Time to stop giving churches a pass on taxation? (Obama, school, economy)

[Frozenyo]

Of course they should be taxed. Just because you sell an invisible product doesnt mean your taxes should be invisible.

[texdav]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Only if you're going to remove the tax exempt status of every non profit.

And you allow the church the same privilges as others who pay taxes/eaual access to the entire system.

[hotair2]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

I understand your reasoning because we have these "churches" that are set up to for the sole benefit of a few people running them. I actually have a family history when a relative gave away a small fortune to one of the more popular ones something like 40 years back. The problem becomes is you're going to burden the larger majority of ones that are truly charitable .

''

Well if they are truly charitable there is no tax penalty. At least, the way the tax code is currently written.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

We had some flooding in my area recently and it was the churches that took the responsibility of feeding, hydrating and providing supplies to many people. The response was instantaneous because they had the people and facilities already in place, I don't know how it is in other areas but the churches here are very old and have huge kitchens . They would travel around the area with hot meals, water and cleaning supplies. They did that for two weeks.

On another note if you look at Katrina the same thing happened there, it was the churches that had the greatest impact. The Mormon church had a conga line of tractor trailers heading to NO before the storm hit.

To say churches do not provide to society is absurd.

Good points. And the ever-maligned (sometimes by me) Southern Baptist Church sent droves of people to New York City in 2002 to clean the apartments of the people who lived in lower Manhattan and were unable to return to their homes for months after 9/11. They just marched in with cleaning products and elbow grease and put these people's homes into move-in condition for them once the testing was done and they were declared safe to move back into.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Only if you're going to remove the tax exempt status of every non profit.

Yes.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by Frozenyo

Of course they should be taxed. Just because you sell an invisible product doesnt mean your taxes should be invisible.

Your opinion on their beliefs is irrelevant to this discussion unless you would suggest that every non profit be judged on what they advocate for.

[BigJon3475]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Governments don't invest or create, they sap money out of the economy like a leach and redistribute it to cronies.

You should use the parasite, mother/child analogy. They fully understand that concept.

[momonkey]

[quote=nullgeo;24669342]All good and valid points for discussion

Exit NULLGEO stage left.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by hotair2

''

Well if they are truly charitable there is no tax penalty. At least, the way the tax code is currently written.

What is profit? Art the emergency funds the churches in my area used to fund flood relief profit? Trying to enforce a non profit status would be regulatory nightmare for both the government and the churches. I'm sure the lawyers would love it though.

[Yooperkat]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

All good and valid points for discussion

Perhaps a study could determine how much revenue would be generated as opposed to how many true, broadly public services would be compromised ... see whether the revenue gained could fund the services with substantial surplus. I suspect that is possible. But I don't know.

Good - waste more money on a stupid study.

Taxing churches is illegal for a reason.

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. It's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court too.

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.