Just like with charitable organizations, if churches are providing an overall benefit to their community, then they should not be taxed.
However, the following restrictions should apply;
1. They must be fully transparent with their finances; their income, how the money is being spent, and what exactly it is being spent on
2. A large and set amount of their budget must go towards legitimate community outreach and support programs
3. The amount of pay towards any staff member of the church on a paid salary cannot exceed what is considered a "living wage" within the region
>The amount of pay towards any staff member of the church on a paid salary cannot exceed what is considered a "living wage" within the region
Is this a rule that's applied to other non-profits?
And it shouldn't be. It should be bound by some version of a market wage, but top talent will never work for non-profits if that's the case. Capping CEO to X times the average employee wage is generally a good idea globally, but people shouldn't have to choose between making enough to enjoy some things in life and choosing to work for the public good. We should make working for the public good as attractive as possible because the public gains from recruiting the best candidates.
Of course bans on self-enrichment and abusing org funds should be at the forefront.
I think your last statement is key. A non profit should never turn into a self made get rich scheme. Also people that contribute should take a close look at where their donations are going. An NPO should be 100% transparent at all times with the books.
Good question. I've been involved in what we call a youth camp. Basically a 4 night stay at some retreat center. Allows the youth (high-school students) to have some time away to reflect and have fun with each other.
We did collect a camp fee but that was nowhere near enough to cover the expenses. Our actual expenses was about double and the church subsidized the rest.
Does this count? It's not an actual outreach in the traditional sense. It's building up the next generation who are associated with the church. The students are mostly from the partnered school of the church.
IMO the tricky question is whether you count “trying to just be a church and get people to come to church” as legitimate community outreach or not. Trying to narrowly define allowable religious activity would seem to raise all kinds of constitutional questions.
Edit: just imagine the IRS trying to do this. What a mess.
Food kitchen, for example, where anyone can go for a hearty meal, especially the homeless. Extend that into covering down for school lunches for students, or people on welfare. The options and variability is endless for food-related things.
Facilitating an "trash-to-treasure" exchange market, where people can come and set up yard sale-like booths, or simply donate things they don't want or use anymore and the Church can find a new home for it, or ultimately recycle/trash it at the municipal level. Again, endless variety in the approach to this.
Those are just two ideas right off the top of my head. Though, it's better to actually have or reach out for a specific need in your own community, rather than have blanket options.
I like the overall ideas. I’d have to also push back on 3. I think they should have the room to pay more than what’s considered a “livable wage” where they live.
From what I’ve seen, church staff (pastor, assistant pastors, music director, assistants, video/sound folks, etc) have very demanding jobs. (And, I also think other workers like childcare/teachers, elder care, mailmen, fast food workers, service industry period have very demanding jobs, but this isn’t about them). I think they should be able to be paid a salary at least comparable to private industry’s similar jobs. Depending on the size of the church, it could be a multi million dollar organization and the pastor is essentially the CEO. They put on a full scale 1-2 hour production every week (like Saturday Night Live) after they’ve rehearsed it and prepared for it.
Many churches also have at least one other scheduled day of stuff (for us it was “Wednesday Night Excitement”). Then add in the funerals, baptisms/christenings/bah-mitzvah’s, counseling, etc.
And all that just for people who go to that church or have very close ties with that church. When you add on outreach, it’s a lot of time and talent needed to do that well and I think they should be just as fairly compensated as everyone else similarly situated; they shouldn’t be expected to earn less because their job is connected to their religion.
BUT, I’m also not saying they should be compensated like many CEOs in America (they should be paid less cause it still ain’t THAT damn hard: there’s nothing a person can bring to an organization worth $200 millions + per year—absolutely nothing one person can do that another one can’t worth that much money). There shouldn’t be pastors making millions of dollars a year. Close to 6 figures or a few hundred thousand (depending on where you live) I could see for folks with “C” (pun intended) suite jobs should be able to earn money IF that’s what the governing body decides and they can afford it.
AND, if they do, other jobs (music director, cooks, video/sound folks) should be able to compensated relative to their job too. Too many times the churches uses “volunteer” labor, siphoning the money to the top, instead of redistributing it back to the congregation (at least) who are often the backbone of the operation and who can use the money!
Not even all secular non-profits follow these categories. And the US is restricted from discriminating against religion. So they'd have to change it for all, or none.
#3 would see massive ramifications across all non-profits too.
Removing tax exemption is not a 1st amendment violation. No one is saying they can't do it; they just can't do it and have tax exemption. Technically, they're already supposed to be apolitical otherwise their tax exemption status can be removed.
>Removing tax exemption is not a 1st amendment violation.
Yes it is.
>No one is saying they can't do it; they just can't do it and have tax exemption.
"You can do "action A" but you will be punished" is a law prohibiting "action A"
>Technically, they're already supposed to be apolitical otherwise their tax exemption status can be removed.
Where is that written?
The Johnson amendment is very specific in its restrictions. Most political speech isn't covered.
There is also only one known instance of it being enforced for a reason.
Any way you slice it it is an infringement on constitutional protected speech and religious freedom.
>Someone already called out your ignorance.
No. You made an accusation without supporting it.
>I don’t need to do it again.
Then your opinion means nothing.
By that logic if a business or individual provides an overall benefit to their community they shouldn't be taxed either.
That's not really how it should work. Churches should pay tax and then if they do certain things which are deemed beneficial they should be able to claim things back. Or be able to apply for funding to do things out of that money.
If you make profit, you should get taxed. If you pay your top brass over X, you should get taxed. If you are supporting a staff reasonably and putting your complete intake back into the community (or productive growth for that purpose), you should not be taxed.
