You mean instead of having them just pay no taxes, we should starting giving them rebates too, like GE gets?

The rate goes up 10%. Every time they mind other people's business - up 10%.....then maybe they'd STFU

but I think you understand my point too?

these days.

If they were classified as a business, then donations people make to them would not be deductible, and if the donations were not deductible, people would not donate, and the coffers would dry up.


Sounds like a really good plan to me.

would be able to get massive amounts of federal funding, far more than they are getting now. I suspect they'd get a good bit in contributions even if they're not tax deductible, though certainly not what they get now.

The people that fill the pews and the coffers do. Take away the incentive to fill the coffers....problem goes away, IMO.

is a motivation for the masses.

I do tax returns for a living and I can't think of any person in the 25 years I have been doing taxes that claimed other charity deductions and not include their contributions to their church.

A lot of people I know who don't itemize still give me their total donations even if they take the standard deduction.

It is a big motivation for capital drives in a lot of churches.

It just seems wrong, even though I know it's allowable. Same with charitable contributions-I've never included them.

The whole idea of giving just to get a write-off seems icky and slimy.

I don't think most people donate because of the deduction because a whole lot of people don't have enough deductions to even fill out a Schedule A, which is how a taxpayer itemizes deductions.

The standard deduction is now high enough that more than half the people in the country do not itemize.

It's the capital drives, the building funds that attract donations big enough for people to actually make it worth while to itemize all their deductions.

When I've had my taxes prepared every year they always ask about tithing and charitable contributions. I've never volunteered them and I've never kept records on them.

I guess it really is a "to each his own" type of deal. I don't even like being acknowledged for making a contribution-I just feel as though it should come from the heart and not to draw attention or gain any type of monetary gain.

Different strokes, I guess.

I know it's hard for you to accept, but many of us actually like our churches.

I know its hard for you to accept, but I never said people don't like their churches. Beat up that strawman yourself.


Back to the topic; I think you would be surprised to find just how many people DO write off their tithing.

Lets talk about that for a sec. Why should a donation to a church be tax deductible?

Millionaires donate to all types of things for vanity, to the extent that, in one case in Portland, a local car dealer withdrew his $500,000 donation when the institution decided not to name one of its theaters after him.

Donations to the homophobic Boy Scouts are tax deductible. And donations to churches that don't take part in politics shouldn't be tax deductible?

Maybe the church you were associated with let the ministers live high on the hog on congregational donations and campaign for Republicans, but in the ones I've been associated with all my life, a governing board of lay people has to approve all expenditures, and the church's national and regional government bodies come down hard on anyone who appropriates money for his own uses or campaigns for political parties.

Why do we allow any contribution to be deducted? Now, I'm not against charity at all, many of these groups do much needed work. Giving to a cause is a personal choice, and allowing a personal choice to give to a group to be deducted from ones taxes places a burden on the system we have created to pay for the common good.

On a side note, I feel the same about mortgage interest being deductible.

we do need to make corporations pay up as well.

enough already...

wants. What falls to the ground belongs to the government.

Motivated by the joke, "A rabbi, a priest, and a minister are discussing what they do with donations to their respective religious organizations. The minister says that he draws a circle on the floor, throws the money up in the air, and whatever lands in the circle, he gives to God, and whatever lands outside the circle, he keeps. The priest uses a similar method. He draws the circle, but whatever lands outside the circle, he gives to God, and whatever lands inside, he keeps. The rabbi has a slightly different method of dividing the money. He throws all the money up in the air. Whatever God wants, he keeps... "

wield tremendous political power. It's ridiculous that they are tax free.

Some of the churches around here look like they should be sitting on wall street. It pisses me off when I see these mammoth churches tax free with the elite in the church raking in huge salaries.

I pointed that out to a friend of a Facebook friend and she accused me of being embittered. She went on to insist that religion was about control - so that it could bring you closer to Christ and God. I thanked her for the good laugh.

incredible, and it's used to full advantage by many religions and politicians. Often I think of it as a nation of herds and flocks ... and lambs.

