Taxing religion.

[Sir Doom]

If you tax the church, then they are part of the Government, if they're part of the Government then they can pass laws, do you really want the churches passing laws? I don't think so.

Pretty sure you still have to be voted into some legislative body for that. That is... in the USA of course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you tax the church, then they are part of the Government, if they're part of the Government then they can pass laws, do you really want the churches passing laws? I don't think so.

I'm taxed. Are you telling me that I could've been passing laws this whole time? Because there are a few things that I think need changing.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you tax the church, then they are part of the Government, if they're part of the Government then they can pass laws, do you really want the churches passing laws? I don't think so.

This is some very novel logic!
I think they can pay taxes without starting in as legislators.
But even if they do, they've no enforcement mechanism.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Wow, I'm surprised this came from a libertarian. That's a very socialist thing to say

How is that? I'm pretty sure most Libertarians agree that churches should be exempt from tax

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! I agree. Churches should pay taxes, and they need to start looking at some of their business practices.

Several people that I KNOW here, have turned their homes over to churches, with the understanding that they get to live there until they die, so they no longer have to pay taxes. This is just wrong.

And while we are complaining about religion's practices -- Again - I live in a small town - and the churches here encourage their people to not use contraceptives, and to have many children for Christ. A lot of these baby machines can't afford them and are on welfare, food stamps, and other programs that WE pay for.

I would like to see a change in the welfare system in the USA - saying - the number of children you have when you first go on the welfare tab, is the only amount they will pay for no matter how long, and how many babies you stupidly pump out, after that point!

How bout if yer a member of a church no welfare from government?

Not sure what you are trying to say here?

I don't have a problem with welfare and food stamps.There are times when people really need them.

I have a problem with the worthless suckers on the system, and people who pump out kids they can't afford, and then expect US to cough up the money to pay for their irresponsibility.

*

 

[darkendless]

I think the company I work for does more charity than most churches these days. They're generally a business and should pay tax.

If they can afford tv commercials at 3am they can afford to pay tax.

 

[Revoltingest]

How is that? I'm pretty sure most Libertarians agree that churches should be exempt from tax

We'd like to see everyone pay as little tax as possible, but there should be no special groups exempted from taxation. Let the churches pay too. But I don't think income tax would apply to those who aren't involved in commercial ventures, ie, if no profit then no tax. But property taxes are quite appropriate. They want fire protection, use of roads, etc, then carry your weight, churchies.

 

[Awoon]

Not sure what you are trying to say here?

I don't have a problem with welfare and food stamps.There are times when people really need them.

I have a problem with the worthless suckers on the system, and people who pump out kids they can't afford, and then expect US to cough up the money to pay for their irresponsibility.

*

That was my point. If they are members of churches pumping out babies( they cant afford) to get welfare then stop the government welfare to them. Let their churches take care of them.

 

[sojourner]

The allowance is granted to employees of businesses too where living on site is integral to the job.
I've played that game, although its overall tax fairness could be questioned.

It skews a little different from what you describe, and the difference has to do with the way in which a cleric makes a living, as opposed to the way in which someone who is an employee of a business makes a living.

 

[sojourner]

But that hasn't happened in the last couple of elections. Churches were telling their people how to vote.

*

Then those churches should have their 501c3 status revoked.

 

[sojourner]

So the LDS Church lost its 501(c)3 status over the Prop 8 issue?

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of its involvement in Prop 8, so I can't say. I do know that churches can't overtly tell members how to vote. They can say, "Vote and vote your Christian conscience." They can't say, "Go out and vote against gay rights."

 

[Revoltingest]

It skews a little different from what you describe, and the difference has to do with the way in which a cleric makes a living, as opposed to the way in which someone who is an employee of a business makes a living.

We too provide spiritual counsel.
(And sweet treats on holidays!)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not familiar with the intricacies of its involvement in Prop 8, so I can't say. I do know that churches can't overtly tell members how to vote. They can say, "Vote and vote your Christian conscience." They can't say, "Go out and vote against gay rights."

