Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 31, 2012 at 6:18 pm)apophenia Wrote: There is a lot more at issue than simply saying religion is a business and since we tax businesses, they too should be taxed.
There are plenty of organizations that are businesses that are also not taxed, and for many you can likely find an enemy who dislikes them for personal, political, or emotional reasons and would love to see their tax exemption stripped. The question is not whether you like what churches do, but rather is what churches do deserving of the same protection as other tax exempt organizations under the reasons given for supporting those other organizations' tax exempt status. (And the reasons go beyond the mere existence of charitable activities.) I at one time was on the board of directors of a 501(c)3, and a large part of an effort to revise our core documents, but I'm still only minimally aware of the history and working of that section of the tax code. I can't speak to any other than the U.S. tax code, nor would I, as some of these questions are specific to the particular country (e.g. the Church of England). (Just by way of example, American Atheists is itself a 501(c)3 tax exempt organization. I'm sure there are people who would like to see that taken away, likely for illegitimate reasons, but all the same. [1])
Quote:
The idea that tax exemptions are accorded to certain organizations because they provide a benefit to society which the government is unable or unwilling to provide has a long history in the United States. In the 1861 Supreme Court case Perin v. Carey, the Court held that “It has now become an established principle of American law that courts of chancery will sustain and protect ...a gift ...to public charitable uses, provided the same is consistent with local laws and public policy...”
Later, in 1877 in Ould v. Washington Hospital for Foundlings, the Supreme Court held that “A charitable use, where neither law nor public policy forbids, may be applied to almost any thing that tends to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man.” Thus, the exact nature or purpose of a charitable organization remains open and variable, but one constant remains which unites the class: the general benefit of the public and society.
—
Quote:
There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.
—
[1] At the regional conference of American Atheists here recently, AA President Dave Silverman recounted an effort currently underway, I believe it was, to put the ten commandments in government buildings and offices; the aim of this campaign, according to Silverman, was not to gain a legal victory — the law is firmly settled against them — their main goal is simply to launch repeated cases in an effort to bleed the AA's legal fund dry. (And the opponents of AA are quite capable of outspending AA.)
Your post raises some very good points, apophenia.
I personally don't advocate yanking the tax exempt status of religious organizations across the board - certainly their charitable activities should be treated the same as they are with secular organizations.
While it's my belief that most churches legitimately and sincerely engage in charitable work, there are very visible examples where the tax exempt status is used abusively to enrich individuals.
In addition, it's my view that as tax exempt status is granted in the public interest, it is in the public's interest that all such organizations should be subject to auditing and reporting requirements similar to those that apply to publicly traded corporations.
(August 31, 2012 at 8:59 pm)Polaris Wrote: For me, I'm all for taxing everything, but as a Christian, I must admit feeling guilty for desiring such a move.
If it is just, what is there to feel guilty about? Are you saying you are conflicted? I genuinely want to know; I'm not trying to get a rise.
Edit: Can someone who's not drunk articulate my thoughts for me here? I know what I wanted to ask there, I just can't seem to formulate it.
Well I would feel more conflicted if I actually tithed....have not given money to a Church since last year.
Thought in a way, yes. Especially for the poorer churches and those struggling to get by (my Church has had to borrow money for example). Now for the multimillion dollar churches, I say tax them 25% (a low tax rate). No reason a church should have that much money.
But if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, His Son, purifies us from all sin.
Exactly what?
