The unofficial Churches should not be tax exempt thread.

[Dead Duck]

I gotta hand it to you guys; I figured the mouse would have been in here and smote the hell out of this thread by now!

He was nibbling a bit earlier but someone used peanut butter in another thread and he hasn't been seen since.

 

[CampingJosh]

I gotta hand it to you guys; I figured the mouse would have been in here and smote the hell out of this thread by now!

He approved the concept before the thread got started, so he likely knew what was coming and decided on a decent leash.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The poll should’ve used “religious institutions,” rather than churches. I bet the polling would’ve been different, as undoubtedly, most people are thinking of Christian churches, rather than mosques, synagogues, and temples.

I voted no. Religious institutions, generally, are big business and scams. You can find salvation simply by reading the Bible, reflecting on your life, and speaking with your tongue.

 

[Ingomike]

Many of the second amendment hawks seem not to be first amendment hawks...

 

[churchmouse]

I gotta hand it to you guys; I figured the mouse would have been in here and smote the hell out of this thread by now!

I am actually happy this has gone like this. I have learned a few things from members with knowledge on these subjects and you guys have been OK.

I truly believe we as a society are far over taxed every time we do anything and yet the drunken sailors on leave in the big house are spending so far into the red we will never in my life time see an end to it. Never.

 

[churchmouse]

The poll should’ve used “religious institutions,” rather than churches. I bet the polling would’ve been different, as undoubtedly, most people are thinking of Christian churches, rather than mosques, synagogues, and temples.

I voted no. Religious institutions, generally, are big business and scams. You can find salvation simply by reading the Bible, reflecting on your life, and speaking with your tongue.

If you look around Church's are big business. In my trade we have done a lot of new construction (HVAC) in out of the ground new and expansions to existing of epic proportions. The sound stages in some of these rival big concert venues. Hundreds of vehicles in the lot at services. Some have day cares and schools.

 

[churchmouse]

Many of the second amendment hawks seem not to be first amendment hawks...

Interesting.

 

[2A_Tom]

Many of the second amendment hawks seem not to be first amendment hawks...

Interesting.

I have observed this for a long time.

Kut, it makes no difference to me what your religion is. The concept is FREEDOM.

 

[jamil]

Unless you have a genuine point this is my last reply to you.

The constitution clearly gives government the ability to tax the people. It also clearly says that government cannot do anything to prohibit the FREE exercise thereof. If there is any tax or restrictions it would no longer be completely free...

Free. You’re serious. Maybe tax payer money should go to pay churches for buildings, employees and other expenses so that religion would be “completely free”. Police, fire, roads, other infrastructure, are expenses that are paid for through various taxes. I’m not opposed to giving churches a tax break if they provide community services. Of not, c’mon. Pay your share of what you consume.

 

[2A_Tom]

J, I have the right to freely worship as I choose.

My original premise from the other thread was, No Church should ever take money from the government.

My Church was in the school voucher program for a while and got out because the government wanted to turn it into a public school.

We participated in the summer lunch program for a couple of years, but every year they wanted more control.

It is all about CONTROL.

 

[Ark]

Church = Business that sells religion. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

An open question is whether a tax specifically on the incomes of churches, in the same manner as a business, would be interpreted as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Paying sales tax on a ream of paper is not abridging the freedom of speech, nor paying property tax on your newspaper's building.

At the very least churches should be subject to the same property taxes as anywhere else, if their "services" remain exempt. Tax exemption = subsidy, I see no compelling reason to subsidize churches. Free property is not a prerequisite to belief in God, and the church recognizes that existing and operating within this mortal world requires money. That's why they take a collection.

I will confess that this issue is rather far down my priority list.

 

[femurphy77]

The poll should’ve used “religious institutions,” rather than churches. I bet the polling would’ve been different, as undoubtedly, most people are thinking of Christian churches, rather than mosques, synagogues, and temples.

I voted no. Religious institutions, generally, are big business and scams. You can find salvation simply by reading the Bible, reflecting on your life, and speaking with your tongue.

 

[jamil]

J, I have the right to freely worship as I choose.

My original premise from the other thread was, No Church should ever take money from the government.

My Church was in the school voucher program for a while and got out because the government wanted to turn it into a public school.

We participated in the summer lunch program for a couple of years, but every year they wanted more control.

It is all about CONTROL.

Tom,

Free. You’re serious. Maybe tax payer money should go to pay churches for buildings, employees and other expenses so that religion would be “completely free”. Police, fire, roads, other infrastructure, are expenses that are paid for through various taxes. I’m not opposed to giving churches a tax break if they provide community services. Of not, c’mon. Pay your share of what you consume.

^^^this, was in response to Ingomike's statement, "It also clearly says that government cannot do anything to prohibit the FREE exercise thereof. If there is any tax or restrictions it would no longer be completely free..."

The constitution doesn't say government cannot do anything to prohibit the FREE exercise.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Taxing churches is not prohibiting the free exercise. FREE doesn't mean without cost. If the government provides services to churches, then churches should pay whatever taxes are appropriate. An exception, if the church provides a community service I'm fine with making them tax exempt unless they're also using their church resources for political activism/lobbying.

