Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Tax the church


detlef
 Share

Recommended Posts

They are also exempt from property taxes... Further, any property the church owns, pastor's homes, ball fields, etc... are exempt from porperty taxes as well. In most states, church busses are exempt from ad valorem/title and other taxes.

 

Biggest crock-o-sh!t ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State.

 

Some interesting info here

 

Specifically:

But there is also a constitutional reason why churches are tax exempt. Our history is one of an unbroken practice of exempting churches from taxation. Churches were exempt from the very first time the tax code was passed at the federal level, and have remained exempt in every iteration of the tax code ever since. Every state in America also exempts churches from property taxes. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case regarding the property tax exemption of churches, called Walz v. Tax Commission, it stated that providing a tax exemption for churches was a less intrusive option under the Constitution than requiring churches to pay taxes.

 

That makes sense when you stop and think about it. As the Supreme Court said in a very early case, "The power to tax involves the power to control." Taxation is, in essence, a very strong assertion of control by a sovereign over its subjects. Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's start with freedom of religion. Separation of Church and State.

 

Some interesting info here

 

Specifically:

 

Separation of church and state is a sham. If the church wants to play lobbyist, they should get taxed.

 

Because I use Quickbooks, people I have written checks to auto-fill on the computer when I write checks. I have a vendor called Dionysus Wine that I write checks to often. But, when I enter Dio... it autofills to Diocese of Raleigh because, several years ago, we did a fundraiser for a friend who was going to Guatamala with some doctors to provide medicine for people down there. Apparently, the Diocese of Raleigh was the one raising the money. I'm reminded of this every time I write a check to pay for wine.

 

This same Diocese of Raleigh was one of the primary contributors to support the passage of an amendment that defiled the Constitution of NC to limit the rights of it's citzenry. All because people want to point to some, but not all the passages of the bible to justify legislation.

 

If "the church" wants a write-off for sending doctors down to Guatamala, that's great. Just like every other business who donates to good causes, they should. But we make up the difference in the public coffers for every penny that someone gets to avoid paying, and I don't see why we should be footing the bill for someone like the church to do its business.

 

ETA Part 2: And don't confuse this with people who are religious going out and voting in a manner consistent with the values that their church promotes. That's one thing. But churches are taking active roles in politics. Giving money to candidates and causes and actively campaigning. That is something entirely different.

 

Separation of church and state needs to work both ways.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument would be... If ALL religious institutions awere equally taxed then the government would not be exerting more control over one religion than any other. Afterall, the separation clause was seeking toavoid religious favoritism, by taxing all equally, you would avoid this.

 

That being said, religious institutions, even while not being taxed, are controlled by governments and their existance can be thwarted by governments through zoning laws. Prime example, the "mosque" near the WTC site.

 

With regard to the idea of not taxing churches, I will uphold their right to be exempt from Income taxes. With regard to income taxes they should be treated as any other non-profit group. However, I disagree with their not having to pay property taxes or ad valorem on vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Separation of church and state is a sham. If the church wants to play lobbyist, they should get taxed.

 

 

You would then need to amend the tax codes to allow for taxing other non-profits including AARP, Nature Conservancy, SPLC, NOW, Susan Komen, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would then need to amend the tax codes to allow for taxing other non-profits including AARP, Nature Conservancy, SPLC, NOW, Susan Komen, etc...

 

I would be prepared to examine the whole thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The power to tax is the power to control. Very powerful words.

 

Like SEC said, it doesn't matter so long as no church is favored or judged against by the state. Regardless, you and I are taxed. So, apparently it's cool for the government to "control" us, but not churches? Why is that? What about churches is so special that they should get preferential treatment over the common citizenry?

 

And, what about this? What should stop a country club from becoming the church of the holy sand wedge? All the dues could be tax deductions. The land would be exempt from property tax, and all they have to do is have "prayer sessions" where they read from Harvey Penick's Little Red Book. and an outreach program that teaches the game to inner city youth to keep them out of gangs. Done, they're a church. How is that really any different than what we call a church today?

