Does a tobacco company provide a public good? No.
Does a producer of pornography provide a public good? No.
How are they any different from a religious institution? The answer is that they are not different. These institutions are taxed, and so should religious institutions.
Should Churches and other religious institutions be tax-exempt?
ANGEL
2012/06/03 01:00:10
|
|
|||||
|
15 votes
|
|
27% | ||
|
31 votes
|
|
55% | ||
|
10 votes
|
|
18% | ||
According to U.S. tax law, religious organizations are not required to
pay taxes because they are non-profit institutions and because
they provide a public good. (I'm sure my Atheist friends will have many comments about the term "public good" as applied to religious institutions (LOL)
Many question such reasoning and argue that churches can be enormously profitable and that the only benefits they provide are to their own members.
I'd be interested in hearing from people of all backgrounds, including Atheists, Agnostics,those involved in Buddhism, Christianity, Scientology, Judaism, Muslims, etc.
Do you believe religious organizations should be tax-exempt? Why or why not?
pay taxes because they are non-profit institutions and because
they provide a public good. (I'm sure my Atheist friends will have many comments about the term "public good" as applied to religious institutions (LOL)
Many question such reasoning and argue that churches can be enormously profitable and that the only benefits they provide are to their own members.
I'd be interested in hearing from people of all backgrounds, including Atheists, Agnostics,those involved in Buddhism, Christianity, Scientology, Judaism, Muslims, etc.
Do you believe religious organizations should be tax-exempt? Why or why not?
Top Opinion
-
Disko Pickle 2012/06/03 06:22:39
I also don't think that the salaries of religious leaders should be tax exempt.
http://thesouthern.com/lifest...
This is an article regarding a recent restoration of the First Church of Christ, Scientist. One church member justified the renovations: “Beauty and order are attributes of God...The way the building looks reflects upon your thoughts and how you perceive things...Therefore the church should be the same way, full of beauty and order.”
This poll asks a general question about churches and religious institutions which you answered. If you want to discuss 1 religion in particular, such as Scientology or any other religious group -- then please either go to a poll that addresses that issue - or if you have any questions you want to discuss with me, then feel free to e-mail me privately. I always respect the author of polls and keep my comments on-topic. Thank you for respecting this request and thank you for your response to the question.
Under our current law, non-profit corporations are not taxed. This, of course, applies to churches as long as they comply with the non-profit corporation rules. If they don't, then they get taxed. This is a standard that applies to everyone, not just churches. There is a lot of false information spread out there that churches are treated differently from other non-profits.
Am I a nasty Liberal? Nope. The base of society is made up of poor people (and thats a fact). Using only that type of tax system will cripple economy, as poor people won't be able to spend money!
I also know of many non profits that are not taxed also.
Any funds in church coffers after aiding the poor, & helpless should be taxed.
and ministers should pay income taxes like the rest of us!
Putting that aside, I agree that ministers should pay income taxes.
The church is the worst offender of crimes on humanity by sweeping it all under the holy carpet and enabling this criminal behavior with impunity.
Churches have always been tax-exempt. Prior to 1954, as well as afterward, when the 501(c)3 rules were established. The whole reason that particular section was placed in the Internal Revenue Code was to harmonize the Code with almost 200 years of law (and constitutional construction/original intent) wherein churches were not taxable. If no exemption had been offered, such a section would have been unconstitutional.
I first want to address the difference between religions and secular 501 c3 charities. Those charities are allowed to have a headquarters and support staff paid for out of monies raised by the charity. They are allowed a certain number of vehicles to support their endeavors. They are allowed travel expenses when that travel directly benefits the charity. In other words, ALL of these activities must benefit the charity in a very precise manner. Additionally, a charity must be able to demonstrate that the largest proportion of it's income goes toward the stated purpose of the charity and not for support purposes.
And, it must be documented. In great financial detail. We call charities that use large percentages of their income to benefit employees "scams" and the government will pull their tax-exempt status.
Employees of 501 c3 charities have their income taxed, just like the income of any working person. Often, the governing bodies don't take a salary, at all. Many of the largest, most well-established charities are run by a Board of Directors who volunteer their time.
Religions have to do none of these things. ALL of their buildings are completely tax-free. NONE of their employees (exce...