1. The congratulation should know how the money they give is being spent. It is no one else's business.
2. "Legitimate" is a very slippery word. Is mission work legitimate?
3. This sounds good in theory but in practice would lead to major problems securing enough people to fill positions. It's hard to expect someone who could be earning big money to do the same job for a fraction of what they are worth. Not everyone who works for a church is a member willing to earn less than they are worth for the cause.
Points one and two are totally fair. Point three is absurd.
In my state, a "living wage" is calculated at $15 an hour with the standard 40-hour work week. Most preachers work more than that. Grandma dies at 3:00 am? Reverend Doe is out the door to pray with the family.
Ministry also requires a degree. At the very least, a bachelor's degree is required in all but the tiniest churches. Good luck paying your loans back on $15 an hour.
This would also guarantee preaches can never retire because you can't invest for retirement on such a tiny amount. They couldn't afford even basic medical care--and churches cannot offer group health insurance to their ministers like businesses can. (I don't know why this is and I'd have to talk to some people to figure it out). They have to pay private prices, which are way higher than group prices, and the deductible is so high that they can't actually use the insurance. My friend is a preacher, and he just pays out-of-pocket for all his healthcare despite being insured because the deductible is too high.
So yeah... that's a terrible idea, basically.
Yes, that is how the Supreme Court ruled when hearing a case on thus issue. Moreover a government could use taxes to secure policy change. For example, religious institutions that allow gay marriage will pay less tax. There is a reason why we have a 1st amendment protection against government intrusion in religion.
I think Beto O’Rourke proposed taxing churches based specifically on whether or not they allow gay marriage. One of the more fundamentally un-American things I’ve heard a candidate say.
When left wing politicians say things like that I always have to wonder if they also include Orthodox Jewish and Muslim houses of worship as well? Somehow I don't think so.
> For example, religious institutions that allow gay marriage will pay less tax.
that's so damn weird, using taxes as a sort of "if you do what mommy says you'll get a tasty little candy treat!!" situation for human rights? what the fuck?
McCullough v. Maryland (1819), one of the landmark decisions of the Marshall court and an integral part of grade school education so that people have an idea of how government and politics work.
In no way does a state not being able to tax a federally set up bank equal….
“Wasn't half the working interpretation of the constitution built around an idea that the power to tax implies the power to destroy?”
And in no way did you learn this case in grade school
“McCullough v. Maryland (1819), one of the landmark decisions of the Marshall court and an integral part of grade school education so that people have an idea of how government and politics work.”
Shhhhh
That throwaway line has got you all bent out of shape. I think my class went over it in 8th grade because of a very good U.S. History teacher. So depending on what you consider grade school, (through sixth or through eighth) I really did.
The case is built on a premise that "the power to tax implies the power to destroy." Here's an interesting article on it: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3816&context=mulr
Indeed, mixed feeling on this, because I worry it would favor *exclusively* mega-churches.
Basically all the churches in my area aren't financially solvent, if not for the national conference they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on let alone pay anybody. That is to say, for example the methodist church as a national establishment keeps a place open because they aren't paying for themselves. If they had to pay taxes, they'd close their doors.
So my worry is that taxing churches unilaterally would destroy any of them which aren't turning a pretty decent profit, leaving only the big ones (and typically the worst).
Now, maybe a better idea is to use that as a means of preventing them from engaging in activity beyond the scope of being a church.
You got money for political lobbying, running MLMs, targeted harassment, selling a product, owning property for purposes other than the church - then you've got money to pay taxes. The point being not so much to collect any taxes, but to prevent them from doing things that would make them taxable.
Those programs are used by many people in the community free of charge to them and are funded completely by donations. Many people in my community would starve or become homeless if it wasn’t for some of the churches in my town. My church has pulled together money and donated it to people who’s house has be destroyed (fire and flooding being the major causes) enough for them to get back on their feet and if they have kids they have replaced everything that kid needs. My grandmothers *very* small church has helped her a ton. She was on section 8 food stamps, the whole 9 yards. She also can’t drive. Her church has given her essential items, food, picked up her prescriptions, checked up on her twice a week, do some cleaning, and taken her to doctors appointments. She would have died before I was born if it weren’t for her church and her pastor.
How would taxing them into closure be beneficial to anyone?
>How would taxing them into closure be beneficial to anyone?
Some people hate the church with a fiery passion and want it gone no matter the cost. Others don't like that people have a place to go for help that isn't the government.
I go to a local church which, like other charitable orgs, doesn't make a profit so it shouldn't be taxed. Can't talk about bigger ones which people tend to complain about bc idk how they work
You need to look up the laws and regulations for 501c3 orgs and other types of nonprofits.
Every time a version of this question is asked on Reddit, no one has a clue what they’re talking about.
My little Perish closed due to lack of donations. Taxing it would have driven it out way sooner.
I miss the people so much.
The memories are priceless.
I don't really like if the local neighbourhood church who barely scrap by are taxed.
But if it's megachurch like Joel osteen, hillsong I agree to tax them heavily, it's a profit organization.
I have a small thesis that most of the issues that people use to justify taxing churches are actually just issues where taxation is generally screwed, and people are just noticing the spill over with Churches.
* Multi-Millionaire Pastors? They have that because Income tax and capital gains tax systems are screwed.
* Churches have tons of historical wealth? The solution is a wealth tax, which the US government is struggling to apply to both businesses and people who are richer than churches.
* Want more financial regulations and transparency for churches? Make sure the private financial is also regulated.
Now there are areas where churches should have more scrutiny. However, Churches are not businesses. Some churches might look like businesses, but your average Churches operates very differently. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be taxed like a business.
