Tax the church

[muck]

Sometimes it seems as if the GLBT groups want to co-opt the word "marriage" from the religious groups than they really want to promote any of the civil/legal benefits. It's almost like they're trying to mar a basic tenet of most religious faiths (whether Eastern (Buddhism, etc.) or any of the varieties of Mediterranean Monotheism). Said another way, if GLBT unions were called "snorples" and people who were in them were "snorpled", and the laws were written so that anyone who was snorpled would enjoy the same financial and legal standing as anyone who was married, would the snorpled people be good with it?

 

I don't think they would.

 

Again, I think they want to co-opt the actual word "marriage" ... AND ... get the legal, financial and other rights, and that anything short of that is viewed as being a failure (and, therefore, those who keep them from succeeding are backwater types).

[detlef]

Sometimes it seems as if the GLBT groups want to co-opt the word "marriage" from the religious groups than they really want to promote any of the civil/legal benefits. It's almost like they're trying to mar a basic tenet of most religious faiths (whether Eastern (Buddhism, etc.) or any of the varieties of Mediterranean Monotheism). Said another way, if GLBT unions were called "snorples" and people who were in them were "snorpled", and the laws were written so that anyone who was snorpled would enjoy the same financial and legal standing as anyone who was married, would the snorpled people be good with it?

 

I don't think they would.

 

Again, I think they want to co-opt the actual word "marriage" ... AND ... get the legal, financial and other rights, and that anything short of that is viewed as being a failure (and, therefore, those who keep them from succeeding are backwater types).

1) Apparently "marriage" is not uniquely religious or my wife and I would not be "married". Well, that is if any meaningful attachment to the church is relevant. I spent $5 to the Universal LIfe Church so I could become a minister in it and, in turn, ordain a friend of ours so she could marry us. I don't see how anything as easy to get around as that should claim any meaningful attachment to "religious groups". Mind you, we could have skipped that whole religious charade altogether by simply getting married on a boat and having the Cpt perform the ceremony.

 

2) There are so many definitions of marriage in the bible, I fail to see why anyone should assume that the "one man, one woman" definition should claim biblical authority. And then there's articles like this, that show an even more tenous thread between the two.

 

3) I would imagine, were I among a group who was denied even the basic rights that gays in my state and others are. Like, for instance, the situation I explained above where if the one official parent of a child dies, the other is powerless to keep that child despite being considered by that child, its parent since the beginning. If I were among that group. I'd be pretty effing pissed at the notion of people wondering "if I'd be happy with simply having the same basic rights, even if it was called something else". Because, well, I wouldn't have the same basic rights to begin with. So, I think it's rather callous to wonder "what it would take to make them happy" when the status quo in most of our country is pretty effed up for that group.

 

4) Rather than speculating on whether gays would be happy with the same rights under a different name, why not ask whether or not religious people would be satisfied if their "marriage" was only recognized in the eyes of their church but, in the eyes of the state, they were "snorpled" just like any other consenting couple?

Edited May 16, 2012 by detlef

[Square]

1) Apparently "marriage" is not uniquely religious or my wife and I would not be "married". Well, that is if any meaningful attachment to the church is relevant. I spent $5 to the Universal LIfe Church so I could become a minister in it and, in turn, ordain a friend of ours so she could marry us. I don't see how anything as easy to get around as that should claim any meaningful attachment to "religious groups". Mind you, we could have skipped that whole religious charade altogether by simply getting married on a boat and having the Cpt perform the ceremony.

 

2) There are so many definitions of marriage in the bible, I fail to see why anyone should assume that the "one man, one woman" definition should claim biblical authority. And then there's articles like this, that show an even more tenous thread between the two.

 

3) I would imagine, were I among a group who was denied even the basic rights that gays in my state and others are. Like, for instance, the situation I explained above where if the one official parent of a child dies, the other is powerless to keep that child despite being considered by that child, its parent since the beginning. If I were among that group. I'd be pretty effing pissed at the notion of people wondering "if I'd be happy with simply having the same basic rights, even if it was called something else". Because, well, I wouldn't have the same basic rights to begin with. So, I think it's rather callous to wonder "what it would take to make them happy" when the status quo in most of our country is pretty effed up for that group.

