Maybe the debt commission should suggest taxing churches. They participate in

[AlinPA]

politics. Why not?

[StarryNite]

1. Exactly!

I was just having this discussion with somebody a couple of nights ago. And not only do they participate in politics, they certainly are in it for the money as well! Just look at the size of some of those damn things!

[FBaggins]

2. Their tax exemption is not because they don't participate in politics.

It's because they are supposedly charitable in nature (and plenty of charities participate in politics).

Besides... there isn't all that much to tax. They don't exactly turn a profit.

[Initech]

4. What about those churches that have 40,000+ members?

You can't tell me they don't turn huge profits. Look at Rick Warren - he got $3 mil just for asking his congregation for it.

[AlinPA]

6. They have income. Lots of it.

[FBaggins]

9. That still isn't a "profit".

The red cross brings in many MANY more millions, but they aren't "profits".

[AlinPA]

5. Good point. Their real estate is exempt.

[FBaggins]

8. Property taxes don't go to the Federal government.

and thus don't impact the national deficit.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. When state and local gov'ts have less revenue they turn to the federal gov't.

So, yes, property taxes do impact the national deficit.

[FBaggins]

22. Sorry. State and local government's have no claim on federal revenue.

That spin would allow you to claim that Congress can pass a law increasing state income taxes because the federal government once sent a block grant their way.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. What? I don't know where you live but I'm in Arizona

If it weren't for federal funds I don't even want to think about how much worse of a shithole this place would be.

[FBaggins]

26. I'm not saying that they never receive them, just that there is no obligation there.

The federal government can decide to go farther into debt themselves to help keep states from being forced to cut necessary services, but that doesn't create a legislatable connection between state sources of tax revenue and the federal debt.

[AlinPA]

33. That's right, no effect on the deficit from those taxes.

[Hannah Bell]

7. many do. & when they participate in politics as a church, their tax exemption is supposed to go.

[FBaggins]

11. "Many do"? Can you give some examples?

& when they participate in politics as a church, their tax exemption is supposed to go

That's a common misconception. The government cannot constitutionally restrict what can and cannot be said from the pulpit. There are scores of churches that have been trying to get sued over this so that they can be taken to court. The IRS isn't interested in taking their bait... even when they send in their sermons in advance and say "this is what I'm preaching... come and get me".

Even if you disagree with that, the tax exemption requirements (which are almost certainly unconstitutional) merely restrict the outright campaigning for a candidate. They can "participate in politics" all they like (up to that point), and churches (on both sides) have regularly done so.

[Hannah Bell]

15. Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (2000)

Is the prohibition against churches participating in political campaigns a violation of their free speech and free exercise of religion? Not according to the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the IRS was justified in revoking the tax-exempt status of a Binghamton, New York church after it ran ads attacking Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign.

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_TaxIndex.htm.

http://store.churchlawtodaystore.com/chpoacgu.html

when i say politics, i mean $$$$$.


and i believe you've already been given some examples of wealthy churches, i.e. rick warren's.

[FBaggins]

17. Branch Ministries v. Rossotti is really the extreme exception.

That's a church that paid for full-page ads in some of the largest papers in the country telling people not to vote for a specific candidate AND asking for donations to pay for the ads which they claimed would be tax deductible.

That's many many constitutionally relevant miles away from restricting what a pastor can say from the pulpit.

and i believe you've already been given some examples of wealthy churches, i.e. rick warren's.

And I've pointed out that the Red Cross also takes in many MANY millions of dollars. That doesn't make them profitable. Sorry.

when i say politics, i mean $$$$$.

Which changes the subject quite effectively. Almost no churches have ever done that. We're talking about them all losing their tax exemption because they "participate in politics". Of course they can't donate tax-deductible dollars to candidates.

[Hannah Bell]

20. i linked to a list of permissable & non-permissable activities.

i'm not the one who brought up speaking from the pulpit, & speaking from the pulpit wasn't what i was talking about.

most big churches are involved in politics in a big way, & are corrupt.

[FBaggins]

23. You linked to what the IRS claims is permissable.

They have been unwilling to defend those claims in court. It isn't unreasonable to assume that this is because they know they can't win.

i'm not the one who brought up speaking from the pulpit, & speaking from the pulpit wasn't what i was talking about.

So you believe that a church which preaches that you can't vote for a pro-choice candidate should NOT lose their tax exemption?

[Hannah Bell]

25. bs. as linked, they *have* defended those parameters in court.

telling one's membership who to vote for isn't the kind of thing i'm talking about, & i'm not interested in your straw.

funneling money to candidates & other political uses of *church* monies (accumulated through tax deductions) is.

[FBaggins]

27. Sorry... the bs is all yours.

telling one's membership who to vote for isn't the kind of thing i'm talking about

It is, nevertheless, the subject of the thread. The OP is most certainly not restricted to the incredibly tiny number of cases where tax-deductible dollars actually go to candidates or campaigns.

funneling money to candidates & other political uses of *church* monies (accumulated through tax deductions) is.

And that doesn't happen to any great extent. That's why that one case was so easy to prosecute. Churches can't make political donation, but they CAN (and do) get involved in politics in non-financial ways.

You linked to a list of impermissible activities. Only one or two of them involved direct financial links to politics.

[Hannah Bell]

28. i notice i'm the only one who actually linked some support. goodbye.

[FBaggins]

29. What you linked to directly contradicts your claim.

Direct financial contributions are only a tiny part of that list... but now you want to pretend that you were never really talking about anything else?

Please.

[Hannah Bell]

34. lol. churches & schools.

[FBaggins]

35. Oh... my sincere apologies.

I assumed that "goodbye" meant "I have nothing more to say on the subject".

Instead you meant "I want the last word and you are not permitted to respond"

Of course that's tantamount to an admission that you know you don't have a leg to stand on but want to pretend that you do.

Pretend away!

A simple lesson for you to remember HB. If the constitution doesn't protect my opponents... it doesn't protect me.

[spooky3]

12. Yes, partially it IS.

If churches advocate for or against a candidate, they stand to lose their tax-exempt status.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29

[FBaggins]

14. See my #11.

Even the (potentially unconstitutional) restriction against advocating for/against a specific candidate doesn't mean that they can't have anything to do with politics. They've always been able to preach on specific issues, distribute voter guides, etc.

[spooky3]

16. I didn't say that. Your original statement is the one that is too broad.

Churches ARE restricted from engaging in certain political activities. That is one of the reasons why they are granted exempt status.

[FBaggins]

19. If that were "one of the reasons"... then

don't you think that restriction would date back to when the exemption began?

[spooky3]

30. Look, it's not a matter of your or my opinion; it's a matter of law. Read the IRS guidelines

and read the regulations if you don't believe the guidelines. I linked the guidelines previously, and here is an excerpt from them:

"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

[FBaggins]

31. "IRS guidelines" and "law" are not the same thing.

I'm well aware of what they claim the restrictions are.

I'm also aware that there are 100-150 churches that flaunt those guidelines intentionally and tell the IRS they're going to do it. As much as begging them to take the church to court. The IRS refuses to do so.

They're awfully close to an equal-protection precedent that would effectively nullify the regulation. They can't pretend they didn't know about the violation.

I'm not saying that I agree with who these churches are pushing, but it's clear that they have a very strong constitutional claim.

My other point was that the law involved is (IIRC) about 45 years old (on edit - 55). Churches have been tax-exempt FAR longer than that. So it can't reasonably be said to be the reason why they are exempt, can it?

[Mika]

3. Back taxes too.

:thumbsup:


If the W admin can give retroactive tax cuts to the fortune 500, then why no retroactive back taxes on churches.

---

[TexasObserver]

10. No! We need cathedrals to honor imaginary gods.

Without tax exempt status, many churches in America would dry up and blow away.

[KamaAina]

13. The Meathead suggested taxing commercial church property back in the mid-'70s

unfortuantely, it looks like Archie's the one who got on the Cat Food Commission. :eyes:

[dreamnightwind]

36. Meathead for POTUS!

Love Rob Reiner, one of the good ones.

I realize the credit for Meathead wanting to revoke church's tax-exempt status should probably go to a script writer for All in The Family, regardless, Reiner is a great voice for the left and has been for a long time.

[KamaAina]

37. Archie suggested that Meathead run for President

of Poland. :-)

[get the red out]

18. Absolutely!

But the Republicans think their personal get out the vote organizations should be tax free.

[yellowwood]

32. Hear! Hear!

Why should pastors' residences be tax exempt from property taxes?