Why do churches have tax-exempt status in the first place?
Why should they?
Should their tax-free status be abolished? If so, how much additional revenue would that bring in?
And (this part would go in GQ, but it’s essential to the debate and I can’t seem to find any clear answers by googling) what is the nature of the current tax-exempt status of churches? I know the IRS doesn’t tax their income – but is that simply because they are “not-for-profit” institutions? Are the Catholic Church and the United Way taxed/not-taxed under the same rules? Or do churches form a separate legal category? Also, do churches pay local property tax? State sales tax?
How is it different in other countries? Does the UK tax churches other than the official C of E? Does it tax the C of E?
I’m not gonna surprise anybody, but no. Someone has to pay for fire, police, roads and so on; if the church doesn’t pay, others do. That makes the church’s tax free status an effective subsidy.
I may be mistaken, and a quick google didn’t find it, but I believe that the Catholic church is still the world’s largest land owner. Lost income in New York City alone would be astronomical.
My understanding of the wording in the Constitution was that the authors probably should have said "The church building shall not be subject to tax,* meaning, nobody has to pay property tax on God’s house, as that was their intention. Since then, the meaning has shifted a bit. I think religions, like any other business, should pay tax on what they make. They may qualify as non-profits, but they should be taxed for it.
In New York City the property tax is 19%. Rich Developers come into neighborhoods and drive up the prices in an attempt to gentrify. If churches were not tax exempt, many of them wouldn’t be able to operate. Churches are the only community centers that most poor communities have. Removing tax exempt status would unfairly target the poor. One of the fastest growing religions in the world is Pentecostal Christianity, which is by and large a religion of the poor. This would disenfranchise millions of people in this country, most poor minorities. It would cause major division in our society as police officers would have trouble evicting people from their churches en masse. There are other aspects of the economy besides money. You’d be removing one of the ways that people network and produce culture in favor of a strict idea of government revenue.
I’m not in favour of it because I want the government to have more money. I’m in favour because it’s fair; people pay tax on their homes, companies on their property. If you want to make places of worship exempt because they’re community centres, fair enough. Make places of worship equal to community centres in the law, and open them up so that people of all faiths can use them.
You keep saying that but I don’t think it’s true. They could meet at someone’s home. Rent a storefront, like many other churches do, or–like one of the MCC churches here does–rent the smaller chapel from a larger church. If individual congregations can’t afford to own their own building, then they should join with others or do without. There’s no reason everyone else’s tax money should be giving them free municipal services.
Besides, I thought those types always believed “God will provide” or some such and there will be a mysterious donor or windfall to help make the payment. Perhaps if they can’t pay their taxes and God doesn’t provide, then maybe God doesn’t want them to survive.
1 - As other have pointed out, the actual churches themselves wouldn’t be taxed.
2 - Churches are not community centers.
3 - Actual community centers could be run as non-profit charity organizations and exempt from taxes.
4 - Removing tax exempt status would mean the churches would take some of the tax burden off the poor.
5 - Disenfranchisment means not being able to vote and what does that have to do with this issue?
6 - People don’t live in churches.
7 - Religious community centers should not be given governmental preference over secular community centers.
8 - Most potentially taxable income isn’t based on church owned property in poor areas anyway.
And while I didn’t actually look up the property tax rate in NYC, based on the rest of your post, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out it isn’t 19%.
Not to go off on a tangent but propety taxes in and of themselves are reprehensible and I’d rather pay 60% income tax than pay any property tax at all.
Anyways, no, Churches should definitely not lose their tax exempt status and thankfully they never will.
There’s a few reasons I think that tax exempt status is justified
-Churches are, to be tax-exempt, non-profit organizations
-The taxation of churches would result in wholesale denial to millions of religious services. I think this would represent a serious violation of the people’s first amendment rights.
-Churches are a special type of tax-exempt organization, and I don’t think there is anything innately unfair about having special classifications for types of organizations.
-To remove tax-exempt status would be inherently unfair. It would suddenly and overwhelmingly burden thousands of churches with tax expenses they haven’t ever planned for, most churches would not have the revenue to cover their property taxes.
And personally I think that once you’ve had a place of worship for years and years it becomes an integral part of the community, and it is not the place of government to destroy something like that via unfair taxation. Furthermore I think it is reprehensible that people propose this and I feel it is mostly proposed by people that are violently opposed to the right of Americans to freely worship in this country. In my mind this is no different than people pushing for the taxation of homeless shelters just so it forces the shelter out of the neighborhood and gets rid of the “undesirables.”
Paying your fair share is not “unfair taxation”, and forcing me to subsidise religions I despise ( all of them ) is not religious freedom, it’s religious parasitism.
Churches are not really non-profit except in name, they are a business ( entertainment ), and should be treated as such.
Explain to me how anyone is deprived of their ability to worship by a church closing. They can go to another church that didn’t close, worship in their homes, get together at the city park or anywhere rent a space like everyone else.
And again, revenue streams cannot be the only basis for Government action. And “fair” doesn’t really have anything to do with this. If you really cared about the word “fair” there’s tons of insane ideas we could put forward. For example a flat tax rate. That’s “fair” in the sense that everyone is treated equally. Make it a flat tax of 50%. Who do you think that hurts more, a mother of two earning $45,000 a year or Bill Gates? I don’t think it’s that “fair” when you consider it reduces the mother’s disposable income down to poverty levels. Sure we could say it would be “fair” to tax Churches like anyone else, if you think a Church and a fortune 500 company are the same thing, and if you think it’d be “fair” to force thousands of Churches to close their doors.
What if a city modified the tax codes in such a way that it basically forced the displacement of thousands of individuals (obviously assume that the city both has this power and that it is done in a “fair” manner), all of them coincidentally on the bad side of town and all of them, coincidentally happen to be black? There’d be riots, protests, people would be up in arms.
-Churches are, to be tax-exempt, non-profit organizations
The church IS, the building shouldn’t be. Again, we are talking about property tax. As it is, religious affiliated organizations are already taking money from me without tithing-- by using my tax $ to fund ‘faith-based’ initiatives.
Meaning of what? Nothing in the U.S. Constitution refers even obliquely to taxation of churches.