 

4) Rather than speculating on whether gays would be happy with the same rights under a different name, why not ask whether or not religious people would be satisfied if their "marriage" was only recognized in the eyes of their church but, in the eyes of the state, they were "snorpled" just like any other consenting couple?

He's wordy, but I have to admit that he is right. I just don't see the big deal anymore. Maybe it'll take another 20 years before gay couples are allowed to get married anywhere, but it'll happen. I don't see any possible way the current younger generation doesn't support this when they are old enough to run the place.

[stevegrab]

He's wordy, but I have to admit that he is right. I just don't see the big deal anymore. Maybe it'll take another 20 years before gay couples are allowed to get married anywhere, but it'll happen. I don't see any possible way the current younger generation doesn't support this when they are old enough to run the place.

 

 

+1

 

I especially liked detlef's point #4, how about we reserver "marriage" for the religious ceremony and create a new term (not sure I care for snorpel) for people who are in a legally binding union. Would religious people and churches be against that?

 

The whole "marriage is a sacred term and once you start applying it to gay people it tarnishes what it means for the rest of us" is BS. I wonder if people were saying the same thing when the first interraccial marriages were happening. "Oh how disgusting, how can they call that a marraige? They should have to have their own term so they don't tarnish marriage."

 

I sure hope I live to see the day when there is less hatred and bigotry in our society. While many young people may be diferent than prior generations, I fear that many others are still being raised the old way, or somehow influenced in ways that make them hate minorites. I'm experiencing this with my own nephews who are in their 20s. Their parents didn't raise them that way, but their surrounding culture (redneck style) in rural Northeast Ohio has influenced them that way.

[Big John]

+1

 

I especially liked detlef's point #4, how about we reserver "marriage" for the religious ceremony and create a new term (not sure I care for snorpel) for people who are in a legally binding union. Would religious people and churches be against that?

 

The whole "marriage is a sacred term and once you start applying it to gay people it tarnishes what it means for the rest of us" is BS. I wonder if people were saying the same thing when the first interraccial marriages were happening. "Oh how disgusting, how can they call that a marraige? They should have to have their own term so they don't tarnish marriage."

 

 

Those are commonly called "civil unions" But as NC and other states have done, they outlawed those too so I am thinking that the fundies are very much against any rights for anyone who does noy fit into their narrow mold.

[stevegrab]

Those are commonly called "civil unions" But as NC and other states have done, they outlawed those too so I am thinking that the fundies are very much against any rights for anyone who does noy fit into their narrow mold.

 

 

Exactly, and that is the problem that many people have with this. Its not about protecting their rights, its about denying others something, trying to impose their morality on others.

 

I suspect they'd try to outlaw mixed marriages (race, religion, etc) too if they thought they could get away with it.

[Big John]

Exactly, and that is the problem that many people have with this. Its not about protecting their rights, its about denying others something, trying to impose their morality on others.

 

I suspect they'd try to outlaw mixed marriages (race, religion, etc) too if they thought they could get away with it.

 

Yes they did, and used religion as a justification to do so. The Surpreme Court overturned the laws outlawing mixed marriages in 1967.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Big John

[Ice1]

Nearly every time money exchanges hands it is subject to taxation. In fact, if you buy something, that money that you paid taxes on, is levied a sales tax and then, ultimately, contributes to profits that the merchant who sold you whatever you bought pays taxes on.

 

Take my country club example I made earlier. That club pays taxes on the land their club is on and the income they derive from the dues you pay with money that you were already taxed on.

 

 

Your club is not protected in the separation clause but it certainly is protected from who you choose to admit. Every few years I see these posts that we should tax the church. It is a crock. The federal government needs to cut taxes and shrink and put more decision making at the state level.

 

On a side note, it is also a foolish argument to think people are bigots or even anti gay if the actually believe the definition of Marriage is between a Man and Woman like so many states and DOMA has legislated.

