Should churches be tax exempt?

Should churches be tax exempt?

  • Churches should always be tax exempt

    Votes: 7 18.9%
  • Churches should never be tax exempt

    Votes: 14 37.8%
  • It depends on <your reasoning>

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Churches should be taxed if they engage in commercial activities

    Votes: 10 27.0%
  • Churches should be taxed if they engage in political activities

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Churches should be not taxed if they are a cult

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some churches should be taxed, some should not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some taxes should apply to all churches

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Some taxes should apply to some churches

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Churches should not pay tax if they meet <insert your > criteria

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Not if they are state churches

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Only state churches should pay tax

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only some church activities should be taxed

    Votes: 1 2.7%
  • Only churches from specific religions should be taxed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only if they are a cult should they be taxed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Charitable activities should be tax exempt

    Votes: 17 45.9%

  • Total voters
    37
Okay, so it's really just about charitable status rather than constitutional issues then?
 
If we removed this tax exemption in America, I think you'd see a lot of historic churches in urban areas get snapped up by property developers and turned into condos. Then vulnerable people are out a community space, and rich people get fancy apartments.
Instead if subsidizing churches one could subsidize educational and recreation spaces.

Outside of public libraries, there are so, so few real community spaces in American cities...places where people can hold events, congregate, build relationships with each other,
Agree. But that's a problem w society not supporting community endeavors. No reason religion should hold such privilege.

WITHOUT HAVING TO SPEND MONEY.
If it's your church, if you want to rent space from a church for a book club or chess tournament you absolutely have to pay the church (unless you're chummy with its owners)

I'd argue that even if a church failed to run a school, or a food pantry or something, they are still providing an important community resource, just like a civic organization or fraternal organization might.
They could be or they could just be taking advantage of the community.

Again I dont see any arguement of why a church deserves more privladges than say a community tutoring center or dance school.

Neither you, nor the government, get to make that choice for anyone other than yourself.
I'm not making any choices. Just wondering why a church should have special privileges.
 
Activities deemed for-profit from churches are liable for taxation. I know it's long, but the IRS guidelines are pretty interesting.
This may be a surprise for you but those rules are skirted all the time and not just by churches. Howard Hughes shielded all of his profits in a hospital, for example. And the IRS has been told by Trump to stand down enforcement of the rules.
 
How is a church not a business? They collect money and often even advertise.

The key point is a business intends to make a profit, churches (generally) don't. Collecting money doesn't necessarily mean it makes a profit. Sure, some exceptions with the mega-churches, but the typical small church just aims to maintain the building and let the pastor/preacher have a livable wage.
It does get murky when the mega churches are 'investing' in their building with extravagant luxuries and private jets and million dollar salaries for the preacher.

Some churches around here removed their steeples as a cost-saving measure due to declining attendance. What was once 100+ people at a church service 20-30 years ago is now ~20 or 30 people, and the town population has not declined.
 
There's a lot of angles to approach this from but I tend to take the "churches should be tax-exempt" position because I fail to see how you avoid the de facto "establishment of religion" if you start to tax churches. I think there is too much scope for various shenanigans if you open up the possibility of churches being taxed at all. There seems to be tremendous scope for discrimination and de facto "establishment of religion" in the way the rules for what activities are liable to taxation are constructed.
 
There's a lot of angles to approach this from but I tend to take the "churches should be tax-exempt" position because I fail to see how you avoid the de facto "establishment of religion" if you start to tax churches. I think there is too much scope for various shenanigans if you open up the possibility of churches being taxed at all. There seems to be tremendous scope for discrimination and de facto "establishment of religion" in the way the rules for what activities are liable to taxation are constructed.
I voted “always exempt”, not because I literally think that, but because that’s close to what I think given some reasoning like this. Plus the points a few people have made about how many churches wouldn’t be viable without tax exemption, makes me think we should be very cautious about messing with their tax exemptions.
 
Plus the points a few people have made about how many churches wouldn’t be viable without tax exemption, makes me think we should be very cautious about messing with their tax exemptions.
And yet people will say that taking away tax exemption would be favoring the establishment of religion somehow? It seems to me that it's the tax breaks which favor establishment and at best we can claim that at least it isn't overtly favoring one particular religion. I'm not quite sure that last bit is true either, I suspect Christian denominations here get outsized breaks (not just through taxes either) but I can't provie it.
 
There's a lot of angles to approach this from but I tend to take the "churches should be tax-exempt" position because I fail to see how you avoid the de facto "establishment of religion" if you start to tax churches. I think there is too much scope for various shenanigans if you open up the possibility of churches being taxed at all. There seems to be tremendous scope for discrimination and de facto "establishment of religion" in the way the rules for what activities are liable to taxation are constructed.
I don't follow.
 
