Why Shouldn't Churches/Mosques/Temples Have to Pay Taxes?

[downtown]

For parties interested in the real nitty-gritty of religious tax law, the IRS regulations can be found here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Keep in mind then that churches are required to pay some taxes, make bookkeeping reports, etc. Property Taxes are a state/local issue

 

[downtown]

A glance at the laws of a few towns (including my own) also typically only grant the property tax exemption towards the actual church building, and the home of the minsiter. If the church owns extra properties, they are subject to taxation.

 

[JollyRoger]

I meant on the property we already have...if the law changed tomorrow for example, we'd have to close down a lot of buildings.

It would be almost impossible to build any kind of church in a rich area, which would nail churches with regional governments, like the LDS church or the Catholic church. Ward Buildings or Parish buildings would have to be built in only low-value areas, regardless of whether thats where the population concentration was...which would create long commute times, and lower attendance. Religious groups cannot adapt in the way that you would expect a business to.

1st - I'm sure that the law could phased in and a certain amount of existing properties exempted for a while. If a church is in a rich neighborhood, it likely has rich members who can donate enough to pay the tax bill. Lord knows they find a way to pay taxes on their personal holdings.

 

[aneeshm]

Temples do pay taxes.

And that money is then given away to Muslims as a subsidy for their pilgrimage to the desecrated temple in the desert, and their Mosques (they are parasites of the worst sort), and their madarsas (factories of hateful fanatics, they are), so that politicians can appeal to the Muslim vote.

I'd like to kill the people responsible for this state of affairs.
Moderator Action: Trolling - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commodore]

No, you would have to take your tax situation into consideration before you got a property that was too expensive from a tax standpoint for your revenue flow - just like every individual or couple that owns a house or every business that owns its own building.

I am in total agreement with this statement. They get an unfair advantage in that way and it doesn't give a business (which would be far more useful to the community at large) a fair shot at that plot of land. Those of us who ask for religious organizations to be taxed are only asking for fair treatment.

EDIT: @aneeshm: That truly does sound like a sad state of affairs. Are the Mosques not taxed as well? Or is it just the Hindu temples? If the latter, then that is not what I advocate. I am calling for taxation of all religions within a nation, not just one to subsidize another.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Property taxes, hells yes. Income, possibly not. To maintain non profit status, all NPO's should have to publish their financial records to PROVE that they are not making a profit.

 

[aneeshm]

EDIT: @aneeshm: That truly does sound like a sad state of affairs. Are the Mosques not taxed as well? Or is it just the Hindu temples? If the latter, then that is not what I advocate. I am calling for taxation of all religions within a nation, not just one to subsidize another.

Mosques being taxed? Forget about it! They're given subsidies from temple money! Even the Muslim charity system (the Waqf boards) receives temple money.



I'd say that the state should stay away from religion. When people give money to a temple, they are effectively giving it to their co-religionists. If they wanted to give it to everyone, they could have given it to a secular charity. By destroying this exclusivity ("Only people of MY religion have a right to the money I give them"), you destroy the very purpose of a separation of religion and state in the first place. The religious sphere must he separate from the state, which is secular. By taxing religious places, you effectively place them in the secular sphere, which is a clear violation of the separation principle.

It is also a discrimination against religions whose people are richer, or whose religion demands that they give to charity through their respective religious institutions.

As an interesting titbit: Earlier, the Vatican was the largest concentration of religious wealth in the world. Now, it is the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthan (a major Hindu temple).

 

[Commodore]

Mosques being taxed? Forget about it! They're given subsidies from temple money! Even the Muslim charity system (the Waqf boards) receives temple money.



I'd say that the state should stay away from religion. When people give money to a temple, they are effectively giving it to their co-religionists. If they wanted to give it to everyone, they could have given it to a secular charity. By destroying this exclusivity ("Only people of MY religion have a right to the money I give them"), you destroy the very purpose of a separation of religion and state in the first place. The religious sphere must he separate from the state, which is secular. By taxing religious places, you effectively place them in the secular sphere, which is a clear violation of the separation principle.