 

If Marriage by definition is an act that a man and woman engage in then how in the hell exactly can two same sex individuals marry? They can call it something else and the Federal government can and should recognize this partnership as equal in benefit and/or penalty but the majority of Americans are against the government changing the definition of what Marriage actually is.

 

Personally, I could less if one believes in a God or not but it is ironic the vast majority that seem to complain about tax structure as it relates to churches are atheists.

 

It is naive argument that will not happen and would greatly negatively impact the charitable industry that government could not withstand if damaged severely.

 

The government can't even manage the post office losing some 20 million or so daily so lets give them charity dollars? That is a foolish argument.

 

As far as the church staying out of politics; while they would love to the government is the people and the majority believe in God and support the separation of power. The government is pushing the buttons so obviously the church will respond in kind.

 

The fastest way to complete civil unrest and breakdown is to openly attack religion by the government. The law of unintended consequences are great on this issue. We are already seeing the impact of Obama care as catholic universities are starting to stop student coverage given the forced insurance parameters. Just another unintended consequence when we foolishly cede more and more power to a centralized entity.

 

Bottom it won't happen and should not happen as it is a ridiculous argument that will create far problems than it solves.

[SEC=UGA]

Your club is not protected in the separation clause but it certainly is protected from who you choose to admit. Every few years I see these posts that we should tax the church. It is a crock. The federal government needs to cut taxes and shrink and put more decision making at the state level.

 

I do not see how your fourth sentence has anything to do with the first sentence.

 

I agree with the cutting of taxes part, mainly with regard to corporate income tax. I also agree with the idea of shrinking the scope of the fed gov.

 

When you say that there needs to be more power of decision making at the state level, I'm curious as to what you are talking about.

 

 

On a side note, it is also a foolish argument to think people are bigots or even anti gay if the actually believe the definition of Marriage is between a Man and Woman like so many states and DOMA has legislated.

 

Is DOMA not a federal law? Should DOMA not be abolished, allowing for each state individually to express its desires with regard to same sex marriages?

 

 

If Marriage by definition is an act that a man and woman engage in then how in the hell exactly can two same sex individuals marry? They can call it something else and the Federal government can and should recognize this partnership as equal in benefit and / or penalty but the majority of Americans are against the government changing the definition of what Marriage actually is.

 

Marriage is only considered to be an act between aa man and a woman, federally, because of DOMA, a federal law that usurps the rights of citizens of a given state to determine how they want to define marriage.

 

Personally, I could less if one believes in a God or not but it is ironic the vast majority that seem to complain about tax structure as it relates to churches are atheists.

 

This is because atheists have no vested interest in organized religion, yet see there tax dollars funding services and infrastructure for them. The organized religious institutions essentially cost all taxpayers money, regardless of religious belief by leaching off of the community. I understand the lack of income tax payments, churches are non-profits and should be excluded from paying income taxes, however, I feel that property taxes should be levied on these institutuions.

 

It is naive argument that will not happen and would greatly negatively impact the charitable industry that government could not withstand if damaged severely.

 

100 years ago, maybe even 80 years ago, you would probably have been correct. You'll have to prove to me that the bulk of the revenue from the churches is put back into their surrounding community in the form of providing shelter, food, clothing, etc... for the needy. I am more convinced that these monies are exported out of the community toward non-local causes or put into building construction and land acquisition for the church itself.

 

The government can't even manage the post office losing some 20 million or so daily so lets give them charity dollars? That is a foolish argument.

 

They certainly are inept at handling tax dollars. Though, the USPS is not technically a government managed entity.

 

As far as the church staying out of politics; while they would love to the government is the people and the majority believe in God and support the separation of power. The government is pushing the buttons so obviously the church will respond in kind.

 

You'll never exclude the church or people's religious beliefs from politics. Much as you can never extricate the liberal/`nonchristian view from politics.

 

The fastest way to complete civil unrest and breakdown is to openly attack religion by the government. The law of unintended consequences are great on this issue. We are already seeing the impact of Obama care as catholic universities are starting to stop student coverage given the forced insurance parameters. Just another unintended consequence when we foolishly cede more and more power to a centralized entity.

