Let's start taxing religious institutions in this country

[MrScorpio]

All of them, regardless of dogma.

It would be a confession, that what goes for religion for the most part in America, has devolved into a myriad of unregulated commercial enterprises. Enterprises free to stick their noses into all of our business, free of charge.

No religion institution should be exempt. The government would still be prohibited from establishing religion, of course. By taxing all of them, it would show favor to none.

Of course, people are allowed to believe whatever they will, and personal beliefs aren't subject to scrutiny... So if you believe in the divine power of the Magical Radish, more power to ya. But, if two or more of you radish worshipers congregate and money is collected for the purpose in spreading the cause, then it's the only money that comes under consideration. After that, feel free to evangelize on the natural supremacy of the radish.

I think that when a lot of these holier-than-thou types finally realize that they don't have carte blanche anymore to make a living hell out of life for a lot of us, they may straighten up and get their noses out of our collective businesses.

Just sayin'.

[mrcheerful]

1. You forget one thing in their favor by taxing them

that would give religion a free ride into deciding what the government does. Remember taxation without representation is supposed to be illegal in the USA. Now do you really want to give religion a say so in government?

[tsuki]

2. They are already pushing into politics. Sounds like a

need for taxation for representation.

[MrScorpio]

3. Bingo!

I wouldn't change anything else from what they're already doing, other than making them pay.

[radfringe]

13. on the other hand

by pulling their "exempt" status and taxing them - it will force them to adhere to federal regulations such as HIRING PRACTICES

I remember reading a short blurb a week or so ago that IRS is looking into tax status violations for more than one church for ENDORSING a candidate.

according to the article - a church can voice opinions regarding an issue, but they can't tell the congregation how to vote - i.e VOTE YES/NO on question "x" or Vote for John Doe. It's similar to the restrictions placed on 527's groups.

[izzie]

19. But I think you can still push it out side the church building

Sort of a tight thing. You do not want them to say it by the preacher but you can say it over coffer in my kitchen. That does not get to me as I know it is done. How could you stop it? Some preachers have that power over week willed people to tell them how to vote but then so do some husbands.

[radfringe]

23. you mean yakking at the church door

after services? not sure - it's still on church property

at the coffee shop down the street is excluded - it would be the same if you were to say "don't vote for X" to family/friends at the coffee shop

yeah, some preachers do have that power - but technically they cannot SPECIFICALLY tell people how/who to vote for when they are standing at the pulpit

here's something else to think about - most neo-cons and their "zellie" (religious zealots) scream about strict interpretation of the constitution and wail about "activist judges". well the constitution is fairly clear about separation of church and state - if we strictly interpret the constitution about separation of church and state then any endorsement of a candidate/issue by an official of the church is a violation

so do the "zellies" and neo-cons want strict interpretation or not? yeah, I know they want strict interpretation when it agrees with their views and none when it presents a problem for them...

[izzie]

17. Don't they have that right now?

Any of us can get together and put up some one to vote for and tell every one to vote for him. It was why they made the vote closed from others eyes. Do not for get that it is really a purple shaded country and not just red and blue.

[kevinbgoode]

29. There is one thing that I'm increasingly upset about. . .

and that is allowing politicized "churches" to serve as voting locations. There is a psychological persuasion going on there if they have publicized their endorsements and people have to walk into the building to vote.

[rpannier]

4. As long as they do not violate any laws governing the non-profit status

rules I am oppposed to taxing them. You go after one non-profit group, then groups like Greenpeace and other liberal groups will become targets. Churches are not taxed, by law, because they are not-for-profit organizations.
Slippery slope.

[MrScorpio]

5. It's kind of hard to take a look at places like this...

And continue to posit that they're not in for the money.

[rpannier]

6. While I don't disagree with you

There are non-profit groups that rent out office space in very expensive buildings. I just think that we need to be careful when we try to take away tax-exempt status from any non-profit (when they are not violating the law), because I think, it will open a whole set of problems for all non-profit groups.