But he paid his taxes...

and paid no taxes I would wager...

sP

we subsidize them with W's faith based initiave..

They are little more than country clubs and/or cults.
IMHO the most divisive entities on the planet!
Wish the founding fathers had picked a better presposition......."freedom FROM religion" instead of "freedom OF religion".

and we all know opinions are like assholes.............

but the fundie megachurches are not the whole story.

A very disproportionately big part, if I may say so.

Time the churches learned that lesson.

when some of them staunchly stood up for the rights of undocumented immigrants and their families.

Syntax correction

Just take their tax exempt and charitable status away from them. And any other privileges they might have. They should stand on their own 2 feet. Just like the rest of us.
Don't think that's a vote winner outside Obama's base tho.

No court would allow it.

I do see that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (so they need to butt out of government) and stick to feeding the poor, healing the sick and minding their own damn business- their sky daddy is not necessarily everyone else's.

You left out the phase "Congress shall make no law ...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Courts have long held that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Because of that taxation of churches is not allowed.

And hate to break it to you but free speech applies to citizens - not just institutions and corporations.....and citizens are taxed, so that argument isn't working.

power to tax is power to destroy?????? wtf is that?

Free speech has nothing to do with this so you are comparing apples with oranges. "power to tax is power to destroy?????? wtf is that?" Its an American legal principle which courts and legislatures has used to show churches can't be taxed. Read up on the subject, you may educate yourself.

How are taxes destroying GE or Bank of America?

Congress could destroy corporations, if it wanted to, by taxing them at 100%. They have no protection in the Constitution. Churches do have a special protection in the First Amendment which prevents this whether you like it or not.

Going by your logic we should eliminate all taxes, after all the Government could also destroy your income and homeownership and everything else, too.

FYI we all have special protection under the First Amendment. What greater protection do churches have?

And no it was not a decision of today's court. It was a Warren court decision.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the Supreme Court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

Edited: Oh yeah, and they also ruled that corporations are persons.

Tell us how wise they are again?

Which supreme court case was this 3/5 decision of which you speak?

He doesn't know what he is talking about, right? Maybe we should get you on the court real quick so you can fix those RW decisions that Marshall signed on to.

BTW in my hopeless attempt to educate you the SC never handed down a 3/5 decision. That was a provision of the original Constitution placed there by the Northern states who didn't want the Southern states to be able to use slaves to count for representation in Congress.

You just stick with that belief. Meanwhile, look up Dred Scott while you're trying to educate others.

Justice Marshall did not sign on to the Dred Scott decision. He was not even alive then. The Walt decision is on point to the subject of this thread. Where did he get it constitutionally wrong?

BTW Dred Scott had nothing to do with the 3/5 rule. I doubt you have ever read it.

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never said Thurgood Marshall signed on to the Dred Scott decision. I said that the Supreme Court has handed down crappy rulings before. Do you get it yet?

Tax the churches. Now. Tax the churches. Now!

and give the sophistry a rest... it's like talking to a fucking republican pundit.

we know...

I have heard everything now.

This is why people here don't like you... you can't honestly debate folks. You need to play little pathetic sophistry games in order to put on the perception that you are somehow right and others are wrong. Well, this will piss you off more, because it's the truth.

The SUpreme Court is made up of a majority of right wing/fascists... did I say every Supreme Court Judge... NO!!!! But you had to go there.

Is everyone reporting their opinions of me to you? Weird to say the least. The decision I referred to was given in 1970 and was agreed to by liberal and conservative Justices at the time including Justice Marshall one of the most liberal Justices to serve on the court. But I am sure you consider me to be a fascist as well as many of the people here. Afterall without fascists under every bed who would there be to hunt?

All the Constitution says is that there shall be freedom of religion. Nothing about them not having to pay taxes. It is really suppose to prevent a specific religion from becoming the mandatory religion for everyone and a church tax collected by the government that went only to that church.