 

Or by having religion attack government. The Catholic CHurch is always doing something idiotic in an attempt to control policy. Look how much they have come out as pro-illegal immigration.

 

Bottom it won't happen and should not happen as it is a ridiculous argument that will create far problems than it solves.

 

It won't happen. It should happen, but, under a definition other than "marriage".

[detlef]

Your club is not protected in the separation clause but it certainly is protected from who you choose to admit. Every few years I see these posts that we should tax the church. It is a crock. The federal government needs to cut taxes and shrink and put more decision making at the state level.

 

On a side note, it is also a foolish argument to think people are bigots or even anti gay if the actually believe the definition of Marriage is between a Man and Woman like so many states and DOMA has legislated.

 

If Marriage by definition is an act that a man and woman engage in then how in the hell exactly can two same sex individuals marry? They can call it something else and the Federal government can and should recognize this partnership as equal in benefit and/or penalty but the majority of Americans are against the government changing the definition of what Marriage actually is.

 

Personally, I could less if one believes in a God or not but it is ironic the vast majority that seem to complain about tax structure as it relates to churches are atheists.

 

It is naive argument that will not happen and would greatly negatively impact the charitable industry that government could not withstand if damaged severely.

 

The government can't even manage the post office losing some 20 million or so daily so lets give them charity dollars? That is a foolish argument.

 

As far as the church staying out of politics; while they would love to the government is the people and the majority believe in God and support the separation of power. The government is pushing the buttons so obviously the church will respond in kind.

 

The fastest way to complete civil unrest and breakdown is to openly attack religion by the government. The law of unintended consequences are great on this issue. We are already seeing the impact of Obama care as catholic universities are starting to stop student coverage given the forced insurance parameters. Just another unintended consequence when we foolishly cede more and more power to a centralized entity.

 

Bottom it won't happen and should not happen as it is a ridiculous argument that will create far problems than it solves.

 

I have no idea what you were trying to say in your first paragraph, so I can't comment on that.

 

As for whether or not you're a bigot and all that. Here's the thing. You want to think marriage is one thing. go ahead. That's great, but that's not what is being said. If your religion wants to condemn it, so be it. That's your right. Some religions condemn pork. Some condemn booze. Apparently, if I wanted to join them, I'd have to give those up. Good thing I don't. But when you start in with the "the simple fact is, marriage is between a man and a woman" bit, that's where you lose me. Where is that "fact"? I'm kind of a science and numbers guy, so I sort of like it when people validate "fact" with more than, "it just is". Especially with something like this.

 

Can you point to data that shows how the acceptance of same sex unions has caused a society harm? Because I bloody well hope so if you're going to deny law-abiding citzens equal rights. And, like I said to Muck, before we go down the, "they won't stop at simply having the same rights" bit, what say we actually give them the rights and take it from there? Is defining your version of the word marriage so important that you're prepared to endorse legislation that prevents certain consenting adults from getting unions under any name? Because that's what is happening. Hell, it just happened yesterday in Colorado.

 

So, again, it should be insulting to anyone who believes in what America supposedly stands for that people are putting the cart before the horse here. That people are prepared to put thier boots on the throats of a harmless sector of our citizenry just because they're afraid that they might try to redefine a word. That what really seems to be important is that everyone needs to understand that some "marriages" are, by default, better than others, so we need to make sure that those are the only ones that can use the word. It's petty as hell.

 

Ultimately, you can do what you want and believe what you want. But you don't get to define the results of your actions in terms convenient to you. You don't get to say you're not anti-gay if you support legislation that limits their rights to creating a family. Because that, quite simply, descriminatory. Gay partners often can't visit their dying loved one in the hospital because "they're not family". I've brought up the child thing now twice and everyone seems to be avoiding it. Hell, if I were on your side, I'd avoid it as well. Because it ain't freaking pretty. There are others. Things that the rest of us take for granted when we pledge our love to another. Things that they don't get because the person they love means that they're going to create a union that we don't understand.

