Does anyone else think it's time to tax the churches?

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:25 PM

2naSalit (52,063 posts)

1. Without a doubt.

Absolutely!! They need to be taxed too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to 2naSalit (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:35 AM

SugarShack (1,635 posts)

130. Hell no! when you allow that, they are allowed at the table to make law.

They cross that line already, and you don't seem to like it..

Be careful what you ask for!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to SugarShack (Reply #130)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:23 AM

JustABozoOnThisBus (21,378 posts)

132. They're already at the table

Advocating from the pulpit, very common.

Electing "Manchurian Candidates", like Rick Santorum to congress.

Tax them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #132)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:01 PM

2naSalit (52,063 posts)

151. And...

If you take a look at the STATE UNIVERSITIES in Idaho, for example... all three of them, they have engaged in "land swaps" whereby the church owns property that is for the use of LDS students only with free meals, tutors, student unions, computer labs and other subsidies that the rest of the students don't have readily available without paying additional fees. And, these land swaps were used to allow the church to trade off crumbling buildings for the state and the nonLDS students to cover the costs of either raising or upgrading, all of which was a cost far higher than the value of the property the church absconded with... and taking up entire city blocks while "commoner" buildings languish for upgrades. That all happened in the early 90s-2000s. Most of the faculty has been replaced by church members for the majority and all the pres. and upper admin positions are also LDS folks. The legislators of ID and UT are most certainly dominated by LDS and many of the local gov'ts in MT, ID, UT, WY and NV are LDS dominated...

So don't think they aren't already in a position where they don't foist their beliefs on a large portion of the population/legal system in the country. Pay attention, a large number of the Teabagger clowns and misguided individuals in the Rocky Mountain west are LDS, authentic Zionist zealots. And I don't mean to disparage religions but this is for real in that region just as other religious groups practice zealotry and legislative domination in other regions. The first Amendment is supposed to prohibit this but what I am trying to point out is that it is failing the rest of us by not doing so. Taxation is key in reining in this religion-creep phenomena that seems to crop up a couple times a century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:26 PM

Pisces (5,338 posts)

2. Absolutely!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:27 PM

rainin (2,814 posts)

3. Especially Christian churches.

Bill O says that Christianity isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. Why are we giving all these philosophers tax breaks? Explain that one Bill-O. Here's the video for those who missed it.

I know, he came back later and changed his tune, but still, he doesn't get to erase it. We have the video.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rainin (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:47 PM

3catwoman3 (17,926 posts)

120. The Catholic priests...

... who educated him at Chaminade high school in NY would probably disagree. My now-agnostic husband is also an alum of the school, and grumbles disparagingly any time he hears anything from Bill-O.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rainin (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:36 AM

SugarShack (1,635 posts)

131. Just imagine the Mormon money working for them. We may all have to wear their underwear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rainin (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:11 PM

democrattotheend (11,556 posts)

158. You can't do that constitutionally

Taxing one religion or one sect of religion's churches but not others would be a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:28 PM

Initech (89,354 posts)

4. There was a church in my area that spent $45 million on a new building this year.

Why aren't they taxed on this wealth? Our government is going broke - it's way past time to end the free ride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:29 PM

phantom power (25,966 posts)

5. Here is why I think we should tax churches...

because "not taxing churches" puts the govt in the business of deciding what is or is not a church, and giving special privileges (tax exemption) to whoever they decide "is one." And the govt isn't supposed to be in that business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:29 PM

MANative (3,976 posts)

6. Long past time. Tax them like the businesses they are. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:30 PM

Freddie Stubbs (29,853 posts)

7. Do you want to tax all non-profit organizations, or just religious ones?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:34 PM

FreeState (9,971 posts)

12. I would not tax charitable organizations

that use over 90% of their revenue on actual services.

I do not see churches as non-profit organizations - they may offer services to their members or, like the the Church in the picture above, the wealthiest church in the USA, it gives less than 1% of a portion of its revenue to charities outside its own faith.

edit to add source:

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/62364-how-the-mormons-make-money

According to an official church Welfare Services fact sheet, the church gave $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid in more than 178 countries and territories during the 25 years between 1985 and 2010. A fact sheet from the previous year indicates that less than one-third of the sum was monetary assistance, while the rest was in the form of “material assistance.” All in all, if one were to evenly distribute that $1.3 billion over a quarter-century, it would mean that the church gave $52 million annually. A study co-written by Cragun and recently published in Free Inquiry estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to FreeState (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:45 AM

Freddie Stubbs (29,853 posts)

165. Why is it relevant if if it a charity 'outside its own faith?'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:21 PM

ReasonableToo (505 posts)

54. I'd give them deduction for certain activities.

...for the community - as long as they dont lead the participants in prayer and they don't require membership to receive. Food bank and meals for homeless come to mind.

I hear some churches have vacation homes, shopping malls etc. tax those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:24 PM

dballance (5,756 posts)

57. Why is your question even relevant to this debate?

No one said tax non-profits. Churches like the Catholic Church and the Mormon church are hardly non-profits. Have you seen the Vatican or the Temple in Utah? If, in light of seeing such things, you still want to call them "non-profit" organizations that's your choice. Priests take a vow of poverty but from what I can see most of them are living pretty well in church rectories and the Vatican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dballance (Reply #57)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:48 AM

Freddie Stubbs (29,853 posts)

166. Are you are saying that nonprofits with buildings under a certain size should be exempt from tax?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #166)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 07:38 PM

dballance (5,756 posts)

171. Oh Please

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

No I didn't say or imply that. Try to stop misdirecting the argument with more questions that are not relevant.

If you have some valid response to my assertion the Mormon Church and the Roman Catholic Church are hardly non-profits as evidenced by huge amount of wealth/assets they seem to be retaining rather than using to help "the least of these" lets hear it.

There are many fine non-profits that haven't built a Vatican City or huge Temples or a billion-dollar mall and use the majority of their proceeds in their charitable work. I used to volunteer for one and we were quite proud we were an all volunteer organization with no paid staff. Well over 80% of the annual half-billion plus donations we collected went out to charitable deeds and in grants to other very deserving organizations.

I'm just pointing out I don't think the Mormon Church or the Roman Catholic Church are one of those organizations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:42 PM

adieu (1,009 posts)

64. The non-profit arm of the church

Can stay as non-profit and do its usual 501(c)(...) charitable duties. People donating to the church would have to itemize where the money goes and then, that money will have to be scrutinized, much like any other charitable organization.

And, clearly, there are some non-profits that really ought to be taxed, like the Komen Foundation and some of the supposedly non-profits which were really superPACs. Same goes with some colleges non-profit side.

Basically, if you're a soup kitchen that gets monetary donations and that money is tracked and one can see how the money is used, then that's a non-profit that stays tax-free (except for the money paid to the directors or other salaried/wage earning people, where the money is then taxed as income taxes for those people). But, if you're a bundler like the Susan G Komen Foundation, then I have some problems with some amount of that money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:25 PM

AlbertCat (17,505 posts)

87. I say...

Tax businesses owned by the churches,

And property like land and buildings. (Y'know they can build a huge mansion with a pool and tennis courts, call it the rectory and it not be taxed)

And maybe exempt them up to a certain size. This might have the welcomed effect of dampening mega-churches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:53 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

112. You always ask the question. Why dont you tell us how you feel? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rhett o rick (Reply #112)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:50 AM

Freddie Stubbs (29,853 posts)

167. I oppose taxing non-profits

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:16 PM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

139. A few of them have let slip their real agenda.

Especially that pleasant "burn them down" post downthread that a jury let stand. This isn't about tax revenue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Freddie Stubbs (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:22 PM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

145. Real non-profits

don't build castles with their money like the Mormons. And they don't pay out a billion dollars to protect their child rapists like the Catholics.

