Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good post, but you are wasting your time. I have already pointed all this out. It won't be addressed or acknowledged. The response will only be, "So you think it's moral or ethical for everyone else to pay for the services the churches receive?"
Then if you acknowledge that no, perhaps it isn't but a solution needs to be found that works for all without losing what the church does for the community, the response will again be, "So you think it's moral or ethical for everyone else to pay for the services the churches receive?"
Conversation goes nowhere.
And you still haven't explained why churches can't publicly provide their financial information and deduct community involvement from taxes owe. If these churches really do provide enough community benefit that outweighs what they bring in, they they wouldn't owe anything. If they don't (like many of the mega churches) they would owe that portion of property taxes.
It's not a complicated setup. It just keeps the church honest.
And you still haven't explained why churches can't publicly provide their financial information and deduct community involvement from taxes owe. If these churches really do provide enough community benefit that outweighs what they bring in, they they wouldn't owe anything. If they don't (like many of the mega churches) they would owe that portion of property taxes.
It's not a complicated setup. It just keeps the church honest.
Well golly gee Moses, I didn't realize I was expected to explain this. How the hell would I know? I am not a accountant and I have no idea what churches file or don't file or why they do or don't. I only know what the budget is for my parish and that the Treasurer has to file financial information with the diocese.
Maybe your idea is one of the solutions I keep suggesting we come up with as a compromise. Sounds logical, especially for mega churches. I am not in a church like that. As I've already stated, property tax on my church means we shut down. Period. We operate at a deficit now.
If we do shut down, so be it. We will go to other churches or meet elsewhere, but there will still be a loss to the community at that location. The groups who use our facility also will have to go somewhere else, and the people who call for help will have to call other churches. Or steal from the people in the neighborhood. You will have your cheap condos where the church used to be and the people there will pay taxes and send their kids to the schools their taxes pay for. And life will go on.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 01-12-2016 at 10:30 AM..
Well golly gee Moses, I didn't realize I was expected to explain this. How the hell would I know? I am not a accountant and I have no idea what churches file or don't file or why they do or don't. I only know what the budget is for my parish and that the Treasurer has to file financial information with the diocese.
Maybe your idea is one of the solutions I keep suggesting we come up with as a compromise. Sounds logical, especially for mega churches. I am not in a church like that. As I've already stated, property tax on my church means we shut down. Period. We operate at a deficit now.
If we do shut down, so be it. We will go to other churches or meet elsewhere, but there will still be a loss to the community at that location. They also will have to go somewhere else. You will have your cheap condos where the church used to be and the people there will pay taxes and send their kids to the schools their taxes pay for. And life will go on.
They don't have to publicly file anything right now.
It's a simple solution
Your church brings in $72,000 in income every year.
You track how much you give back to the community in time and resources.
You then deduct that amount from the $72,000
You owe that percentage of your property tax (so if your property tax is $10,000 and your church returns 80% of it's income back to the community each year, you would only pay $2000 in property taxes).
They don't have to publicly file anything right now.
It's a simple solution
Your church brings in $72,000 in income every year.
You track how much you give back to the community in time and resources.
You then deduct that amount from the $72,000
You owe that percentage of your property tax (so if your property tax is $10,000 and your church returns 80% of it's income back to the community each year, you would only pay $2000 in property taxes).
Ok, well, it wouldn't, obviously, because a chunk of the budget goes to maintain the building, pay the priest his housing allowance and stipend, pay the organist and administrator (about $58k is the salary totals for the three positions + expenses for the deacon) so returning 80% of income is not possible. Again, from a dollar-and-cents point of view, we are not a benefit to the community, and $$ being the ruling priority, the goal to shut down small churches by taxing them is definitely viable.
By the time you get those laws changed in NJ, we will be gone anyway, because the diocese doesn't consider a church with a budget under $150k sustainable. We cannot pay a full-time priest with benefits, pension, etc.
They don't have to publicly file anything right now.
It's a simple solution
Your church brings in $72,000 in income every year.
You track how much you give back to the community in time and resources.
You then deduct that amount from the $72,000
You owe that percentage of your property tax (so if your property tax is $10,000 and your church returns 80% of it's income back to the community each year, you would only pay $2000 in property taxes).
The significant phrase would be "taxable income." There are huge corporations that manage to have zero "taxable income." Most churches would not have any taxable income at all.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
The significant phrase would be "taxable income." There are huge corporations that manage to have zero "taxable income." Most churches would not have any taxable income at all.
Regardless, those huge corporations do pay property tax to help maintain municipal infrastructure such as roads, sewers, policing and fire.
Those are the same services that churches use and don't pay for.
Exactly. The problem is, with a lot of religious people, is that they do not value education. They think they shouldn't have to pay taxes for schools, but we should pay for their Sunday clubhouse. Maybe they are just using it to try and make a point, but it is a stupid one at best.
You should WANT to help pay for schools, whether you have kids or not.
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea but it's simply false. I cannot speak for those in other states but, where I live, I've never met anyone of faith who does not value education. Actually, education is highly valued as it gives a person greater opportunities in life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RonkonkomaNative
I am unconcerned with those people. Those same folks use roads, lights, bridges, fire, police, DMV, et-al. All public services. When those folks start fixing their own potholes, and remove snow on the highway I might look at their objections.
I do not understand how being born, or not has anything to do with taxes and tax exemptions.