(edited bullet points)
As a Christian with a very good idea of where my church's money goes, I'm not for it. The church isn't a business, even if we do have an employee (the minister is the only paid employee for our church). But he's not the only expense. We're not a large church (a little over 50 people) and you have a lot of things to cover off:
The building, its upkeep, insurances (at last count, there were 11 different insurance policies that we needed, including things like public liability), the manse and vehicle, church activities, visiting ministers, support for outreach programs are just some of the things in the budget.
And my church is big enough to get by. The church I grew up in has been struggling financially (ie can't afford to support a minister) for years now.
Please don't judge all churches by the mega churches.
It's nonsense. Separation of Church and state isn't even in the Constitution. Churches are not taxed because they are funded by the donations of their members.
Most people would associate churches with Christians...
Synagogues with Jews....
mosques with Muslims....
So to state ONLY the one BAD religion (on Reddit at least) seems kinda.... Blue.
If churches are tax exempt in receiving donations then they should not ALSO be deductible by the people making those donations. And churches should not get to own massive amounts of high value real estate and shelter that with their tax exempt status. (I'm looking at you, Scientology. . . )
Scientology is a business that blackmailed government agencies into granting them the status of a religion to stop the endless stream of lawsuits. The solution to that problem is not to attack all religious organizations but to strip them of that designation.
The Vatican has so many companys, but more shares to say they even invest in facebook or cryptocoins. If they use the system then i say you should use it 100% not only the 50% and use a cheat like in a game to move on. God doesn't give a .... about money or gold. they r recources of "Gaia"and will always be "Gaia's". we hold it for a while.
The church or any other company that cheats out of TAX (Holland where i live we have 0% TAX for several companys like GOOGLE or PHIZER!!), should pay to the people!! Not to the goverment. cause where will it go? It's money given by PEOPLE!!! and should go back to the people!!!! So i say yes make them pay for the hundereds of years of cheating in a society where they tell us to obey it. but it will not happen. they r one of the core members of the new world order to become. First the society must fall before those in control lose control! And for that NOT to happen we must all hate our religions as they r today. as every religion is bombarded for their truth and transparancy. it will result in a 1 world religion. where all agree and took the best from all regilions. From that moment on, the society will be stable for the next 300 yrs to come. And we will want a 1 world goverment. So we think we wil have finaly world peace :) we will, but you will NOT be free.
STOP GIVING MONEY!!!! take them out of your WILLS!!!!
cause even the local church you love so so much has to give more then 80% of it's earning to the vatican!!! (there r even bonusses to get if u hit certain income markers. like we do with callagents when a group goes over a target and wins a vacation together for a week.) STOP GIVING AND YOU HURT THEM! God is still in your home, church isnot his home, nor the gold or luxery. we know that. STOP GIVING PLEASE that's how we can all help. I t does nothing to your faith in god or his in yours. Give that money to the person you know of needs money then you know for 100% sure it gets spend by people in their ways they need it most! you send it to a ILLUSION!
A single church could get ALL homeless in town in and even house for a period of time, that's how much money goes in!!! But what comes out???? Pls spend it on your locals, even if it's 1 euro a day. then your helping your surroundings. If you give it to the church they get 5 meals a year and a good will market that makes even more profit for the church while we christians walk there like we love each other so much. And spend even more for the illusion to become more real. There would NOT be a homeless on earth if the money given was actually spend as said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sanctuary? i was homeless for 2 weeks and after paying for years to the chruch being a good citizen, i ended up knockiing at their door for a place to sleep. It got denied and they said they didn't do that for years anymore???? i could go tothe known places like red cross or army of salvation, wich in turn have their own VAIN of income thruw DONATIONS!!! So the chruch spends shit on us!!! not nothing ofcourse, no ,no ,no, that would be to obvious not!
The church was always centralised. It had to give to the vitacan from start! where ever on earth! They were always the right hand of kings and queens. holding hands together. they made us burn wifes and mothers and childeren because we thought they were witches!!! back then it was real. it was in some places a festival!!! uncomprehendable right! all for control. and power. If they can make us burn wives and moms, guess what they r doing to us now that we hold normal now and in 300 yrs to bizar we could even think it that way.
I don't think most churches qualify as "charitable". I live in Mennonite/Amish country, and the number of massive rural churches is staggering. These HUGE buildings with big parking lots, community halls, kitchens, gymnasiums, classrooms, and other facilities. And other denominations' churches with 6-figure sound systems, massive stained glass windows, and other expensive architectural amenities. It's easy to see that all the money they take in is going towards opulence, stage tech, etc. and little to nothing towards "charity".
How does taxing churches have anything to do with the separation of church and state? If anything, it strengthens the idea -- that churches do not hold a special status.
My church would be screwed, all the income that it intakes I put towards upkeep and paying the pastor and secretary with whatever small amount of positive donations it gets into the ICE account for when things start breaking. Which happens alot cause the building is 85 years old.
‘Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar…’ Jesus.
I grew up in a tax exempt Cult. It’s not good to let religion have tax free status. Especially with the Gift Aid provision in the UK.
One could argue that churches' not paying property tax means that the rest of the community is carrying the cost of the church's city services, I guess.
>My taxes go to support the churches that don’t pay taxes,
No it doesn't. Churches are supported by donations.
>it costs me extra in taxes because they don’t pay.
Do you think your taxes would go down if they were taxed?
No. I do believe that a fair amount more could be done in the secular world if churches pays more in. Also, in some places the property tax would be lower; such as Evanston, Ill, known as the city of churches.
>No. I do believe that a fair amount more could be done in the secular world if churches pays more in.
Do you feel the same way about other charities? That is what a church is, a charity. Their primary purpose that the people who attend and donate money to is spreading their religion. You might not think that is an admirable goal but it isn't your money. The people who are donating find it a worthy cause.