I don't follow.

Okay, let me put it this way: I don't trust GOP-controlled state legislatures not to tax mosques of out of existence. At the more local level I don't trust Mormons not to turn Utah into a de facto theocracy by taxing every other religion out of existence. I don't trust the voters of [insert some hypothetical county] to tax everything but their particular Christian denomination out of existence. And so on and so forth.

The possibilities just seem too fraught to me. The stuff hobbs posted about Mormon business empire doesn't sit well with me either but I don't know what can be done about it without opening up a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.

I don't think you should allow your contempt for organized religion to blind you to these issues, either.
 
Okay, let me put it this way: I don't trust GOP-controlled state legislatures not to tax mosques of out of existence. At the more local level I don't trust Mormons not to turn Utah into a de facto theocracy by taxing every other religion out of existence. I don't trust the voters of [insert some hypothetical county] to tax everything but their particular Christian denomination out of existence. And so on and so forth.

The possibilities just seem too fraught to me. The stuff hobbs posted about Mormon business empire doesn't sit well with me either but I don't know what can be done about it without opening up a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.
Seems pretty simple, just tax all businesses

I don't think you should allow your contempt for organized religion to blind you to these issues, either.
I'm not blind to power protecting itself. That's one of the reasons I'm against religion, despite its supposed anti-authoritian message it quite often aligns itself with power.
 
That's probably a fair example.

But I'd bet without the LDS, the total amount of "support networks" in Utah and Idaho would just decrease. You can do what Narz said and try to increase funding for a bunch of roughly analogous secular things. But I don't think it works that way. Religions seem particularly good at creating communities and shared identities.
I think Utah would probably make an interesting case study about a lot of this stuff.

On one hand, I think you could probably argue that there have been positive policy outcomes correlated with the high LDS population and cultural influence in the area. Utah's income inequality is some of the lowest in the country (LDS congregations have set geographical boundaries that often force people of different class backgrounds to integrate in a way they seldom do in other parts of American life), you have relatively efficient government, an effective welfare state, and a welcoming environment for refugees. On the other hand, the income gap between men and women is higher there than in other places, and there are certainly stronger social penalties for "otherness" than you might have in other places. There's a reason I live in Chicago, after all.

I'm doubt removing tax benefits to churches would really change any of this stuff, though. Mormonism is probably particularly well built to withstand having to suddenly pay property taxes on their buildings. It would be much smaller, more urban, and more independent churches that I think would be particularly vulnerable. The political megachurch in the suburbs that you all probably resent? They'd be fine.
 
Last edited:
How is a church not a business? They collect money and often even advertise.
Well yeah, but so does almost any other charitable organization or non-profit. That doesn't make them businesses.

If the hypothetical dance center is non-profit, then I would agree, it should get the same property tax exemptions that a church does.

If a church-related investment vehicle or business runs as a for-profit entity, then IMO, it should be taxed.
 
There's a lot of angles to approach this from but I tend to take the "churches should be tax-exempt" position because I fail to see how you avoid the de facto "establishment of religion" if you start to tax churches. I think there is too much scope for various shenanigans if you open up the possibility of churches being taxed at all. There seems to be tremendous scope for discrimination and de facto "establishment of religion" in the way the rules for what activities are liable to taxation are constructed.

On the contrary, exempting churches from taxes establishes religion by making the rest of us pay their way. The establishment clause was meant to protect non-worshipers and worshipers alike from being required to support religions, not guarantee that support with a transfer of wealth. Poor people are required to subsidize the Catholic Church, that establishes religion...and is morally problematic.
 
If a church-related investment vehicle or business runs as a for-profit entity, then IMO, it should be taxed.

Agree... but perhaps not simple to catch in regulation:

If a for-profit company donates money to a charity... is that tax deductible ?

and if yes... is that the same for donating to a church, or a charity foundation controlled by a church ?

and if yes... is that the same when that for-profit company, being a separate legal entity, is owned by a church ?
 
The status quo is listed back up there if we want to take that as a baseline. I'm too lazy to look it up, are you? :p
 
Poor people are required to subsidize the Catholic Church

No, they aren't. "Poor people", defined as those living below the poverty line, also do not pay taxes. I don't see you or anyone else here crying about "subsidizing" poor people.

The point I'm making though is that just because one group of people aren't paying taxes, that doesn't mean you are "paying their way". I mean, do you really think the rate at which you are taxed is going to magically decrease if we start taxing churches? No, you are still going to be paying the same amount you are paying now. So if you are going to be taxed the same whether we tax churches or not, then you can't really say with any degree of honesty that you are subsidizing them or paying their way.
 
Top Bottom