[timtom]

21. I've got an idea!

Let's figure out a way to delineate those organizations that violate their tzx-free status and start taxing THEM. That way, we address the problem with a narrower, more appropriate paintbrush.

And I'm willing to bet that there are students of the laws of the land who could do just that.

[Pharlo]

25. Damn! If you hadn't pointed out that was a church,

I'd have assumed it was a bank or an insurance company - they're usually the only entities that can afford buildings made of glass - at least, in my general neck of the woods.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. Amen

A fucking men.

They need to stop flaunting their wealth.

[TahitiNut]

26. I look up and down my street and all I see is "not for profit" property.

I've always failed to comprehend the ethics of such a posture. We're talking (mostly) property taxes which pay for police, fire, streets, and other local services. Shall we let the "not for profit" buildings burn to the ground? Shall we tell our police to ignore calls from "not for profit" property?

In my opinion, where there are "tiers" of taxation, human beings merely trying to live should receive the benefits of the lowest tier of taxation, not "artificial persons" and not organizations.

[hfojvt]

45. I believe most non-profit businesses, except churches,

pay things like property taxes, but not sales taxes, or taxes on their income. Some churches and religious schools are paying taxes indirectly because they rent space for their activities.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Pushing opinions on political issues violates non-profit status.

Many of them push an anti-choice agenda.

[tritsofme]

7. Then lets impose taxes on all non-profits.

No reason to punish the majority of institutions that want nothing more than making the world a better place.

[xchrom]

8. i'm a church goer and i agree.

now i go to a church full of liberals -- but you won't hear NOT ONE DAMN PEEP from the pulpit about politics -- they won't print one tract about voting -- say not one word about the war -- etc.

but fundies have fucked it up for everyone -- so like a teacher backed up against the wall with an unruly class -- tax them all.

no regrets.

[rfkrfk]

9. this is a state issue

I don't care what the other 49 do,
I am not exactly sure what my position is for my state.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

31. Assessing FEDERAL taxes is NOT a state issue.

[rfkrfk]

35. states should get the revenue... f the feds n.t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. they probably would both assess taxes.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. tax the political ones.

There are houses of worship that should get taxed. If they are politicizing from the pulpit (or other stage), then tax the Hell out of them...including back-taxes!

[MrScorpio]

11. After living in Europe for 4 years, sometimes I defer to their techniques

Of course, it's easy to see why...

In Europe, ‘church taxes’ not unusual

By JOHN L. ALLEN JR.

As the European Network’s study of church finances unfolds, it will face a striking diversity in European church/state relations -- ranging from France’s strict Enlightenment-era separation of church and state to Germany’s generous “church tax.”

All 20 Catholic dioceses in Germany benefit from the Kirchensteuer, or “church tax,” which amounts to 8 or 9 percent of taxable income. Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish wage-earners also pay a church tax for their churches and synagogues.

In 1995, the latest figures available, the tax netted $4.7 billion for the German Catholic church. A similar church tax is also assessed in Austria and parts of Switzerland, though usually at lower rates.

Germany’s constitution assigns the power to assess the church tax to the churches themselves. State governments actually collect the tax only because the churches contract with them to do so. Each of the 16 state governments gets a share of the total collected, usually 3 or 4 percent, as payment for administering the tax.

Germany’s 28 million Catholics (out of a total population of 82 million) can avoid paying the tax only by formally leaving the church, a move that technically means they can no longer receive the sacraments.

More:

http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/012999/012999f.htm

[DanCa]

12. Good start and as a church goer I agree. However it doesn't go far enough.

We got to take our lesson from the right and start counter protesting the right wing loonies. If they have one protestor in front of a clinic we should have two. Imagine the look on Dobson's or Fawell's face if DU in its 70000 plus membership picketed outside thier door step for a change. Isn't thier a national right to life office on or near capitol hill?