 

As far as it being "ironic" that secularists (don't assume we're all atheists) are the ones most interested in the tax status of the church? Honestly? How is that ironic in any way?

Edited May 16, 2012 by detlef

[Clubfoothead]

I knew he was a nutjob.

 

Sorry to get in your church thread. I had two windows open and replied to the wrong thread.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Clubfoothead

[Duchess Jack]

 

why not ask whether or not religious people would be satisfied if their "marriage" was only recognized in the eyes of their church but, in the eyes of the state, they were "snorpled" just like any other consenting couple?

 

 

 

I cannot see any answer that better solves the problem.

[Ice1]

Marriage is only considered to be an act between aa man and a woman, federally, because of DOMA, a federal law that usurps the rights of citizens of a given state to determine how they want to define marriage.

 

This is because atheists have no vested interest in organized religion, yet see there tax dollars funding services and infrastructure for them. The organized religious institutions essentially cost all taxpayers money, regardless of religious belief by leaching off of the community. I understand the lack of income tax payments, churches are non-profits and should be excluded from paying income taxes, however, I feel that property taxes should be levied on these institutuions.

 

 

 

I will comment on thee two central points;

 

1) No question the Gay Marriage arguments will not go away and at some point the actual definition of what marriage is by the Fed and multiple states could change even though I doubt the religion definition ever will however it is not the only reason. This is quote, I read and borrowed to place here because it captures the essence of both sides to a degree.

 

Quote from majority opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles (2006):

 

"But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

 

2) The red highlight in my view is not correct. The moment the USA attacks charitable giving we will have a massive problem on our hands. This is a 300 plus billion money stream that helps enormously in the grand scheme of things. In fact the government encourages charity and provides some tax incentive to do so. Thinking this is net negative is simply not factual in my view given the help generated 1st comes from after tax dollars to begin with. In my view the government would be playing with fire and the downside risk would be astronomical throughout the whole of the private sector and would have to go well beyond religious organizations to even implement.

 

While the government may attack the tax breaks for giving, it would be foolish to attack the institutions so many fund via after tax dollars to try to get a few more billion which would amount to no more than few days of debt spending payments.

 

The argument is really a non starter in any form so outside a very small percentage of individuals who even raise the issue it will certainly fall on deaf ears of the vast vast majority of politicians.

 

Leaching off the community is a ridiculous claim as all major organized religions in the USA give massively back to the community from soup kitchens, to donation to the ultra poor, to clothing for pennies on the dollar in almost every town in the country. The list goes on and on. Regardless of ones belief it is factually incorrect to not believe the these organizations do good work from hospital funding, helping the poor, and in education.

 

No doubt the drum beat will continue by a small minority but the vast majority will not let the government in effect try to put them out of business and believe or not, if you think government controlling religion is a good thing the complete opposite could also happen given the majority would band together ultimately regardless of race or party to rise up and stop it in my view.

 

I see the arguments on both issues, i just think the federal government will probably address gay rights federally although it could be under another name initially.

 

Taxing the churches, no way in our lifetime.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Ice1

[detlef]

Ice1- For starters, the "Tax The Churches" angle was really short hand for let's undo the carte blanche set-up they have. Obviously, truly charitable acts should be tax free and all that. I would even think it fair to allow some percentage of what you give to the church to be tax deductable, perhaps a number based on how much of the church's money goes to chartible acts.

 

My issue is with a few things. Bill Maher brought it up with Romney's "charitable" contributions to his church. They're building elaborate and fancy castles with that money. Why does the average Joe have to subsidize those temples by allowing money contributed to building them be 100% tax-free? And then, compound the issue by having that massively expensive castle, sometimes on some pretty high dollar land, not pay property tax? I recall, when I lived in Oakland, one of the single most grandiose buildings you could see from anywhere in the city was the Mormon Temple, perched high atop the city in the mountains looking down on the rest of us. And that was paid for with tax free dollars and is never taxed from a property tax standpoint. A building that, given the land it is on and the elaborate nature of it, is worth likely 10s of millions of dollars. Why? Because people go there to worship?

