Uhhh…
:rolleyes:
The point is that there is no real persecution now, and it is in no way clear that the proposed changes will lead to a better situation. So there is no real basis for the belief that that we should change the tax laws to prevent religious persecution.
Besides what I meant was that it is generally unwise to change a working situation based on what is possible to happen in that situation to an untested situation. In essense if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The situation where churches are taxed has not been demonstrated to work, and currently is not law anyway, so it can’t be changed.
Fry.
Fine if you can show that the churches can’t afford property taxes then perhaps they could be exempt. You will be hard pressed to show that this is true, for example the Chicago Archdioses of the Cathloic Church has a one billion dollar endowment along with another billion dollars in assets. Its Bishop lives in a 3 story mansion on a large estate in downtown Chicago.
Thats true but the reality of the situation is that someone still has to pay for these services. The way its been decided is that property taxes are the best way to fund these.
There might not be a direct link but wouldn’t the services be better if they had another couple hundred thousand dollars from churches? Wouldn’t tax rates be lower for the same services if churches were required to pay? So yes while we have decided that providing certain services to those that can’t afford it is good public policy it doesn’t mean they aren’t recieving something for free.
Right while I want religion out of government I am not willing to use the government to silence those religions.
If the government passed legislation saying treis doesn’t have to pay taxes would that not help me?
I think churches should pay all the taxes. That would put them out of business in a hurry.
But how do you propose we determine who can pay and who can’t? Because while you may love to rail against the uber-rich church, the reality is that a huge percentage of church assets are fixed assets that cannot be easily gotten rid of. So for instance I would guess that of the billion dollar assets a lot of that money is tied up in buildings like cathedrals and stuff. Since they were probably built ages ago the land was probably gotten very cheaply originally. Many cathedrals and the like are protected by heritage listings (at least here in Australia) and can’t be simply demolished. And who, apart from the Catholic church, is going to want a huge cathedral. So I would guess that a large amount of their assets are in reality things that while worth a lot on paper, and would certainly cost a lot to aquire, are the sort of things that can’t really be sold and therefore in that sense worthless. How would you account for assets such as that?
Secondly it is a general principle of taxation law that you can’t tax what someone uses to generate income. So in general businesses are taxed based on their profits, not on their turnovers. Since tax-exempt churches are by definition non-profit organisations and therefore all of the money they generate is used to effectively generate more money. There is no profit and therefore no pool of money from which taxesd can be drawn.
But anyway there are all sorts of hard questions that you need to answer for your position. So for instance say I have two churches, church A and chuch B. Church A and B and the same value of assets and donations. However Church A spends 99% of its generated income on running religious services, and 1% on feeding the poor. Church B spends 1% of their money on religious services and 99% on feeding the poor. How should they both be taxed? If they are both taxed the same then you are effectively taking money that would otherwise be spent on feeding the poor, but if you say different then you run into the whole issue of goverenment approved actions vs. non-govenrment approved. If feeding the poor is tax deductable and running a worship service is not, then the government is effectively establishing a religion based on what they approve of as tax deductable.
Many countries don’t have the same property taxes, so that is far from certain.
So what? You could increase the quality of services by raising the land tax. Doesn’t mean you should. And it still does nothing to asnwer the objection that there is no link between recieving government services and taxation. Taxes don’t pay for government services because there is no correlation between services rendered and tax paid. And government merely providing a service is not government endorsement of that religion anymore than governments providing the same services to other non-profit tax free groups is endorsing them.
That does nothing though to answer the point that it is inherently undemocratic to force people to financially contribute to society and then not allow them any voice in how their contribution is used. Likewise it is undemocratic to allow a group a voice that is exempted from taxation. If churches are OK with staying out of specific government issues, then they don’t have to pay tax. If they want to be involved in government the price of that is that they must pay taxes.
Allowing the government to collect taxes from churches destroys whatever separation of church and state their is, because if churches pay taxes they should also have the right to have their interests represented. No taxation without representation. The government is not effectively silencing anyone. I can set up whatever religious based lobby group I want, but it has to pay tax.
Getting churches to pay tax does not get the goverment out of religious affairs, to the contrary taxes obligate the government to churches in the same way taxation obligates the government to all its citizens.
You are not thinking of this from the right perspective. If the government passed legislation saying you don’t have to pay taxes, and then a year later passed another law saying that you do, doesn’t the second law hurt you? So a state of taxation is not always a neitral position. The only clear neutral state is that of no money flow between churches and government either way.
Fry.
Nice to know you have thought long and hard about the issues :rolleyes:
Thanks. That really helps a whole fucking lot.
