Tax Exempt Religious Organizations
 

"the Italian government made a historic change in 2013 tax code to boost revenue: the Roman Catholic Church will no longer be exempt from property taxes in Italy. "

Should the US do the same?

http://www.policymic.com/articles/21...-be-tax-exempt

For one thing, Slovenia should do the same.

They got more than enough to cover the countries deficit :/\\!!

Since many churches are run as huge businesses and interject themselves into politics, yes, they should have their tax exempt status revoked.

Tax Baptist churches in my Texas town alone and you would likely squash the federal debt within 5 years.

You cant throw a rock around here without busting a stained glass window

I wouldn't go that far but I would say that they should be treated more locally as in you get one property exemption for one building in each town and beyond that you pay taxes on any additional properties you own.

this would keep the churches themselves exempt but be more reasonable and fair so they don't own and hold as much property as the government does yet pay no taxes on it.

convents and monastaries and such since they don't hold public religious services should be classified differently along with charities and be held to the same one property exemption for each town and beyond that you pay taxes on any additional properties you own.

any charities that don't give out a minimum of 60% of all total gross money they take in must lose there charity exemption so no more 90% goes to expenses and "administrative costs" (saleries) and "maybe" 10% or less actually ever gets to the reason donations were collected in the first place. I would like to se it at 90% payouts but fundraising must pay for services and such so it cant be done for free so 60% is more reasonable and realistic

I would agree. Let's look at this way. Remember the infamous, "You did not build that." statement? Well, the church did not build that either so they should have the tax exemption revoked.

INMO, a majority of religion is a business.

The problem I see with revoking the tax exempt status is it kind of makes things, "official", in terms of church interferring with matters of the state. Yes the church already invokes political influence to varying degrees though it shouldn't. But remove the tax exempt status, and how now it's open season to do what it wants because church dollars will be pumped directly. In the longer view, removing this tax exempt status will only serve to further erode the barrier between church and state.

To be fair, I also maintain that the state has no business interjecting itself with matters of the church either.

All excellent points.

Actually, tax revenues are least likely to exert great influence as opposed to direct contributions to candidates or parties. Since the churches pay no taxes, their influence is more through those direct contributions in the same manner as, say, a corporation or PAC. We pay taxes, but our influence, financially, is far less than deep pocket contributors. The various churches are in a rather better position because of tax exemptions since, without taxes, they have more cash to distribute, proportionally, than a corporation or private entity paying taxes. Remove the exemptions and you reduce the amount of "disposable" income the churhes would have to influence or leverage policy...


<O>

Can you give links that to Laws that say that religous orginizations can't contribute to political causes?
How did they get Tax exempt to start with?
So if a movement to get them required to pay taxes as stated above do you really think that will fly or will we see the real power play come out?
:hmmm:

Taking religion out of it:03:
Do the many affect all or how to distinguish between those that do and those that don't?
Webster hands up an arbitrary cut off point in his post, but any charity or more importantly "charity" would have no problem running the figures in circles to make sure they hit the magic 60%.

It is worth noting that the Italian tax move only aims for property tax on the churches commercial investments not on the actual churches churchy stuff

I never said they legally couldn't, as I'm not sure what the legalities are in the case of campaign contributions or what not. I just implied I didn't agree with the church becoming involved in matters of state.

No idea. I never really agreed with it either. But after thinking about it in the past, i let the subject go.

If I had my way, hell yes I'd make religious institutions of whatever denomination pay taxes. It's one of the biggest rackets in America, taking in millions of dollars a year, tax free. I am not a fan of that.

However, I for one don't want to make things easier for them by removing any barriers between church and state. Speaking in terms of social acceptance, I think paying taxes gives one "a say" in policy. From, " What the hell, I pay my taxes don't I? " to, "Your tax dollars at work" , being used in context of putting up a new 10 commandments monument.

As much as I'd love to stick it to the racket that is organized religion, I think opening certain doors is going to cause bigger problems down the road. Even if they pay taxes, it's not going to effect their disposable income all that much. Any well organized church can make it back in tithes and donations in no time at all.

EDIT:
Heh, now here's an interesting thought. A big honking crucifix being erected outside a state building with a sign below it reading, "Your tax dollars at work". No thanks.

Fair enuff answers Mate.
:up:

The Roman emperor Constantine was converted in the year 312. Shortly after that he made Christianity the official State religion of the Empire and exempted The Church from paying any taxes. It's been the unofficial (and sometimes official) policy of western countries ever since.

It wasn't official US policy until 1894, but the idea has always been there.

Here is a website that discusses both sides of this issue (and many others) relatively fairly.
http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

Yep. Imagine some families evicted from their homes under eminent domain because a church building would potentially generate more property taxes. If they can do it for other developers they can do it for a tax paying church too.

Heh.
 

I Think so as well.

Steve posting just reminded me of something I've thought about having lived in Utah for a couple years or so now.

If the majority of people are of the same faith, and as a result, the majority of a states population has the same set of values, do those values at that point become a homogeneous socially accepted norm for the area, and hence as a result, is the church really isn't intruding into matters of state at all?

I probably didn't articulate that well. It's kind of a fuzzy and abstract thought. I am one who finds themselves in an odd position of disliking organized religion in general, and yet being ok with it as a non participant living in what is by way of comparison a positive environment created as a direct result of organized religion.

Ohhh.. contradictions! :88)

Your use of the word "law", "contribute" and "political causes" complicates the question.

Under the IRS regulations churches full under code 501c3 which has limitations in order to keep their tax exempt status.

From the IRS


Finally, you used the term "political causes" which can mean many different things. Most of which are not prohibited by the IRS rules concerning 501c3 organizations, but not all. When it comes to participating in a campaign, the rules are a lot more clear




Now, if the 501c organization is a corporation (not all of them are) then there are separate laws governing political contributions. Contrary to the hysteria about Citizens United, corporations are, were, and probably will be prohibited from making contributions directly to a candidate's campaign. All Citizen's United did was re-affirm an already existing law that allows corporations to fund non candidate campaign functions. A subtle but important legal difference.



It is a complicated and complex topic. This is how tax attorneys stay in business.

Ya. I should know better then to use Layman terms in GT.
:haha:
:up:

Fight the theocracy!:D

In other notes, back in Russian history, one way to dodge state land taxes was to donate your land to the Church, since it was exempt. Ivan the IV (if I remember correctly) ended that in some of his reforms. I don't remember if that is the case in modern Russian history though.


Doesn't the Mormon church own a mall or two in SLC? Seems kinda odd for a non-exempt to own a revenue generating business.:hmmm: I guess it is Utah, the line between church and state can be pretty thin there.