 

Secondly, the tax-free nature of politcal contributions and the church's inclination to endeavor into that arena. And, yes, I realize this cuts both ways, but I'm prepared to look at that as well. Campaigns are becoming all about money. And, as long as donations are tax free, then nobody gets to escape that. You either actively participate in the financial inflation of politics, or you just pay for it by way of making up your share of the missing gov't revenue (either by missing out on services that you do want because the money isn't there, or by paying your cut of the interest and principle on debt secured to make up for the missing money). There's no way for a citzen to truly avoid participation in the escalation of campaign finance. And that doesn't seem right. You want to pay money to help enact policy or elect people who will make the country more the way you want it, then pay for it with your own money. Like I said before, for all I know, this opens up a big effing mess, but I'd like to at least explore it.

 

And these are two things that churches do besides the good things that everyone talks about. And how much money has the Catholic Church spent on legal fees defending itself against charges of pedophilia? What you need to understand is that, to many of us see churches as a business. Like a business, many look to expand. And that costs money, but for those of us who don't have a vested interest in there being more Mormons or more Catholics or what-have-you, we don't see why our tax dollars need to help achieve that. They may do good and charitable things, but so do many other businesses. And those businesses get tax breaks when they do those things. Just like the church should. But I don't want to subsidize their existence any more than I want to subsidize Microsoft's. If enough people want to buy what the church is selling, then they should have no trouble paying their bills just like any other business.

 

As far as the historical precedent for man-woman marriage. Times change. There was a time when we needed to be making babies. Crops needed tending to and we had a big ol' country to populate. Further, what will likely never change is the fact that the vast majority of people are straight, so the vast majority of marriages will continue to be male-female. But, if we're going to outlaw same sex, don't we need to point to something that is actually wrong with them? Not, something that seems wrong to many people, but is actually and definably wrong? And, given the fact that we need willing parents as much as we need more babies, allowing marriages that are not likely to result in kids but rather, people looking to raise unwanted children, doesn't it actually make sense?

 

Simply saying, that's how it's been forever means little. Times change. There's all sorts of things that we used to do and realized could and should change.

Edited May 17, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

detlef,

 

Once again you raise some great points. I can see the property tax angle more than the larger charitable giving angle, which would affect a lot more than churches (United Way, American Cancer Society, American Heart Assoc. etc.) I think that would be a huge problem and could heavily reduce what people give. (As somebody who included charitable contributions in my tax return for the first time I can tell you I was shocked how much a relatively modest amount of giving generated in tax savings. That together with other personal/financial reasons have caused me to increase what I am donating this year.)

 

I'm curious, are churches (houses of worship) the only entities that don't pay property taxes? Does that apply to other non-profits? What about government agencies, do they pay property taxes on their holdings?

 

 

One intersting point on the gay marriage debate, you mention the need to make babies. According to how some people feel, the primary purpose of marriage is to raise a family. I wonder if some of those people wouldn't want to outlaw any marriage between a man and a woman where they do not plan to have kids. (Some religious teachings lean that way, sex is only for procreation, marriage is not allowed if you aren't willing to at least try to have kids.) Under those guidelines, elderly people would be prohibited from remarrying since it would be impossible for them to be parents.

[SEC=UGA]

detlef,

 

Once again you raise some great points. I can see the property tax angle more than the larger charitable giving angle, which would affect a lot more than churches (United Way, American Cancer Society, American Heart Assoc. etc.) I think that would be a huge problem and could heavily reduce what people give. (As somebody who included charitable contributions in my tax return for the first time I can tell you I was shocked how much a relatively modest amount of giving generated in tax savings. That together with other personal/financial reasons have caused me to increase what I am donating this year.)

 

I'm curious, are churches (houses of worship) the only entities that don't pay property taxes? Does that apply to other non-profits? What about government agencies, do they pay property taxes on their holdings?