I’ll be honest, I have no idea how much is tied up in the buildings but the land is certainly a significant part of it. A couple acres in down town chicago is worth a lot more than the church on top of it. Regardless, I know exactly what 1 billion dollar endowment means and I have to say thats a pretty impressive accumulation of wealth for a “non-profit” organization.
Perhaps the way property tax is assessed is inherently fair. If it is than the solution is to change the whole system not grant a specific exemptioon to churches.
I don’t know, the same way that it works for other buildings like that? Old warehouses, factories etc. etc. are in the same situation and I don’t see why a church should be different. At worst you tax the value of what the land is worth. If a church is declared a historical site then treat it as every other historical site.
Can you explain to me how a “non-profit” organization obtained a billion dollar endowment? The Catholic Church pays employees, sends money back to a central organization, opens new locations and earns quite a bit of money. Shoot, the head of the Catholic Church lives in a palace paid for by the Church and the head of the Catholic Church in Chicago lives in a multi-million dollar residence. The Church pays its employees salary and invests the remainder of the money left over back into the organization. What pratical difference is there between that a d a business?
I don’t see how this is a hard question. 1% of Church A’s income is exempt from taxes and 99% of Church B’s income is exempt from taxes.
How so? If the government says religious income is not tax exempt while charitable donations are how does that establish anything in regrds to religion?
Well in America we do.
You just repeated the exact samething I responded to.
Ok let me motify my position. The effect of government policy on the actual building of the church is certainly something that you can consider in a vote. When I say religion should stay out of religion I mean that the government shouldn’t pass a law based on some religion considering that action a sin.
You didn’t answer the question, would I benefit from not paying taxes? Did the Chicago archdioses benefit in not paying property tax when it accumulated one billion dollars in investments and one billion dollars in property?
When you consider the size of the Catholic church, and the fact that there are individuals with that much cash, not really.
Perhaps its not
Churches != factories and warehouses. Not even close
I think you have the actual situation out of perspective.
Since I am neither American or Catholic I did some googling to find out more. The first thing I came across was this page which sheds some more light on the situation rather than just OMG 2 BILLION. The real situation is far more complex:
- First off you have to remember that the Catholic church has been on Boston over 200 years, and probably started with some capital as a gift from Rome or some-such. Over 200 years it doesn’t take some magic hoarding ability to get that much money, just some wise investment.
- While the church as around 1B in property, virtually none of that property generates any money. In fact much of it is a significant financial drain.
- While the property is on paper worth 1B, and may cost that to replace, in practice much of it could not be sold for anywhere near that.
- You would expect all organisations, profit and non-profit, to have some savings in case of unforseen events. To not do that is courting financial disaster. While you may think that 1B is excessive, given the size of the Boston Catholic church and all of the activities they are involved in, I don’t think so.
- Financially the church is actually losing money. Currently it is not getting in enough money to support all its activities, and is using the interest to keep afloat. So it is not like the money is just sitting there, it is used in the operation of the church.
- The church is not throwing money around. In fact some churches in the diocese are closing due to lack of funds.
- The “mansion” that you keep talking about was probably built years ago, and was originally designed to house quite a few church people, not just the Bishop. With the general reduction in the number of priests and such there probably isn’t the same number of church people who need housing, so the Bishop has it to himself. Nevertheless it is hardly a sign that the church as too much money.
- As for the Pope’s “palace” lots of other church officials live in that too, so it is not as extravagent as you would like to make out.
- Besides if taxation is all about stopping people hoarding wealth, there are many who are far wealthier than the church. For instance Apple computer is rumoured to have close to 6 Billion in the bank. Maybe increasing corporate tax is a better way to stop groups hoarding money.
And you can’t see how having a list of government approved non-taxed activities is hugely problematic and grossly unconsititutional?
The problem is that many see charitable acts as a religious duty. So for instance in Islam giving alms is one of the 5 pillars of the faith. In drawing a line between charitable and worship acts you are inherently favouring one type of religious action over another one and is therefore unconstitutional.
Well in America we do.
And you didn’t really answer my objection. The point is the government could get more money in lots of ways. The government could get a heap of money by placing large income taxes on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Doesn’t mean they are going to or even that such taxes are a good idea.
But how do you answer the objection that in taxing churches you are effectively obligating the goverment to consider the wishes of the church. You can’t have taxation without representation, so it you take money from churches it is only fair that you give them a voice in how it is spent. That means that if part of the money goes to enforcing law and order then it is only fair to consider what the church sees as “criminal”, since they are helping to pay for it. If you want to keep religion out of government the best way to do it is to keep the goverment out of churches.