When is the last time Unicef or Doctors Without Borders built a castle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to _ed_ (Reply #145)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:56 AM

Freddie Stubbs (29,853 posts)

169. UNICEF is an part of the UN. They have a big fancy building sitting on prime real estate

And if you want to talk sex scandals, UNICEF and the UN are hardly angels:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1964&dat=19880210&id=60ojAAAAIBAJ&sjid=R88FAAAAIBAJ&pg=5214,813178

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/9/20060509-090826-9806r/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:30 PM

fadedrose (10,044 posts)

8. Yes.

They have a lot of input in politics influencing the voter to vote for certain candidates and pass laws that agree with their theology. This violates separation of church and state, so if they want to play, they need to pay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to fadedrose (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:00 PM

MynameisBlarney (2,979 posts)

41. I think they should be taxed

but not given anymore ability to influence politics than they do already.
They've done quite enough damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:31 PM

The Second Stone (2,900 posts)

9. Churches, corporations, charities

as it is, taxes fall most heavily on the poor and those with no voice. All taxes could come down in rate if all exceptions were removed. All deductions should be dollar amount limited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:31 PM

cali (114,904 posts)

10. it would be difficult to achieve taxation of churches

due to SCOTUS precedent. It would take a very liberal court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cali (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:33 PM

rainin (2,814 posts)

11. Obama, give us a liberal court. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rainin (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:21 PM

democrattotheend (11,556 posts)

161. Not sure that would help

Justice Brennan was the first to uphold a state exempting churches from taxation.

I don't believe that he or the Court ever held that the exemption was constitutionally mandated, only that exempting non-profits is permitted. But exempting secular non-profits but not churches would pose some constitutional issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:35 PM

spartan61 (2,091 posts)

13. Absolutely!!!

We left our church (Catholic) a couple of months before the election because of an article that was printed in the church bulletin. The article was pro Romney and anti-Obama. I wrote a letter to the priest saying why we were leaving the church and if they want to be political they should lose their tax exempt status. Politics should not be spoken from the pulpit or the church bulletin and we strongly believe in the separation of church and state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:40 PM

arthritisR_US (6,963 posts)

14. Long overdo! I would love to tax them into

oblivion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to arthritisR_US (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:15 PM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

138. Aaaaaaand the real motive appears. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Union Scribe (Reply #138)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

arthritisR_US (6,963 posts)

141. Sorry, I don't understand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Union Scribe (Reply #138)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:53 AM

cordelia (2,174 posts)

168. Took longer than I expected, actually.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:54 PM

peacebird (14,195 posts)

15. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:56 PM

rock (13,218 posts)

16. When have I not thought this

When I was old enough to know what they were talking about and found out the churches were not taxed, I asked, "Why?" I still do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:05 PM

Ernesto (5,077 posts)

17. Works for me.......... NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:27 PM

shrdlu (487 posts)

18. Indeed!

Fadedrose is correct. They should pay to play. The recent election had the most widespread and egregious politicking from the pulpit I've witnessed in more than fifty years of voting

Thanks for the topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:37 PM

former9thward (24,561 posts)

19. You can't pick and choose among non-profits.

They all have to be taxed or none of them. Taxing non-profits would destroy most of them. Some of the real big ones would survive but most wouldn't so that is why there would be no political will to do this. Also churches would argue (I think successfully) that it would be a violation of the First Amendment. The power to tax is the power to destroy and that would violate the free exercise clause of the First amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:43 PM

Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)

24. Surely only profits would be taxed? And non-profits don't make a profit?

My understanding is that commercial businesses that do not make a profit are not taxed that year. So how would a non-profit ever be taxed? Let alone be taxed enough to "destroy" it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:55 PM

former9thward (24,561 posts)

35. They would be taxed on their income (donations).

Also their contributors would lose a tax deduction and many would no longer contribute. If there is nothing to be taxed then what is the purpose of this thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:01 PM

pediatricmedic (397 posts)

74. Your idea would hurt a lot of nonprofits with no religious affiliation, it would actually kill kids

Attacking the contributor would cause pretty much all charity to come to a standstill. The Red Cross(a religious organization btw) would not have had anything to give out during Sandy or any other disaster. Women's shelters would lose funding as most of that is donations. Food banks would be empty, as they rely on donations as well. A lot of programs that help the poor and minorities would also stop as well. Then there are donations to schools, first responders, groups like the SPCA/PETA, conservation groups, etc.

Most children's hospitals run as nonprofits and rely on donations to do the work they do. Cutting the source of funding means we don't do the treatments many depend on. We simply won't have the staff or resources to do the treatments without funding. This affects the place I work for and my patients.

I am all about helping people and charitable donations are a wonderful thing to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to pediatricmedic (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:06 PM

former9thward (24,561 posts)

95. Not my idea.

It was the OP's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:56 PM

AlexSatan (535 posts)

37. What profit do churches have?

Most churches I know use their entire budget towards salaries, building or charitable efforts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlexSatan (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:36 PM

Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)

61. OK, that's what I'm missing. Profit = Income - Expenses.

So if the entire income is spent, what is there to tax? Obviously I am not an accountant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlexSatan (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:30 PM

AlbertCat (17,505 posts)

89. What profit do churches have?

Their land and buildings should be taxed.

And their businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #89)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:38 PM

AlexSatan (535 posts)

91. So the same should happen to all non-profits, right?

Otherwise the churches are being specifically targeted, which kind of goes against that Constitution thingy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlexSatan (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:05 PM

AlbertCat (17,505 posts)

94. Do non-profits get a rectory tax free?

Do non-profit build their own buildings?

Do non-profits print books and have TV channels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:08 PM

former9thward (24,561 posts)

98. Non profits do a lot of those things.

If churches make a profit off of commercial enterprises they pay taxes now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:10 PM

AlbertCat (17,505 posts)

99. Non profits do a lot of those things.

Really? Which ones?... not connected with churches? I really don't know.

I mean, what does Doctors Without Borders print lots of books and produce videos?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:15 PM

AlexSatan (535 posts)

104. Google is your friend

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/aboutus/books-films.cfm?ref=main-menu-publications

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #98)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:16 PM

AlexSatan (535 posts)

105. Stop it!!!

Facts are really annoying to someone on an illogical rant against their personal boogeyman!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #89)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:45 PM

LTX (1,020 posts)

92. Which would effectively eliminate the vast majority of religious facilities.

What you are proposing is discrimination against, and in reality elimination of, small churches, synagogues, and mosques in favor of the mega-facility that you seem to think (wrongly) dominates the religious landscape in the US. I am surprised that anyone would favor a concentration of unfettered political power into a handful of super-sized churches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LTX (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:08 PM

AlbertCat (17,505 posts)

97. in reality elimination of, small churches, synagogues, and mosques i

So exempt churches up to a certain size. Like I said up-thread, this might hold down the number of mega-churches.