The way it is now churches get special privileges instead of basic rights for everyone. Churches don't pay property taxes even though they receive the benefit of roads, public safety, etc. When churches don't pay taxes that means other property owners pay higher taxes and in effect their taxes are paying the taxes that churches should be paying.

It says something very different. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Taxation prohibits free exercise. It also has the power to destroy. If you can tax something at 10% then you can tax it at 50% or 100% thus destroying it. So taxation under the Constitution is not possible for churches with the First Amendment.

There are a lot of people who don't pay property taxes. What about people who live in government run and subsidized housing. They use the roads too. The argument does not fly.

"This Isn't Fwee Webubelic..."

Hence, we attempt to read the relevant passages from both the Constitution and SC rulings, and then apply the ruling/passage to all like things-- even those things we may dislike.

On the other hand, I have seen on numerous occasions in which a FR poster will imply that someone is on the wrong site simply because another poster disagrees with their own contentions.

lets not pretend that statement was based on one post.

maybe then they'd mind their own business

This would be universal, right? So even the Metropolitan Church, Universal Unitarians, and other progressive churches would be paying the tax along side the Baptists and Methodists?

People shouldn't have the right to force their beliefs on another. But at the same time, forcing them to shutdown or hide just because their beliefs make you nervous is nothing short of tyranny.

Those who stick their noses into politics should be taxed because they're breaking the separation rule.

Now I feel 95% is too high, but it's madness to say that taxing an organization is the same as forcing them to shut down or hide. If this were true I'd be hiding in a vault and GE and Bank of America would be there with me.

Taxation would not prohibit the "free exercise" of anyone's religion. You could still pray, twist beads, wear yamulkas, anything your heart desires. The difference is that I wouldn't be subsidizing your superstition.

and watch a judge, who has gone to law school and knows what the First Amendment says, laugh you out of the courtroom.

They buy a lot of stuff that has a sales tax, their utilities include taxes, their cell phones usage is taxed, every time they go to a movie there is usually an entertainment tax, they pay taxes on tobacco and alcoholic beverages.

But you are right. If they live in subsidizes housing, they typically do not pay property tax.

Then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson wanted churches out of politics, so added them to the 501c3 tax code.

The Johnson amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. It did not add churches to the 501c3 code. It provided a mechanism to remove them from the code depending on the violation.

In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the Supreme Court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

Really? Link?

My gut says taxing would be good...

BUT, in my head, anything that further erodes the wall between church and state needs to be avoided. If religious influence in politics is bad now, I can't imagine making churches a source of gov't income would make it any better. Further, while many bishops/religious leaders are trying to skirt the rules and play politics, they do realize they're pushing a line and skirting rules. If that line wasn't there--i.e. churches didn't have tax-exempt status to lose, I have a feeling the results would be terrible.

No, as much as it would feel awesome to have churches taxed like any other group, I fear that that would rapidly be a cure worse than the disease.

Megachurches especially really are run like a business any really OUGHT to be taxed, but once that threshold has been crossed, it will be open season on political activism from the pulpit. And the vast majority will be right-wing.

Tax all catholic churches now. They've gone way too far.

The Obama administration has enough bad ideas of its own without holding onto one of the more ill-conceived programs from the George W. Bush years - the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

Established by President Bush in 2001 to help steer federal funds to religious and community social service organizations, the program has been expanded by President Obama also to promote programs that reduce demand for abortion, encourage “responsible fatherhood,” and “facilitate global interfaith dialogue.”

It’s not that the so-called faith-based initiative costs all that much money. Its annual budget is just $385 million, and it oversees slightly more than $2 billion in grants, barely a rounding error by Washington budgetary standards. But the damage done by government co-option of private charity goes far beyond money.
-----
Finally, there is a more profound threat to the identity and mission of these charities. If the history of welfare proves anything, it is that government money is as addictive as any narcotic. Ironically, therefore, given that many private charities are dedicated to fighting welfare dependency, government funding may quickly become a source of dependency for the charities themselves. Lobbying for, securing and retaining that funding can become the organization’s top priority.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/28/obamas-faith-based-boondoggle/?du

post!