It is also a discrimination against religions whose people are richer, or whose religion demands that they give to charity through their respective religious institutions.

As an interesting titbit: Earlier, the Vatican was the largest concentration of religious wealth in the world. Now, it is the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthan (a major Hindu temple).

With a situation like that in India, I can see why you are against religious taxation, and I sympathize.

However, the only way I would support no taxation on religious organizations would be if they became completely self-sufficient. This means they have to operate without the use of any taxpayer funded service or provide that service for themselves independent of any government assistence. That means they cannot apply for any government aid or subsidies that are available to private citizens or commercial entities. As long as they make use of taxpayer services, the only fair thing to do would be to pay taxes like the rest of us.

 

[MobBoss]

Well since they are so charitable, then they shouldn't have a problem giving the governmant their fair share. You know "give Caesar what is his" and all that.

And BTW, you have no idea what I do for my community, or what the local churches here DON'T do. I can assure you that here in Colerain, our churches are very greedy and give next to nothing back to the community.

I can assure you of two things. One, your opinion of your local churches incredibly biased and one sided, and two, you as an individual, cant come near the level of community help that an entire church can.

 

[aneeshm]

With a situation like that in India, I can see why you are against religious taxation, and I sympathize.

However, the only way I would support no taxation on religious organizations would be if they became completely self-sufficient. This means they have to operate without the use of any taxpayer funded service or provide that service for themselves independent of any government assistence. That means they cannot apply for any government aid or subsidies that are available to private citizens or commercial entities. As long as they make use of taxpayer services, the only fair thing to do would be to pay taxes like the rest of us.

I agree completely.

Taxation puts religious services at par with secular ones, and thus puts them in the secular sphere. This implicitly extends state power over them. That is why I am against it.

Receiving money from the government is exactly similar - by breaching the wall of separation, you are putting yourself in the secular sphere, this time by your own volition. So if you accept government money, you have to accept the rules that come with it (the same rules that apply to any other government-funded organisation). So self-sufficiency is am implicit necessity for the separation to remain inviolate.






However, there has to exist one caveat - that if, today, an institution takes taxpayer money, then tomorrow it should have to option to stop taking that money. As long as it receives money, it is accountable to other secular rules. The minute it stops, that accountability also should vanish. For this to happen, the leadership of the institution must remain in their own hands. So the government cannot claim that because they give money, they also have a right to interfere. They have a right to demand compliance with policy relating to taxpayer money, but not to anything else.

 

[Commodore]

aneeshm, I believe you and I are in total agreement on the issue.

 

[ComradeDavo]

They give more services to the community than you ever could. So they shouldnt have to pay taxes.

Seems like those who benifit form these servcies are only believers and church goers.

Elitism?

 

[bhsup]

Seems like those who benifit form these servcies are only believers and church goers.

Because faith organizations are never involved with charity, right?

Elitism?

Willful ignorance?

 

[scy12]

Many corporations provide services to the public and are still taxed. The same should be the case for religious corporations. If they can prove they are not profit organizations then so be it.

 

[Fëanor]

These groups often provide aid for the mentally ill

Well it seems only right to met that they provide services for their followers

 

[Zarn]

If you are going to cry separation between "church and state" all the time, then maybe you all should realize that it is a two-way street.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Because faith organizations are never involved with charity, right?


Willful ignorance?

It's ignorant to think that Churches serve the whole community. There are a couple of churchs near me who have done nothing for my life, there 'serving the community' streches only as far as those who go through their doors.

 

[downtown]

It's ignorant to think that Churches serve the whole community. There are a couple of churchs near me who have done nothing for my life, there 'serving the community' streches only as far as those who go through their doors.

Argh, read the first page!

 

[ComradeDavo]

Argh, read the first page!

Converting vulnerable people to christianity is not honorable.

 

[skadistic]

If you are going to cry separation between "church and state" all the time, then maybe you all should realize that it is a two-way street.

So your saying that since these churches don't pay (in gov. taxes ) for police and fire services (provided by the gov.) they shouldn't recieve them. I totaly agree.