Should churches, synagogues & mosques etc. be taxed?

[WinterBorn]

Again for the retarded, no we shouldn't make them tax exempt because they sell a product and/or service for profit. Yes, I know, they also pay property and payroll taxes, because they sell a product for profit. They are not taxed for the right to publish.

The word "free" in the constitution, means just what it says, and when we go down this PC road of redefining what words mean, this is a prime example of why that is insane.

Dixie, you are the one redefining what the Constitution says.

On the one hand you claim, in order to be free, churches must be free from any taxation. On the other hand, you are fine with the taxation of the press, which is also guaranteed to be free.

Please point out, in the US Constitution, where profit is mentioned at all?

I don't see any rational person wanting taxation on churches in the work they do for their congregations. Most have advocated allowing tax exempt status for their charitable works.

But when you claim the difference between a free press and freedom of religion is profit, you ignore the huge profits generated by many large religious organizations. When you advocate taxing a small town newspaper, simply because they make a profit, and then turn around and claim these mega-churches should be tax exempt, you show serious hypocrisy.

There are hundreds of newspapers going under. And yet, the megachurches are posting continuous growth in this bad economy.



Now I have no problem with churches being tax exempt on what they do for the community and for their congregation. But when they build ever more elaborate and gilded buildings, have gymnasiums that rival small college athletic facilities, and funnel more and more money into bank accounts, your claim that "free" means untaxed becomes more and more untenable.

 

[Canceled2]

No.

You contend that the word "free" means "freedom from taxation"?

Yes, or no?

In the first amendment "Freedom of Religion" was used as an argument to prevent the state from taxing churches...it was argued and argued passionately from 3 sides...yes 3. The Anglican church actually argued for taxing people "for" churches...imagine that! The truth is that churches do not have to even file a 501(c)(3)...the IRS has no Constitutional authority to tax them..never have. There are reasons that individual churches choose to file exempt status...but they are under no obligation by the state to do so.

 

[Cancel8]

In the first amendment "Freedom of Religion" was used as an argument to prevent the state from taxing churches...it was argued and argued passionately from 3 sides...yes 3. The Anglican church actually argued for taxing people "for" churches...imagine that! The truth is that churches do not have to even file a 501(c)(3)...the IRS has no Constitutional authority to tax them..never have. There are reasons that individual churches choose to file exempt status...but they are under no obligation by the state to do so.

Thank you for providing the answer that "Dixie" was unable or unwilling to provide.

Here's what I found by following your link:

"All of the 50 States provide for tax exemption of places of worship, most of them doing so by constitutional guarantees. For so long as federal income taxes have had any potential impact on churches-over 75 years- religious organizations have been expressly exempt from the tax. 4 Such treatment is an 'aid' to churches no more and no less in principle than the real estate tax exemption granted by States. Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre- Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exer- [397 U.S. 664 , 677] cise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference.

It is significant that Congress, from its earliest days, has viewed the Religion Clauses of the Constitution as authorizing statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. In 1802 the 7th Congress enacted a taxing statute for the County of Alexandria, adopting the 1800 Virginia statutory pattern which provided tax exemptions for churches. 2 Stat. 194. 5 As early as 1813 the 12th Congress refunded import duties paid by religious societies on the importation of religious articles. 6 During this period the City Council of Washington, D.C., acting under congressional authority, Act of Incorporation, 7, 2 Stat. 197 (May 3, 1802), enacted a series of real and personal property assessments that uniformly exempted church property. 7 In 1870 the Congress specifically exempted all churches in the District of Colum- [397 U.S. 664 , 678] bia and appurtenant grounds and property 'from any and all taxes or assessments, national, municipal, or county.' Act of June 17, 1870, 16 Stat. 153.8".

Now, does the word "free" mean "free from taxation" wherever it appears in the constitution?

