- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Should churches be taxed?
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:39 am to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
by excluding religious organizations from property taxes, the government is de facto funding those organizations
Straight from the majority opinion of Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York….
quote:
Accordingly, those who urge the exemptions' unconstitutionality argue that exemptions are the equivalent of governmental subsidy of churches. General subsidies of religious activities would, of course, constitute impermissible state involvement with religion. Tax exemptions and general subsidies, however, are qualitatively different. Though both provide economic assistance, [Footnote 2/9] they do so in fundamentally different ways. A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise, and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer. [Footnote 2/10] It assists the exempted enterprise only passively, by relieving a privately funded venture of the burden of paying taxes. In other words,
And
quote:
The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." ….Page 397 U. S. 676 history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
1
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:39 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Maybe the solution is not to REMOVE the exemptions, but rather the CAP them?
Who gets to set the cap limits though? Some government bureaucrat? And then how set is that cap long-term? Once the govt has the power to cap it, who's to say they won't cap it at an unreasonable point?
In theory, it's not a terrible idea. I just hate giving any more control to a group of people as stupid, corrupt and wasteful as our govt officials.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 9:41 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:41 am to JiminyCricket
quote:laws and sausages.
Who gets to set the cap limits though? Some government bureaucrat? And then how set is that cap long-term? Once the govt has the power to cap it, who's to say they won't cap it at an unreasonable point?
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:43 am to CleverUserName
quote:Distinction without a difference, IMO.
A subsidy involves the direct transfer of public monies to the subsidized enterprise, and uses resources exacted from taxpayers as a whole. An exemption, on the other hand, involves no such transfer.
Again, however, we are not re-arguing Walz. We are discussing policy.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:44 am to JiminyCricket
Yeah that's the problem.
And I don't think it solves the problem. Mega churches get the attention. But the reality is there are plenty - probably a large majority - of "mega" churches that aren't putting their pastors in 7 figure homes and aren't paying out millions of dollars and are using their size and might to fulfill their purpose quite well. If you look at this from a community benefit perspective instead of a Christianity perspective - mega churches are probably quite effective at fulfilling the desired role of charitable contribution.
In the aggregate, the number of smaller, non-mega churches abusing the system probably considerably exceeds what we're talking about with the higher profile examples. And so caps, etc. are likely to target a high profile, smaller issue.
It's like getting worked up over mass shootings that are a small fraction of the overall violence in America.
And I don't think it solves the problem. Mega churches get the attention. But the reality is there are plenty - probably a large majority - of "mega" churches that aren't putting their pastors in 7 figure homes and aren't paying out millions of dollars and are using their size and might to fulfill their purpose quite well. If you look at this from a community benefit perspective instead of a Christianity perspective - mega churches are probably quite effective at fulfilling the desired role of charitable contribution.
In the aggregate, the number of smaller, non-mega churches abusing the system probably considerably exceeds what we're talking about with the higher profile examples. And so caps, etc. are likely to target a high profile, smaller issue.
It's like getting worked up over mass shootings that are a small fraction of the overall violence in America.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:44 am to CelticDog
quote:
how do you pay your navy to keep the western world safe from the ccp. Frigging missile destroyers go for $4 billion each now.
Apparently by escorting millions of government subsidized illegals around the country with new government subsidized phones.
Then paying for a border wall in Syria.
And also paying off student loans.
And sending hundreds of billions to Ukraine.
And paying reparations.
And being perfectly ok with half of this country not working or paying taxes.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 10:05 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:44 am to fareplay
Those evangelical pop up church chains, yeah.
Real ones, no.
Real ones, no.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 9:45 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:49 am to Pettifogger
quote:My personal experience with visiting the properties of mega-churches is limited, but I have attended services at Watermark in Dallas a few times. Probably 90% of the floorspace under the roof of the 3-4 office buildings on the campus is NOT dedicated to anything providing "charity" to the public, but rather to church administration and classrooms for religious instruction of church members. Not the types of "services" that government would otherwise be providing and for which the non-profit should be getting that "offset," again IMO.
Pettifogger
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 9:51 am
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:50 am to Pettifogger
quote:True, and as much of a heretic as Joel Osteen is, as far as I know, he doesn't take a salary from his "church". He claims his money comes from secondary streams of income like his books and speaking engagements.
Mega churches get the attention. But the reality is there are plenty - probably a large majority - of "mega" churches that aren't putting their pastors in 7 figure homes and aren't paying out millions of dollars and are using their size and might to fulfill their purpose quite well. If you look at this from a community benefit perspective instead of a Christianity perspective - mega churches are probably quite effective at fulfilling the desired role of charitable contribution.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:54 am to CelticDog
I wrote:
"Yes. They should pay property tax on every parcel owned and any revenue they earn beyond their expenses should be taxed as any other business as long as such taxes exist (they should be eliminated). Would be the death knell of any politician who brought it up though."
To which you responded:
"as long as taxes exist (they should be eliminated)'
For some reason you selectively quoted my post, implying that I posited that taxes should be eliminated instead of corporate and business taxes based on profits being eliminated. I agree with you, eliminate corporate and business taxes based on profits because no business or cooporation pays them anyway they simply pass the costs onto consumers but it gives them a helluva stick to beat up politicians with who in turn use tax policy to pick and choose winners and losers...
