sorry… I was talking about property tax.
There are two concepts you don’t understand here. One is religion, something I am not sure you will ever understand. A church is entertainment in no more a way than a school is entertainment.
Second you don’t understand business at all. First of all, you CAN have an entertainment agency and be a non-profit. There are lots of arts organizations that have non-profit status. What it means when a business earns a profit is that there are shareholders who are receiving returns on their investment. With a non-profit all of the money is supposed to go toward expenses, as there are no shareholders to reap a profit. Of those expenses a salary for the staff of the non-profit is considered a legitimate expense.
Your understanding of religion is irrelevant to this case, because what you are more guilty of is not knowing anything about the way business operates.
Erek
It’s called democracy. In order for you to have a say in the way the government works you have to accept that other people have this same ability. I’m sorry that you feel upset that the majority disagrees with you but if you look around those faith based initiatives are about twice as much publicity as they are actual policy.
Shortsighted views such as this don’t lead to more freedom they lead to more oppression because no one gets what they want, they only are able to stop people from doing things they don’t want them to do.
Erek
Oh, and do these art organizations host “art” that consists of speeches about how they are wonderful and their rivals are evil ? That’s advertising, not art.
And I seriously that most of that money ends up doing anything but enriching the church.
:rolleyes: Now that would disenfranchise the poor.
Property taxes are levied upon property owners (which, in the case of landlords, pass them onto leasees in the form of rent) in order to pay for community services and infrastructure; police and fire protection, street maintainance, public schools, libraries, parks, et cetera. They are, perhaps, the most fair of all taxes, insofar as they go up only as the value of the property increases. Unfair assessment and gentrification are problems, of course, but at least the cost of running a municipality is more or less meanly distributed amoung the people who are served by it the most.
As far as mswas’s argument, I find it specious to the extreme. Why should churches–many of which are “not-for-profit” enterprises in name only, be exempt while other community organizations are not? By these arguments, fraternity houses, coffeeshops, and bars should also be exempt. The reason that churches are exempt is the same reason that Wisconsin dairy farmers aren’t subject to laissez faire market forces; because they have a powerful lobby that gets them special privlidges that the rest of us don’t enjoy.
Stranger
I live in a representative republic.
Explain to me how freedom of the press is infringed upon when the government starts shutting down printing presses. After all, you can always just use a word processor and an HP inkjet.
Most people accept that Churches shouldn’t be taxed because to tax them would probably mean the destruction of a huge number of Churches. Most people outside of the ultra-liberal anti-religious rights SDMB don’t think that is necessarily the kind of policy government should follow.
Anyways, there is a benefit to all of society from religious services being provided. That’s one reason even some of the most secular couuntries in the world actually have State-operated churches.
As it is now Churches are basically providing a service that otherwise would have to be directly provided by government if all the churches got closed down.
Sometimes.
Enriching the church is a legitimate usage of the money, as long as it is not profit entering a shareholder’s pocket.
You are misinterpreting what I said. I am all for fairness, I simply don’t believe that removing their tax exemption is what is fair.
Besides you COULD form a church, you choose not to. It is not unfairly benefitting someone in a way that you do not benefit.
What shareholders are making a profit from church revenue? Where is the churches revenue stream coming from?
Property taxes are the least fair because one loses their property if they cannot afford to pay them, unlike Income taxes or Sales taxes, there is no way to stop using your property. If you lose your job you don’t pay income taxes, and you stop buying as many things so you pay lower sales tax. However, your property tax remains the same and you risk losing your home. It’s completely unfair. I am against property taxes across the board as they make it more difficult for the average person to own property.
Do you think that firehouses, police stations, schools and libraries should have to pay property tax? There is a fine distinction here in terms of public institutions. In this case property tax pays for those institutions. Churches are also a form of pubilc institution, but they are not subsidized by the government, they simply are not taxed.
PhilipM Same rules still apply. You live in a country where people are represented. The majority is represented and gets their way. Boo fucking hoo.
Erek
I suppose you’d also have to tax the property of secular non-profit organizations as well, right? Just so long as we’re all trying to be fair.
Marc
I do not use libraries. I haven’t walked into a library in years. I have the internet, what do I need a library for? I go into Barnes and Noble more often than I enter a library. We should shut them down because I don’t need them.
Oh but wait, they provide a social benefit to others that indirectly benefits me. Oh, now I see why libraries are useful, I think we should keep them.