And maybe, if it's so important, the congregation can dig a little deeper when the collection plate comes around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:12 PM

AlexSatan (535 posts)

100. Does that mean you will just target large

non-profits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AlbertCat (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:19 PM

LTX (1,020 posts)

106. How would you avoid discrimination claims?

First, define what you mean by large and small. Will it be an arbitrary cut-off of, say, 100 members, thereby penalizing the religious facility with 101 members? Then, what do you do with a community that has, say, twelve "small" christian churches and one large synagogue, or mosque if you prefer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LTX (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:17 PM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

140. Yep.

Good post. They don't get that they'd be making the mega-churches they hate even more powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 08:35 AM

TBF (31,861 posts)

123. Yes we can pick and choose - when some are acting as lobbying arms rather than non-profits

the IRS regs are there and we need to prosecute for that behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to TBF (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:07 PM

former9thward (24,561 posts)

134. No you can't.

The Constitution does not allow that kind of selective taxation. If a non-profit is violating its status then the IRS can revoke its non-profit status. The IRS is not going to crack down on churches and politics because it would affect both parties and when something affects both parties it just isn't going to happen. That is the real world not the world of internet posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to former9thward (Reply #134)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:58 AM

TBF (31,861 posts)

163. "If a non-profit is violating its status then the IRS can revoke its non-profit status" -

can and should.

Sure, right now the churches are keeping the masses in line, which benefits both parties, but at some point that will fall apart. The top 1% has gotten too greedy and people can only take so much. Conditions will dictate as they always have historically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:37 PM

Egalitarian Thug (12,448 posts)

20. I'm tired of subsidizing these con-jobs. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:39 PM

Auntie Bush (17,527 posts)

21. Should have done lhat long time ago!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:41 PM

City Lights (25,171 posts)

22. It's waaaaay overdue!

Not gonna happen though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:42 PM

ejbr (5,723 posts)

23. They should at LEAST be taxed the same amount as big Corporations....

oh wait..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:45 PM

ThomThom (1,486 posts)

25. yes tax them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:46 PM

denvine (733 posts)

26. Absolutely

Especially since they take,"indirectly" political positions. We know that many of them try to influence their flock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:47 PM

Unca Jim (539 posts)

27. I do not buy their numbers.

There isn't that much money in churches. "Everyone would only have to pay 3%..."

Please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Unca Jim (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:49 PM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

29. Would Jesus wear a Rolex on the TV on Sunday?

Churches are the biggest grift in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Unca Jim (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:03 PM

progressoid (46,369 posts)

115. Yeah, I tend to ignore random numbers thrown around on the internets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:48 PM

RomneyLies (3,333 posts)

28. It was never time to STOP taxing them.

Exempting churches from taxes was the biggest government giveaway in history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:51 PM

libodem (19,288 posts)

30. Particularly

If they play politics from the pulpit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:51 PM

PoliticalBiker (328 posts)

31. Has Been a Pet Peeve...

of mine for decades.
Yes they do a lot of good, but they DO NOT have the right to influence our politics with tax-free money.
They have had tax-exempt status from the outset and have conducted themselves like a business.
They have income (some of it quite exorbinanate) and have no accounting for it.
They have employees and don't have to pay the taxes every other business in our country is subject to.

Absolutely Tax the Churches!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:52 PM

NYtoBush-Drop Dead (490 posts)

32. Every last church and cult...

Tax them all, and raise it higher for the miscreant cults like the ones that picket dead soldiers funerals or run campaigns like the one the mormons did in California against gay marriage. If you participate politically in ANY way, your taxes are doubled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:53 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

33. The amount of abuse of tax-exempt status by churches AND other kinds of non-profits is staggering

Tax them all, then let God sort them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:53 PM

Frustratedlady (15,461 posts)

34. I think it is past time to check ALL the non-profits to make sure they are what they say they are.

First, I'd start off with all the Republican groups where the faithful who have fallen from grace are hidden in some think tank, paid a decent salary and told to keep their mouths shut `til they die. Then, I'd check the charities to find out what percentage of the donations go to salaries/perks, and then get the message out to those who are scamming the public, fine them and remove them from the tax-free rolls. Then, if the churches haven't found religion and straightened up their act, I would pull their tax-free status, as well.

I think there are churches that follow the rules and deserve the tax-free status, as some do a lot of community good, but there are a lot who are scamming the parishioners, as well as the IRS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Frustratedlady (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:58 PM

narnian60 (3,505 posts)

39. This is a post I can agree with.

(Or with which I can agree).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:56 PM

ParkieDem (494 posts)

36. It's much, much more complicated than all of this.

First, this picture is bullshit. 3%? I doubt it. Churches hold wealth, but enough so we'd all have to pay just 3%? I doubt it.

Second, what are you going to tax? Churches operate as non-profits. They don't make "profits" like corporations. They take in money, sure, but taxing that money would be like taxing corporate revenue rather than corporate profits.

You could feasibly tax their property, but that's all done at the state and local level.

One way to do it would be to make it where contributions to churches would no longer be tax-deductible. If churches were smart, they'd tell their members to contribute to their charitable arms rather than to the church directly (or, more to the former, less to the latter).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to ParkieDem (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:15 PM

mostlyconfused (211 posts)

51. Then tax the AARP, and Labor Unions, etc?

Your point is spot on about the difference between taxing revenues and taxing profits. My question is where do you draw the line with this. What other organizations provide services to the people from whom they get their money, and then also dabble a bit in politics? Do they all start getting taxed?

It seems the better way to approach it would be dealing with the question about whether charitable donations, union dues, etc. should be tax deductible in the first place.

Whether you agree with the sentiment or not, the math is a bit suspect. Removing the tax exemption from churches would reportedly raise $71 billion in taxes, not even 1/10 of what is collected in individual income tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:57 PM

mgardener (1,238 posts)

38. Tax the churches or else.....

Since the republicans think that the churches/religion should take care of people instead of the government, then the churches should be required to serve the poor.
Any taxes the churches would owe, should be required to give directly to the service of the poor.
Otherwise, they should be made to pay taxes the same as any business. This money could then be used for as it is supposed to be, for the poor.

Any church whose pastor who uses his position in church or a religious setting and speaks about politics should lose their tax exempt status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:59 PM

oldbanjo (690 posts)

40. Yes Sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:02 PM

socialindependocrat (1,372 posts)

42. I've been thinking that for a while now.

Even if it's just a bit - start somewhere.

Churches benefit from the community

We would be showing them respect by taxing them at a low rate.

We should - especially now - when the churchs have gotten their foot in the door
by bitching about contraception and women's healty rights. They want in on the
fight then they need to buy a ticket!

Sometimes, a low profile is better than speaking up about what rights you think you have...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:04 PM

FarPoint (10,200 posts)

43. Absolutely ..

Yes, Yes..and yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:06 PM

Napoleon838 (9 posts)

44. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:07 PM

bowens43 (16,064 posts)

45. yes. long past time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:07 PM

ReRe (10,597 posts)

46. Amen!

K&R

Yes, it's long past time to tax the churches, especially the one in this picture. If they claim allegiance to a political party, they are no longer a church. They are an arm of that political party. And they should be taxed retroactively to the year they started preaching politics from the pulpit.

