Yup, the county assessed the land at X, and that’s the figure I’m working from. But it’s a tricky piece of land to subdivide, and if I can see that, a developer certainly can.
Maybe churches should be given an exemption on property tax for perhaps the first $250k of property. Then the jets of Copeland’s ministry or the mansions of Joel Osteen would be subject to at least some property tax.
Never mind.
ISTM religions are multi-level marketing organizations (a pyramid scheme).
Sure, the ones at the bottom are barely scraping by. But, as you climb the pyramid to the top, quite a bit of money is coming in. I am sure you can find poor Catholic churches out there but the Catholic Church as an organization is fabulously wealthy. (Just using the Catholic Church as a recognizable example, you can substitute plenty of others…Scientology as another example.)
Maybe the place to tax religions is on the transfer of money up the chain. If the local church collects $1000 they need not pay taxes on that. But if they send $100 up the line that gets taxed.
Just an idea…haven’t thought it through.
We’re drifting back into the “shoulds” here, which the mods have already said is out of bounds for this forum.
Yes, the factual situation is this. Churches aren’t taxed. Anyone can call themselves a church. They probably won’t be noticed. Even if they are noticed they probably won’t be investigated. Even if they are investigated only the very worst exploitation or abuses of the tax code would be punished. And because of the opaque nature of the religion industry, it is very difficult to state definitively what impact taxation would have on the government’s coffers.
Except that it would mean more money for the state. No matter how you slice-and-dice it the state gets more money. It’s a net positive for the state.
Exactly. Without full knowledge of what is brought in and what it is spent on, it is next to impossible to determine what gain would be made from the transfer of this unknown sum to the government.
I disagree.
You would have to assume that charity is the best way to take care of the underprivileged. That is almost certainly not true.
Not to mention whether it is more efficient. We know religious organizations siphon vast amounts of money up the chain. Some little is used for charity. Some alot is sent up the ladder.
It’s akin to saying Elon Musk donates a million to charity and being all happy for it while he banks billions.
The government may not be efficient or use the money well but it will be better than hoping Gates or Musk or Buffett deign to donate a million here or there while they hoover up many more millions into their bank accounts.
I absolutely hate it when I resemble the first mate of the SS Minnow, Willie Gilligan, but I believe both sides are right. As instructed above, I will will attempt to avoid all “should and aught” aspects but there may be a very small gray area where a factual truth suggests a moral should.
Like Kent_Clark, I (in my more sincere days as a believer) served as a congregational Vice President who in our structure was charged with proposing the next year’s budget. I will say that in my experience across many denominations, and non-denominational churches most non-mega churches are sincere and committed to doing good (even if they are doing well). Even affluent churches do not store up “riches” (corporeal wealth that rust and moth might destroy). But those affluent churches Do spend more money on creature comfort than would be perhaps the height of self sacrifice for the good of others. Really affluent churches have the best air conditioners money can buy, and padded pews, state of the art sound systems and acoustic designs that can be quite spendy to accomplish. But even these churches do a great deal of good. They support overseas missions, provide hundreds – sometimes thousands of Thanksgiving meals to those in need. At Christmas they “adopt” needy families and spend thousands of dollars providing for those less affluent than themselves.
Even the kind of scraping by church I tended to devote my time and attention to did these things on a more humble scale. And we didn’t exactly trip over ourselves trying sacrifice the most personally. The church treasurer whose daughter taught CPR and first aide to aspiring babysitters never wanted to scratch THAT program off of the proposed budget for the next year. The faction who wanted to build a daycare center always made sure there were provisions for their pet project. Even I wanted (since I was a retired Carpenter and at that time a current architectural draftsman) to continue to fund my south of the border housing project.
Even with all of our infighting, we still managed to do some small amount of good in the world – and we did spend the bulk of the money on ourselves, no question. It is my true and sincere belief that even though I have renounced that faith, none of those type of churches should be taxed or required to show their books. The more humble often have professional clergy being underpaid for a VERY responsible job. Even the heavily affluent churches fall into this category in my view even if their pastors make north of six figures a year a(as long as when a congregant dies, they get up in the middle of the night and go comfort the family-- if they dispatch a lackey, then all bets are off).
There are two types of churches that I would claim have an entirely different business model. First, the megachurches who support a thriving community and who also support unfathomably rich ministers. Kenneth Cox as mentioned above, Paula White, and many others who do seem to be benefiting themselves before they benefit humankind in many ways at all.
I am not sure HOW to address this discrepancy, nor where any line might be drawn between “normal” none filing church and mega church with hundreds of millions in assets (including pastoral assets). But one thing is sure, they are two completely different animals! The nickel and dime churches I worked with, and even the dollar and five-dollar churches I am familiar with are a very different breed than those profit centers posing as churches.
