This question is aimed primarily at non-religious people, although all are free to vote & discuss. Would you be in favor of a religious organization that was taxed at 90% of its adherents contributions?
To be in favor you would not personally have to attend or promote the organization. Also, the tax money would go into something you support is deserving of the money.
How would that possibly work? Many contributions to a particular church, synagogue, mosque or other are used for basic operational expenses. The rest typically go to charity or outreach work.
A 90% tax on contributions would effectively just shut them all down in short order because they wouldn’t be able to pay any operating expenses. Their charities and outreach programs wouldn’t get anything either and neither would the government after the initial confiscation because they wouldn’t exist anymore.
Under what worldview would this be a defensible idea at all?
90%? No. Taxed as a regular business-which they are-I have no problem with that.
I’m not saying its a practical idea, but if you wish, take 90% out net of all operating costs. I am asking to see if people believe taxing religions outweighs the possible negative effects of religious adherence (based on the worldview that religion doesn’t contribute anything of value to society)
Since I don’t buy your premise (and I’m an atheist) I can’t possibly support this idea. If we allow the premise then I’d support a 90% tax on Justin Bieber music as well. And cat videos.
I agree. Religious organizations should be taxed at the same rate as other non-profits.
In the US, of course, that is pretty much mandated by the First Amendment.
Regards,
Shodan
Same for me - to the OP, you really are muddying the waters with your 90% figure.
Yes, if all gifts are taxed 90%.
Ugh, this again? Listen, hate religion all you want, and their institutions in particular. But to claim that they’re businesses is a garbage argument. They’re no different than any other 501(c)(3) non-profit out there. If you want to tax churches (or rather, not allow contributions to these organizations be tax-exempt), please provide your argument for why you want to remove the tax-exempt status from Goodwill, the ASPCA, the Little League team down the street, or the community center around the block.
Tax them at the same rate you would tax an equivalent secular organization. Singling out religions with special taxes is both wrong and unconstitutional.
I’d like them to just be taxed at the same rate as other, secular groups are taxed. If they engage in pursuing a political agenda, as many religious groups do, then tax them like any other advocacy group.
It’s funny that even the OP doesn’t seem in favor of this position. Who knew we’d ever get 100% agreement on a religious discussion here?
By the way, if you’re going to make an addendum that churches will be taxed at 90% after operating expenses, I think you’ll soon find that the Catholic Church will start to mandate that all contributions made in the US now get sent to the Vatican for disbursement, and that will fall under “operating expenses.”
The worldview in which religion is ipso facto evil, of course. Not mine, but there’s posters here who think that.
Only if the remaining 10% was taxed at 95%. 
What he said - taxing contributions to a non-profit voluntary association is silly.
A better argument can be made for levying property taxes on churches. When an organization takes prime real estate out of the tax base, secular society suffers. My father was a religious man, but he was also on the school board. When our church bought one of the best homes in town to use as a parsonage (effectively cutting financial support from schools), you can believe he winced a little.
Do you mean levying property taxes on all non-profits, or just churches? Because if you just tax churches, as mentioned, you will quickly run afoul of the First Amendment, which singles out religion for special protection that business, and even other non-profit pursuits, do not enjoy.
The State, IOW, can interfere with the free practice of Little League or community theater. But not churches.
Regards,
Shodan
Some of them are non-profits, but many churches are just excuses for shady “pastors” to enrich themselves. 90% is ridiculous, but I think it would be great if the non-profit status of churches had a lot more scrutiny. If the donations are going to run the church, and to charitable programs, yes, fine, of course they should be taxed as a non-profit! If the money is going to private helicopters and mansions for the minister? No. If it’s going into a fund to build a basketball court in the church gym? No. (which hits on a pet peeve of mine: people who consider the tithing they do to their ginormous suburban mega-church “charity”. No it fucking isn’t, unless the dues I pay to my health club are also “charity”. Making a rec room for Jeezus isn’t helping the less fortunate, you assholes)
Religious organizations should be taxed exactly the same as other organizations, like the Lions Club or the local chess club.
Non-profit organizations should have a stated purpose (like helping the poor or community building), and it should be illegal to take money out of the organization for other purposes.
As far as I know, this is the way it works in most countries.
I’m pretty sure there are plenty of other charitable donations that don’t go directly to the “less fortunate”. Colleges and Universities come to mind, among other things.
Here is the text you’re talking about:
The first amendment guarantees that Americans have unfettered practice of religion, but that does not necessarily say anything about the tax status of churches themselves. By your logic, it would also be unconstitutional to tax newspapers.