I was under the impression that they could do that, actually. The details may vary from state to state, but I thought that in general, churches aren't allowed to endorse specific candidates or parties, but are allowed to tell them how to vote on ballot measures.

And even the prohibitions that are in place can be subverted with a nod and a wink... for instance, I don't believe that there would be anything illegal about a pastor telling his congregation "vote pro-life!" while handing out voter's guides detailing the candidates' platforms indicating that only one candidate is anti-abortion.

But in any case, whether it's legal or not, church interference in politics happens all the time. If that's the consequence you think will come out of getting rid of the "religious exceptionalism" built into the current law, then you're effectively arguing that things wouldn't be that different than they are now.

 

[Ingledsva]

Then those churches should have their 501c3 status revoked.

I agree 100%.

*

 

[PennyKay]

Your babbling. What does this have to do with taxing religion?

Nothing, I'm replying to something you said in response to my post.

 

[PennyKay]

But that's the point: they don't get a say. Any religious institution that makes public statements about policy, or tells its adherents how to vote has its 501c3 status yanked and are taxed on their income, like any other business.

I live in the UK and the question on whether gay marriage should be legalised is a hot topic at the moment.

One of the major hurdles it's having on getting passed as a law is many of the religious institutions saying that they would not allow gay marriages to happen in their place of worship, and that has in turn had a major effect of whether it is being passed as law or not. The government are having to think of ways around this issue to appease the public who want gay marriage to be legalised, and appease the religions who don’t.

So saying that religious institutions don't have a say on politics is an out right lie because it's in the bloody news every day.

 

[PennyKay]

It may be more "fair" to tax a large and powerful religious organization, like the Roman Catholic Church (not that I am condoning that), but what about less centralized, and less influential religions, such as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, or Neopagan religions? They have much less influence and money to expend, and many temples/mosques/synagogues/etc would fare badly (if it all) because they lack the centralization and money orginizations such as the RCC have. And to make exceptions in terms of taxes for certain religions/religious orgs is unfair and arbitrary to say the least.

Yes, but look at it this way.

There are two businesses, one deals in terms of thousands of pounds, one deals in terms of millions of pounds. Both get taxed by government. The company who deals in thousands of pounds gets slightly more exemptions to make it fair, but both have to submit a corporation tax return at the end of every year, and both pay tax relevant to their business.

I'm merely hypothesising what would happen if religions were treated the same?

Soup kitchens, shelters etc wouldn't cease to exist if the religious institution was taxed, as I've said before, it may even eradicate the need for them.

 

[PennyKay]

If you tax the church, then they are part of the Government, if they're part of the Government then they can pass laws, do you really want the churches passing laws? I don't think so.

No. No they are not. I pay tax but I'm not part of the government am I? My mothers company pays tax but isn't part of the government.

Taxing somebody or something doesn't mean they are actually part of the government and can pass laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I live in the UK and the question on whether gay marriage should be legalised is a hot topic at the moment.

One of the major hurdles it's having on getting passed as a law is many of the religious institutions saying that they would not allow gay marriages to happen in their place of worship, and that has in turn had a major effect of whether it is being passed as law or not. The government are having to think of ways around this issue to appease the public who want gay marriage to be legalised, and appease the religions who don’t.

So saying that religious institutions don't have a say on politics is an out right lie because it's in the bloody news every day.

Good point. sojourner's argument was very specific to the US.

sojourner, under the current British system (i.e. where the head of state is head of a church, and where a portion of the House of Lords - roughly equivalent to the Senate - is reserved for bishops), would there be any issue with treating religious institutions the same as secular ones for tax purposes?

 

[sojourner]

Good point. sojourner's argument was very specific to the US.

sojourner, under the current British system (i.e. where the head of state is head of a church, and where a portion of the House of Lords - roughly equivalent to the Senate - is reserved for bishops), would there be any issue with treating religious institutions the same as secular ones for tax purposes?

I don't know. Is the Anglican Church taxed in Britain? Are bodies that are not part of the State Church?