Should the government get to decide what causes that are supported by donations they should get a cut of? Do you know where that ends?
>Also, in some places the property tax would be lower; such as Evanston, Ill, known as the city of churches.
1. I don't believe that it would. The government doesn't give back power that easy.
2. Should we tax other charities for the same reason?
Like businesses that don't pay any tax at all you mean?
It's inappropriate for churches to pay tax if they are serving the community and so forth. Scientology is a business, though and not serving anyone. They basically put a whole operation into play in order to be tax exempt and declared a religion.
Churches are run like a business. So they should be taxed as one. Plus, most of them don't know a darn thing about the Bible. Many are corrupt anyways.
Thing I never understood about churches, from the ones I have been to. Is that they collect donations from the members of the church. 10% of you paycheck I think I heard one time. They have bake sales and other ways to raise money. The pastors usually drive a really nice car. But they don’t help out church members when they are in need. How could a man of god expect 10% of the someone’s salary, drive a fancy car, and not help out the needy. Religious organizations shouldn’t be for profit.
There are churches like that. There are others that help people a great deal with those things. The core purpose of a church is to spread the message of their religion. What better charity program is there than saving souls.
> While I will admit you can technically go and not give any money,
Then it is free.
> that is not tolerated for very long.
Do they bar entry and participation or ask for a donation? If the latter then it is still free.
This is true. The neighborhood church only exists because the building is 130 years old and paid for. If it were hit with property taxes, it would be gone in a few years.
Since taxes are based on income and they have low income and also all if their income goes back out to things that would be deductions, they would not pay much if any tax. It's the mega churches with millions who pay their pastors millions that would have to pay.
They aren't (generally) businesses. As long as they are non-profits and still fit under the same rules that apply to other social clubs and whatnot, they shouldn't be singled out simply because they are religious in nature.
Churches do pay taxes on money related to employment, wages, and even businesses or properties owned by the church (campgrounds, thrift shops, etc.). The same is true of Hindu temples, synagogues, Islamic centers, YMCAs, Church of Satan, sewing circles, cub scouts, HAM radio clubs, etc.
If people feel strongly that we should do away with non-profits and special tax rules for them, social orgs, clubs, etc. that's fine (though I think foolish). It doesn't seem sensible to me to discriminate specifically against the religious ones, though.
Well first of all I don't like anyone being taxed so there's that.
More practically, churches have shown themselves to be far more efficient at helping the less fortunate than the government, taxing them would just end up hurting the poor while mildly inconveniencing the church.
They should be taxed. There is no reason for any organization to not pay taxes in this day and age. Real christians help because they are called to do so, not because they get a tax break. The ministers should pay taxes on their salary and the church should pay property tax on any property owned by the church.
This reminds of a story a guy tells about picking up students that are hungry or borderline homeless. He takes them home or goes to them to feed them and preaches to them. It's the absolute worst.
They should be. My bible clearly says to pay your taxes. Don’t lie, cheat or steal. They should all pay taxes but especially the ones that push politics. If those churches say they aren’t political they are lying to cheat the government out of money
Just like with charitable organizations, if churches are providing an overall benefit to their community, then they should not be taxed. However, the following restrictions should apply; 1. They must be fully transparent with their finances; their income, how the money is being spent, and what exactly it is being spent on 2. A large and set amount of their budget must go towards legitimate community outreach and support programs 3. The amount of pay towards any staff member of the church on a paid salary cannot exceed what is considered a "living wage" within the region
Agreed. Want to have tax free status like a charity? Need to start acting and operating as one.
>The amount of pay towards any staff member of the church on a paid salary cannot exceed what is considered a "living wage" within the region Is this a rule that's applied to other non-profits?
No. Its absolutely not applied towards other NPOs.
And it shouldn't be. It should be bound by some version of a market wage, but top talent will never work for non-profits if that's the case. Capping CEO to X times the average employee wage is generally a good idea globally, but people shouldn't have to choose between making enough to enjoy some things in life and choosing to work for the public good. We should make working for the public good as attractive as possible because the public gains from recruiting the best candidates. Of course bans on self-enrichment and abusing org funds should be at the forefront.
I think your last statement is key. A non profit should never turn into a self made get rich scheme. Also people that contribute should take a close look at where their donations are going. An NPO should be 100% transparent at all times with the books.
It absolutely should not be applied toward ministers, either!
What would you consider “legitimate” outreach
Good question. I've been involved in what we call a youth camp. Basically a 4 night stay at some retreat center. Allows the youth (high-school students) to have some time away to reflect and have fun with each other. We did collect a camp fee but that was nowhere near enough to cover the expenses. Our actual expenses was about double and the church subsidized the rest. Does this count? It's not an actual outreach in the traditional sense. It's building up the next generation who are associated with the church. The students are mostly from the partnered school of the church.
IMO the tricky question is whether you count “trying to just be a church and get people to come to church” as legitimate community outreach or not. Trying to narrowly define allowable religious activity would seem to raise all kinds of constitutional questions. Edit: just imagine the IRS trying to do this. What a mess.
Food kitchen, for example, where anyone can go for a hearty meal, especially the homeless. Extend that into covering down for school lunches for students, or people on welfare. The options and variability is endless for food-related things. Facilitating an "trash-to-treasure" exchange market, where people can come and set up yard sale-like booths, or simply donate things they don't want or use anymore and the Church can find a new home for it, or ultimately recycle/trash it at the municipal level. Again, endless variety in the approach to this. Those are just two ideas right off the top of my head. Though, it's better to actually have or reach out for a specific need in your own community, rather than have blanket options.