I first want to address the difference between religions and secular 501 c3 charities. Those charities are allowed to have a headquarters and support staff paid for out of monies raised by the charity. They are allowed a certain number of vehicles to support their endeavors. They are allowed travel expenses when that travel directly benefits the charity. In other words, ALL of these activities must benefit the charity in a very precise manner. Additionally, a charity must be able to demonstrate that the largest proportion of it's income goes toward the stated purpose of the charity and not for support purposes.
And, it must be documented. In great financial detail. We call charities that use large percentages of their income to benefit employees "scams" and the government will pull their tax-exempt status.
Employees of 501 c3 charities have their income taxed, just like the income of any working person. Often, the governing bodies don't take a salary, at all. Many of the largest, most well-established charities are run by a Board of Directors who volunteer their time.
Religions have to do none of these things. ALL of their buildings are completely tax-free. NONE of their employees (except, perhaps, office staff...I'll have to look that up) have to pay income taxes. They don't even have to account for how much money they bring in or what they do with it.
(continued)
Now, I'll address that "public good" point. It's a baggie of warm roach spit when applied to religion.
Religious sociological endeavors exist for two reasons. One is to benefit the religion's own members. The other is to further the religion. I'll accept the first as simply the standard human response to supporting "us" and address the latter point.
I know of no religion that provides charitable services for free. Ever. They all expect "payment", preferably in the form of conversion but they'll even take some down-and-out street guy listening to a sermon and singing a hymn before eating his donated food.
When tsunamis or earthquakes happen, some countries have banned Christian groups from preaching to the victims in exchange for food or medical care. When that happens, the Christians take their ball and go home. They don't want to actually help...they want to further their agenda.
I once issued a challenge, right here on SH, for members to name one Christian organization, just one, that provides charitable services without mentioning their god. Only one man took me up on it and the best he could do was to say that his church helped build sandbag levees during a flood and didn't preach. DUH! You're up to your knees in flood water, feverishly filling and lugging sandba...
Now, I'll address that "public good" point. It's a baggie of warm roach spit when applied to religion.
Religious sociological endeavors exist for two reasons. One is to benefit the religion's own members. The other is to further the religion. I'll accept the first as simply the standard human response to supporting "us" and address the latter point.
I know of no religion that provides charitable services for free. Ever. They all expect "payment", preferably in the form of conversion but they'll even take some down-and-out street guy listening to a sermon and singing a hymn before eating his donated food.
When tsunamis or earthquakes happen, some countries have banned Christian groups from preaching to the victims in exchange for food or medical care. When that happens, the Christians take their ball and go home. They don't want to actually help...they want to further their agenda.
I once issued a challenge, right here on SH, for members to name one Christian organization, just one, that provides charitable services without mentioning their god. Only one man took me up on it and the best he could do was to say that his church helped build sandbag levees during a flood and didn't preach. DUH! You're up to your knees in flood water, feverishly filling and lugging sandbags...who are you going to preach to? But, I'd be willing to bet serious money that, if a reporter stuck a microphone in his face, he'd mention his church and say how they were doing it for Jesus.
No one else said a word.
In my mind, charity to swell your member base (as in food kitchens, AA, Criminon or Narconon) isn't charity. It's recruitment. Real charity is to give just because giving is necessary. I support two children in a 3rd World country by donating to a purely secular charity that exists, and is monitored, for that purpose. Those kids get their food, clothing, books and school fees paid without once hearing the name of any god.
I give because I have it to give and they need it.
Here is what I found: http://www.ehow.com/about_503... "Although religious institutions often perform charitable duties, they are not technically considered charities under the law because their primary purpose is not to provide charitable services. They are also nearly always considered exempt from federal income taxation. However, they are governed by a somewhat different set of tax regulations than charitable organizations."
So I'm not sure that by comparing religious organizations to charities isn't the same as comparing oranges to apples, and since all religious organizations don't need to be charitable organizations, your "challenge" didn't make sense to me. All religions have as one of their purposes to create greater interest and membership. Of course, those who go about helping others do so under their specific religious banner. I don't see that that is unethical or that it would/should impinge on their tax-exempt status. I can, though, understand your objection as to the motive...
Here is what I found: http://www.ehow.com/about_503... "Although religious institutions often perform charitable duties, they are not technically considered charities under the law because their primary purpose is not to provide charitable services. They are also nearly always considered exempt from federal income taxation. However, they are governed by a somewhat different set of tax regulations than charitable organizations."
So I'm not sure that by comparing religious organizations to charities isn't the same as comparing oranges to apples, and since all religious organizations don't need to be charitable organizations, your "challenge" didn't make sense to me. All religions have as one of their purposes to create greater interest and membership. Of course, those who go about helping others do so under their specific religious banner. I don't see that that is unethical or that it would/should impinge on their tax-exempt status. I can, though, understand your objection as to the motives involved - i.e. are you helping someone for the purpose of helping or for the purpose of promoting your religion? While the answer is probably 'both', helping with absolutely no alterior motive, is certainly a less selfish endeavor.
If you are suggesting that religious organizations be held to similar standards of accountability as charitable organizations with regards to their finances - I agree with you. If you are suggesting that the standards of accountability be raised - I think that is certainly something that should be looked at.
I rent a room to a friend who is a Christian, who is on the board and is the treasurer at his Church. I asked him about the money received by the Pastor of that church. I was told (just this morning) that the Pastor's "income" gets taxed. However, the Pastor receives a housing allowance and that is NOT taxed. My friend did not know if there is a limit as to how much of a housing allowance the Pastor could receive. I did find some info on the internet that addresses this: http://www.bic-church.org/res... http://www.freechurchaccounti... It appears that the amount of housing allowance must be "board-approved" and meet certain criteria. This could be an entirely new topic and possibly a new poll topic.
The fact is, undoubtedly, that there is a great deal of abuse by various religious establishments as to where the funds go and who benefits. (Many charitable organizations have also been found guilty of such abuses) The thing that I can't reconcile though, is how can the Government tax a religious establishment and still maintain separation of church and state? Isn't that a violation of the 1st amendment section "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.."? Is the answer more accountability to justify the status to ensure that this is not being abused?
Its interesting, that on polls that address religious messages being advertised in Government buildings, the Atheists hold up the "separation of church and state" banner. But when it comes to taxation by the government, that tune is no longer played.
Now Tredz, I know your viewpoint as to all religions, and if left up to you and many Atheists, they would be relegated to their own deserted island without internet access :) -- and there are many on Soda Head who would probably pay to get me buried on one -- but given that religions do exist and will exist, how do you think they should be taxed and how would that not be a violation of the 1st Amendment?
They are exempt because it is a hangover from those days when Christianity was all there was, religiously, in Europe.
Although, did you know that medieval kings did tax the Church for money to fight wars? Somehow, the churches were able to put a stop to that...hence the current oppositional views.
Do you really think that the food kitchens would disappear? Would not people of good will who do not have an agenda continue the effort? At the end of WWI, when returning soldiers were, basically, left to fend for themselves before the government got around to granting them pitiful pensions, groups of citizens helped feed them, house them and find them jobs. This was a grass-roots thing and transcended religion.
All I want is that the guy selling smoke has to pay the same as the guy selling food on the same amount of income. And the corporation pimping a god has to pay for it's non-charitable activities just like the corporation pimping a car. And, I don't include "missions" in that category. If you want to recruit...pay for it.
I see no reason why flimflam should be tax-exempt.
I agree - the food kitchens would continue. But that doesn't make it WRONG or even suspicious that there are religious groups behind such actions. There are just more such activities.
I don't even necessarily disagree that religious organizations should pay taxes. The only points that I have trouble reconciling are these:
1) If the Government is to make no law as to religions - doesn't this violate the first amendment?
2) There are times when you have said that you want religion to keep out of your Government. How then can Government intervene with religion via taxation, and then you not expect that religion will get involved in the Government? People object to Government establishments advertising religious messages and cry "Separation of Church and State", but in this issue they are calling for the Government to regulate the church.
Tredz - I'm not even arguing with you - I'm trying to understand how you can have one without the other. I concede that I may be missing something here.
In the first place the Constitution prohibits the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. It doesn't prevent them from interfering in one. The founding fathers, who were mostly Deists, didn't want a government that had an "official" religion. That's the only thing the Establishment clause addresses.