 

Do you have to threaten people with hell to be a church? Or can you simply remind them of the penalties associeted with water hazzards and illegal drops?

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about churches is so special that they should get preferential treatment over the common citizenry?

 

 

I am not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose or trying to argue because it's fun for you or what. Read my first post again. The summary of SJC ruling explains it simply and effectively. </> as far as I am concerned.

 

Your reach of a metaphor with the whole golf course thing is laughable and not worth the time to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose or trying to argue because it's fun for you or what. Read my first post again. The summary of SJC ruling explains it simply and effectively. </> as far as I am concerned.

 

Your reach of a metaphor with the whole golf course thing is laughable and not worth the time to argue.

 

Perhaps you've never heard of the Mormon Church or The Church of Scientology?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you've never heard of the Mormon Church or The Church of Scientology?

 

 

:lol:

 

You should have just titled this thread "I am in the mood to joust!"

 

Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever, if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood, and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity, because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.... makes perfect sense.

 

There's a take on Christianity. Why is Mormonism or Scientology somehow less believable than that POV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

You should have just titled this thread "I am in the mood to joust!"

 

 

 

There's a take on Christianity. Why is Mormonism or Scientology somehow less believable than that POV?

 

It isn't as far as I'm concerned. I was just pandering to the typical and illogical sense of legitmacy that Christians have over other religions.

 

Regardless, who gets to decide that my church of the holy sand wedge is not a church? Surely not the state. So, in what way is my church not a church but these others are? And how is that such a silly concept? I've got a holy book. I've got rules, I help the poor. Do I just need to add some fables?

 

Seriously, who is in charge of declaring whether or not my club is a church and how is this fit with the separation of church and state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure if you are being obtuse on purpose or trying to argue because it's fun for you or what. Read my first post again. The summary of SJC ruling explains it simply and effectively. </> as far as I am concerned.

 

Your reach of a metaphor with the whole golf course thing is laughable and not worth the time to argue.

 

So you are going to agree with every SC ruling, then, or just the ones that reinforce your values?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are going to agree with every SC ruling, then, or just the ones that reinforce your values?

 

A 'why' question was asked. I provided an answer which was given by the supreme authority of legal why in the country. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, just providing the why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are also exempt from property taxes... Further, any property the church owns, pastor's homes, ball fields, etc... are exempt from porperty taxes as well. In most states, church busses are exempt from ad valorem/title and other taxes.

 

Biggest crock-o-sh!t ever.

 

:smash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 'why' question was asked. I provided an answer which was given by the supreme authority of legal why in the country. It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, just providing the why.

 

According to the logic of the SC, churches are tax exempt to keep them from being swayed by politics (to put it succinctly.) But, if you look at it from the perspective of ALL churches/Mosques/Synagogues being equally taxed then there is no political sway.

 

Something that may need to be delved into further with regard to the church is this... At the time of the establishment of the constitution you had really two things going on, the bad taste that the framers had for the Anglican church and the church being the major social safety net/charity that would help a community or individuals during rough times. The church was seen as an integral part of a "social service" system since the fledgling government did not have the mechanisms in place to provide entirely for the welfare of communities and individuals. Seeing as how the church performed this public service it was seen as essential that they not be taxed.

 

In modern days, it could be said that fewer of these church dollars are going directly to maintaining the welfare of the community. More of them are going to international welfare projects and other national campaigns. Whlie I am certain that it is a good thing that local churches send their flock to Guatemala to build churches, orphanages and cafeterias, I still feel a sense of ismay when I drive down roads, not two miles from the church, and see people living in destitution who could use the help that was sent overseas or to a PAC fighting against wimmen's reproductive rights.

 

TImes have changed and the SC precedent you cite may be antiquated. Yes the ruling is only 42 years old at this point, but there have been SC decisions that vacated a previous decision on much closer timeline.

 

Anywho... Income tax exemptions, fine. Property tax exemptions, I don't like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information