Religion is an untapped resource for taxation

[SecularMotion]

Because of this decrepit economy and the oncoming depression, the day could be fast approaching when our government, seeking new and increased revenues, will remove the tax-free status from religious facilities.

Religion is a very lucrative business and owns a lot of property and assets like churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, schools, hospitals and housing units, including investment holdings, that all pay little or no tax. This is a gold mine waiting to be mined by cash-strapped and bankrupt government.

http://www.lodinews.com/opinion/letters/article_1f6197df-76f9-5e34-830d-062a5832ab40.html

[okasha]

1. They can't single out religious organizations.

They would have to tax all non-profits, not just a single class.

[darkstar3]

9. Sure they can.

They can't actually single out ALL churches, but they sure as hell can revoke 501c3 status for any churches that engage in politics and break the rules.

(And yes, that's a lot of them.)

[JDPriestly]

2. The government should re-impose inheritance taxes first.

[laconicsax]

3. It's a dangerous idea.

In exchange for tax-exemption, religious organizations (in principle) can't participate in politics or government. If taxed, they could use their influence to legally tell congregants how to vote.

[haikugal]

4. We all know how bogus that is...

they ae tremendously political...tax them!!

[laconicsax]

5. It's the difference between individual churches being political and ALL of them.

Right now, a minority of churches are political. Taxing all of them would encourage all of them to get involved.

The better course of action is to fine the shit out of politically active churches. They're breaking an agreement, so penalize them in a way to discourage it in the future. Merely taxing churches won't solve the problem, nor will it really affect the most egregious of them.

[haikugal]

7. exactly...make them accountable and fine the hell out of them.

These enormous 'prosperity' Dominionist organizations need to be made to toe the mark...enforcement is needed.

[okasha]

8. The ones that are explicitly politically active,

as in "Vote for Smith" aren't breaking an "agreement." They're breaking the law, and the IRS needs to be on their tails.

[Igel]

10. It's partisanship that's at issue.

Not political activism.

A lot of churches have social missions that take them into politics. Just like a lot of environmental and social welfare groups have missions that take them into politics.

Advocating for issues is fine. Advocating for individuals is a no-no. The dividing line can be hard to determine. Did environmentalists prefer Gore to Bush II? Did they advocate for policies, the support of which would lead voters to prefer Gore? Ah. You see the problem.

Even universities get into the act, as do unions and schools. Why? Because they're staffed by people, and people have political views. When a student organization advocates for an individual is when its status as a tax exempt organization comes into question.

[humblebum]

6. If you think they're too powerful now, tax them and you'll be that much closer

to a theocracy. But it probably wouldn't survive a challenge of separation of C & S.

[Igel]

11. Schools and hospitals. Hmmm...

You're right. Let's tax them and get rid of them.

Hey, while we're at it we can tax the NAACP, the Nature Conservancy (oh, there's a biggie), Greenpeace, AARP, the NRA, MEChA, CAIR, the League of Women Voters, NOW, and such notorious non-profits as CalTech, MIT, Harvard, and Yale.

Not to mention things like the local cactus and succulent society or the Linguistics Society of America or AMA. And all political donations should be taxable by the organizations that receive them. Government income, after all, and we should stop subsidizing them.

[Humanist_Activist]

12. Hospitals that turn away rape vicitms who need EC and schools that teach creationism...

its such a big loss. :eyes: