Real Shared Sacrifice: It’s Time For Churches To Pay Taxes

[cleanhippie]

For the past two years, there has been a fair amount of talk concerning shared sacrifice. In theory it is a reasonable concept, but in practice it is non-existent. Republicans think it is reasonable for 98% of the population to share the sacrifice so the wealthiest 2% can avoid sacrificing anything. However, there is another class of Americans who avoid sharing or sacrificing and it is high-time they start contributing to America and stop living off the government dole. As more Americans are telling the government to increase taxes on corporations and their wealthy owners to pay down the deficit, create jobs, and rebuild America’s struggling economy, a silent cult of welfare recipients escapes the public’s ire regarding shared sacrifice.

Americans are complaining that the wealthy and corporations pay too little in taxes, but at least they pay something. The religious community though, is paying nothing and it is time they start contributing to their community, state, and Federal governments for the resources they consume and damage they have wrought on this country. It is finally the time to eliminate the tax-exempt, non-profit status of every church in America whether it is the vile Southern Baptist Convention affiliates, Islamic Mosques, Jewish Tabernacles or Buddhist monasteries. At the same time, the tax code must be revised to eliminate the double-dipping statutes that allow the clergy to avoid paying the same rate of income tax as the rest of the American population. Religion has taken welfare from the American people long enough and with communities laying off fire fighters, police officers, and school teachers while struggling to make ends meet, churches of every denomination are enjoying government entitlements working Americans never receive.

There is absolutely no valid reason to give churches tax-exempt status; in fact it is unconstitutional. Religious fanatics and normal people alike give myriad reasons for why churches should not pay property tax or income tax, but they are all based on the belief that religious people are special and deserve taxpayers’ largesse. Many Americans say that churches and the clergy are doing god’s work and warrant special privileges. If they are doing god’s work, then let god give them welfare now or make them wait till they die and go wherever they think they’re going for their reward. There are other Americans who claim Christian churches deserve welfare because they are doing good work in their communities. Nurses, teachers, fire-fighters, and police officers really do good work in their communities but they are not exempt from paying their fair share in taxes.

In nearly every city in America, there are giant churches sitting on prime real-estate or agricultural land and they pay absolutely nothing in property tax even though they benefit from taxpayer-funded services like roads, law enforcement, schools, and fire protection. In most cities, when churches sponsor evangelical activities, they demand and receive police officer-assisted traffic control and often block off public streets for their events. Who pays for the police officer’s overtime pay for such events? Taxpayers foot the bill with property and sales tax dollars that they are not exempt from paying because they are not special and are not doing god’s work.

--snip--

Churches and the clergy have had enough welfare from taxpayers and it is time to cease the obscene non-profit, tax-exempt status. The ridiculously unconstitutional practice must stop immediately and churches should be audited and taxed retroactively from the time the church filed the non-profit form with the IRS. In communities and states, teachers, nurses, police officers, and fire fighters who actually perform a service and do good work are being laid-off while churches and the clergy get tax-exempt status and breaks for preaching fear and discrimination. The Constitution is quite clear that religion is not privileged and should not receive anything from the government; that includes exemption from paying taxes. However, as long as Americans revere the clergy and their obscene mega-churches for doing god’s work, nothing will change and that is the biggest outrage of all. It is time to correct this outrage by eliminating tax-exemption for all churches starting with Rick Warren and his mega-church for being an insensitive dirt-bag and deviant anti-tax crusader.


http://www.politicususa.com/en/churches-taxes

[rug]

1. What about this group?

http://www.atheists.org/orphans/501c3_statement

[cleanhippie]

4. You mean this group?

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

[rug]

8. Now that youm mention it.

"In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates."

[cleanhippie]

10. And as you linked...

"American Atheists a 501 (c) (3) non profit (educational) organization. We are not a political or religious organization. "

[rug]

15. You overlooked

"it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities"

[cleanhippie]

17. Do they do that?

Can you point to an example or two?

[rug]

20. Do they advocate for legislation to tax churches?

[cleanhippie]

25. I'm not sure, thats why I asked you.

Can you point to some examples?

[Deep13]

19. Is it a business or a charity? nt

[phantom power]

2. I object to two things about the tax exemption for churches.

The first is that the entire premise seems to run afoul of the separation of church and state.

However, even if one takes the point of view that exempting churches is consistent with church/state separation, it puts the government in the position of deciding what is a "real" religion worthy of exemption and what isn't. Which seems to be inextricably in conflict with the separation of church and state.

[Critters2]

11. Which is precisely the reason it isn't done.

We've seen the arguments here about whether atheism and agnosticism constitute religions. Don't think for a minute those argments won't come up if churches are taxed. Atheist orgs would be next.

[Gman]

3. Sorry, no it's not time

simple enough.

[cleanhippie]

5. Then it is time

for taxpayer funded services to be cut off from those that do not contribute to them.

[Leontius]

13. So you support revoking any and all Federal aid to the poor,

Wow.

[cleanhippie]

18. So you support child-raping priests?

Wow.

[Leontius]

22. The difference is I responded to your post and you made up

some shit about child raping priests in response. Is that an enlightened, reasoned, and rational response based on observable evidence or just a hate filled striking out against someone who wondered why you hate poor people and wish them harm in such a way by denying them Federal support in their need?

[cleanhippie]

26. Uh, friend, you totally fabricated your claim that I stated, when I stated no such thing.

Thats called lying, you know.

[Leontius]

29. This is your post is it not,

"Then it is time for taxpayer funded services to be cut off from those that do not contribute to them." Fri sept 9 2011 12:43 pm. Do you deny posting this statement?

[cleanhippie]

31. Yep, that's mine, but the post you responded with is your fabrication.

How you get that I want to cut off Federal funding to poor people because I want churches to pay for the taxpayer services that they utilize is beyond me.

[Leontius]

33. You wrote "those that do not contribute to them" should not

receive services, the poor don't pay (contribute) into the federal budget so you must believe that they should not receive those services.

[cleanhippie]

34. Why are you so obtuse?

Just trying to be a contrarian? Is that your thing?

[Leontius]

41. But they are your words, it's what you wrote. What did I miss?

[cleanhippie]

43. You missed MY words. All you seem to see are your words.

When you are ready for more advanced conversation, let me know.

[Leontius]

44. No they were YOUR words but what was missing was

oh I don't know maybe the CONTEXT, could that be it. Could it be that context does matter and when someone tries to point that out it shouldn't be dismissed as just 'some kind of a dodge'. Now to your point of local churches not receiving services like fire and police it would have merit if churches were not also the congregants who attend them and they do pay taxes for those services.

[cleanhippie]

45. Congregants of a church do not pay taxes for churches to get public services.

[Leontius]

47. True enough in a literal sense but those people pay taxes

for those services in their community and like it or not churches are a part of their community.

[cleanhippie]

48. Then why should ANY business pay taxes? If the customers that patronize that buisness pay taxes...

then that business, just like the church, is part of the community.

But to go back, ALL taxpayers in the community pay for that church, even ones that do not attend there, so why should the rest of the community pay for something that only a few use?

[Leontius]

49. Gee I don't know maybe your house won't burn tonight but do

you really resent the fact that the fire dept. responded to someone else in your community? I don't have any kids should I get my panties in a bunch over property taxes going to educate other peoples little boogger-makers. Any business that can get a tax exemption should get one by the way. Community is ALL of us not just you and those you approve of or like not just me and those I approve of or like.

[cleanhippie]

50. Oh, come on. You cannot be this obtuse.

If you really cannot see the point I'm trying to make here, we have differences that cannot be bridged.

If thats the case, I bid you good day.

[Leontius]

51. Yes perhaps it's best you run away .

[darkstar3]

38. Actually, with a few select exceptions, they do.

The meme that X% of people don't pay taxes is bullshit. Forgetting for the moment that there are a myriad of taxes that people pay that have nothing to do with income, any member of the "working poor" DOES pay taxes. They simply get their money back at the end of the year. During the time it takes for the government to give them their money back, it can still help the federal budget in several ways.

Now let's get back to those non-income-based taxes. Did you know that representatives of churches can buy things from ANYWHERE without paying sales tax? The poor can't do that. Did you know that churches can build as many buildings as they want, including residences and business centers, without paying a single cent in property taxes? The poor can't do that.