Of course, this wouldn't be happening if the IRS had enforced the standing rules that govern their classification as a church.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Fix it, one way or the other. Get politics out of religion, or sever their non-profit status. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:08 PM

datasuspect (26,591 posts)

47. burn them down

or let the homeless live in them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to datasuspect (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:57 PM

LTX (1,020 posts)

93. Anti-theism on steroids. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LTX (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:06 PM

datasuspect (26,591 posts)

96. anti-humanist bigot on goofballs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to datasuspect (Reply #96)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:14 PM

LTX (1,020 posts)

101. Bigot?

My goodness. Well, I certainly don't want to be accused of bigotry. So I guess I am forced to agree with you that synagogues must be burned down. In your peculiar version of reality, I suppose that would prove my lack of bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to datasuspect (Reply #47)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:20 PM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

144. Yeah, like the Birmingham church bombing!

Wouldn't it be great if there were more hate crimes??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Union Scribe (Reply #144)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:32 PM

Dr. Strange (25,084 posts)

149. It's not a hate crime if you agree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Union Scribe (Reply #144)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:34 PM

datasuspect (26,591 posts)

152. yep. religion is filled with hate

and churches are sewers of hate.

what do you have against humanity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to datasuspect (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:59 AM

cordelia (2,174 posts)

170. What do you have against the humanity

that attends churches?

Talk about hate.

Hypocrite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:10 PM

PufPuf23 (7,380 posts)

48. Churches should be taxed.

There should not be faith-based funding from the govrnment as we are a secular nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:13 PM

another_liberal (8,821 posts)

49. Should have been done long ago.

If Churches in this country become involved in politics (and they have at every level from local to national) they need to help pay for what government does.

Our federal budget deficit would instantly be far smaller as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to another_liberal (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:22 PM

mostlyconfused (211 posts)

55. 6%

Just to be accurate on the math, the budget deficit would be 6.4% smaller than it was last year if the reported $71 billion in exemptions were instead collected by the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:14 PM

rsmith6621 (6,942 posts)

50. Churches Want To Be TAXED

...so they can go wild politically They actuall hate their tax exempt status..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to rsmith6621 (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 06:26 PM

Mariana (13,038 posts)

113. They can relinquish their tax exempt status at any time.

It's not forced on them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:16 PM

The CCC (463 posts)

52. Does anyone else think it's time to tax the churches?

Actually your taxes would go up by no less than 10% if we were to tax the Churches like a business. Plus it would be a direct assault on the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to The CCC (Reply #52)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:52 PM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

111. The tax exemption is not Constitutional. The government should not be funding religions. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:17 PM

haikugal (6,476 posts)

53. Yes it past due...

let them pay taxes like the rest of us contributors to our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:23 PM

truebluegreen (9,033 posts)

56. If they used their money to actually help the poor it would be one thing,

but if they operate more as businesses they should be taxed as such.

And no, I don't count proselytizing as helping the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:24 PM

peace13 (11,076 posts)

58. More and more the preaching comes to politics.

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:08 PM - Edit history (1)

If an institution does this , I feel strongly that it should pay taxes! It's not only a good idea , it's the law!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:32 PM

Vox Moi (546 posts)

59. Churches, universities and hospitals are all tax free and maybe ...

They should pay property tax.
Sound draconian? I agree.
I'm not sure what can be done but it's clear that something is needed.
Hospitals and colleges are notorious real estate buyers and every square inch is off a city's tax list.
Harvard University has an endowment of tens of billions and is a rabid real estate buyer ... all of it tax free, and they still charge enormous tuitions.
Most cities have a large hospital that seem to always be expanding and buying property.
I do not doubt that health care and education are important but the political and financial power of large hospitals and universities leads to wanton acquisition of property and political power and to waste and extravagance.
To call these institutions non-profit is a real stretch.
If they are tax-free then they should be required to give something tangible back to the community like affordable health care and affordable tuition.

Contributions to non-profits should be taxed at some nominal rate that would still provide an incentive to donate.
Suppose it was 10%. What's the problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Vox Moi (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:48 PM

The CCC (463 posts)

68. Churches, universities and hospitals are all tax free and maybe ...

How would you determine an accessed valuation for a church? Any business worth its salt takes a Capital Depreciation allowance. So in a few years the building isn't "worth" anything for tax purposes. Paying to build and operate a church building is a money costing operation. Not a money maker. Most preachers make little to no money for their preaching. So that's a wash. Do we start taxing people for their political beliefs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:33 PM

NOIBN (7 posts)

60. Yes Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:37 PM

NYC Liberal (19,447 posts)

62. You can only tax churches if you tax ALL non-profit orgs.

Churches aren't exempt from taxes because they're churches. They're exempt because they are registered non-profits, under the same code as cancer research foundations and educational organizations.

All non-profits are subject to the same rules about electioneering and political activity.

You can't tax churches just because they're churches. That would be unconstitutional.

I am all for investigating illegal political activity of religious orgs on a case by case basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:19 PM

FailureToCommunicate (12,487 posts)

81. Good point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:26 PM

Sgent (5,573 posts)

147. I don't get this

There are at least 17 different types of non-profits recognized by the IRS, with all of them having different tax implications. Labor Unions, country clubs, VEBA plans, outside pension plans, etc. are all 501(c) organizations -- just not necessarily 501(c)3.

One reason a lot of non-profits are not taxed on income (see country club) is that they generally don't earn anything over time, thus wouldn't owe anything, but it would create a lot of paperwork. However, donations and money given to them does not generate a deduction on the giver's return.

IMHO, it entangles the government too deeply into churches to tax them directly, and provides too big of a cudgel for a politically motivated government. The only change I would make is that donations to churches cannot be deducted from the donors taxes. The churches could still form a charitable arm for true charitable work, but it would be subject to the same rules as every other charity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Sgent (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:35 PM

NYC Liberal (19,447 posts)

150. Churches fall under 501(c)(3) along with certain other types of non-profit orgs

Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS .

Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because such recognition assures church leaders, members, and contributors that the church is recog- nized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits . For example, contributors to a church that has been recognized as tax exempt would know that their contri- butions generally are tax-deductible .

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf (PDF with lots of details)

The point is, if you're giving tax-exempt status to organizations that meet certain conditions, you can't refuse that to a church simply because it's a church. If they meet all the conditions to qualify for tax exemption then they must be treated the same as any other non-profit.

I am all for investigating violations of the restrictions on political activity and disqualifying those churches that violate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #150)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:24 PM

Sgent (5,573 posts)

154. Yes and no

Churches are given 501(c)(3) status because they are churches -- not due to their other activities. The definition of 501c3 includes churches -- and they do not have to apply for that status. Churches currently have a special status in the law because if you took the religion portion away, the only status they would be eligible for would be the same as an American Legion or VFW hall -- which are not 501c3's.

There's no reason that churches should have the same status as charities. You can certainly have a sister organization, with (for instance) an interlocking board of directors that provides charity as defined for every other type of 501(c)(3).