Simply put the right wingers are bullies and the advice mom and pop gave us about ignoring bullies did not work. Nows the time for everyone to come together and protest these people. It's time we put aside our religious and non religious differences and make a united assualt on the right wing. United we stand dived we fall after all.

[Poppyseedman]

14. Terrible idea

Taxing churches would drive out many small congregations in small communities that serve a important function.

How does a church, no matter how big or small, that doesn't force you to do anything "make your life a living hell"

Just asking

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. They push a political agenda.

Need I say more?

[lynne]

15. What would churches cut out of their budgets to find the funds for taxes?

Probably the first thing to feel the crunch at the church level would be outreach programs - meaning church financial support of local food banks, homeless shelters, Habitat for Humanity projects, emergency support work ie: helping storm victims, international support work, etc.

If churches cut support and funding for those types of outreach programs, who picks up the slack? We do via increased Federal assistance to those organizations that the church can no longer afford to support. While federal programs may assist monetarily, the government cannot contribute the number of hands-on man hours that church members contribute to such projects.

And the poor and homeless and underprivileged get screwed one more time.

[tocqueville]

18. it's the state PRIMARY function to help the poor, not the churches

by redistributing wealth. If the Churches want to help, they are welcome. The religious "take care of the poor" has always a vested political agenda. It's that way the Hamas was created. letting churches being responsible of for welfare programs is the ultimate failure of democracy.

[timtom]

20. And, I must confess...

The state has been doing some dam' fine work in that direction.

In light of Iraq, Katrina, and Wilma, I'm pausing for reconsideration of that.

And the primary reason that I am responding to this post is because there are many religious-based groups who DO, in fact, fill in the abyss with substantive assistance.

Permit me to cite one example:

The Lord's Place in West Palm Beach, FL: a true service to the community. Just Google "The Lord's Place".

One may wonder, "What's the difference between a religious-based group and a state-sponsored group?"
I am not qualified to address that, but,judging from the bureaucracy's track record, I'd go with a private group every time.

[Telly Savalas]

36. If the private groups are doing such a thorough job...

then how can you cite Iraq, Katrina, and Wilma as places where there was an inadequate response? If the private sector is truly effective in providing comprehensive disaster relief and social assistance, then they would have handled these situations and there'd be no problem to report.

And I don't mean to disparage the fine work that many non-profits and churches do. I'm just saying that in aggregate such groups can't provide complete coverage, nor should they be expected to.

"Bureaucracy doesn't work" is a self-fufilling prophecy. If the public doesn't have faith in the ability of government to provide basic social assistance, then they elect right-wing ideologues who share this belief, and these elected officials cripple the ability of government programs to work effectively.

Large bureaucracies are responsible for providing my household with phone, cable, internet, and waste collection services, and they do a damn good job of it. The difference between these bureaucracies and FEMA is that there is an element of accountablity in them not found in the latter organization. Such accountability will only occur in the public sector if the electorate demands it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. A simple solution - separate the accounting of the charitable activities

and tax the non-charitable activities - like places of worship, proselytising, and so on.

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Well they could start by not building multi million dollar mega churches

that are paid for when they are built. No mortgage! Every time I see one of these mega facilities, I see hungry kids not being fed and homeless people sleeping on the street.

I doubt Jesus cares what kind of a building we worship in. But I would suspect he does care about churches neglecting the poor.

The poor and homeless and underprivileged are ALREADY getting screwed. These churches need to examine their priorities.

[ixion]

16. I disagree. I think the converse should happen: religion OUT

of government.

Separation of Chruch and State has been a very effective, IMO.

[WePurrsevere]

22. I agree... ENFORCE separation of church and state, That includes the...

minister pushing his/her POLITICAL beliefs over a cuppa at someone's home. From all I've seen and experienced there is no real "time off" for most clergy. They represent their "church" / spiritual group and are "on call" pretty much 24/7/385.