I did answer the question. Of course not paying tax is better than paying tax. However I could just as easily re-phrase the question to “would it bad for the church to force it to pay tax when it once didn’t” Again the answer is yes, but that proves nothing. Using your logic I could claim that beating someone about the head with a bat is being neutral. Afterall, does someone benefit from be not beating them about the head? Of course they do!
Ultimately no money transfer is the neutral position.
Fry.
Sorry, mixed up the quotes, but you get the idea.
Fry.
Well, first off I guess I’d better state my position, which is that any organisation dedicated to providing recogniseable charitable services services to society on a non-profit basis should be be able to claim some tax relief in recognition of the benefits it provides to society, and that such tax relief should be neutral of the motivation of those who work there.
I see no reason to distinguish between the Red Cross, a church soup kitchen, an Islamic medical clinic or whatever if they are doing good works for their fellow citizens. Some people find religion beneficial to their mental and spiritual well-being, so fair enough.
I do take issue with are some of the arguments being bandied about in this thread. Apologies if this seems aimed at Philip J Fry - it is not, but he has restated several points in a convenient spot.
Tax-relief for churches is a neutral position: If the Pastafarian Adult Literacy Group is based in an identical building to the Episcopalian Literary Group, but the church organisation automatically gets tax relief due to it’s religious nature, then the government is clearly subsidising and sponsoring the religious group by the simply leaving them with more money to play with after taxes. Any variation of treatment so as to confer a financical benefit is a subsidy, and I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.
Some churches are huge and have pots of money: The Red Cross is a pretty big organisation with a big budget, large HQ and a well-paid CEO - that proves nothing. Is the purpose of the organisation the continuation of its non-profit, socially worthy mission (spiritual ministration, feeding the poor, running schools, etc.)? If yes, fine, if not, treat it like any other enterprise. Whether a not-for-profit loses its charitable status should be down to behaviour, not size. The main mission of several churches is bascially to maintain their building and stay open - fair enough, saving architectural heritage is a charitable goal.
Fixed assets with a substantial cash value. How are they not the same? You can preach a sermon in a warehouse or you can store your inventory of socks in a church.
There is now a trend in the UK is for the older established churches to sell their ancient churches in order to cut expenditures and raise funds, while the expanding evangelical churches are busy buying cinemas and bingo halls to worship in. The consensus appears to be that god(s) care more about the worship than the address. It’s certainly nice to have a spiritually uplifting atmosphere to worship in, but generally all you really need is a piece of flat ground and any appropriate holy objects.
I believe one of main arguments in favour of taxing churches is that the US government DOES have a list of approved non-taxed activities, and near the top of the list it says “Being A Christian Organisation”. Tearing up that list and replacing it with “Perform a valuable social service on a not-for profit basis” would seem fairer. Treat everyone the same with no preferences.
A charitable act is a charitable act. Why distinguish between alms given by a Muslim, Christian or Humanist? Or are you saying that this would favour religions that preach ‘Give to the poor’ over religions that preach ‘Spread the word and wear green corduroy’? That would be true, but otherwise how do you prevent someone founding a Church of Mammon and claiming that self-enrichment is an act of worship?
If the government grants a church something which confers a financial benefit (such as an exemption from taxes, employment laws, keeping accounts) then the government can have leverage over the church by threatening to withdraw that benefit.
Yes you can, it just tends to annoy people. Convicted felons, businesses, resident aliens, all have to pay taxes and don’t get a vote. Funding government does not necessarily give you much say in how it is run, which is just as well, otherwise Bill Gates and Citibank would have each have as much say as all the citizes in Montana.
As an aside, for those in favour of abolishing property taxes as a means of funding local services, this is very tricky. Part of the problem is that since the costs are usually driven by the number of citizens, you often end up with a Poll Tax, which is even more regressive than property taxes and hence unpopular . Local income taxes are a less contentious solution, but much harder to administer. So property taxes are very common as a ‘least-bad’ option.
So obviously because these are hard questions we shouldn’t change anything. Tax changes can be gradual. I don’t believe it would be reasonable to declare a drastic change starting next year, but a gradual change over a decade would allow churches to adjust. If the Catholic church has millions to spend on pedophile lawsuits then somehow they’ll manage.
A valid point. We’d have to look at the guidelines of what constitutes a non profit organization and see if that needs to be redefined. Of course income tax is only one aspect. There’s property tax and sales tax. I see no reason why churches shouldn’t pay sales tax when they buy things. I know in some states the requirements were changed because so many Christians were buying personnal items and useing the churches tax ID to skip paying sales tax. I’m sure they asked for forgivness so it’s okay.