TL;DR Churches already get explicitly special status under the law. They should be treated the same as every other club or organization.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #62)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:15 PM

democrattotheend (11,556 posts)

159. Exactly

If you tax churches but not other non-profits it would be a serious free exercise clause problem. You would have to treat all non-profits the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:38 PM

LynneSin (95,337 posts)

63. No however....

I think we should take a harder look at those who cross the line between 'Separation of Church & State'

For every church that crosses the line like this one there are dozens that barely eek by on the money they make and yet still reach out to help others who need help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:42 PM

sarchasm (654 posts)

65. Only the churches that openly endorse one candidate or party over another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:44 PM

riverbendviewgal (4,009 posts)

66. absolutely

it is about time they get taxed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:45 PM

santamargarita (3,170 posts)

67. Yes!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:51 PM

zwyziec (173 posts)

69. Unite! and Join me a New Movement to Tax all religious church property!

should be taxed.

Let's start with property tax first. If you own a home or a business you are subsidizing all the non-profit religious organizations in your country. For the entire USA that means more than $1.5 trillion in untaxed church property including:

churches, schools, diocesan offices, bishops residences, clergy residences, cemeteries, hospitals, universities, retreat facilities, youth camps, megachurches, store front churches, convents, seminaries and all the companies who supply products to those churches including wine, hosts and religious items.

I did a study two years ago which included Wisconsin assessors office and spoke to the State Assessor. My goal was to find out how to calculate the total amount of untaxed church property in that state. He said I would have to go county by county and look at each county map and then make an assumption about the value of that plot. I told him that sounded very difficult, couldn't I just purchase a report from his office? His reply was this: "We don't keep those values because if we did we'd have to publish them and if we did publish them, that would make a lot of people very, very angry."

I also did state by state review of their websites trying to locate these amounts. Few provide that information.

It is very possible that people who are fed up with the interference of these churches in politics, start local movements within their county to research and generate the value of untaxed church property.

My wife and I would be overjoyed to use our website business to generate and maintain a website that would compile and report on each state by state, county by county result.

This is the way the Creationists have taken over local school boards, city by city, village by village and town by town to spread their ignorance on our children.

If anyone is interested in this let me know.

Zwyziec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to zwyziec (Reply #69)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 08:17 PM

dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)

114. Great post

I hope you get some traction with that.

Out where I live, in a redwood area that many use for vacations, there are a number of large resorts (my word) that have massive infrastructure on them. When I was a kid I went to one of them for our school week-long field trip. Now, the one I went to as a child and pretty much all of the others are owned by large, out-of-the-area churches. I'm assuming they pay no property taxes on them, and our local governments are absolutely starved for revenue.

Also, I recently went to a family wedding in Texas, a church wedding. I'd never seen such a church (I don't go to church, went as a kid but those churches were tiny fundy bare-bones operations). They had incredible facilities, including a full-size, fully outfitted basketball arena, unbelievable. The cost of this must have been enormous. Anyway, they are able to attract members and recruit people to their beliefs using access to those amazing facilities as incentive. There's something very wrong about that, especially since I'm assuming that none of this was ever taxed. It's a heavily right-wing operation that complains about not being able to explicitly advocate for political candidates from their church, they think that's unfair. I think they should be taxed like everything else is taxed, and they can do whatever they want politically.

Anyway, I applaud your efforts to at least get some real valuation on these properties, good luck with that, and let us know if you get your website happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:55 PM

mcgarry50 (68 posts)

70. taxes

i've been wanting the church to pay taxes for years, they are just another crooked corporation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:56 PM

hifiguy (33,688 posts)

71. Long overdue.

"Tax the churches. Tax the businesses owned by the churches." - Frank Zappa

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:58 PM

The Wizard (11,373 posts)

72. As long as the Church is tax exempt

the separation of Church and State is a fairy tale, although they do build nice structures that add to the general ambiance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to The Wizard (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:12 PM

Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)

78. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

Courts have settled that exempting nonprofits from taxation does not violate this clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #78)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:16 PM

democrattotheend (11,556 posts)

160. nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The latter clause would probably make it unconstitutional to tax churches but not secular non-profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to democrattotheend (Reply #160)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:47 PM

Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)

162. Definitely nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 03:59 PM

Raster (20,541 posts)

73. Long, long past time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:04 PM

pinto (106,886 posts)

75. Tax Information for Churches and Religious Organizations (IRS)

Some background info on the tax code in re: Churches and Religious Organizations Most internal links are to pdf files.~ pinto

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations

Tax Information for Churches and Religious Organizations

Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations
A quick reference guide of federal tax law and procedures for churches and religious organizations, to help them comply with tax rules.

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations
A brief description of the requirements for exemption under IRC Section 501(c)(3).

http://www.irs.gov/file_source/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf (32 page pdf, good overview)

Unrelated Business Income Tax
Unrelated business income tax requirements for tax-exempt organizations.

Filing Requirements
A brief description of annual filing requirements for tax-exempt churches and religious organizations.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Political Campaign Activity by section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations

Special Rules Limiting IRS Authority to Audit a Church
Overview of rules on tax inquiries and examinations of churches.

Tax Information for Charitable Organizations
Tax information for charitable, religious, scientific, literary, and other organizations exempt under Internal Revenue Code ("IRC"

section 501(c)(3).

Publication 4573, Group Exemptions
A publication describing, in question and answer format, the federal tax rules that apply to group rulings of exemption under Internal Revenue Code section 501.

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: 02-Nov-2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:06 PM

Paper Roses (6,924 posts)

76. Long overdue! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:10 PM

Walk away (9,494 posts)

77. Yes Please. Jesus wants to pay his quarterlies now! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:14 PM

dawg (10,190 posts)

79. No. And this is a little silly.

The notion that we could all pay 3% if only the churches were taxed is not true. Most churches would show a taxable loss and therefore continue to pay no tax at all.

See, in addition to income, churches also have expenses. The maintenance and utilities on that cathedral in the photo? Deductible. Depreciation of the cathedral? There's a deduction for that too! Pastor and staff salaries? Deductible. Travel and appearance expenses for "evangelists"? Deductible.

Some clever CPA or tax attorney might even succeed in deducting that double-breasted suit and Rolex as a "costume" expense.

It would be an easy matter for most churches to avoid taxation, even if they were reclassified as taxable entities. Ironically, the only churches who might actually pay taxes would be the ones who were actually trying to do the right thing. (i.e. helping people without getting a receipt or canceled check)

This is the kind of delusional thinking that conservatives do all the time. We only do it on rare occasions.

BUT THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING:

Churches that actively involve themselves in politics should lose their tax-exempt status. And by that, I don't mean they would be subject to tax themselves, only that their donors WOULD NOT get a charitable deduction for their contributions. If you really want to get at a church, this is the way. Without the ability to accept deductible contributions, the money dries up and moves somewhere else pretty fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dawg (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 10:48 PM

GreenStormCloud (12,072 posts)

164. Most of the contributed money isn't even declared on taxes.

Very few people are able to write huge checks to their church. Most people still file the short form on income taxes and take the standard deduction. Even if they tithe (give 10% to the church) it still has to be a considerable amount before it can be deducted. Religious people consider the tithe to be a religious duty and will continue to contribute regardless of the tax treatment. You greatly underestimate how deeply people are committed to their churches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:16 PM

FiveGoodMen (20,018 posts)

80. Yes, count me in!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:19 PM

KamaAina (78,249 posts)

82. Fitting that the image is of the Mormon Tabernacle.

The LDS Church owns a fair chunk of Utah: the leading department store, the leading newspaper, the NBC affiliate TV station, and so on. They also have substantial holdings in Hawai'i: pretty much the entire towns of Laie and Kahuku on O'ahu.