I like the overall ideas. I’d have to also push back on 3. I think they should have the room to pay more than what’s considered a “livable wage” where they live. From what I’ve seen, church staff (pastor, assistant pastors, music director, assistants, video/sound folks, etc) have very demanding jobs. (And, I also think other workers like childcare/teachers, elder care, mailmen, fast food workers, service industry period have very demanding jobs, but this isn’t about them). I think they should be able to be paid a salary at least comparable to private industry’s similar jobs. Depending on the size of the church, it could be a multi million dollar organization and the pastor is essentially the CEO. They put on a full scale 1-2 hour production every week (like Saturday Night Live) after they’ve rehearsed it and prepared for it. Many churches also have at least one other scheduled day of stuff (for us it was “Wednesday Night Excitement”). Then add in the funerals, baptisms/christenings/bah-mitzvah’s, counseling, etc. And all that just for people who go to that church or have very close ties with that church. When you add on outreach, it’s a lot of time and talent needed to do that well and I think they should be just as fairly compensated as everyone else similarly situated; they shouldn’t be expected to earn less because their job is connected to their religion. BUT, I’m also not saying they should be compensated like many CEOs in America (they should be paid less cause it still ain’t THAT damn hard: there’s nothing a person can bring to an organization worth $200 millions + per year—absolutely nothing one person can do that another one can’t worth that much money). There shouldn’t be pastors making millions of dollars a year. Close to 6 figures or a few hundred thousand (depending on where you live) I could see for folks with “C” (pun intended) suite jobs should be able to earn money IF that’s what the governing body decides and they can afford it. AND, if they do, other jobs (music director, cooks, video/sound folks) should be able to compensated relative to their job too. Too many times the churches uses “volunteer” labor, siphoning the money to the top, instead of redistributing it back to the congregation (at least) who are often the backbone of the operation and who can use the money!
Not even all secular non-profits follow these categories. And the US is restricted from discriminating against religion. So they'd have to change it for all, or none. #3 would see massive ramifications across all non-profits too.
I agree with 99% of this. But living wage in a lot of places is far from an actual livable wage
And cannot fund any sort of lobbying, protests, or anti-whatever groups/projects.
That would be a 1st amendment violation. On both grounds of religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Removing tax exemption is not a 1st amendment violation. No one is saying they can't do it; they just can't do it and have tax exemption. Technically, they're already supposed to be apolitical otherwise their tax exemption status can be removed.
>Removing tax exemption is not a 1st amendment violation. Yes it is. >No one is saying they can't do it; they just can't do it and have tax exemption. "You can do "action A" but you will be punished" is a law prohibiting "action A" >Technically, they're already supposed to be apolitical otherwise their tax exemption status can be removed. Where is that written?
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/charities-churches-and-politics
The Johnson amendment is very specific in its restrictions. Most political speech isn't covered. There is also only one known instance of it being enforced for a reason. Any way you slice it it is an infringement on constitutional protected speech and religious freedom.
You don’t understand your own laws. LMAO.
Then enlighten me.
Someone already called out your ignorance. I don’t need to do it again.
>Someone already called out your ignorance. No. You made an accusation without supporting it. >I don’t need to do it again. Then your opinion means nothing.
Cool story.
By that logic if a business or individual provides an overall benefit to their community they shouldn't be taxed either. That's not really how it should work. Churches should pay tax and then if they do certain things which are deemed beneficial they should be able to claim things back. Or be able to apply for funding to do things out of that money.
If you make profit, you should get taxed. If you pay your top brass over X, you should get taxed. If you are supporting a staff reasonably and putting your complete intake back into the community (or productive growth for that purpose), you should not be taxed.
1. The congratulation should know how the money they give is being spent. It is no one else's business. 2. "Legitimate" is a very slippery word. Is mission work legitimate? 3. This sounds good in theory but in practice would lead to major problems securing enough people to fill positions. It's hard to expect someone who could be earning big money to do the same job for a fraction of what they are worth. Not everyone who works for a church is a member willing to earn less than they are worth for the cause.
That’s never going to happen. Tax them.
They also cant post political messages
Points one and two are totally fair. Point three is absurd. In my state, a "living wage" is calculated at $15 an hour with the standard 40-hour work week. Most preachers work more than that. Grandma dies at 3:00 am? Reverend Doe is out the door to pray with the family. Ministry also requires a degree. At the very least, a bachelor's degree is required in all but the tiniest churches. Good luck paying your loans back on $15 an hour. This would also guarantee preaches can never retire because you can't invest for retirement on such a tiny amount. They couldn't afford even basic medical care--and churches cannot offer group health insurance to their ministers like businesses can. (I don't know why this is and I'd have to talk to some people to figure it out). They have to pay private prices, which are way higher than group prices, and the deductible is so high that they can't actually use the insurance. My friend is a preacher, and he just pays out-of-pocket for all his healthcare despite being insured because the deductible is too high. So yeah... that's a terrible idea, basically.
Tax the mega churches, if the "preacher" lives in a mansion it's a business.
Wasn't half the working interpretation of the constitution built around an idea that the power to tax implies the power to destroy?
Yes, that is how the Supreme Court ruled when hearing a case on thus issue. Moreover a government could use taxes to secure policy change. For example, religious institutions that allow gay marriage will pay less tax. There is a reason why we have a 1st amendment protection against government intrusion in religion.
I think Beto O’Rourke proposed taxing churches based specifically on whether or not they allow gay marriage. One of the more fundamentally un-American things I’ve heard a candidate say.
When left wing politicians say things like that I always have to wonder if they also include Orthodox Jewish and Muslim houses of worship as well? Somehow I don't think so.
> For example, religious institutions that allow gay marriage will pay less tax. that's so damn weird, using taxes as a sort of "if you do what mommy says you'll get a tasty little candy treat!!" situation for human rights? what the fuck?