What about churches who rent out property to other groups? That seems like income to me. I do think that churches who actually offer services for the poor should get a deduction for those services the same way I can get a deduction for a charitable contribution.
Interesting use of illogic. I believe I just addressed this issue. There are non religious charities that already have guidelines that we could look at. If the guidelines have nothing to do with religion but rather focus on services offered then no, the government is not establishing religion.
It isn’t a legal arguement but more of a moral and ethical one. Why should *any * group recieve tax exempt status? I don’t think religion all by itself is enough of a reason to grant tax exempt status.
You might have noticed that churches *don’t * stay out of politics. People can join political action groups to pool their resources and join their voices together but on election day, it’s one person, one vote same as now.
Do you think religion isn’t a huge influence when it comes to voting? Seems to me a lot of people decided that war was morally okay but abortion and gay marriage are morally dangerous. Personnally I think the guidelines of political contributions should be changed and only individual US citizens should be allowed to legally contribute. No groups, no businesses. Just people.
I think I just addressed this. This arguement makes no sense to me. Members of churches already have representation as citizens. They already do form political action groups. They already want to enforce their moral vision on the rest of society. They might as well pay tax.
Again, this arguement makes no sense to me.
I don’t get this either. What are you saying, Since churches haven’t been taxed it would be unfair to tax them now? Illogical. As far as nuetrality is concerned, I think the nuetral thing to do would to have guidelines that are not based on religion for tax exempt status.
I have been reading this thread for a while, and have seen no reason for me to add my two cents.
Until now. mswas, you seem to have the wrong idea about “strong atheists” and “weak atheists”
A weak atheist will say, “I don’t believe in worshipping any particular god. I don’t see the point. Proof? . Why would I need to prove the non existence of gods? I never claimed I could. You are thinking of the straw-man definition of atheists. Why would I need to prove the non existence of a god?”
You seem to think that means that the alternative position, a "strong atheists” makes the following claim “Gods do not exist, and I can prove it!”
No, that is not the case. A “strong atheist say the following: ““I don’t believe in worshipping any particular god. I don’t see the point. Proof? Well, I can’t prove the non-existence of a god. Why would I need to prove the non existence of gods? I never claimed I could. You are thinking of the straw-man definition of atheists. However, I can prove the non-existence of the particular god I was raised to believe in, based on the description of that particular god.”
bolding mine
Scott, do not do this. If you disagree with a post, argue against it. Do not put editorial comments in your purported quotation of the statement with which you disagree.
[ /Moderator mode ]
Just to clarify, can I say <snipped claim>, or <snipped argument>, or perhaps <snipped strawman>, or must I always stick with just plain <snip>?
I get that it was about me insulting his argument, and my poor choice of words, but still, I would like to hear you elaborate this.
That’s actually the root of this whole argument. Tax churches, and let them say whatever they want about politics. This is, basically, what we already have, anyway. Churches wield enormous political influence, even if they don’t couch it in political terms. The drive to ban gay marriage is almost entirely religious in nature. Elected officials regularly solicit support on the basis of shared religious principles. Folks like Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or James Dobson have been hugely instrumental in motivated the religious right into getting to the polls. The idea that churches get tax exemptions for staying apolitical is a fiction. And there’s really no way to change this. The most divisive political issues of the day are, at their heart, moral issues, and the entire purpose of religion is to provide moral guidance. If churches are going to influence society, they can damn well pony up the cash to keep society running.
The rest of your post has been answered by others but I will address this. This is simply not logically correct. If no one paid taxes and the government still ran then this is not a neutral poisition. That situation would be positive for everyone becuase they are getting roads, schools, police, fire, defense etc. for nothing. That situation is a beneficial situaiton. The neutral situation would be paying for exactly what you use.
I’m not sure why the “<snip ~>” is needed. Most people will note that a quotation is not complete. If you interrupt a sentence, finish it with an ellipsis.
I don’t object to the use of “<snip>”, I just don’t see much point. “<snipped statement>”, “<snipped argument>”, etc. are OK.
My objection, as you noted, is to the inclusion of any derogatory descriptions not keyed by the author, included as editorial opinions of the author’s work withion the quote tag. From that perspective, even the “<snipped ~>” can be misleading. I will not admonish its use, but I think it is not worthwhile and can be confusing.
(And if I see “I beleve that humanity must rise to the occasion and reject the tendency of good people to ignore evil and exalt human feelings and to embrace barbarism” quoted as
I will be looking for the ban stick for anyone who so deliberately distorts a quotation.)
I call bullshit. I strongly suspect that you are misinterpreting things said so that it fits your own odd agenda.
Cite?
(At the best, you are guilty of equivocation in language.)