Just taxing commercial church property would get it done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:19 PM

gcomeau (5,764 posts)

83. I think it's time to enforce existing tax law.

There are churches across the nation which are *blatantly* flouting their requirements not to engage in political campaigning and partisanship to maintain their tax exempt status. Just make the IRS enforce the law as it already stands, those churches should have already forfeited their exempt status.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/21/us-usa-tax-churches-irs-idUSBRE85K1EP20120621

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:23 PM

Cleita (75,480 posts)

84. Not everything.

However, where they make profits sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:24 PM

Hotler (8,588 posts)

85. Fuck ya! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:25 PM

LTX (1,020 posts)

86. Absolutely not, and a perfectly ridiculous idea:

It is an article of faith among many anti-theists that all churches, synagogues, and mosques are of the mega-variety. That is patently wrong. To put average congregation size in perspective, see:

http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/fastfacts/fast_facts.html#sizecong

For the vast majority of religious facilities, the sole taxable asset is the property and building. Cash for clerical salaries and operational expenses comes from congregational donations, and to add property taxes into those expenses would drive an enormous number of small churches, synagogues, and mosques out of existence. Ironically enough, you would then have as the only survivors the very mega-churches that so many find offensive.

Furthermore, those surviving mega-churches of the fundamentalist christian variety would then be perfectly free to become unobstructed political arms of the Republican party. After all, the only impediment (granted, an abused impediment, but still an impediment) to employing church assets for political gain is the current tax status of those assets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:28 PM

Dark n Stormy Knight (8,891 posts)

88. Deinfintely. And there's an app for that.

OK, so it's a website, not an app: http://taxthechurches.org/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 04:32 PM

young_at_heart (3,590 posts)

90. Pat Robertson's-----DEFINITELY!!

Prime Virginia land with no taxes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:14 PM

ProfessorGAC (50,178 posts)

102. No, But Yes

If they stay CHURCHES, keep their nose completely and unambiguously out of politics and the business of enorsement and support, then no.

If they utter one peep about social issues germane to imminent political events, then yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:14 PM

Pool Hall Ace (5,847 posts)

103. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:21 PM

Warpy (101,584 posts)

107. Any church that tries to insert its dogma into civil law

needs to be taxed the same as any other political organization.

I'm perfectly happy with leaving main church property untaxed as long as they all realize where the line is.

When they start to bully people who don't share their dogma, it's time for them to pay for the privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:28 PM

ZombieHorde (29,047 posts)

108. Yes, I think churches should pay taxes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:34 PM

cpamomfromtexas (1,201 posts)

109. Yes,but what about only the ones who are political?

Give them a three strikes opportunity to lose tax exempt status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:40 PM

Kurovski (34,652 posts)

110. That's just the beginning of what I think it's time for. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:05 PM

jackbenimble (251 posts)

116. Yes

But they should get deductions for any charitable work they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:09 PM

sarcasmo (21,032 posts)

117. Time to start a movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:32 PM

loudsue (14,087 posts)

118. HELLS YEAH!

Waaay past time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:34 PM

Timbuk3 (872 posts)

119. Amen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:12 AM

Squinch (38,324 posts)

121. Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:47 AM

femrap (13,418 posts)

122. It's way

past due....unless, of course, the progressives have a few million churches that preach SHARE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:37 AM

ProfessionalLeftist (4,982 posts)

124. Long past time to tax them

U.S. should have been doing this long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:40 AM

sylvanus (122 posts)

125. Definitely! It could really change the South.nt

Having lived in the South, North East, South West and the North West, I can
truthfully say, that this could really help the South.
Mega churches would disappear and the churches that are
political tools as opposed to houses of worship would dry up as well.
These are just used as tax dodges and work around for campaign laws.
In Pensacola FL, we literally had a church on every block of the city, it
was famous for having more churches within the city lines than any where
in the country. Thats not worship, that's a cottage industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:44 AM

avebury (10,614 posts)

126. Absolutely! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:44 AM

MotherPetrie (3,145 posts)

127. HELL yes!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 09:49 AM

Coyotl (15,262 posts)

128. Separate church and state by not giving churches exceptional treatment under the law!

Giuving churches a tax break is unconstitutional because it promotes religion, aiding in its establishment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:13 AM

UTUSN (60,751 posts)

129. R#110 & K for, YESssss!1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 11:51 AM

larkrake (1,674 posts)

133. absolutely

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:10 PM

larkrake (1,674 posts)

135. I know alot of priests who drive Beamers and they run a racket

Their " foreign aid" costs are money makers, they always take a big portion of each donation, as overhead costs, lease their rooms for meetings and take tithes. They profit highly from the pulpit and are very often named in wills. Any church that owns land and /or buildings need to be taxed. I suspect any church that works outside the country when there is such a large need here for assistance to poor and homeless. They do not welcome the poor. Political organizations pay them to preach a political choice or they are self pontificating against women having any choice.

The opulence of the Vatican makes me nauseous. They are on the side of the rich who might donate huge sums to them.

As far as non-profits, that is an oxy-moron more often than not. The administrators take home oodles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 12:15 PM

Politicub (11,953 posts)

136. Yes. Mega churches are often media and publishing empires.

And a lot of churches have gone into the business of politics.

But if a small church is truly more of a religious institution than a commercial enterprise, I'm not in favor of taxing it. I'm guessing that 10 percent of churches at most shouldn't be taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:08 PM

Iggo (44,880 posts)

137. Long past time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:18 PM

Historic NY (34,517 posts)

142. If they want to play then they should pay.....

most are nothing more that corporate entities themselves, hiding behind the cloak of serving God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:20 PM

Aerows (39,961 posts)

143. Yes, wholeheartedly

I understand that there was fear that taxing churches could lead to religious suppression, but frankly, religion has suppressed the rest of us for so long, that I think it is time for them to pay their fair share if they want to keep indoctrinating the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:23 PM

Major Nikon (35,622 posts)

146. I think they should receive a tax exemption only to the extent they are doing charitable work

The idea behind giving churches a blanket exemption in the first place is they were seen as a benefit to the community. In some cases where the church is spending a lot of time and resources providing services to the poor, I think they should receive a tax exemption for that portion of their business. Kenneth Copeland gets an exemption for his fleet of jets and his effectively private airport which is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 01:30 PM

homegirl (951 posts)

148. FREE RIDE

Suggested reading-Free Ride, The Tax Exempt Economy by Gilbert M. Gaul and Neill A. Borowski, available used at Amazon.com, for less than $2.00.

Several decades ago I researched the tax exempt properties in San Francisco. The Catholic church owned over 1800 single family homes, all were tax exempt! Limit the exemption to the religious building, no exemption for other buildings, businesses or land holdings.

