It seems absurdly simple. We’re spending money hand over fist. Taxes will, with absolute certainty, soon rise. It seems likely to me that taxes will rise to rates never before seen in this land.
Can anyone tell me a rational reason why churches enjoyed tax-exempt status?
We absolutely need to tax all churches, as we do every other non-profit.
Check out this Web site to read some more; it was the first hit Google returned when I searched.Oops – taxthechurches.org has apparently gone dark.
Who’s with me on this?
Excellent comments, old friend!
Huge mega-churches may be in the minority, but when they fall into that category they sure can rake in the cash. To say nothing of the ones hawking salvation on the TeeVee.
You mentioned four specific examples of services that you felt must be covered. Yes, they are all very important to our society. IMHO there are enough folks that care deeply about these vital (and highly visible) causes that they would continue largely as they do today. (The cynic in me would go a step further and use words like ‘inadequately funded’ to define ‘as they do today’.) I know of at least one combo soup kitchen/food bank right here in town that operates as an adjunct to a commercial entity.
I’m not advocating discrimination if the tax code were to get revamped, but I agree what what I think you’re hinting at – that a revamp is sorely needed. How about starting with a flat tax that everyone pays – no exceptions – and build from there. Shall we begin by defining the term ‘income’?
You’re right — I didn’t provide any argument for or against taxation of churches. I wanted to first debunk your post and the linked site.
Revisiting the linked site, I just spotted a bit more bunk — employees of churches are not exempt from income tax and FICA. In fact, depending on the organizational form of the church, where many, if not most, Protestant denominations operate as autonomous congregationalist entities, pastoral and office staff are considered to be independent, self-employed contractors, totally stuck with their own filing requirements. In other cases where an hierarchy exists, the usual employer-employee relationship also exists. It is only the church itself that is exempt from taxes.
Huge mega-churches are in the minority, not the majority.
By the same token that the church is tax-exempt, donations to same are tax-deductible.
Very early on, a fair portion of the early settlers of this country were fleeing religious persecution, especially in the form of a state-established religion; e.g.; the Church of England. All other denominations were forbidden, hence the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I could mention that the amendment also provides for the “free exercise thereof [religion],” and take my own cheap shot with free as no-cost instead of unrestricted.
A long time later, with the institution of income tax, came the realization that charitable works are desirable and to be encouraged. However, probably at least as much as today, the “me first” or “hurray for me and the heck with you” mentality existed, and Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code was established. (Incidentally, besides the familiar (c)(3) section, there are about 15 sections to 501(c).) Also at the time, no legislator would dare tread on the churches, unlike today.
There are at least four costs that would have to be covered by some other means, unless we have become a totally heartless country: soup kitchens, counseling centers, shelters for battered women and children, and homeless shelters. As far as I know, at least soup kitchens and to a lesser extent food banks, are operated solely by churches. (At least I know of none that are not.)
To deny only churches the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status would be discriminatory, and contrary to majority rule. The folks demanding freedom from religion are vocal, but in the minority.
OTOH, were the 501(c)(x) section of the IRC removed entirely, I don’t believe I’d object.
Oh, that isn’t the only curious thing about the site! Like, why Portugal, of all places? The site was at the very top of my Google search and it certainly has a prime-real-estate URL. Posts fare better with links than without. I’ll admit it was a cheap shot.
Before I continue – and not for you but for others who might not understand – I’m using the word ‘church’ here in a very generic manner, and not calling out any religion in particular. I don’t want this to turn into a religious argument. (Unless maybe someone wants to discuss the superiority of emacs versus vi. [sfsf]) Just to get that straight…
Sure, churches need to apply for tax exempt status, but its almost certainly and routinely granted. (Heck, I even briefly entertained the idea of using the sheltering aspects of that at some point in the past, but personal integrity prevailed.) WRT church/government interaction, even though the laws say one thing, you and I both know that the actual situation is VERY different. That is to say, there’s considerable interplay, and not necessarily in a good way.
I’m still thinking that the basic premise – that churches should be taxed – is just. And you haven’t provided any reasoning as to why they shouldn’t.
First, your link cites a case that is 38 years older than the latest Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (2008).
Second, churches must file for the same 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status as every other non-profit organization.
Third, churches are enjoined from political campaigning; however,
Fourth, the government has been attempting for several years now to dictate what may and may not be preached from the pulpit.
You usually have your facts straight, but this time you’re going off half-cocked.