A regular complaint of some atheists is that churches pay no taxes. Some go further and argue that this a violation of the Establishment Clause (in that, by granting churches a tax exemption the state is establishing a church). However, this has also come to bite the churches because the IRS will be sent after the church if ever the church appears to be pushing a specific political agenda (endorsing a particular candidate or ballot proposition).
So, one solution might be to determine what taxes SHOULD a church be paying.
FICA, Social Security, etc. for employees - to my knowledge they already pay these.
Property Taxes - this is determined by the State, County and City I assume. What taxes does Goodwill pay for their stores? What does a private school pay in property taxes? What category of owner should a church fall into when determining their tax rate?
Income Taxes - Most churches are non-profits, and their cash flows out as fast as it flows in. I am not sure if they would pay much in income tax, though their accounting fees will probably rise to comply.
So - what taxes should a church pay, and do we structure it to keep it from
A) Being an impediment to worship (removing a tax break on churches WOULD force many to close their doors and would be seen as an attack on 1st Amendment Rights)
B) Sufficient that the IRS no longer has the power to kill a church if the Minister lets his opinions be known in regards to a particular political issue.
Treat it like any other club or organization. Tax them the same as you would anyone else. While I object on a moral ground for granting tax breaks to charitable givings, I admit that I wouldn’t get too rallied up if charitable acts were given a tax break.
Tax breaks for charity in my opinion isn’t a moral issue. It is acknowledgment that the people are providing social services for themselves that the government does not have to provide.
It APPEARS to me that the Churches get automaticly categorized as a non-profit charity, without having to do the application (though they must still need to file an annual form, I assume). This is the category for those who do good things for the public.
The real issue SEEMS to be Property Tax exemptions. I don’t know who else gets to slide on their property taxes, howeve.r
I know of nobody who thinks the charitable aspects of churches should not be tax exempt. The real argument isn’t that nothing that churches do should be tax exempt, but that their actions/holdings should not be tax exempt because they are Churches.
If you are doing charitable works, apply like everyone else. If you are an educational establishment, apply like other schools. But religion should not be per se considered tax exempt, because that is a statement that it is establishment.
And Alger, there’s lots of non-atheists who think the tax exemption for Churches sucks. It just requires a belief in a certain (IMHO obvious) interpretation of the Constitution.
Simply treat them like any other organization. As for that being a violation of their 1st Amendment rights, that’s a fairly silly argument. Do newspapers and such have to pay taxes ? Of course they do. Being treated like everyone else isn’t a violation of the First Amendment. Being given special privileges is, not that I expect the court system that gave us “ceremonial deism” :rolleyes: to ever admit it.
Last time I read the Bill of Rights, the first amendement said that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” I see my copies are all incorrect and it actually says “respecting the establishment of a religion.”
Churches should be taxed exactly the same way as other not-for-profit organizations and held to exactly the same standards to prove and maintain their not-for-profit status.
The imposition of property taxes would be a disaster for urban ministries. Many churches in cities have been established for centuries while retail and high-rise residential properties were built around them. Property taxes in parity with the surrounding businesses and apartment buildings would bankrupt almost any parish.
Though I’m an atheist, I’m not that eager to see churches removed from my city. The buildings are pretty and well-maintained (I have a dimmer view of “historic” buildings that are falling apart from neglect).
Then let them ask for money from their parishoners to support the building. If tithing doesn’t cover it, then ask for additional donations. If donations don’t do it, then maybe people aren’t really all that interested in keeping the pretty buildings around.
And don’t worry, I’m sure that atheists would be allowed to donate too.
In other words - if the taxes are set too high, too bad - kill the local church.
This is exactly WHY churches are exempt from taxation - these types of policies that you appear to be proposing can be an impediment to the free exercise of religion. This is especially true in area where zoning laws can impact the valuation of property significantly.
If you tax a church out of existence, it is the same as if you simply forbid it from existing in the first place.
If your massive hollow cathedral gets repossessed (or whatever they do), you can still have your religion in your own damn house. Or, heck, we don’t have any laws prohibiting freedom of assembly. Go meet in a public park. Sure, you woudn’t be able to keep out the looky-loos - that’s a priviliedge that people pay to have buildings for. If that’s what you want, work it into your church budget.
If your religion requires you to have buildings without paying for them, then it’s no more protected than if my religion demands that I steal stuff from Walmart and kill a senator every thursday.
Churches do pay for the buildings. They also pay for the electricity, the water, etc. They pay for the maintenance.
It is the property taxes (in this case) that is the discussion (ignoring your hyperbole regarding killing Senators or stealing from merchants).
What would be the purpose of taxing the property, other than to simply force a choice of higher donations from the parish (which would liead to them paying less in income taxes after the deduction), which will then funnel directly to the government office? If you want the locals to pay more, then charge them directly. Why have the church collect more in donations just to pass it onto the state? If the state wants cash, the state can get it from the citizenry much more efficiently than using the church as a collection agent. It would also lead to less money for direct mission work (such as the soup kitchens and shelters). The state would also need to start building more community centers, or face the loss of other groups (our church hosts AA, a pre-school, an ESL program, a counseling center, and other groups in its “hollow cathedral.”).
All of your protests apply to virtually every other occupied structure, and thus are invalid as an answer to the question of why churches should get special treatment. (Since none of these problems are impairments to the practice religion anyway, but rather red herrings.)
What would the purpose of taxing an office building be, other than to simply force a choice of higher charges to the businesses renting the office (which would lead to them paying less in income taxes after the cost), which will then funnel directly to the government office? If you want the locals to pay more, then charge them directly. Why have the office collect more in rent just to pass it onto the state? If the state wants cash, the state can get it from the citizenry much more efficiently than using the office as a collection agent. It would also lead to less money for non-profit work (such as the pro-bono laywers and non-profit organizations). The state would also need to start building more community centers, or face the loss of other groups (our office hosts a starbucks, a day-care, a fitness center, various office parties, and other groups in its “hollow glass tower*.”).
I am willing to make an exception if your church building is entirely filled in, or if you have an actual cathedral that has no vaulted ceilings or rooms with ceilings over eight foot.