So while the poor do in fact contribute to the federal and local budgets (and fuck that right-wing meme anyway), churches don't.

[LAGC]

42. What do local government services (Fire/Police/EMS) have to do with the federal budget?

The poor pay plenty in local taxes: sales tax, property tax (even if only in a round-about-way by paying rent to a landlord who then pays those taxes) -- where are you getting this idea that the poor pay no taxes?

[Leontius]

46. Of course they pay taxes as you point out at the state and local

level and those taxes take up a much larger proportion of what little income they have when compared with those more affluent members of our society who have much greater opportunity to shelter their income and wealth from taxes. The fact that the poor (I know not all of them) get refunds for all the Fed income tax they pay during the year plus sometimes more thanks to things like the Earned Income Credit is a good thing, it offsets some of the more regressive taxes they do pay and they need it it can make a real difference in their lives.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Amen

[humblebum]

7. The only way taxing churches can be considered constitutional

is for the elimination of ALL non-profits. Otherwise, taxing churches would violate the separation clause because it would be considered as government intrusion into religion. And if churches are all taxed, you would then see a MUCH more powerful religious influence in this country. They would be able to incorporate as for-profit institutions, AND they would be considered as "persons" under the Constitution.

[cleanhippie]

14. I would be ok with keeping them tax-exempt, but I would impose a "usage fee" for all

churches and non-profits (that do not pay taxes) to pay for the government services that they utilize, such as fire, police, roads, etc, that would be similar to the rate of property taxes paid if they were a regular business. Also, the incomes paid to anyone that worked there should be taxed normally just as anyone else is.

[Deep13]

21. TI think preferential treatment violates the no-establishment clause.

The crux of the argument is that churches are more like business and less like actual charities whose whole operation is giving away resources.

[humblebum]

23. Regardless of WHAT they are considered to be, they are still churches

and covered by the Establishment Clause, and FREE to exercise their beliefs by the Free Exercise Clause.

[Deep13]

27. We're not talking about taxing beliefs.

We're talking about taxing real estate and income.

[cleanhippie]

28. Yeah, good luck getting THAT point across.

I think you will have better luck hitting yourself in the head with a brick.

[humblebum]

30. Good luck trying to tax churches and the results would be something

neither of us want. If you fear dominionism now, wait until the churches become taxpayers.

[cleanhippie]

32. I doubt it. If churches had to pay taxes like any other business

Then ALL of their income would have to be reported and taxes paid, they would pay full business property tax rates, and the money they have available to fund political agendas would be severely limited. Taxing them would probably decrease their influence, which is why they fight it so hard. If taxing them would male it ANY easier to institute the theocracy that they want, then they would be working to GET taxed.

[humblebum]

35. They would also be considered "persons" under the Constitution

as for profit corporations. In any case, it is not going to happen anytime soon. First, politicians have to face the voters. A biggie. Then there is the 16th Amendment vs. the First Amendment that would probably have to be decided by the Supreme Court, or a new Amendment. so, good luck. Better get started pushing the idea, 'cause it's going to take a while.

[cleanhippie]

36. Well THAT is whole other issue, on which I think we are in agreement

The corporate personhood part.

[humblebum]

37. Even without that you will still have the other obstacles to overcome.nt

[cleanhippie]

39. That would be true, if I HAD any obstacles to overcome.

But my path is clear. Thank you for your concern..

[skepticscott]

40. Sorry, but CU had nothing to do

with corporate "personhood".

[dtexdem]

9. Separation of church and state is complex.

Taxing churches COULD interfere with religious freedom. Complete freedom from taxation could lead to abuses. The compromise is to allow them tax exemption provided that they comply with certain limitations, largely those applied to nonprofits -- principally on the condition that they refrain from partisan politicking. The problem is not in those rules, rather in the widespread failure to enforce those rules.

One area that DOES need attention is the hiding of for-profit enterprises behind the church tax-free umbrella. Strict rules are needed to prevent such scams, and such rules would need to be actively enforced.

In general, however, there is no reason to disallow churches the same benefits as other non-political nonprofit organizations.

[Adsos Letter]

12. This /\

[cleanhippie]

16. "The problem is not in those rules, rather in the widespread failure to enforce those rules. "

I think you hit it exactly.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. Separation of church and state works both ways

nt