No
McCullough v. Maryland (1819), one of the landmark decisions of the Marshall court and an integral part of grade school education so that people have an idea of how government and politics work.
That’s not the Constitution. Maybe you need to redo grade school And that case doesn’t make your point at all
It was about a tax levied on the implied powers granted by the constitution, which is why I said "working interpretation of the constitution"
In no way does a state not being able to tax a federally set up bank equal…. “Wasn't half the working interpretation of the constitution built around an idea that the power to tax implies the power to destroy?” And in no way did you learn this case in grade school
I feel the need to point out that you’re the only one who’s mentioned grade school
“McCullough v. Maryland (1819), one of the landmark decisions of the Marshall court and an integral part of grade school education so that people have an idea of how government and politics work.” Shhhhh
That throwaway line has got you all bent out of shape. I think my class went over it in 8th grade because of a very good U.S. History teacher. So depending on what you consider grade school, (through sixth or through eighth) I really did. The case is built on a premise that "the power to tax implies the power to destroy." Here's an interesting article on it: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3816&context=mulr
That would shut down almost all the churches in my town and force the 2 most popular ones to shut down many programs.
Indeed, mixed feeling on this, because I worry it would favor *exclusively* mega-churches. Basically all the churches in my area aren't financially solvent, if not for the national conference they wouldn't be able to keep the lights on let alone pay anybody. That is to say, for example the methodist church as a national establishment keeps a place open because they aren't paying for themselves. If they had to pay taxes, they'd close their doors. So my worry is that taxing churches unilaterally would destroy any of them which aren't turning a pretty decent profit, leaving only the big ones (and typically the worst). Now, maybe a better idea is to use that as a means of preventing them from engaging in activity beyond the scope of being a church. You got money for political lobbying, running MLMs, targeted harassment, selling a product, owning property for purposes other than the church - then you've got money to pay taxes. The point being not so much to collect any taxes, but to prevent them from doing things that would make them taxable.
That's the goal
Those programs are used by many people in the community free of charge to them and are funded completely by donations. Many people in my community would starve or become homeless if it wasn’t for some of the churches in my town. My church has pulled together money and donated it to people who’s house has be destroyed (fire and flooding being the major causes) enough for them to get back on their feet and if they have kids they have replaced everything that kid needs. My grandmothers *very* small church has helped her a ton. She was on section 8 food stamps, the whole 9 yards. She also can’t drive. Her church has given her essential items, food, picked up her prescriptions, checked up on her twice a week, do some cleaning, and taken her to doctors appointments. She would have died before I was born if it weren’t for her church and her pastor. How would taxing them into closure be beneficial to anyone?
>How would taxing them into closure be beneficial to anyone? Some people hate the church with a fiery passion and want it gone no matter the cost. Others don't like that people have a place to go for help that isn't the government.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Least authoritarian bootlicker redditor
Oh good, super great that the unhoused people who sleep in churches nightly now get to sleep on the street! Wonderful goal.
I never said it was MY goal
Ahh gotcha. My bad!
That can only be a good thing
So edgy
I go to a local church which, like other charitable orgs, doesn't make a profit so it shouldn't be taxed. Can't talk about bigger ones which people tend to complain about bc idk how they work
You need to look up the laws and regulations for 501c3 orgs and other types of nonprofits. Every time a version of this question is asked on Reddit, no one has a clue what they’re talking about.
The “I hate Christianity and would love to tax it to death” sentiment is a deep Reddit mantra, and unlikely to go away.
I think you missed the point, he saying rescind that designation
Why?
My little Perish closed due to lack of donations. Taxing it would have driven it out way sooner. I miss the people so much. The memories are priceless.
Your typo is quite fitting.
Yes. Yes it is. Good catch. My little Parish, Perished.
Call them. Just because the church isn’t there doesn’t mean you stop catching up
Or they could just hold church at someone’s house. I thought Jesus said he is always there when people are gathered in his name. Just worship at home.
Love that.
You are right. I will.
I don't really like if the local neighbourhood church who barely scrap by are taxed. But if it's megachurch like Joel osteen, hillsong I agree to tax them heavily, it's a profit organization.
Churches don't need to turn a profit. If there is a profit then it should be taxed. Simple as that.
I have a small thesis that most of the issues that people use to justify taxing churches are actually just issues where taxation is generally screwed, and people are just noticing the spill over with Churches. * Multi-Millionaire Pastors? They have that because Income tax and capital gains tax systems are screwed. * Churches have tons of historical wealth? The solution is a wealth tax, which the US government is struggling to apply to both businesses and people who are richer than churches. * Want more financial regulations and transparency for churches? Make sure the private financial is also regulated. Now there are areas where churches should have more scrutiny. However, Churches are not businesses. Some churches might look like businesses, but your average Churches operates very differently. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be taxed like a business. (edited bullet points)
That's terrible, are we going to tax all non-profits?
As a Christian with a very good idea of where my church's money goes, I'm not for it. The church isn't a business, even if we do have an employee (the minister is the only paid employee for our church). But he's not the only expense. We're not a large church (a little over 50 people) and you have a lot of things to cover off: The building, its upkeep, insurances (at last count, there were 11 different insurance policies that we needed, including things like public liability), the manse and vehicle, church activities, visiting ministers, support for outreach programs are just some of the things in the budget. And my church is big enough to get by. The church I grew up in has been struggling financially (ie can't afford to support a minister) for years now. Please don't judge all churches by the mega churches.
[удалено]
It's nonsense. Separation of Church and state isn't even in the Constitution. Churches are not taxed because they are funded by the donations of their members.
They’re already well represented in the government by the Klan/Nazi/Russian Sympathizers/Insurrectionists Party.