 

[Good Luck]

This discussion is, in actuality, quite useless. IF we were to start taxing the donations made to religious organizations, we would have to start taxing ALL not-for-profit organizations. To target only religion for taxation would, indeed, be a direct attack on 1st Amendment protection of religion. It would also violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

And what end result would we get from taxing not-for-profits? Who actually believes that the benefit of extra revenues gained by the government would outweigh the loss in benefits from not-for-profits spending the money directly on their various causes? Do people think the government would get greater benefit from taxing MDA than people receive from MDA programs? Tell that to the child who cannot get a wheelchair because the funds went to Uncle Sam. How about the National Arbor Day Foundation. They do a LOT of great work - would we get more benefits from government than NADF activities provide our society?

However, it matters not what the reasons are that holding to the idea of taxing not-for-profits makes garden slugs look like geniuses. It will NEVER fly. Even the brain dead assholes in our federal government are not THAT stupid as to seriously consider such a submoronic move.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You may find this interesting

Thanks ID, that is very enlightening. You pinheads should read it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No.

You contend that the word "free" means "freedom from taxation"?

Yes, or no?

I contend you've shown no logical or reasonable explanation for why "free" doesn't mean "free from taxation" in this instance. You have to be an absurd idiot to not comprehend the meaning of the word free, or you have to pervert the meaning through reinterpretation, against rational logic. Neither is a very good foundational basis for your argument. I win!

 

[Cancel8]

How come "Dixie" didn't post it and answer my question?

"Damocles", "Liberty", "Schadenfreude", "Voltaire", and "ZappasGuitar" all voted "yes" on the question. Do they have any input?

 

[Cancel8]

I contend you've shown no logical or reasonable explanation for why "free" doesn't mean "free from taxation" in this instance. You have to be an absurd idiot to not comprehend the meaning of the word free, or you have to pervert the meaning through reinterpretation, against rational logic. Neither is a very good foundational basis for your argument. I win!

You do?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So if a state levies taxes...?

 

[WinterBorn]

This discussion is, in actuality, quite useless. IF we were to start taxing the donations made to religious organizations, we would have to start taxing ALL not-for-profit organizations. To target only religion for taxation would, indeed, be a direct attack on 1st Amendment protection of religion. It would also violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

And what end result would we get from taxing not-for-profits? Who actually believes that the benefit of extra revenues gained by the government would outweigh the loss in benefits from not-for-profits spending the money directly on their various causes? Do people think the government would get greater benefit from taxing MDA than people receive from MDA programs? Tell that to the child who cannot get a wheelchair because the funds went to Uncle Sam. How about the National Arbor Day Foundation. They do a LOT of great work - would we get more benefits from government than NADF activities provide our society?

However, it matters not what the reasons are that holding to the idea of taxing not-for-profits makes garden slugs look like geniuses. It will NEVER fly. Even the brain dead assholes in our federal government are not THAT stupid as to seriously consider such a submoronic move.

Now that is a rational, well-thought out response.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

This discussion is, in actuality, quite useless. IF we were to start taxing the donations made to religious organizations, we would have to start taxing ALL not-for-profit organizations. To target only religion for taxation would, indeed, be a direct attack on 1st Amendment protection of religion. It would also violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

And what end result would we get from taxing not-for-profits? Who actually believes that the benefit of extra revenues gained by the government would outweigh the loss in benefits from not-for-profits spending the money directly on their various causes? Do people think the government would get greater benefit from taxing MDA than people receive from MDA programs? Tell that to the child who cannot get a wheelchair because the funds went to Uncle Sam. How about the National Arbor Day Foundation. They do a LOT of great work - would we get more benefits from government than NADF activities provide our society?

However, it matters not what the reasons are that holding to the idea of taxing not-for-profits makes garden slugs look like geniuses. It will NEVER fly. Even the brain dead assholes in our federal government are not THAT stupid as to seriously consider such a submoronic move.