Perhaps the new criteria for voting and publicly expressing an opinion should be renouncing any belief in supernatural entities.



I just got done dumping the bathwater. By the way, has anyone seen the baby?

But when they start using the pulpit to push them on their sheeple, they cross the line. They are no longer just a for - profit organization, they are now a political body and do not deserve tax exempt status.

twist things around much???

For Republicans.
Got any other bright ideas?

The Quakers in Philadelphia own some valuable property - they are otherwise almost broke. Taxing them would break them and silence one of the few institutional voices for Peace.

My Friends Meeting does a lot of good in the community, and is a (admittedly) small voice for Peace.

Even during the run up to Iraq, they had a huge banner up at a busy intersection: "War is not the answer".

He thinks that churches should have to pay taxes so that their political speech is not limited the way it is currently.

Right now, churches can speak on the issues but cannot speak about candidates. He thinks churches should voluntarily give up their tax exempt status so their freedom of speech is not limited.

I thought you guys might be interested in that perspective. Though some might not like that because their tithing would no longer be tax-deductible.

if you started by taxing the mosques, and then follow the yellow brick slippery slope.

is there a movement afoot? any laws proposed?

Any such law would be struck down by any court before the ink was dry on Constitutional grounds.

but there should be some kind of controls to make sure the religion side keeps their side of the bargain

oh wait, there isn't any

Supreme Court- it's not Constitutional
Someone on the internets- it's Constitutional

Close call. Seems to be a 50/50 thing.

The Republicans love railing aginst judges and bureaucrats as unelected. Well who the hell elected the Bishops????

Tax them out of existance and watch the country take off as we free ourselfs from the shackles of middle ages mythology.

in this country.

Is your church trying to deny rights to others???? Do they try to force themselves on everybody???
NO? Then back down, we are talking about those who are.

You said tax THEM out of existence. A lot of people on this thread are calling for the taxation of all churches.

no offense aimed at churches who stick to charity, but those who act as a super-pac I've got major problems with

they don't have the right to control their own bodies and trying to force their morality (which they don't impose upon themselves) on everybody else...its beyond disgusting.

they would KILL OFF the small, struggling congregations that do charity work way beyond what their size would indicate and do not get involved in politics. I used to be on the vestry (governing board) of a small urban parish. It operated on a razor-thin margin with 100 members but still managed to serve two free meals a week and provide free space to community organizations.

I'm all for taxing the churches whose clergy who get involved in partisan politics. However, taxing the non-political churches would further shred the safety net in our stingy society and would destroy communities that are extremely meaningful to a lot of people, even if they are not meaningful to non-religious DUers.

They run clothing closets, food pantries, soup kitchens. They run free or low cost day care centers. They open their doors during all forms of severe weather-tornadoes, high heat, severe storms, floods, and snow/ice storms. During those storms they offer shelter, food, drink, and a place to rest.

Some are horrible and cross the line on a regular basis. Some are the welcome neighbors that most are happy to have.

Personally I don't care to have my tax dollars going toward ignorance factories.

If they had to pay for access roads, utilities, police and fire protection at market rates, I suspect taxation would start to look like an attractive alternative.

It'll never happen but it's a good idea just the same.

Signed, what ever happened to the separation of church and state? The government have no obligations to give churches tax breaks especially in times like these.

Sick of the faith based initiative, too.

But don't let anyone's disagreement get in the way of such uninformed nitwittery. (I think I'm allowed to say that, but I could very well be wrong per our faultless DU juries.)

but once you tax the church, they have every right to stick their noses into politics, legislating, the funding of our commons, etc. THINK a bit more about what you think sounds good now. I totally understand the sentiment and frustration, but this IS NOT the way to handle this, unless you want churches dictating legislation even more than they already do now. Things are bad enough...