[bridgit]

24. agreed...

non-denominational deism is ultimately far more inclusive imo, in either event extricate religion from a civil republic for which it stands

:patriot:

[Pharlo]

27. And the counter campaign will be

Anti-religion/Baby killer

Anti-Christian/Baby killer

Anti-American/Baby killer

Anti-Semitic

Anti-Muslim




And the Republicans win the election on another non-issue while condoning torture, eroding our civil rights, advocating unjust military actions, and elevating the economic plight of America's poor.

Personally, like you, I believe churches who advocate partisan political activities should be taxed. And if they have actual charities that do good works associated with the church, the charity could apply for tax-exempt status.

I truly do like the idea, but it is not politically feasible in the current culture. Until we devise a method of counteracting the 'Anti-religion' propaganda that will accompany the suggestion, it's a losing proposition.

[DanCa]

34. So that's what they say about us now.

When I lobby for pd research and stem cell research i have been called everything from an embryo farmer and toddler killer.

[jonnyblitz]

33. HELL YEAH!!

right on Mr. Scorpio!! :thumbsup:

[killbotfactory]

37. They can already lose their status by being anti-war

Might as well tax them all.

[GirlinContempt]

39. You do realize

that all taxing Churches would accomplish would be straining good churches doing good work, and giving the few churches that you think are doing wrong or are stepping outside their bounds carte blanche to "make a living hell out of life for a lot of us"

The ones you think are bad would get worse, and the good ones would have trouble.

[triguy46]

42. How about enforcing tax law, and eliminating corporate welfare?

Not all churches are political, and their stroke, though visible, may be a shadow when compared to the ownership level of corporate america of our government and elected officials. Our church had a loss last year. Taxes paid would = 0.

Its the conglomerates who own the government, who exert real pressure. What's his butt from San Diego didn't get bribes of $1Million from churches, but from coporations feeding at the government tit. They are who we should focus our tax reform and enforcment efforts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Those of us living in mega church hell support this idea 1000%

There is a church here that has a movie theater, an athletic facility and a restaurant!
http://www.firstbaptistraytown.com/fellowship/roc/default2.htm

This one was in a basement 5 years ago.


Check out this site. It is a financial company that handles churches. Look at the dollar amounts! http://www.churchbonds.com/churchesbyaffiliation/aog/aog.html

[Odin2005]

47. Jesus Christ. They call THAT a church?

:puke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. And it is in the 'inner city'

The congregation is mainly working poor. Yet they raised enough money to build this monstrocity in less than 5 years. Every time I drive by it, I want to vomit.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Would you tax all non-profits?

Because that's what MOST churches are. Believe me, I grew up as a preacher's kid, and as an adult, I served on the vestry of an Episcopal church in Portland. They watch every penny.

I'd happily tax the ones that are businesses or political fronts, but not the ones that are struggling to get by and are serving the poor and needy out of their meagre resources.

If taxing churches forced them to give up their charitable work (most of which is done without proselytizing in the mainstream denominations), you'd notice, because the few remaining secular sources of aid for the poor would be even more swamped than they are now.

[triguy46]

46. Details, details, details....

One man's charity is another man's religious congolomerate. It is a silly premise, condemning with a broad brush all churches. Many on DU have a hard time with distinguishing differences of many types. They own a 6" paint brush only.

[More Than A Feeling]

48. Let's not

Now, I'm no tax lawyer, but my guess is that probably the vast majority would still qualify for tax exemptions as charities (under exactly the same section of the tax code), and the flak we would get would not even be close to worth it. Besides, the churches that are the problem could afford it if they were taxed, and many that are not the problem could not. Not a very well-targeted solution, even if we could make it happen.

[earth mom]

50. Now that's a slippery slope....

While I'm sick and disgusted with how much fundie religions have stuck their noses into politics, I think taxing them will give them license to get uglier and louder with their evil and twisted messages. Instead, I think they should be fined-BIG TIME! And demon spawn like Robertson or Falwell would be JAILED since they wouldn't be able to keep their big mouths shut!

Oh how I would love that! :evilgrin: