You May Also Like
Do Americans ever say ‘pardon’ when they don’t hear someone?
- March 30, 2022
- 35 comments
In the UK when you want someone to repeat something you can say pardon. I always hear mothers…
In your experience, what’s the worst tourist destination in the U.S?
- August 7, 2022
- 33 comments
A place famous for tourism but not quite what you’d expect.
Is it normal to end a phone call without a “bye” or something?
- February 5, 2023
- 15 comments
Hey, i ve seen it in a movies and tv shows many times when people just say what…
37 comments
Organized religion is a business and should be taxed appropriately.
Nope. They should be taxed… big time
I believe the organization does, it is a charity like all others. But the employees should be taxed.
They should be subjected to the same scrutiny as other non-profits. Many would fail under their current operating and should pay taxes.
If you’re a non-profit, you don’t get taxed, simple as that. I get antipathy for religion but explicitly trying to come down on it by changing tax laws strikes me as punitive and sectarian.
They should be treated as any other non-profit as long as they fit that definition.
Small church that only serves locally and spends almost everything on community help like meals on wheels? Sure, give them a tax break, for community service.
Megachurch, televangelist, or scientology? Absolutely fucking not
Depends on the size. A small strip mall church – no. A mega joel osteen church – hell yes!
How many small rural churches does Reddit want to tax out of existence?
I know it is popular on Reddit to hate religion, but churches do a lot of good for a lot of people. At a bare minimum, even small congregations tend to look out for and help their own members. Larger ones have the resources to help the wider community or beyond. Even if their contribution is minimal, stuff like helping their sick or elderly get hot meals and transportation around town or providing emotional support to someone in need, I think that is enough to qualify them as a non-profit charity. If they are not doing the small things, who will?
It’s my understanding the churches are some of the most charitable organizations in a lot of places. So if they operate as charitable non-profits then I don’t see why they should be taxed.
If churches can’t have a direct say then they don’t get to be taxed. The whole “taxation without representation” thing is kind of a big deal here. So either you let them have a say or you tax them. You can’t have one without the other per our laws. It’s just easier this way, and it’s not really harming anything.
I think that if a church is a non-profit organization, they should be treated the same tax-wise as a non-religious non-profit. And non-profit is defined in tax law.
Churches per se should not be getting any sort of special treatment under the law, but I’m just fine with non-profits having tax benefits. I wouldn’t be surprised if really wealthy non-profits need more scrutiny (whether that’s a megachurch or a billionaire’s pet charity), but it’s not my area of expertise.
Yes, because they are charitable organizations. Members and church employees are already taxed.
Churches are non-profits. Like all other nonprofits they should not be taxed.
Yes. They’re charitable institutions.
Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion that the kind of people who want to tax churches are also the kind of people who wouldn’t enjoy it if churches got the associated political representation that comes with paying taxes.
I’m an atheist, but if you’re a small church that literally collects donations to help the community and pay the bills of the church, I couldn’t care less. Do you, you have the right to congregate, and any good that comes of it is just a plus.
The problem is, lots of churches aren’t like that, and because of the folks that scream religious freedom at everything (you know, **mouthbreathers**), the powers that be don’t really look into *any* churches like that, and it’s a field where tons of scammers have done it explicity to buy private jets and mansions. This is *on record*, we know that it hapens a lot. Those motherfuckers should not only be taxed, but burn in the worst version of hell that their congregation believes in (cuz LORD KNOWS they don’t even believe in it, they’re scammers, preying on the weak, they’re straight up leeches).
I find it weird that so many people here seem to be ignoring how prevalent of a problem it actually is. These are the same types that would scream from the rooftops that religious freedom is being attacked, and in the US, they’re **at least** half the churches, by a conservative estimate.
Tax the churches!
They make billions of dollars every year, and get charged nothing for it
Especially if they want to have a voice in politics, which they already do. TAX THEM!
We get taxed all the time. Why more taxes? Can we do nothing without paying the government? Just reduce the military budget if you need more money.
Many churches provide non-profit services for their communities, and they are directly tied with local needs and interests. Many small churches would possibly shutdown or be unable to help the community as much if they were subject to taxes. There are churches in my city who provide weekly food banks, work with homeless shelters, assist with housing recently released prisoners, allow neighborhood children to use their playgrounds, offer after-school services for underprivileged children, bring meals to the homebound, provide transportation assistance, etc. And pretty much all small church pastors will listen to the worries of anyone who walks through their doors whether or not they’re a member of the church and offer some level of counseling. And this ignores how they function as mini community centers and the aid they provide to their members.
Some megachurches do exploit their non-profit status and use it in a morally gray manner, which is concerning. And megachurches often times are more focused on spending money on flashy stage performances and facilities versus helping their local communities. However, I’m generally OK with the current situation and feel like trying to regulate the non-profit status is an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Of course they should be tax exempt. There is no reason they shouldn’t be. The argument against them having it only comes from people either just hate religion or have some specific axe to grind with mega churches and don’t realize they are rare and most churches operating on a shoe-string budget and nobody is making any money off them and the staff is paid very little.
The government does not need more money, it needs about 40% the money it gets now. Giving them more shouldn’t be anyones objective.
Some mega churches probably abuse their non-profit status, that should be looked into. The idea that churches with 100 members who pay their paster 35k a year should have their collections taxed is absurd.
Yes but the laws against them advocating for specific candidates should be strictly enforced. Other then that they should be subject to the same laws as regular non-profits.
No , because they are religious institutions and giving them tax breaks based on that fact alone is against the establishment clause of the first amendment.
They should have the same rules as any non-profit ranging from massive universities to little soup kitchens.
Considering the massive amount of free work my parish does from running a large food pantry to serving the community spiritually I am fine with it being a non-profit and tax exempt.
Our local evangelical church does a massive amount for the addiction recovery community and homeless community. The Catholic Church in Providence shelters more homeless people than anyone in the state. The Presbyterians near me provide most of the meals at the warming shelter here which prevents homeless people from freezing to death in winter and giving them a good meal.
Local churches should be exempted, but I’m all for taxing the mega churches. There’s a big difference between a local church and a mega church.
No. In fact, they should be taxed!
Churches shouldn’t be taxed. Separation of church and state
I feel like the responses in this thread are a perfect example of *why* the government needs to take a hands off approach to churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.
Half this thread is frothing at the mouth to use taxes and regulations to close down all the houses of worship they oppose despite it being very clearly unconstitutional.
I volunteer at a few orgs with church affiliations.
What they do is form a non profit to qualify for grant money. Then instead of spending their own donations and money raised from their stores they spend the grant money. They hoard their own money.
The amounts of money sitting in small rural churches bank accounts is staggering. I know one church organization that resells donations in a store front. They make 800-1000 daily. Yes, I’ve seen the accounts. They sit on that money and only spend grant money.
No. They need to be treated as any non profit would
Yes as long as they actually operate as non-profits.
Removing church tax exemption would destroy the actual religions alongside the scams like Scientology.
Yes, just like any other non-profit. To treat them otherwise would violate the First Amendment. If you want to tax all non-profits, I’m willing to look into that.
Absolutely not. No. No. No.
To speak as the devil’s advocate (no pun intended), if the rationale is “if you want to inject politics into your preaching, you should pay taxes,” then making churches pay taxes would only encourage them to add politics to their preaching. “Vote for the batshit crazy Republican! Say no to green energy and student loan forgiveness!” Obviously some churches are already insinuating that sort of thing, but I worry that they’ll be encouraged to just say things loudly.
So there must be a way to apply the “don’t do it for profit” rationale while at the same time keeping political messages away.
No.
Took my mother-in-law to a church service on the weekend, had to hear political jive. She also hated this.
Lobbyist org, eh? Tax ‘em.
Having served on the (equivalent of a) board of directors for a church for several years, I think part the regulatory issue comes down to state laws. For example, we had to pass a resolution every year that assigned a fair market value to the senior pastor’s residency, which the church provides for the senior pastor and his/her family, gratis. (It’s an old historic building attached directly to the church which is itself an old historic building.) For other clergy, a portion of their salary is set aside as a “parsonage allowance,” which isn’t included in income tax but is included for self-employment tax purposes.
As regards taxing the church’s own receipts: Most mainline denominations (at least Protestant) have to have their books audited every year by their denomination; it’s the independent “I think I’ll start a church” nondenominational ones that tend to ride roughshod on accounting practices. But regardless, as nonprofit institutions, there generally would be no “profit” to tax anyway, so the call to “tax the churches!” is shouted with great passion (at least on Twitter and Reddit) but has very little rationality behind it. I mean, sure: if they can show a profit, tax it. Nearly every church (like every other nonprofit) either has a zero balance or, as is often the case, runs a deficit.
Two areas might get more traction:
* **Capital gains.** Many (larger, and often older) churches have investment funds where bequests and other gifts are deposited and the dividends, interest, and/or sale of these assets goes to support either the budget (e.g., organist’s salary) or the capital expenses (e.g., leaky roofs, etc.). Those gains aren’t subject to the capital gains tax, but I suppose they could be.
* **Property tax.** This is a somewhat stickier area and which, obviously, is completely dependent on state tax laws, not the Federal code. However, as far as I’m aware, no state makes churches pay property tax. Similar to capital gains, where the income from investments is used to support nonprofit activity, the physical property of the church is also enabling a nonprofit activity, so you’d probably run into major headwinds in trying to make this case in your state legislature. But I can imagine someone making a case for this, as well.
“The power to tax is the power to destroy” according to the supreme court (McCullough v Maryland 1819)
We do not need the state to be able to influence religion. It doesn’t take much thinking to see how incredibly dangerous that could be.