They could probably get a company to do the same for public relations purposes; there’s no difference, except the company pays taxes.
Why should my taxes go to support a church so it can engage in that sort of advertising ?
Yes, I understood (and agree with) your meaning. I used the expression “no avail” because some churches in my neighborhood have tried to stay open as church by asking for donations from both church go-ers and the general public living in the neighborhood. And that seems to yield not nearly enough. So the asking for tithes was to “no avail”.
My bigger point is, as you said as well, is that the pretty church buildings are not necessarily torn down if the church can no longer pay for them, due to taxes or anything else. Quite often their new use is one that benefits just as much or even more people then when they were still used for worship.
DT, we both know perfectly well that it isn’t “advertising”. Within most churches, aid work is considered an end within itself.
Second point: why on Earth have about three posters been under the impression that it’s cheaper to build a completely new church than to maintain an old one?
Third: every interaction with the outside world is taxed: the clergy pays taxes; the church pays sales taxes; the parishioners pay taxes; all utilities are paid for at normal rates.
Fourth: the property on which the church stands is not utilized in any economic sense (the same applies to all of the church’s resources); nobody earns interest on the factor of production. Governments traditionally tax property simply as a means of wealth redistribution from rich to poor; in the case of a church, it would be to poor from… ?
Fifth: let’s remember here that the exemption applies to all religious organizations, be the Christian or Muslim, Jewish or Unitarian. Or am I missing something? Are not all religions classified as NPO’s, and thus exempt?
Point 1 doesn’t apply to me, as I’m not DT, though I do agree that absent convenient church buildings, the various groups that currently use the church buildings would still scrape up someplace to meet.
For your second point, my assumption at least is that, if the churchgoers are unable to support the maintenence and taxation of their current pretty buildings via tithes or donations or whichever other means of collection they prefer, then they will end up ‘downgrading’ to a smaller, more affordable building. “Cathedrals or Cardboard Boxes” excludes the middle, after all.
Third, if every interaction with the outside world was taxed [to the same level that it would be were the church a secular club], then we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ergo, it’s not true. If your point is that they don’t have exceptions for everything, that doesn’t answer the question of why they should have purely religious exceptions for anything.
Fourth, I am not convinced that the purpose of taxing property is to redistribute wealth. Cite? (Also, I am not convinced the set of all people that go to church can be accurately described as “poor”. Cite? Note that I sm personally aware of counterexamples.)
Fifth, what does the inclusive nature of the religious exemption have to do with it? Until it includes ‘non-religious’ as well, it’s still an exemption, and one that is somewhat suspicious under the notion of ‘separation of church and state’. (And I’ve already said that if churches actually met the same qualifications as secular NPOs, I’d have no complaint. And no, qualifying by simply checking the ‘religion box’ doesn’t count. Heck, some religions are making money hand over fist!)