Here's another aspect you pinheads are failing to consider... would you REALLY want to tax churches and religion? The Constitution (and SCOTUS) guarantees no taxation without representation, so the government would be obligated to represent the church, if they took tax money from them. This would mean, political activism on part of the church, in a way you might not be comfortable with, behind your little 'wall of separation' but, it wouldn't protect you from the single largest contributor to the federal coffers (if we taxed them), and the political power they would command. Is that what you really want? Large tax-paying Church organizations, manipulating Congressmen into passing this or that into law, against your will? I would think that might be something a secularist would want to avoid at all costs, but you seem to be hellbent on setting up just those conditions. Oh, you might think you could use your mythical wall of separation to prevent this, but you couldn't, because you're taxing them now... no taxation without representation... so you would ostensibly have the churches running government in fairly short order.

 

[Cancel8]

This discussion is, in actuality, quite useless. IF we were to start taxing the donations made to religious organizations, we would have to start taxing ALL not-for-profit organizations. To target only religion for taxation would, indeed, be a direct attack on 1st Amendment protection of religion. It would also violate the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

And what end result would we get from taxing not-for-profits? Who actually believes that the benefit of extra revenues gained by the government would outweigh the loss in benefits from not-for-profits spending the money directly on their various causes? Do people think the government would get greater benefit from taxing MDA than people receive from MDA programs? Tell that to the child who cannot get a wheelchair because the funds went to Uncle Sam. How about the National Arbor Day Foundation. They do a LOT of great work - would we get more benefits from government than NADF activities provide our society?

However, it matters not what the reasons are that holding to the idea of taxing not-for-profits makes garden slugs look like geniuses. It will NEVER fly. Even the brain dead assholes in our federal government are not THAT stupid as to seriously consider such a submoronic move.

Your point regarding "uselessness" could be said to apply to all discussions on this board, couldn't it?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You do?

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

So if a state levies taxes...?

I fail to see where taxes prohibit their freedom to bear arms.

 

[Cancel8]

I contend you've shown no logical or reasonable explanation for why "free" doesn't mean "free from taxation" in this instance. You have to be an absurd idiot to not comprehend the meaning of the word free, or you have to pervert the meaning through reinterpretation, against rational logic. Neither is a very good foundational basis for your argument. I win!

Is there a reason why you won't apply your argument to the Second Amendment?

 

[Good Luck]

How come "Dixie" didn't post it and answer my question?

"Damocles", "Liberty", "Schadenfreude", "Voltaire", and "ZappasGuitar" all voted "yes" on the question. Do they have any input?

If you look at the sequence of responses, many of those "yes" responses were made when it was understood that religion alone was the target for your question. When it became understood that ALL not-for-profits would be included, it looks like all but Schadenfreude backed off.

Look at the remarks made. Zappasguitar is all for taxing churches, posted a Zappa song deriding religious organizations, but also mentioned quite specifically that not-for-profits he approves of should retain their tax-exemption status.

Winterborn wrote of keeping "charitable contributions" tax free, ignoring the fact that there are many very good 501.c organizations which would not qualify as charities. But taxing religion is just fine - loves the idea.

Damocles mentions only religion, with the ridiculous claim that the exemptions somehow are government "giving the nod" to belief in a deity - also ignoring the fact that many 501.c organizations enjoy the same exemptions.

It makes me wonder: what would your poll results be if you had NOT (originally) specified religion as the target for taxation. IMO, several weighed in in favor because of their antipathy for religion itself. Winterborn as much as stated so directly.

 

[Cancel8]

If you look at the sequence of responses, many of those "yes" responses were made when it was understood that religion alone was the target for your question. When it became understood that ALL not-for-profits would be included, it looks like all but Schadenfreude backed off.

Look at the remarks made. Zappasguitar is all for taxing churches, posted a Zappa song deriding religious organizations, but also mentioned quite specifically that not-for-profits he approves of should retain their tax-exemption status.

Winterborn wrote of keeping "charitable contributions" tax free, ignoring the fact that there are many very good 501.c organizations which would not qualify as charities. But taxing religion is just fine - loves the idea.