I feel very strongly about this issue when I was 19 I told my pastor, "I don't come to church to be told how to vote."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 02:57 PM

xxxsdesdexxx (213 posts)

153. Churches are like businesses in a sense

They provide you with a service -- religion -- and expect a form of payment -- donations. You could argue that not everyone donates, but their is pressure from the church leaders and from one's fellow churchgoers to do so -- pressure to donate is more prominent in some faiths than others. There is no reason that they be able to keep that money tax free. You could argue that they should get a lower rate than others, and I wouldn't disagree with you on this, but keeping everything tax free is not fair. Churches don't spend everything they get on aiding the poor and needy and should thus not be tax exempt. They have to pay church leaders and for the construction and maintenance of their buildings. Maybe give them a deduction on what they actually spend on the poor and needy, and tax them on all the money they didn't spend on the poor and needy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:37 PM

Taverner (55,476 posts)

155. Yes. Absolutely. Next question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Playinghardball (Original post)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 03:59 PM

LiberalFighter (42,063 posts)

156. Tithing to churches should not be tax exempt.

Churches should also not be tax exempt. Neither should their employees be exempt from employee taxes. And churches would have to provide their share of the payroll tax.

Maybe the tax structure should be as a business. Just as a business the tax would only be on the net income. And of course they should pay a property tax.

If a congregational member wants to make a contribution that is tax exempt it needs to be to an IRS approved charity which is not controlled directly by the church.

This would likely reduce the need for churches to receive tithing at the 10% rate since the excess would be taxed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #156)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:03 PM

xxxsdesdexxx (213 posts)

157. I really really agree

Just tax their net income. Whatever they spend on the poor and needy can be 100% tax deductible for the church, while the rest of their money would be taxed. Remember this, the money which they received in the form of a donation has already avoided being taxed because the donor deducted the donation from their taxes. This is not fair or just. There is no reason they should avoid paying taxes like everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