Yes, they do use those but remember something. The very same people who attend church ARE paying for those services through their own personal income and property tax. What you failed to mention is that a church is responsible for having adequate insurance in and on the property. They have to maintain the church and parking lot themselves, just as a homeowner does with their home and driveway. Some of the items they must cover: General liability, building and personal property, malpractice, workers compensation, sexual abuse and misconduct liability (let's remember that abuse happens within some churches), and automobile insurance (both commercial and transportation). There are other forms of insurance that a church can purchase, based on the size and needs of the church. The premium for a medium-size church (around 300 people) will be in the neighborhood of $5,000 annually. This number can go up if additional types of insurance are needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17
And you still haven't explained why churches can't publicly provide their financial information and deduct community involvement from taxes owe. If these churches really do provide enough community benefit that outweighs what they bring in, they they wouldn't owe anything. If they don't (like many of the mega churches) they would owe that portion of property taxes.
It's not a complicated setup. It just keeps the church honest.
They do report this information to the IRS. Why should they report this to you, if you don't attend their church? Did you know that, at least once a month, financial information (both income and expense) is printed on one of the church bulletins that is handed out at the beginning of the service? Probably not. It's usually handed out on the last Sunday of the month or the first Sunday of the month and accounts for the previous month's income and expense.
In case you didn't know, every tax-exempt organizations must withhold income tax from the wages of employees. The tax rules are a bit more complex than it is for you or me and many churches file this information incorrectly. But it is filed with the IRS. I'll be happy to provide you with a link for that specific information, if you want. The thing is, I don't think you're really that interested in knowing the specifics of it because it really isn't about whether the church pays taxes. When I think of all the tax loopholes being used by large corporations, farmers, ranchers, small business persons, taxes paid by churches is small in comparison. But don't make the mistake of thinking that churches don't disclose this type of information. It is definitely disclosed to the IRS and to those who sit in a pew every Sunday (or whatever day they worship).
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17
They don't have to publicly file anything right now.
It's a simple solution
Your church brings in $72,000 in income every year.
You track how much you give back to the community in time and resources.
You then deduct that amount from the $72,000
You owe that percentage of your property tax (so if your property tax is $10,000 and your church returns 80% of it's income back to the community each year, you would only pay $2000 in property taxes).
Again, not true. Read my comment above about the IRS filing.
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea but it's simply false. I cannot speak for those in other states but, where I live, I've never met anyone of faith who does not value education. Actually, education is highly valued as it gives a person greater opportunities in life.
Yes, they do use those but remember something. The very same people who attend church ARE paying for those services through their own personal income and property tax. What you failed to mention is that a church is responsible for having adequate insurance in and on the property. They have to maintain the church and parking lot themselves, just as a homeowner does with their home and driveway. Some of the items they must cover: General liability, building and personal property, malpractice, workers compensation, sexual abuse and misconduct liability (let's remember that abuse happens within some churches), and automobile insurance (both commercial and transportation). There are other forms of insurance that a church can purchase, based on the size and needs of the church. The premium for a medium-size church (around 300 people) will be in the neighborhood of $5,000 annually. This number can go up if additional types of insurance are needed.
They do report this information to the IRS. Why should they report this to you, if you don't attend their church? Did you know that, at least once a month, financial information (both income and expense) is printed on one of the church bulletins that is handed out at the beginning of the service? Probably not. It's usually handed out on the last Sunday of the month or the first Sunday of the month and accounts for the previous month's income and expense.
In case you didn't know, every tax-exempt organizations must withhold income tax from the wages of employees. The tax rules are a bit more complex than it is for you or me and many churches file this information incorrectly. But it is filed with the IRS. I'll be happy to provide you with a link for that specific information, if you want. The thing is, I don't think you're really that interested in knowing the specifics of it because it really isn't about whether the church pays taxes. When I think of all the tax loopholes being used by large corporations, farmers, ranchers, small business persons, taxes paid by churches is small in comparison. But don't make the mistake of thinking that churches don't disclose this type of information. It is definitely disclosed to the IRS and to those who sit in a pew every Sunday (or whatever day they worship).
Again, not true. Read my comment above about the IRS filing.
Thank you. I was too vague on the particulars because I've never had to deal with it, but I remember the Treasurer at the last vestry meeting talking about an IRS form.
An idea for churches with large properties and/or regular use of police for traffic control could be a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes. Tax-exempt agencies draw up PILOTs with government entities to help remedy the lost tax revenue. So churches could negotiate a PILOT that at least covers the value of the municipal services they do use. OTOH, since no children need to be educated, the church could negotiate a lower PILOT than a private owner would pay in tax. Again, compromise is the goal.
It's not semantics. When we are arguing "birthright" that means "everything for everyone all the time." Once we place the argument in terms of "what society needs to function," we can talk about making smart selections that are good for society.
Take, for instance, publically funded higher education. Even in the countries where that is done, it's not a "birthright" argument, but a "what society needs to function" argument. Therefore even after deciding everyone needs a publicly funded higher education, society can still stipulate who can get what kind of higher education.
I understand the word birthright might be an unhelpful word choice to use as it can be seen as a little loaded.
But we do have other birthrights afforded to us that have stipulations such as being allowed to be President. It doesn't entitle me to be President, it just allows me the opportunity if I have passed & qualified with other stipulations.
Same with universal higher ed support. I can't flunk high school and then go to Stanford or something. There would be stipulations on qualifying, and most proposals I'm aware of reserve the universal part to Community Colleges & Associates degrees.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
