Don't follow the reasoning there at all. You don't have to go to church to worship. And paying taxes on the money you rake in doesn't stop you doing the activity that generates that revenue either.
Plus I just never really get your "it's right because the constitution says it is" method of reasoning.
The constitution is the law of the land, and law should be followed until altered.
That said, the interpretation presented in this case doesn't hold. Organizations are being taxed, not religions. One could even make the opposite case that not taxing particular religious organizations is preferential treatment and treads on the concept of separation of church and state (state can conclude your church isn't following a religion --> isn't a church and tax it, but not other churches).
For Europe:
In many European countries part of the tax paid by tax-payers goes to salaries of people working for a (by the state) recognised church (like priests, preachers, and all other on the pay-roll).
All kinds of support are there including paying the maintenance of church buildings etc or giving the church enough land that gives rental income for churches.
Not in all countries the various traditional religions are treated equally.
And in many countries financial deficits of churches are handled in a generous way by states.
I am ok that a church is considered a foundation and not paying tax.
Abuse by fake religions or commercially driven religions to avoid tax is a matter of having your laws accurate and effective enough.
I am not ok with the state, from the normal tax, paying operational costs of churches. Members of those churches should pay that themselves. But I would make exceptions for church buildings that are part of the national heritage. Proper maintenance of such buildings can be very expensive. The simplest way to deal with that is when the state takes over ownership and maintenance of those church buildings.
Don't follow the reasoning there at all. You don't have to go to church to worship. And paying taxes on the money you rake in doesn't stop you doing the activity that generates that revenue either
The reasoning is that you can't charge people a fee for exercising their Constitutional rights. Taxing a religious organization is essentially charging them a fee to practice their religion. There's also the question of what happens when a particular church isn't able to pay the taxes they owe. Are you going to seize church property like you would for a citizen or corporation? If so, there's no way that isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Because it's the governing document of this nation. So on matters such as this where people are going to disagree, it's best to defer to what the law says on the matter.
I also happen to agree strongly with the principles that document was based upon.
The reasoning is that you can't charge people a fee for exercising their Constitutional rights. Taxing a religious organization is essentially charging them a fee to practice their religion.
X cult decides that part of its rituals is to order a ton of pizzas every Saturday. Obviously taxing this is a violation of first amendment rights because it places a fee on practicing religion?
Most churches would get past this by going nonprofit I suspect. Actually don't most/many churches already meet that standard regardless, making this pretty moot? Taxing a church like you tax a charity isn't a distinction that seems to carry a lot of meaning.
It doesn't, really. A church files somewhat less paperwork than a nonchurch nonprofit. The IRS, if and when it does auditing, can declare a church not to be a church for tax purposes. Now, how we audit is a great issue and I don't know a lot about it. That's going to matter as the wicked now and ever have hidden among the those better than they.
There are guidelines for "cults" establishing themselves as religions for the purposes of tax. That ostensibly ridiculous religions can apply for and receive equal process, should it be true, is a compelling argument in favor of the strength of the policy and governance.
X cult decides that part of its rituals is to order a ton of pizzas every Saturday. Obviously taxing this is a violation of first amendment rights because it places a fee on practicing religion?
If they are recognized by the government as a religion and they can show that this is truly a ritual associated with their religious practice, then yes it would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
But this scenario is ridiculous anyway because the church still pays sales tax on anything it purchases, so this fictional cult would still pay the sales tax on all the pizzas they order. Churches are only exempt from things like income tax and property tax.
Then the cult should also be exempt from income/property tax per that logic. If the state doesn't recognize that, why should it recognize it for X religion?
Then the cult should also be exempt from income/property tax per that logic. If the state doesn't recognize that, why should it recognize it for X religion?
Not really as arbitrary as you think. The government has actually developed a set of criteria a religion must meet before it is granted tax exempt status. This is specifically to guard against every citizen declaring themselves a priest of their own personal religion to dodge taxes.
If they are recognized by the government as a religion and they can show that this is truly a ritual associated with their religious practice, then yes it would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights.
So the government is supposed to decide what is proper worship and what isn't? How is that not a violation of the freedom of worship?
What if the government decides to take Matthew 6:6 seriously and concludes that proper Christian worship should happen at home and thus churches can be taxed at will without impacting worship at all?
1. List changing as convenient to future regime(s) and
2. Being interpreted similarly to how YouTube interprets its guidelines when it comes time to enforce standards
Also while these guidelines are useful, they're certainly not part of the US constitution and not adhering to this list does not imply an apparent violation of the first amendment.
I just checked the law here and you've gotta be a registered charity to access business income tax, GST and fringe benefit tax exemptions which seems about right.
That is roughly in line with other Not For Profits except that the exact tests and registrations differ. Eg sporting clubs mostly just have to self identify, follow their own rules, and be in Australia.
Unless there's, like, profit distribution to owners and members, I don't see much wrong with non-profit entities not paying business taxes.
When they run side hustles (like sporting clubs with gaming machines or a church running private schools on more than a genuine cost recovery basis or a Seventh Day Adventist breakfast cereal manufacturer) this can get more arguable.
1. List changing as convenient to future regime(s) and
2. Being interpreted similarly to how YouTube interprets its guidelines when it comes time to enforce standards
Also while these guidelines are useful, they're certainly not part of the US constitution and not adhering to this list does not imply an apparent violation of the first amendment.
Well, not exactly. The guidelines are developed in the context of 200 years of case law, which given the 1st Amendment is also the practice of Constitutional law. It's how you wind up with very specific things for which churches are not taxed, things for which they are, and labor guidelines specifically for taxing ministers/priests/holy orders.
Yes, social progress must be defended and things can get worse. Metalhead saw that, it made his post both worth remembering and quoting here.
But back to our disagreement. No, the guidelines are not by definition any more or less arbitrary than governance in general.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