171 replies	Author	Time	Post
Does anyone else think it's time to tax the churches? (Original post)	Playinghardball	Dec 2012	OP
Without a doubt.	2naSalit	Dec 2012	#1
Hell no! when you allow that, they are allowed at the table to make law.	SugarShack	Dec 2012	#130
They're already at the table	JustABozoOnThisBus	Dec 2012	#132
And...	2naSalit	Dec 2012	#151
Absolutely!!!!	Pisces	Dec 2012	#2
Especially Christian churches.	rainin	Dec 2012	#3
The Catholic priests...	3catwoman3	Dec 2012	#120
Just imagine the Mormon money working for them. We may all have to wear their underwear!	SugarShack	Dec 2012	#131
You can't do that constitutionally	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#158
There was a church in my area that spent $45 million on a new building this year.	Initech	Dec 2012	#4
Here is why I think we should tax churches...	phantom power	Dec 2012	#5
Long past time. Tax them like the businesses they are. n/t	MANative	Dec 2012	#6
Do you want to tax all non-profit organizations, or just religious ones?	Freddie Stubbs	Dec 2012	#7
I would not tax charitable organizations	FreeState	Dec 2012	#12
Why is it relevant if if it a charity 'outside its own faith?'	Freddie Stubbs	Dec 2012	#165
I'd give them deduction for certain activities.	ReasonableToo	Dec 2012	#54
Why is your question even relevant to this debate?	dballance	Dec 2012	#57
Are you are saying that nonprofits with buildings under a certain size should be exempt from tax?	Freddie Stubbs	Dec 2012	#166
Oh Please	dballance	Dec 2012	#171
The non-profit arm of the church	adieu	Dec 2012	#64
I say...	AlbertCat	Dec 2012	#87
You always ask the question. Why dont you tell us how you feel? nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#112
I oppose taxing non-profits	Freddie Stubbs	Dec 2012	#167
A few of them have let slip their real agenda.	Union Scribe	Dec 2012	#139
Real non-profits	_ed_	Dec 2012	#145
UNICEF is an part of the UN. They have a big fancy building sitting on prime real estate	Freddie Stubbs	Dec 2012	#169
Yes.	fadedrose	Dec 2012	#8
I think they should be taxed	MynameisBlarney	Dec 2012	#41
Churches, corporations, charities	The Second Stone	Dec 2012	#9
it would be difficult to achieve taxation of churches	cali	Dec 2012	#10
Obama, give us a liberal court. n/t	rainin	Dec 2012	#11
Not sure that would help	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#161
Absolutely!!!	spartan61	Dec 2012	#13
Long overdo! I would love to tax them into	arthritisR_US	Dec 2012	#14
Aaaaaaand the real motive appears. nt	Union Scribe	Dec 2012	#138
Sorry, I don't understand	arthritisR_US	Dec 2012	#141
Took longer than I expected, actually.	cordelia	Dec 2012	#168
Yes.	peacebird	Dec 2012	#15
When have I not thought this	rock	Dec 2012	#16
Works for me.......... NT	Ernesto	Dec 2012	#17
Indeed!	shrdlu	Dec 2012	#18
You can't pick and choose among non-profits.	former9thward	Dec 2012	#19
Surely only profits would be taxed? And non-profits don't make a profit?	Nye Bevan	Dec 2012	#24
They would be taxed on their income (donations).	former9thward	Dec 2012	#35
Your idea would hurt a lot of nonprofits with no religious affiliation, it would actually kill kids	pediatricmedic	Dec 2012	#74
Not my idea.	former9thward	Dec 2012	#95
What profit do churches have?	AlexSatan	Dec 2012	#37
OK, that's what I'm missing. Profit = Income - Expenses.	Nye Bevan	Dec 2012	#61
What profit do churches have?	AlbertCat	Dec 2012	#89
So the same should happen to all non-profits, right?	AlexSatan	Dec 2012	#91
Do non-profits get a rectory tax free?	AlbertCat	Dec 2012	#94
Non profits do a lot of those things.	former9thward	Dec 2012	#98
Non profits do a lot of those things.	AlbertCat	Dec 2012	#99
Google is your friend	AlexSatan	Dec 2012	#104
Stop it!!!	AlexSatan	Dec 2012	#105
Which would effectively eliminate the vast majority of religious facilities.	LTX	Dec 2012	#92
in reality elimination of, small churches, synagogues, and mosques i	AlbertCat	Dec 2012	#97
Does that mean you will just target large	AlexSatan	Dec 2012	#100
How would you avoid discrimination claims?	LTX	Dec 2012	#106
Yep.	Union Scribe	Dec 2012	#140
Yes we can pick and choose - when some are acting as lobbying arms rather than non-profits	TBF	Dec 2012	#123
No you can't.	former9thward	Dec 2012	#134
"If a non-profit is violating its status then the IRS can revoke its non-profit status" -	TBF	Dec 2012	#163
I'm tired of subsidizing these con-jobs. n/t	Egalitarian Thug	Dec 2012	#20
Should have done lhat long time ago!	Auntie Bush	Dec 2012	#21
It's waaaaay overdue!	City Lights	Dec 2012	#22
They should at LEAST be taxed the same amount as big Corporations....	ejbr	Dec 2012	#23
yes tax them	ThomThom	Dec 2012	#25
Absolutely	denvine	Dec 2012	#26
I do not buy their numbers.	Unca Jim	Dec 2012	#27
Would Jesus wear a Rolex on the TV on Sunday?	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#29
Yeah, I tend to ignore random numbers thrown around on the internets.	progressoid	Dec 2012	#115
It was never time to STOP taxing them.	RomneyLies	Dec 2012	#28
Particularly	libodem	Dec 2012	#30
Has Been a Pet Peeve...	PoliticalBiker	Dec 2012	#31
Every last church and cult...	NYtoBush-Drop Dead	Dec 2012	#32
The amount of abuse of tax-exempt status by churches AND other kinds of non-profits is staggering	slackmaster	Dec 2012	#33
I think it is past time to check ALL the non-profits to make sure they are what they say they are.	Frustratedlady	Dec 2012	#34
This is a post I can agree with.	narnian60	Dec 2012	#39
It's much, much more complicated than all of this.	ParkieDem	Dec 2012	#36
Then tax the AARP, and Labor Unions, etc?	mostlyconfused	Dec 2012	#51
Tax the churches or else.....	mgardener	Dec 2012	#38
Yes Sir.	oldbanjo	Dec 2012	#40
I've been thinking that for a while now.	socialindependocrat	Dec 2012	#42
Absolutely ..	FarPoint	Dec 2012	#43
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS	Napoleon838	Dec 2012	#44
yes. long past time.	bowens43	Dec 2012	#45
Amen!	ReRe	Dec 2012	#46
burn them down	datasuspect	Dec 2012	#47
Anti-theism on steroids. n/t	LTX	Dec 2012	#93
anti-humanist bigot on goofballs	datasuspect	Dec 2012	#96
Bigot?	LTX	Dec 2012	#101
Yeah, like the Birmingham church bombing!	Union Scribe	Dec 2012	#144
It's not a hate crime if you agree with it.	Dr. Strange	Dec 2012	#149
yep. religion is filled with hate	datasuspect	Dec 2012	#152
What do you have against the humanity	cordelia	Dec 2012	#170
Churches should be taxed.	PufPuf23	Dec 2012	#48
Should have been done long ago.	another_liberal	Dec 2012	#49
6%	mostlyconfused	Dec 2012	#55
Churches Want To Be TAXED	rsmith6621	Dec 2012	#50
They can relinquish their tax exempt status at any time.	Mariana	Dec 2012	#113
Does anyone else think it's time to tax the churches?	The CCC	Dec 2012	#52
The tax exemption is not Constitutional. The government should not be funding religions. nm	rhett o rick	Dec 2012	#111
Yes it past due...	haikugal	Dec 2012	#53
If they used their money to actually help the poor it would be one thing,	truebluegreen	Dec 2012	#56
More and more the preaching comes to politics.	peace13	Dec 2012	#58
Churches, universities and hospitals are all tax free and maybe ...	Vox Moi	Dec 2012	#59
Churches, universities and hospitals are all tax free and maybe ...	The CCC	Dec 2012	#68
Yes Yes	NOIBN	Dec 2012	#60
You can only tax churches if you tax ALL non-profit orgs.	NYC Liberal	Dec 2012	#62
Good point!	FailureToCommunicate	Dec 2012	#81
I don't get this	Sgent	Dec 2012	#147
Churches fall under 501(c)(3) along with certain other types of non-profit orgs	NYC Liberal	Dec 2012	#150
Yes and no	Sgent	Dec 2012	#154
Exactly	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#159
No however....	LynneSin	Dec 2012	#63
Only the churches that openly endorse one candidate or party over another.	sarchasm	Dec 2012	#65
absolutely	riverbendviewgal	Dec 2012	#66
Yes!!!	santamargarita	Dec 2012	#67
Unite! and Join me a New Movement to Tax all religious church property!	zwyziec	Dec 2012	#69
Great post	dreamnightwind	Dec 2012	#114
taxes	mcgarry50	Dec 2012	#70
Long overdue.	hifiguy	Dec 2012	#71
As long as the Church is tax exempt	The Wizard	Dec 2012	#72
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".	Nye Bevan	Dec 2012	#78
nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof	democrattotheend	Dec 2012	#160
Definitely nt	Nye Bevan	Dec 2012	#162
Long, long past time!	Raster	Dec 2012	#73
Tax Information for Churches and Religious Organizations (IRS)	pinto	Dec 2012	#75
Long overdue! n/t	Paper Roses	Dec 2012	#76
Yes Please. Jesus wants to pay his quarterlies now! nt	Walk away	Dec 2012	#77
No. And this is a little silly.	dawg	Dec 2012	#79
Most of the contributed money isn't even declared on taxes.	GreenStormCloud	Dec 2012	#164
Yes, count me in!	FiveGoodMen	Dec 2012	#80
Fitting that the image is of the Mormon Tabernacle.	KamaAina	Dec 2012	#82
I think it's time to enforce existing tax law.	gcomeau	Dec 2012	#83
Not everything.	Cleita	Dec 2012	#84
Fuck ya! n/t	Hotler	Dec 2012	#85
Absolutely not, and a perfectly ridiculous idea:	LTX	Dec 2012	#86
Deinfintely. And there's an app for that.	Dark n Stormy Knight	Dec 2012	#88
Pat Robertson's-----DEFINITELY!!	young_at_heart	Dec 2012	#90
No, But Yes	ProfessorGAC	Dec 2012	#102
Yes.	Pool Hall Ace	Dec 2012	#103
Any church that tries to insert its dogma into civil law	Warpy	Dec 2012	#107
Yes, I think churches should pay taxes. nt	ZombieHorde	Dec 2012	#108
Yes,but what about only the ones who are political?	cpamomfromtexas	Dec 2012	#109
That's just the beginning of what I think it's time for. (nt)	Kurovski	Dec 2012	#110
Yes	jackbenimble	Dec 2012	#116
Time to start a movement.	sarcasmo	Dec 2012	#117
HELLS YEAH!	loudsue	Dec 2012	#118
Amen	Timbuk3	Dec 2012	#119
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes	Squinch	Dec 2012	#121
It's way	femrap	Dec 2012	#122
Long past time to tax them	ProfessionalLeftist	Dec 2012	#124
Definitely! It could really change the South.nt	sylvanus	Dec 2012	#125
Absolutely! nt	avebury	Dec 2012	#126
HELL yes!!!	MotherPetrie	Dec 2012	#127
Separate church and state by not giving churches exceptional treatment under the law!	Coyotl	Dec 2012	#128
R#110 & K for, YESssss!1 n/t	UTUSN	Dec 2012	#129
absolutely	larkrake	Dec 2012	#133
I know alot of priests who drive Beamers and they run a racket	larkrake	Dec 2012	#135
Yes. Mega churches are often media and publishing empires.	Politicub	Dec 2012	#136
Long past time.	Iggo	Dec 2012	#137
If they want to play then they should pay.....	Historic NY	Dec 2012	#142
Yes, wholeheartedly	Aerows	Dec 2012	#143
I think they should receive a tax exemption only to the extent they are doing charitable work	Major Nikon	Dec 2012	#146
FREE RIDE	homegirl	Dec 2012	#148
Churches are like businesses in a sense	xxxsdesdexxx	Dec 2012	#153
Yes. Absolutely. Next question?	Taverner	Dec 2012	#155
Tithing to churches should not be tax exempt.	LiberalFighter	Dec 2012	#156
I really really agree	xxxsdesdexxx	Dec 2012	#157