I agree that churches shouldn't take government money unless they're fine with the necessary strings attached.

 

[jamil]

Church = Business that sells religion. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

An open question is whether a tax specifically on the incomes of churches, in the same manner as a business, would be interpreted as "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Paying sales tax on a ream of paper is not abridging the freedom of speech, nor paying property tax on your newspaper's building.

At the very least churches should be subject to the same property taxes as anywhere else, if their "services" remain exempt. Tax exemption = subsidy, I see no compelling reason to subsidize churches. Free property is not a prerequisite to belief in God, and the church recognizes that existing and operating within this mortal world requires money. That's why they take a collection.

I will confess that this issue is rather far down my priority list.

That's a cynical opinion. But anyway, if it's a business, it would be profit that is taxed. A church is a non-profit organization...ostensibly. So an income tax is not appropriate anyway, at least to the extent that you can't prove that the church is making a profit. But other taxes, certainly.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Taxes are always considered as a hurdle or barrier to anything that we may undertake. Money is what we get in exchange for our efforts and time. So, taking money from someone is akin to taking their time or their effort. Therefore, any tax would impose a restriction on the exercise of that particular activity. Example, I am restricted on how much stuff I can buy to the tune of 7% (or more).

Poll taxes aren't allowed for the same reason.

Further, taxes are ALWAYS detrimental to any form of growth. ie. No one has ever taxed their way to prosperity in any sense. Taxes are punitive, end of list.

The only reason anyone would want to tax a church, is because they want to punish the church. They have too much, it isn't fair, they should be forced to give up what they have, etc.

I am in favor of eliminating all income taxes for this very reason. If having a functional government requires funds, then fine, I will compromise on a national retail tax, but that is as far as I will ever go. I would like to additionally vastly reduce the size of government, as they have no business being the largest employer in the country (by a substantial margin).

 

[Ingomike]

Free. You’re serious. Maybe tax payer money should go to pay churches for buildings, employees and other expenses so that religion would be “completely free”. Police, fire, roads, other infrastructure, are expenses that are paid for through various taxes. I’m not opposed to giving churches a tax break if they provide community services. Of not, c’mon. Pay your share of what you consume.

Taxes on both church income and property definitely can "prohibit the free exercise thereof". It also could be deemed a government impediment to assembly. As for their fair share on taxes for police, fire, etc. Those taxes are mostly paid by the members that live in the community, if the church was taxed the members would be double taxed just for having a place for assembly.

Reminds me of the argument I get on bicycles, they don't pay road taxes, they shouldn't be on the road. 99% of all cyclists own cars, buy gas and pay road taxes. We as a society have determined that churches are a benefit for the common good of society and they enjoy their constitutional protections.

 

[Flash-hider]

Further, taxes are ALWAYS detrimental to any form of growth. ie. No one has ever taxed their way to prosperity in any sense. Taxes are punitive, end of list.

The only reason anyone would want to tax a church, is because they want to punish the church. They have too much, it isn't fair, they should be forced to give up what they have, etc.

I am in favor of eliminating all income taxes for this very reason. If having a functional government requires funds, then fine, I will compromise on a national retail tax, but that is as far as I will ever go. I would like to additionally vastly reduce the size of government, as they have no business being the largest employer in the country (by a substantial margin).

I think you covered it all. Well done!

 

[jwamplerusa]

Okay, wait a minute I need to put my flameproof suit on...

I answered no, but probably not for the typical reason. I am increasingly of the opinion that what this nation desperately needs is a constitutional amendment that only allows one method of recovery of revenue, and only from citizens of this nation at a single rate. By that I mean no organizational entity corporate, profit, non-profit doesn't matter pays taxes. Those organizations aren't citizens, they can't serve, and they don't vote.

If you need to raise other revenue fine, you can raise it from external sources. That can be in the form of tariffs import export taxes, or any other means that is not applied to citizens of this nation.

It Is my belief at this point, that the above is the only rational way to break this nation's addiction to debt, the manipulation of voters by politicians via the ability to buy votes with the debt of future generations, and to develop some relationship between the cost of government and reality.

Personally I have come to believe that the revenue clauses in the Constitution are probably one of its weakest points. Keep in mind that the modern concepts of incorporation, corporation, and business scale were simply not known in the late 1700s. Largely when the Constitution was drafted, taxing a business meant taxing an individual proprietor. But the rise of the concept of corporations and the severance of individual liability with incorporation, the revenue rules of the game changed and fundamentally undermined what I believe was a direct linkage within the founders experience with revenue generation and voter accountability.

 

[femurphy77]

I enjoy watching sacred cows being pulled from both ends. Really brings out the rabidness from all sides. I watch the term "community" thrown around on these forums quite a bit and in most cases it's true but dare to opine about someone else's passion and all bets are off.

It is great entertainment though.

 

[DadSmith]

When the NFL starts paying taxes and a few other multiple million companies then we can talk church's paying taxes.