax collector should have no fear of churches.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe taxation infringes on their freedom any more than it would on any other for-profit business or individual who is taxed.

I would never argue that for-profit press be denied freedom of the press, although I have seen some limitations on commercial speech (such as outlawing cigarette advertising on TV and radio).

So do you believe that getting rid of the tax exemption for churches would infringe on freedome of religion?

Please keep in mind that non-profit status is a separate issue. The argument "for reasons of social benefit, we ought not to tax non-profits, and churches are a category of non-profit" really has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

 

[Stevicus]

So do you believe that getting rid of the tax exemption for churches would infringe on freedome of religion?

I don't believe it would infringe on freedom of religion. It might be a game-changer, though, as religion might claim a right to use public property for religious purposes, since they would be taxpayers and have the same rights as any other taxpayer. The wealthier churches which would pay more in taxes would probably feel entitled to greater consideration than the impoverished churches which would pay very little in tax.

Please keep in mind that non-profit status is a separate issue. The argument "for reasons of social benefit, we ought not to tax non-profits, and churches are a category of non-profit" really has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Yes, I agree, although I also agree that there is a social benefit in keeping non-profits exempt from taxes. The fact that donating to them is tax deductible is a great incentive for people to contribute to private charities. Without that, then I would expect many charities to go belly-up, which would then require more taxes be used for social services to fill the void.

So, yeah, I guess we can tax them, but then it would just mean that the government would have to pay more for the services that would go away if private charities were diminished.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Tax the press because they are a business. Churches operate on donations, no tax. If a church runs a business such as a school, derives income from investments etc. tax it.

Rubbish! Churches are just as much "fee for service" as anything else. People put money in the collection plate because their employee -- the pastor -- told them what they were expecting to be told.

And if he didn't, they'd fire him and get a new pastor.

 

[Kemosloby]

Rubbish! Churches are just as much "fee for service" as anything else. People put money in the collection plate because their employee -- the pastor -- told them what they were expecting to be told.

And if he didn't, they'd fire him and get a new pastor.

Then they would send a new government trained pastor fresh out of seminary, a new one just like the old pastor they fired.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Then they would send a new government trained pastor fresh out of seminary, a new one just like the old pastor they fired.

What?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't believe it would infringe on freedom of religion. It might be a game-changer, though, as religion might claim a right to use public property for religious purposes, since they would be taxpayers and have the same rights as any other taxpayer.

I'm not sure what you mean, or what you think would happen. It's not like corporations are running around taking public property for themselves... and to the extent that this does happen, churches already play that game anyhow.

The wealthier churches which would pay more in taxes would probably feel entitled to greater consideration than the impoverished churches which would pay very little in tax.

Again, I'm not sure how this is different from what happens now. I've witnessed firsthand churches trying to throw their weight around based on their size ("our congregation is X,000 people and X% of them live in your ward, Mr. Councillor"... with the implication that if the councillor doesn't go along with what the church wants, they'll see to it that he doesn't get re-elected).

Yes, I agree, although I also agree that there is a social benefit in keeping non-profits exempt from taxes. The fact that donating to them is tax deductible is a great incentive for people to contribute to private charities. Without that, then I would expect many charities to go belly-up, which would then require more taxes be used for social services to fill the void.

So, yeah, I guess we can tax them, but then it would just mean that the government would have to pay more for the services that would go away if private charities were diminished.

But what services? I don't know the exact wording in US law, but in Canada, "advancement of religion" is a charitable purpose in and of itself. IOW, a church can function as nothing more than a god-based social club, providing benefit only to its members, and get much better tax status than a similar social club based around, say, cultural background.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we don't have a clear picture of how much actually charitable activities churches do.

In any case, my preferred approach wouldn't be to start taxing churches across the board; it would be to simply remove "advancement of religion" from the list of charitable purposes and treat each church accordingly. A religious charity dedicated to poverty reduction wouldn't lose its status, but a church that provides benefit mainly to its members but makes no profit might see its status downgraded.

(note: in Canada, charitable status and not-for-profit status are different. To qualify as a charity, an organization needs to be primarily devoted to charitable acts or "advancement of religion." If an organization doesn't qualify as a charity but still doesn't make profit or have share capital, it can qualify as a not-for-profit. For instance, my car club is a not-for-profit but not a charity. Neither category pays corporate income tax, but only donations to a charity are tax-deductible.)

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not sure what you mean, or what you think would happen. It's not like corporations are running around taking public property for themselves... and to the extent that this does happen, churches already play that game anyhow.

Well, I was thinking how the view in America is a "wall of separation between church and state," but there is no "wall of separation" between press and state. If we view the church the same way as we view the press, then their freedom of religion may be the same as freedom of the press, but the "wall of separation" may disappear. Whatever is allowed for the press would have to be allowed for the church.

Again, I'm not sure how this is different from what happens now. I've witnessed firsthand churches trying to throw their weight around based on their size ("our congregation is X,000 people and X% of them live in your ward, Mr. Councillor"... with the implication that if the councillor doesn't go along with what the church wants, they'll see to it that he doesn't get re-elected).

Maybe so, although the arguments used to bar religion from public property revolve around the idea that the government can't have a favored religion. All religions have to be viewed as equal and the same. You can't allow a Christian prayer in a public school, since it would alienate non-Christian students and be considered unfair.

However, the government can do this with the press. The White House, for example, may bar reporters from some media outlets at will. They're not required to treat all of them equally or give them all equal status. If a reporter from Fox News wants to interview President Trump, he/she should be treated exactly the same as a reporter from the Podunk Shopping News. That is, if we're going to apply this principle equally and fairly.

But what services? I don't know the exact wording in US law, but in Canada, "advancement of religion" is a charitable purpose in and of itself. IOW, a church can function as nothing more than a god-based social club, providing benefit only to its members, and get much better tax status than a similar social club based around, say, cultural background.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we don't have a clear picture of how much actually charitable activities churches do.

In any case, my preferred approach wouldn't be to start taxing churches across the board; it would be to simply remove "advancement of religion" from the list of charitable purposes and treat each church accordingly. A religious charity dedicated to poverty reduction wouldn't lose its status, but a church that provides benefit mainly to its members but makes no profit might see its status downgraded.

(note: in Canada, charitable status and not-for-profit status are different. To qualify as a charity, an organization needs to be primarily devoted to charitable acts or "advancement of religion." If an organization doesn't qualify as a charity but still doesn't make profit or have share capital, it can qualify as a not-for-profit. For instance, my car club is a not-for-profit but not a charity. Neither category pays corporate income tax, but only donations to a charity are tax-deductible.)

I'm not sure, but I don't know that the concept of "advancement of religion" exists in the US. I know that if you donate to a non-profit, whether it's religious or not, one can take a tax deduction. I know that the Catholic Church has a lot of social service organizations, such as Catholic Community Services. (Community and Social Services | Catholic Community Services Of Southern Arizona) There's also Jewish Family and Children's Services (JFCS of Southern Arizona - Counseling and Community Services), which is open to people of all faiths, beliefs, and economic backgrounds. If they were unable to provide services or disappeared (along with the secular non-profits), then that would leave quite a void in the social services system.