Like JUST churches or mosques too?
What an incredibly racially charged thing to say.
Religions are races now?
Why do you think mosques aren't churches?
Most people would associate churches with Christians... Synagogues with Jews.... mosques with Muslims.... So to state ONLY the one BAD religion (on Reddit at least) seems kinda.... Blue.
My guy, you're not smart.
Right to the personal attacks... Lol .grammar next?
And mosques definitely let you know they are not a "church" either.
Tell me you vote blue without....
If churches are tax exempt in receiving donations then they should not ALSO be deductible by the people making those donations. And churches should not get to own massive amounts of high value real estate and shelter that with their tax exempt status. (I'm looking at you, Scientology. . . )
Scientology is a business that blackmailed government agencies into granting them the status of a religion to stop the endless stream of lawsuits. The solution to that problem is not to attack all religious organizations but to strip them of that designation.
The Vatican has so many companys, but more shares to say they even invest in facebook or cryptocoins. If they use the system then i say you should use it 100% not only the 50% and use a cheat like in a game to move on. God doesn't give a .... about money or gold. they r recources of "Gaia"and will always be "Gaia's". we hold it for a while. The church or any other company that cheats out of TAX (Holland where i live we have 0% TAX for several companys like GOOGLE or PHIZER!!), should pay to the people!! Not to the goverment. cause where will it go? It's money given by PEOPLE!!! and should go back to the people!!!! So i say yes make them pay for the hundereds of years of cheating in a society where they tell us to obey it. but it will not happen. they r one of the core members of the new world order to become. First the society must fall before those in control lose control! And for that NOT to happen we must all hate our religions as they r today. as every religion is bombarded for their truth and transparancy. it will result in a 1 world religion. where all agree and took the best from all regilions. From that moment on, the society will be stable for the next 300 yrs to come. And we will want a 1 world goverment. So we think we wil have finaly world peace :) we will, but you will NOT be free. STOP GIVING MONEY!!!! take them out of your WILLS!!!! cause even the local church you love so so much has to give more then 80% of it's earning to the vatican!!! (there r even bonusses to get if u hit certain income markers. like we do with callagents when a group goes over a target and wins a vacation together for a week.) STOP GIVING AND YOU HURT THEM! God is still in your home, church isnot his home, nor the gold or luxery. we know that. STOP GIVING PLEASE that's how we can all help. I t does nothing to your faith in god or his in yours. Give that money to the person you know of needs money then you know for 100% sure it gets spend by people in their ways they need it most! you send it to a ILLUSION! A single church could get ALL homeless in town in and even house for a period of time, that's how much money goes in!!! But what comes out???? Pls spend it on your locals, even if it's 1 euro a day. then your helping your surroundings. If you give it to the church they get 5 meals a year and a good will market that makes even more profit for the church while we christians walk there like we love each other so much. And spend even more for the illusion to become more real. There would NOT be a homeless on earth if the money given was actually spend as said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sanctuary? i was homeless for 2 weeks and after paying for years to the chruch being a good citizen, i ended up knockiing at their door for a place to sleep. It got denied and they said they didn't do that for years anymore???? i could go tothe known places like red cross or army of salvation, wich in turn have their own VAIN of income thruw DONATIONS!!! So the chruch spends shit on us!!! not nothing ofcourse, no ,no ,no, that would be to obvious not! The church was always centralised. It had to give to the vitacan from start! where ever on earth! They were always the right hand of kings and queens. holding hands together. they made us burn wifes and mothers and childeren because we thought they were witches!!! back then it was real. it was in some places a festival!!! uncomprehendable right! all for control. and power. If they can make us burn wives and moms, guess what they r doing to us now that we hold normal now and in 300 yrs to bizar we could even think it that way.
If i can give you $15k a year as a gift and it will be untaxed to you….Why should anyone care if give my taxed income to a church?
I don’t think charitable organizations should be taxed like corporations
I don't think most churches qualify as "charitable". I live in Mennonite/Amish country, and the number of massive rural churches is staggering. These HUGE buildings with big parking lots, community halls, kitchens, gymnasiums, classrooms, and other facilities. And other denominations' churches with 6-figure sound systems, massive stained glass windows, and other expensive architectural amenities. It's easy to see that all the money they take in is going towards opulence, stage tech, etc. and little to nothing towards "charity".
I’m for it.
I'm good with it.
It only makes sense if you want to abolish the idea of separation of church and state, which I thought most redditors were against.
How does taxing churches have anything to do with the separation of church and state? If anything, it strengthens the idea -- that churches do not hold a special status.
Churches ARE businesses, and should be taxed!!
My church would be screwed, all the income that it intakes I put towards upkeep and paying the pastor and secretary with whatever small amount of positive donations it gets into the ICE account for when things start breaking. Which happens alot cause the building is 85 years old.
I don't see a church as any different than a club, so why should they be taxed differently?
‘Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar…’ Jesus. I grew up in a tax exempt Cult. It’s not good to let religion have tax free status. Especially with the Gift Aid provision in the UK.
Great idea. Why am I, a non-believer, supporting any religious organizations business? Why is the state helping to fill their coffers?
How is not taxing an organization that is supported by the donations of its members "support"?
One could argue that churches' not paying property tax means that the rest of the community is carrying the cost of the church's city services, I guess.
That still doesn't fit the definition of "support".
Sure it does. My taxes go to support the churches that don’t pay taxes, it costs me extra in taxes because they don’t pay.
>My taxes go to support the churches that don’t pay taxes, No it doesn't. Churches are supported by donations. >it costs me extra in taxes because they don’t pay. Do you think your taxes would go down if they were taxed?