In fact, in 1890, Congress officially disbanded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and confiscated all of their assets because of their refusal to give up polygamy as a doctrine. (I, personally, think this was wrong, but it did stand the test of legality. The government had no right to interfere in the doctrinal beliefs of any religion, with the exception of a religion that practiced human or animal sacrifice. And, although I'm an animal lover, I'm not too sure about the animal part. I don't shed too many tears over a rooster.)
I consider those actions on the part of the US government to have been unconscionable.
My stance on religion in government remains unchanged because it has nothing to do with the money. What my stance addresses is that religion, Christianity in particular, is responsible for laws that would not exist...
In the first place the Constitution prohibits the government from ESTABLISHING a religion. It doesn't prevent them from interfering in one. The founding fathers, who were mostly Deists, didn't want a government that had an "official" religion. That's the only thing the Establishment clause addresses.
In fact, in 1890, Congress officially disbanded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and confiscated all of their assets because of their refusal to give up polygamy as a doctrine. (I, personally, think this was wrong, but it did stand the test of legality. The government had no right to interfere in the doctrinal beliefs of any religion, with the exception of a religion that practiced human or animal sacrifice. And, although I'm an animal lover, I'm not too sure about the animal part. I don't shed too many tears over a rooster.)
I consider those actions on the part of the US government to have been unconscionable.
My stance on religion in government remains unchanged because it has nothing to do with the money. What my stance addresses is that religion, Christianity in particular, is responsible for laws that would not exist without that religion and that are vastly discriminatory in nature.
If you and your spouse or male friend go to a beach and take your shirts off, leaving your chests bare, YOU will be arrested. YOU will be a criminal. YOU will be fingerprinted and have a police record...forever...and he won't even be noticed. Simply because a bunch of godbots have decided that the upper torso of a woman is obscene while the upper torso of a man is not.
If I go to the grocery store on a Sunday morning and want to buy some wine to use in making dinner for friends, I won't be allowed to buy it until after church services are over. I am biologically heterosexual (I like guys) but if I wanted to live with a woman as a married couple, I wouldn't be allowed to do that. I couldn't leave her my assets without making special provision not required of male/female unions. She could not make decisions about my health. I have a horror of being kept alive on a machine but my family would insist on it were it not for a living will that I had to PAY an attorney to make sure it was binding.
A group of cretins with a total IQ that does not reach room temperature try to teach MY children that the clear evidence of evolution is a lie but their invisible Jewish war god and his bastard son are the absolute truth. I don't trust in any god but if I were to firmly cross out "In God We Trust" from MY money, I'd get arrested for defacing the currency.
The money is an entirely different issue. Government has a right to levy taxes on any individual, group or corporation. I see no reason why sellers of smoke should be exempt. In fact, unless they can provide neutral, concrete, scholarly evidence that the thing they are selling exists, I think they should be prosecuted as scam artists and their punishment be in proportion to the amount of their "take".
But, if it is true...COOL!
=============================...
ETA: I've just checked the Net and Snopes has nothing...but that only means that no one asked them to check it. I just asked.
I did find two sites that made the same statement but, since they were...ahem...alternative lifestyle choice sites, I'm unsure of where they got the info, especially as they seem to quote each other exactly.
I'll have to wait for Snopes but it's a really funny idea. I wonder if they gave out free samples with the soup?
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com...
Dweezle, I'm not just a cynic when it comes to religion. I check out anything that isn't self-evident, no matter how much fun I think it may be. I can't waste brain cells accepting what isn't true. What set me off about this story is that they used both Jim Beam and Jack Daniels. One, maybe...both, not likely.
More checking..."Jim Beam" wasn't given to the whiskey until 1933. However, it was named after James B. Beam who rebuilt the company after Prohibition ended. (wikipedia) He could have been a philanthropist, although I can find no mention of that, but I doubt it. His company was nearly bankrupted by Prohibition and I can't see that they had any money to throw around on the down-and-out.
Soup kitchens, in large numbers, arose out of the Stock Market crash of 1929. The original concept of the free soup kitchen arose in Ireland, after the Great Potato Famine.
Jack Daniel, founder of the company that brands his name, died in 1911. http://www.jackdaniels.com/hi... I really don't think he was giving out free soup in 1929.
So, pending more info...probably nope. Too bad.