The second type of church that in my somewhat informed view needs government oversight, is those churches which are too closely associated with The Heritage Foundation, The Family Research Council, and even the Christian Broadcasting Network among others. There are many, many political organizations that target and use churches to advance a political agenda, and they are quite open about abusing the existing laws and rules to game the situation. There are churches which purport to being solely “Christian” organizations but have a decidedly political agenda that defies both the separation of Church and State – AND the Johnson Amendment. The Heritage Foundation for example has extensive efforts to politicize Christian congregations and how to skirt laws designed to keep them from being purely political. Their stated purpose is to politicize churches and there have been plenty of leaked tapes of them stating quite proudly how they circumvented laws by a legal, but crafty way that certainly breaks the spirit of the law while not being actionable.
I would say that any church which has politics mentioned (even briefly) every single service, or that has several overtly political organizations, clubs, associations, or the like made up of church members- on church grounds is no longer a church – or at least no longer strictly a church. A very highly partisan political agenda that is overt and far reaching within a church should be grounds for investigation into their books. What if it turns out one of these churches is largely funded by The Heritage Foundation?? Or by Charles Koch? That might suggest that their primary mission is not saving souls but advancing a political agenda.
And I will clarify that while I did move into the “should, aught to” realm, I am talking about organizations that are patently NOT primarily Christian – but rather political and therefore fraudulent. I am not sure if there is precedent to prosecute MEGA pastors who have amassed huge personal worth but . . . well they are also a different animal than the humble community church with a purely religious goal and mission. (I will stipulate that often these mega-pastors make a good deal of their bank by selling books so that is not in any way a violation, but perhaps their standing as this remarkable person of God as the pastor of Blah, Blah, on the Blah adds to their ability to sell books and gain wealth? I don’t know about that.)
Most people just hear about the mega churches because they make the news, but the large majority of churches are very poor. They are barely making ends meet, and things are only getting worse as churches in general continue to shrink in membership. According to the laws governing small businesses, most of those churches would end up paying virtually nothing in taxes anyway.
However, what would happen is that the precedent would be set for churches to be treated like small businesses, which mean they could benefit from all the government financial support that small businesses enjoy, such as bankruptcy. I can almost guarantee you that the whole thing would backfire in a big way.
More so than the government does?
Is the head of the IRS hoovering up cash from taxpayers to pay for personal private jets and vacation homes?
The more he can scam from taxpayers the more he can stash away?
This seems to be a trope repeated over and over with no real basis.
What do we mean by “fabulously wealthy”? The catholic church does not own a luxury yacht, the top members do not live what we would regard as an ostentatious life of luxury. (Even the minions - would you say the bishop or cardinal of New York is living a jet-set lifestyle of endless parties like much of the NYC 1%?) True, for historical reasons, they and many other churches have amazingly valuable historical artifacts. But you can’t sell the Sistine Chapel, they aren’t selling off and redeveloping the Vatican property with 30-storey apartment buildings. They can’t sell off all their 14th century gold and bejewelled chalices or crosses, etc. Those things aren’t creating income just sitting there. Nor, as pointed out, does St. Patricks generate the same income that the Empire State building does.
True, the church has a large cash-flow - but has massive expenses too. (One of JPII’s major efforts in the middle of his “reign” was to balance the church’s budget. (Having 2 cardinal conclaves within a year to elect popes was apparently a significant drain on resources.)They have to house and pay a huge staff all across the world. Like any large organization, simple things like flying people in from all over the world for meeting, costs money. A church in every community, money to pay for a local priest, running schools, charities, etc. all costs money. Even something as mundane as the Sistine Chapel and Vatican Museum - has the same expenses as any other museum, from cleaners and security to the art experts who ensure the pieces are properly cared for and tasks as mundane as the building upkeep.
Nobody really thinks - “I’d like to live the life of the pope” - working until he drops dead, 24-7. Running an organization costs money.
Even if we look at the questionable megachurches that seem to attract a lot of the criticism - yes, one family seems to be living a life of luxury - but how much is that in the grand scheme of things? Remember, almost nobody “buys a jet”. What they do is a form of lease arrangement, they may have title but the payoff is over years; so buying a jet does not indicate “this year they had $25M in surplus income”, more like they had $1M each year to spend toward owning and operating a jet. If we’re going to complain about excessive salaries for church CEO’s, why should business CEO’s not be equally scrutinized and their salaries regulated?
While I disapprove of much that sort of spending, and questionable money collection - I cannot see where there is a surplus of income above legitimate church expenses to offset even a fraction of what people pay in income taxes. A quick rule of thumb - if most church income (especially those megachurches or the Catholic Church) is from donations (or even a large part?) does the average family in America donate anywhere near as much to a church of their choice as they pay in taxes?
Well…
Bankers’ best guesses about the Vatican’s wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate. Dividends help pay for Vatican expenses and charities such as assisting 1,500,000 children and providing some measure of food and clothing to 7,000,000 needy Italians. Unlike ordinary stockholders, the Vatican pays no taxes on this income, which led the leftist Rome weekly L’Espresso last week to call it “the biggest tax evader in Italy.” SOURCE
I can’t imagine that includes the property they own around the world.
