Because one is a for-profit enterprise, and one is not. Forcing extra payments from non-profit charitable enterprises is an inefficient operation of the government.
That logic (“this building is too hollow”) is similar to the seizures of private property under cover of eminent domain, only to turn it over the land developers on the premise that the resultant strip mall or apartment building will generate more tax revenue than the farmland or low-cost housing that previously occupied the lot.
Is the benefit to society (increased property tax revenue) sufficient to uproot long-established churches/temples? I’m unconvinced that it is.
So, are non-profit organizations (that is, non-religius ones) required to pay property tax? Assume that we’re speaking of one that, like the average church, takes in donations sufficient that is has a cash flow.
If non-profit organizations are not required to pay property taxes, then any churches that are examined and meet the qualifications for a non-profit organization can garner the according beneifts; that’s fine. If any of these conditions do not hold, than the churches can start coughing up like everybody else.
(And my comment about the ‘big hollow churches’ was somewhat hyperbole, but not entirely: if you want the big pretty building in your town, either donate it to the city as a public building, or pay whatever property taxes are necessary to maintain it as privately owned property. (Note that I don’t know what the property taxes on a non-profit building are -not that all major churches are non-profit.)
Fairness.
How do you know it’s not for profit ?
In California there are property tax exemptions for Welfare and Veteran groups:
These are no doubt seen as a public benefit, so there is a decision not too tax them. Churches, as far as know, get an automatic addition to this. Requiring them to annually file a standard simple form does not bother me, personally.
I reacted to the “Hollow Cathedral” comment because many uninformed assume that churches stand empty during the week. While there might be a few out there, all of my interactions have shown that the churches are full of activities during the week as well.
For all of them, I don’t.
I have personally, however, never been a member of a church that paid dividends or was traded on any market.
As for fairness, property taxes are rarely “fair”. Some land is taxed at a different rate based on it being a single family detached, multi-family, farm, light office, industrial, etc. As I pointed out in another post, it is not just churches that get the exemption here in California (and I assume in other states).
I don’t think that “not a corporation” equals “non-profit organization”.
And, while fair will never be attainable, it would be nice if we would try for fairness, at least. (Not that that’s likely…)
I didn’t say that it did. I simply stated that, under the usual definition, I have never been a member of a church that was acting LIKE a for profit, even if under the non-profit definition.
Again - non of the churches I have been a member of shared the results of the tithes and income with the membership. We did not have a bonus program for the minister either. Straight salary for all, with the majority of labor being donated.
Again, in regards to fairness, I think that there are much more lucrative targets (e.g. so-called farms that are nothing but retreats for the wealthy) if you are concerned about taxation fairness and the ABILITY to pay. Or, you can tax everyone equally (and see what that does to, say, healthcare costs when the hospital has to start paying).
Or we can stick to the current model.
Personally, again, I would argue for Churchs submitting the same forms as other non-profits annually (if they don’t already).
Once again, the power to tax is the power to destroy. The state can not tax a church, for to do so would violate the separation of church and state. The precise concept examined above, property taxes, is a very good example thereof.
No, they’re more like a country club - they take in monies from the members, from that pay the ‘employees’ and maintenance (or, I suppose, not pay volunteers), and then spend the remaining monies how they choose. Which for some churches is more likely to be towards funding activities for the members, recruitment of new members (missionary work), and the building of additional facilities than charity. Again, much like a country club.
Or, we could just stop giving a special exemption to churches.
Incidentally, the fairness in question here is not ‘everyone ends up equal’ communist fairness, but rather ‘everyone is operating on an even playing field’ capitalist fairness.
This proposal seems perfectly acceptible to me.
So ? That doesn’t make it non-profit. That just means that you aren’t getting a cut.
NOT taxing violates the separation of church and state. It gives them an edge over secular organization that perform the same functions; no different than handing them money. And since we non-believers need to pay more to make up the difference, it amounts to a tax on non-believers to support the church.
Just a quick interjection - I am an accountant for a non-profit corporation and yes, we pay property taxes. Not a huge amount, because a lot of our land is either undeveloped or is farmland, but we do pay some for the developed portions. The break we get from the city is due more to the fact the we generate tourist income (we are an outdoor museum) and so receive some city funding. It would be a little silly for them to take it away and then give it right back. And btw, I’m all for taxing income on organizations that can’t comply with the rules of non- and not-for-profits.
There is no rule preventing the state from interfering in the actions of a non-church that performs the same functions as a church. (What would that be, a UU meeting hall? A comic book store? (Not being snide about the comic book store. It’s a place where people meet to donate money, pay homage to icons, meet like-minded individuals, and argue passionately about points of doctrine.))
The church has an unfair advantage, but it’s in the constitution. So is the right to be armed.
Can you disagree with my central thesis?
I dunno, but I don’t know anyone who DONATES to a comic book store. What are the exact rules for being a non-profit organization? Because i know some have “CEO’s” (i think thats the title in a non-profit) in the 6 figures range. I find that some-what ridiculous.
And there’s no rule preventing the state from interfering with actions of a church, when it crosses over into the state’s territory. Like money, and taxes.
Black churches played a pretty significant role in the Civil Rights Movement. Wouldn’t it have been interesting if municipalities in southern states had started passing laws making churches pay property or income tax? I wonder how many of those black churches would have folded because the congregation just couldn’t come up with the cash to keep the place running.
We don’t tax churches because the majority of the population feels that they offer something of value to society. There are guidelines that must be met in order for a church to retain its tax exempt status. Occasionally you hear about the I.R.S. going after a church for their activities, Scientology comes to mind, so if Der Trihs has some cites that show these churches are violating the conditions of their tax exempt status I’d sure like to see them.
Marc
Churches are a problem because they are not required to file annually the way other tax-exempt entities are, which makes it a problem to monitor compliance and meet the standards of transparancy required by the rest of us (and getting a lot harsher with the revised 990 form proposed to take effect in the 2008 filing year). I see no reason a church should not have to comply with the rules they way other exempt organizations do, and get hit with penalties and unrelated business income taxes if they violate the regs.
In my opinion, if they feel so strongly they can get together and pass a constitutional amendment that sidesteps the establishment clause. I do not agree that exempting churches from tax does not violate it.
I don’t have aproblem with churches exempt from property taxes-as long as they are really a church. My church conducts Sunday and saturday services, wedding, funerals. They don’t use a lot of water, sewerage disposal, or waste disposal. Nobody lives there, so there isn’t much need for police protection. i’d say its OK , unless a church really is a drain on public services.
I think the State should be able to tax the income of the church in so far as it exceeds the charity of the church, and the cost of one set of robes for the priest. (Tax his second coat.)
If it makes a profit, then, in my mind, it isn’t a non-profit organization, and should be taxed. (As should any organization that makes a profit, which I define as an total income greater than total charity.) The folks who work there for pay should be taxed like everyone else, and the part of the organization that accomplishes that commerce should be taxed just like every other entity that “renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.”
Tris