Damocles mentions only religion, with the ridiculous claim that the exemptions somehow are government "giving the nod" to belief in a deity - also ignoring the fact that many 501.c organizations enjoy the same exemptions.

It makes me wonder: what would your poll results be if you had NOT (originally) specified religion as the target for taxation. IMO, several weighed in in favor because of their antipathy for religion itself. Winterborn as much as stated so directly.

You may be correct.

 

[Good Luck]

Your point regarding "uselessness" could be said to apply to all discussions on this board, couldn't it?

From a certain standpoint, yes.

And, with a little introspection, this is not as useless as I originally maintained. It did provide and interesting background to observe in which people jumped aboard the idea of taxing religious organizations, but seeeminly backed off when they understood it also means taxing all not-for-profits.

However, it would be less than useless for people to take the ideas generated in this conversation and turn it into a letter-writing campaign to congress - something that has been generated in other discussions.

 

[Cancel8]

From a certain standpoint, yes.

And, with a little introspection, this is not as useless as I originally maintained. It did provide and interesting background to observe in which people jumped aboard the idea of taxing religious organizations, but seeeminly backed off when they understood it also means taxing all not-for-profits.

However, it would be less than useless for people to take the ideas generated in this conversation and turn it into a letter-writing campaign to congress - something that has been generated in other discussions.

I'm still waiting for "Dixie" to explain why "free" means one thing in the First Amendment and another in the Second.

 

[Good Luck]

Here's another aspect you pinheads are failing to consider... would you REALLY want to tax churches and religion? The Constitution (and SCOTUS) guarantees no taxation without representation, so the government would be obligated to represent the church, if they took tax money from them. This would mean, political activism on part of the church, in a way you might not be comfortable with, behind your little 'wall of separation' but, it wouldn't protect you from the single largest contributor to the federal coffers (if we taxed them), and the political power they would command. Is that what you really want? Large tax-paying Church organizations, manipulating Congressmen into passing this or that into law, against your will? I would think that might be something a secularist would want to avoid at all costs, but you seem to be hellbent on setting up just those conditions. Oh, you might think you could use your mythical wall of separation to prevent this, but you couldn't, because you're taxing them now... no taxation without representation... so you would ostensibly have the churches running government in fairly short order.

LOL That is actually a very good point. Religious organizations currently have to tread carefully in how they approach advocacy for or opposition to political issues and/or personalities. There are many out there already claiming that too many religious organizations are too vocal, and should, accordingly, have their 501.c.3 status revoked.

Now, if we were to tax religious donations and property of religious organizations, that all goes away. With no 501.c status to worry about, churches could come out and say anything they want to about any political issue or candidate, using any means they desire to spread their message. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. Catholic Church were to have the freedom to throw their entire weight behind a political issue in any manner they saw fit - not just vague references from the pulpit that anti-religion pundits already bitch about, but a full-blown advertising campaign in all forms of media. LOL Can you see the atheists' heads exploding?

 

[Cancel8]

I'm still waiting for "Dixie" to explain why "free" means one thing in the First Amendment and another in the Second.

 

[Good Luck]

I'm still waiting for "Dixie" to explain why "free" means one thing in the First Amendment and another in the Second.

Free has many meanings, which must be derived from context.

With regard to the use of the word "free" in the 1st amendment, specifically in the phrase "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", the most obvious meaning of the word "free" means without (government) encumbrance or interference. There are those who maintain that taxation is a form of encumbrance.

However, the use of the word "free" in the 2nd Amendment obviously does not have the same connotation. In fact, the adjective is used in conjunction with the state - "free state" - whereas the word "free" in the 1st Amendment modifies the noun "exercise" - an action of the people. That definitely gives it a different over-all meaning, and the conotation that taxation of the government being an encumbrance cannot be applied to "free state" as it can to "free exercise (of religion)".