"Yes. They should pay property tax on every parcel owned and any revenue they earn beyond their expenses should be taxed as any other business as long as such taxes exist (they should be eliminated). Would be the death knell of any politician who brought it up though."
To which you responded:
"as long as taxes exist (they should be eliminated)'
For some reason you selectively quoted my post, implying that I posited that taxes should be eliminated instead of corporate and business taxes based on profits being eliminated. I agree with you, eliminate corporate and business taxes based on profits because no business or cooporation pays them anyway they simply pass the costs onto consumers but it gives them a helluva stick to beat up politicians with who in turn use tax policy to pick and choose winners and losers...
Posted on 5/16/23 at 9:56 am to fareplay
quote:
Should churches be taxed?
The Left: St. Anthony’s , yes! First Ebeneezer Mt Zion of Woodville MS, nope, they good!
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:00 am to AggieHank86
quote:
My personal experience with visiting the properties of mega-churches is limited, but I have attended services at Watermark in Dallas a few times. Probably 90% of the floorspace under the roof of the 3-4 office buildings on the campus is NOT dedicated to anything providing "charity" to the public, but rather to church administration and classrooms for religious instruction of church members. Not the types of "services" that government would otherwise be providing and for which the non-profit should be getting that "offset," again IMO.
Well to be clear, I think "floorspace" dedicated to church functions should absolutely be covered (and presently, it is and I don't think there is much dispute about that). My point is that Watermark, regardless of how much of the real estate is devoted to it, is probably a pretty big contributor to Dallas social work/good. I could be wrong, I have some family that left Watermark in a relatively bad breakup, but usually those churches pump quite a bit of money/charitable work into their communities.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:07 am to AggieHank86
quote:
My personal experience with visiting the properties of mega-churches is limited, but I have attended services at Watermark in Dallas a few times. Probably 90% of the floorspace under the roof of the 3-4 office buildings on the campus is NOT dedicated to anything providing "charity" to the public, but rather to church administration and classrooms for religious instruction of church members.
In fairness though, to pull of charitable functions, donations etc., it takes quite a bit of administrative planning and work. It makes sense that a good bit of the space would be dedicated to office work that accomplishes those tasks.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:09 am to fareplay
I think that churches should pay local property taxes, only.
No federal income taxes. There a many big churches that operate day cares, schools, sports leagues and dining halls.
No federal income taxes. There a many big churches that operate day cares, schools, sports leagues and dining halls.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:13 am to nealnan8
quote:
I think that churches should pay local property taxes, only.
No federal income taxes. There a many big churches that operate day cares, schools, sports leagues and dining halls.
And therein lies the problem, once the door to property taxing churches and other NP's opens, it's just a matter of time before the other taxes follow.
Just like those taxes that are only temporary.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:14 am to fareplay
Uh.
No.
If they're taxed, it means they're just another arm of the government. What an idiotic question, no offense.
No.
If they're taxed, it means they're just another arm of the government. What an idiotic question, no offense.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:19 am to m2pro
Sure tax them and We'll send them to you when the poor need food, when a veteran needs help with their water bill, or a foster kid comes into care and needs clothing and a bed to sleep in.
You'll also need to take off work every time there is a natural disaster and head down on your own dime and serve for a month or two at a time.
Then once you get done with that you can work on world hunger and feeding starving people in africa.
Then at Christmas you'll need to provide Christmas meals and presents for thousands of families around the country and world.
Then just when you've lost your job, have no money to continue on in your service you'll need to provide backpacks and school supplies to underprivileged children.
Think you can handle that? Because that's just the tip of the spear of what churches do.
You'll also need to take off work every time there is a natural disaster and head down on your own dime and serve for a month or two at a time.
Then once you get done with that you can work on world hunger and feeding starving people in africa.
Then at Christmas you'll need to provide Christmas meals and presents for thousands of families around the country and world.
Then just when you've lost your job, have no money to continue on in your service you'll need to provide backpacks and school supplies to underprivileged children.
Think you can handle that? Because that's just the tip of the spear of what churches do.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:21 am to fareplay
quote:
If we were to tax churches, there would be more transparency of spend and we can feel better about supporting the right goals. Why not tax em
Does your church not provide a yearly budget and what they will spend their money on, and give you an print out of how money has been spent if you request it? Mine does.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:23 am to OleVaught14
quote:
Yes, and put the money towards helping kids effected by sexual abuse, physical abuse, etc...
Putting more funding towards programs to help kids who have faced childhood trauma will lead to better adjusted adults and a net plus on society.
Amazingly therapy and counseling sessions are provided by the church for issues such as these. I can provide you with a location right now if you need to access it.
Posted on 5/16/23 at 10:24 am to m2pro
quote:I think you have that backwards. When they are SUBSIDIZED by the government (tax exemption), THEN they are an arm of the government. It is a major justification FOR the exemption (see above).
No. If they're taxed, it means they're just another arm of the government. What an idiotic question, no offense.
No offense.
This post was edited on 5/16/23 at 10:29 am
Page 12 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News