Erek
They are the least fair of all taxes because you shouldn’t have to pay for what is already yours, again and again, every single year.
If you want me to help pay for infrastructure, police or fire protection, street maintenance, public schools, libraries, parks, et cetera. then send me a bill that is uniform throughout the municipality (exempt the poor if you want, I could care less). I shouldn’t be taxed more because my property is valued higher because I don’t gain any benefit from the higher valuation AT that time. Just because my lot is worth $200,000 and my neighbors’ lot is worth $150,000 doesn’t mean I’m receiving more police or fire protection, doesn’t mean I’m using the libraries more, it doesn’t mean I’m benefitting more from the infrastructure and general municipal climate AT that time.
I don’t think I should be taxed based on the increasing value of my property until I actually realize the change in the value, either by using it as equity in some way or in selling the property.
I think that people are somewhat confused on the services that Churches provide. “Religious service” is just that, it’s a service that some people NEED, just as much as other people need access to a library or newspaper.
The fact that we have the “establishment clause” in the first Amendment doesn’t erase that fact. Government recognizes that the providing of religious service is important for a great many people, it was very important in the 18th century, it is very important in the 21st century.
This isn’t even getting in to the many social services that Churches provide, many of them offer shelter during natural disasters, counseling for various non-religious personal problems, canned food drives et al. The Church is actually “above and beyond” a normal charitable organization because the typical Church both provides the services of a charitable organization AND it provides religious services. In the United States we decided that Government shouldn’t provide religious service, but we obviously recognized the importance of said religious service.
And yes, you can worship God in a cave. But that would be a severe downgrade for most people. A church is a centralized location, a “chuch organization” can more easily provide religious service with a large building designed for that purpose. Religious service for many is enhanced by the presence of other worshippers, something you could not get to the same degree inside someone’s home.
It’s just like my example with freedom of the press. You would still theoretically be able to exercise that right if the Government confiscated all the printing presses. But I think we all see it would OBVIOUSLY be greatly diminished.
So what indirect benefit do I receive from the 3 churches within 2 blocks of my house? If they paid property taxes, maybe the sidewalks would be nicer, or the fire department could afford another man, or another officer on the police force. If they closed because they couldn’t pay taxes, I would have people living in them- boosting the economy of my neighborhood, increasing the value of my property. Hmmm, maybe they keep the ‘punks’ off the street. No, I live in an outlying urban area that is the ‘bar scene’ ‘restaurant scene’ and ‘coffeehouse scene’ in my city… the punks are at those commercial places, and on the whole- they behave quite nicely without jesus, thank you.
But with tax breaks the government is helping to provide some religious services by providing government fuctions for free.
So, if we held a vote tomorrow to repeal the first ammendment and outlaw Christianity, and it somehow actually passed, you’d be okay with that, right? After all, if the majority wants to do something, the opposing minority has no business complaining, right?
Churches should have to pay the same taxes as everybody else.
Not all churches are the same. Some might have extremely high incomes, some have very little. The ones with the higher incomes pay a higher tax, unless of course they are deducting it all with charitable works.
It would hurt religion in this country very badly were churches to be levied property taxes. Many of them wouldn’t be able to afford it and would close. For this reason, it will never happen. Anyone who tried would be committing carreer suicide. There’s still a lot of religious folks in the US, of all political stripes.
However, as long as we are discussing what would hypothetically be best, I say we should tax them for property value. Why not? Everybody else pays it. If they aren’t bringing in enough revenue to pay the tax then it’s fine with me if they close up shop. Another business that is more profitable will move into the space and generate even more revenue for the city or town in question.
What benefit do churches provide me ? Attracting people who might burn down my house, because the 900 foot tall Jesus told them too ?
I never said they have no right to complain.
Well, your scenario is silly because I am in the vast majority in this particular case. However, I would not support this government if it repealed the first amendment. God trumps the state.
Debaser I think you are going about it backasswards. It’s not that churches SHOULD pay property taxes because other people do. It’s that other people shouldn’t be paying property taxes. As Martin Hyde pointed out. One is not receiving anything for their property value unless receiving equity or upon sale, at which point they are taxed for that value. It’s not fair to tax someone based upon the fickle nature of the real estate market.
This argument runs very deeply into this society, and I feel like the anti-tax-exempt camp is looking at too shallowly.
Erek
Say, how did the whole tax-exemption-for-churches policy get started, anyway?