EDIT: YIKES!!! That quote above was 1965. I am seeing it as ~$30 billion now. Sources vary. If you want cites I will give them.
I find this attitude puzzling. Why is opening the books such a problem? If they’re on the level what’s the risk? Yeah, I don’t like the “if you have nothing to hide…” argument, but tax exemption is a privilege, so there needs to be some give-and-take.
The thread long ago ceased to be factual answers and is a debate, so off to GD it goes.
RickJay
Moderator
OK now with the change of venue…
I would strongly support religious organizations being subjected to the same compliance requirements as recognized tax-exempt NPOs are. Make them no more and no less privileged. Though it would probably become necessary to fine-tune the rules so it doesn’t become an environment where community churches or NPOs get hammered while Kenneth Copeland or the Koch Foundation can just throw lawyers at allegations.
And if someone wants to run a for-profit church, just like a for-profit school or for-profit hospital, hey, pay your taxes and knock yourself out.
Of course, above and beyond that, I will say that we should not want to have a situation where every religious organization or leader is presumed to be a scam unless it proves otherwise to our satisfaction.
I certainly can see how it seems to be an odd point of view, but I can say that most ordinary run of the mill churches absolutely exist to
- Promote the Kingdom of God (with NO interest in political intrigue at any level)
- Care for their neighbors (in my experience, most often their neighbors who look most like them)
But besides the nature of their good intentions, there is a very long and established history of granting them complete freedom from taxation- or even publishing their books. I think that should be preserved – unless it shouldn’t! Many churches believe THEY are doing good works by promoting a moral, Bible based political party. Somehow, that came to mean supporting Donald J. Trump despite any common sense test, reason, or logic.
Those churches that do speak about the need to vote their conscious every single week, or have large political “clubs” made up entirely of church members. Those churches which openly promote a specific candidate or party should have to open up their books to examination and they should be held to a different standard because they are a different organization. However much pious lipstick they slap on that pig – it is a political machine first and a church (if at all) at a much lower priority level.
Besides, in most churches there is an annual budget available in the Narthex, and many churches publish their attendance numbers, number of communion participates, and offering received every week in their bulletin. Some also publish their expenditures in the bulletin also, but that is more rare. If you show up for a couple of weeks and express an interest in joining the church- they will provide you their simple one page budget upon request in almost any church.
Taking it too far (possibly!)
For historical reasons, I am also an unabashed supporter of Second Amendment rights. I grew up in two different households on the very same block. I also worked in the construction industry where hunting was as natural as breathing. Most of those hunters served in the military and were marksmen with both long and short guns. I was taught properly how to handle firearms from a young age and we never got overly comfortable or careless with those devices.
But no citizen needs armor piercing rounds, grenade launchers, bump stocks, or fully automatic assault rifles. In fact, after one assault rifle, you start to make my spidey senses twitch. Anyone who is amassing military style weapons and ammo is VERY suspicious in my view. That person is WAY, WAY too insecure to be behind the trigger of any gun, especially an assault rifle.
So again, two different animals. One is a reasonable person who wants to own and shoot firearms in a responsible manner. The other is a paranoid person gripped with fear who WILL overreact in any context where a firearm may be useful. They would be FAR more likely to initiate gun play and far more likely to keep shooting until the thing goes ‘click’ (empty). Even seasoned soldiers have been known to panic under fire and one is never sure how one will react in real time. But someone who is so terrified they must amass huge arsenals does not seem to be the most stable example of a gun owner.
This is where American life and politics is so frustrating for me. The “Party of Self Responsibility” is lying in an open and transparent manner. Why can’t we as citizens show enough sense to keep our long held institutions - - but with a few common sense safeguards in place to make the experience available AND non-threatening to the sane and reasonable???
Yes, your church is tax exempt and doesn’t even have to show its books as long as you behave like a church. As soon as you become political- or amass great wealth for a small group at the top – now we want to see your books and if it turns out you are NOT a church [exclusively], you get to pay taxes. And you may own and shoot firearms if you do so responsibly and do not telegraph any mental health deficiencies. If you start listening to FOX News 24/7 and then amass an armory of assault rifles – well, it is time to question your motives. If your first and only reply is an emphatic spittal enhanced diatribe on freedom being watered with the blood of tyrants-- it is time to surrender your assault rifles to the authorities.
I am going to give the opposition view the “slippery slope” argument for free. There ARE those who want to tax every church, and there are those who would take every firearm. So my answer to the question quoted above is: “You do not have to show your books unless you are suspected of something and there is some sort of probable cause.” But once you get to that point you MUST show them and we are going to be looking to take away your privilege (so stay far away from that line!)
I yield the soapbox to the next poster.
The government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. They can’t go after the Heritage Foundation, while ignoring Trinity United.