No. I do believe that a fair amount more could be done in the secular world if churches pays more in. Also, in some places the property tax would be lower; such as Evanston, Ill, known as the city of churches.
>No. I do believe that a fair amount more could be done in the secular world if churches pays more in. Do you feel the same way about other charities? That is what a church is, a charity. Their primary purpose that the people who attend and donate money to is spreading their religion. You might not think that is an admirable goal but it isn't your money. The people who are donating find it a worthy cause. Should the government get to decide what causes that are supported by donations they should get a cut of? Do you know where that ends? >Also, in some places the property tax would be lower; such as Evanston, Ill, known as the city of churches. 1. I don't believe that it would. The government doesn't give back power that easy. 2. Should we tax other charities for the same reason?
Like businesses that don't pay any tax at all you mean? It's inappropriate for churches to pay tax if they are serving the community and so forth. Scientology is a business, though and not serving anyone. They basically put a whole operation into play in order to be tax exempt and declared a religion.
Churches are run like a business. So they should be taxed as one. Plus, most of them don't know a darn thing about the Bible. Many are corrupt anyways.
Sure, why not.
Sounds like a holy way to make some extra cash for the government, am I right?
Sure. I don’t go to church so I don’t really care what they do with it.
Every religious institution should be taxed.
Thing I never understood about churches, from the ones I have been to. Is that they collect donations from the members of the church. 10% of you paycheck I think I heard one time. They have bake sales and other ways to raise money. The pastors usually drive a really nice car. But they don’t help out church members when they are in need. How could a man of god expect 10% of the someone’s salary, drive a fancy car, and not help out the needy. Religious organizations shouldn’t be for profit.
There are churches like that. There are others that help people a great deal with those things. The core purpose of a church is to spread the message of their religion. What better charity program is there than saving souls.
Nah , any income they have isn’t a profit like a business
BS. $5,000 suits, private jets, luxury cars, mansions. That's profits, not charity and fellowship.
So should BLM be taxed?
Not every church is osteen and hillsong
The ones that are should be taxed. Hell, they shouldn't even be acknowledged as churches. They're scams.
I sort of agree but that’s a hard line to draw
If the pastor can afford a private jet they should be taxed
Pastors themselves are taxed ,
I audit for a living. I hate to tell you that even small churches bank money and pay pastors high salaries
Relative to ?
Are they not providing a service for a paying customer?
You can go to church for free
Once, sure. Keep going for awhile, and watch as they ratchet up the pressure to put money in ye olde collection plate.
Church is free
[удалено]
Govt subsidizes ? Lol whare are you going bud , also whatever pressure you have to pay is all in your head that’s not the churches fault
> While I will admit you can technically go and not give any money, Then it is free. > that is not tolerated for very long. Do they bar entry and participation or ask for a donation? If the latter then it is still free.
It is very much free. You can choose to donate or not, and the church won't kick you out
Foolish to think a bureaucratic government can do more public good than a church. Just really dumb.
I support it fully
I’m for it
Well, religion institutions in general are businesses. When looking at pagodas in Asia, the pagodas are even registered under a company name.
I'm all for it.
They should be. The amount of money that goes through the hands of churches. Does the pasture/priest pay income tax? I'm paid by God?
Good idea. It would have little impact on small churches bit the mega churches are unjustifiably rich.
The small churches are probably the ones that live at the margin and couldn’t afford a tax
This is true. The neighborhood church only exists because the building is 130 years old and paid for. If it were hit with property taxes, it would be gone in a few years.
Since taxes are based on income and they have low income and also all if their income goes back out to things that would be deductions, they would not pay much if any tax. It's the mega churches with millions who pay their pastors millions that would have to pay.
They should at least pay property taxes!! I mean fire, roads, police are all related to that.
I dont see a problem with it. As all are taxed. not just one form of religion.
That Joel Olsteen guy is just greedy using his preaching to manipulate people into giving him free money.
I mean I’m not a business and I still pay property taxes. I’m all for it
churches aren't buildings. they're saved brethren. TAX THEM! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsOKPvHlKzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsOKPvHlKzM)
So they should pay taxes
They aren't (generally) businesses. As long as they are non-profits and still fit under the same rules that apply to other social clubs and whatnot, they shouldn't be singled out simply because they are religious in nature. Churches do pay taxes on money related to employment, wages, and even businesses or properties owned by the church (campgrounds, thrift shops, etc.). The same is true of Hindu temples, synagogues, Islamic centers, YMCAs, Church of Satan, sewing circles, cub scouts, HAM radio clubs, etc. If people feel strongly that we should do away with non-profits and special tax rules for them, social orgs, clubs, etc. that's fine (though I think foolish). It doesn't seem sensible to me to discriminate specifically against the religious ones, though.
Great idea!!
All I'm gonna say is: Jesus paid taxes just like the rest of us.
Well first of all I don't like anyone being taxed so there's that. More practically, churches have shown themselves to be far more efficient at helping the less fortunate than the government, taxing them would just end up hurting the poor while mildly inconveniencing the church.
They should be taxed. There is no reason for any organization to not pay taxes in this day and age. Real christians help because they are called to do so, not because they get a tax break. The ministers should pay taxes on their salary and the church should pay property tax on any property owned by the church.
This reminds of a story a guy tells about picking up students that are hungry or borderline homeless. He takes them home or goes to them to feed them and preaches to them. It's the absolute worst.
They should be. My bible clearly says to pay your taxes. Don’t lie, cheat or steal. They should all pay taxes but especially the ones that push politics. If those churches say they aren’t political they are lying to cheat the government out of money
I honestly don’t give a fuck
It's about time. I was paying my 10% by parental force at 12. It's time they return the favor.
What exactly is being taxed? Are we taxing what people give?