 

 

One intersting point on the gay marriage debate, you mention the need to make babies. According to how some people feel, the primary purpose of marriage is to raise a family. I wonder if some of those people wouldn't want to outlaw any marriage between a man and a woman where they do not plan to have kids. (Some religious teachings lean that way, sex is only for procreation, marriage is not allowed if you aren't willing to at least try to have kids.) Under those guidelines, elderly people would be prohibited from remarrying since it would be impossible for them to be parents.

 

 

If a non-profit owns the property that it's facilities are located on, in most cases, and this will vary from state to state, yes, they are exempted from property taxes if the facility is used for charitable purposes.

 

ETA: Click the first link. The study is more detailed with regard to your question.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=nonprofits+property+tax+exemption&oq=non+profits+property&aq=1sK&aqi=g-s1g-sK1g-K1g-bK1&aql=&gs_l=hp.1.1.0i10j0i10i30j0i30j0i8i30.1377.6046.0.8921.20.16.0.4.4.0.92.1279.16.16.0...0.0.f25q_lr3-TA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=bc3d48cfe8d7bcb1&biw=1024&bih=599

Edited May 17, 2012 by SEC=UGA

[detlef]

detlef,

 

Once again you raise some great points. I can see the property tax angle more than the larger charitable giving angle, which would affect a lot more than churches (United Way, American Cancer Society, American Heart Assoc. etc.) I think that would be a huge problem and could heavily reduce what people give. (As somebody who included charitable contributions in my tax return for the first time I can tell you I was shocked how much a relatively modest amount of giving generated in tax savings. That together with other personal/financial reasons have caused me to increase what I am donating this year.)

 

I'm curious, are churches (houses of worship) the only entities that don't pay property taxes? Does that apply to other non-profits? What about government agencies, do they pay property taxes on their holdings?

 

 

One intersting point on the gay marriage debate, you mention the need to make babies. According to how some people feel, the primary purpose of marriage is to raise a family. I wonder if some of those people wouldn't want to outlaw any marriage between a man and a woman where they do not plan to have kids. (Some religious teachings lean that way, sex is only for procreation, marriage is not allowed if you aren't willing to at least try to have kids.) Under those guidelines, elderly people would be prohibited from remarrying since it would be impossible for them to be parents.

 

But I'm not trying to do away with deductions for charitable giifts. Including the church. So, Red Cross, United Way, and all the guys you mentioned just get to keep on keeping on. Just like the church could, but could and should only get tax deductions to the degree to which they're actually doing charitable acts, not building monuments.

 

Once again, referencing the Bill Maher video I linked to earlier. He shows a photo of some free clinic in LA. Just a dumpy looking facade in a strip mall. It would appear that they're not spending a whole lot of the money they get on making their place look spiffy. He compared that to the Mormon Temple of San Diego, which is stunning to say the least. See, it's good for business for the Mormons to make their temples pimped out, because you want to go hang out there. But as a non-Mormon, I get nothing from that. Well, I get worse than nothing from that, I subsidize the building of massive religious McMansions that aid in the proliferation of an ideology that I then have to fight against. After all, that church spends a ton of money on political causes that I oppose. And, of course, they're free to think how they want and vote how they want and all that. But they're basically using my money to do so.

 

The other side uses this argument when they talk about federal money going to a place like Planned Parenthood, even if the money is not allowed to be spent on aborotions. Because they don't like abortions, they don't want any public money going to anyone who has anything to do with them, even if the public money is going to help poor women get basic health care. So, it's fine to cite religious reasons to deny health services to people because they're being conducted by a group who supports something you don't agree with, but the notion of not using public dollars to build garish temples is completely off the table?

 

So, if they want to go feed a bunch of poor people, even if they make those people worship with them right after they feed them, whatever, write that off. That's charity. But, given the tax status, we're equating giving money to the needy with helping people build and maintain crystal castles on the hill. And that just seems rather effed up. Especially for a country that doesn't seem to have a bunch of money laying around.

Edited May 17, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

Detlef,

 

I think what you are proposing with "but could and should only get tax deductions to the degree to which they're actually doing charitable acts, not building monuments." would be virtually impossible to do. It would create another berueacracy to run that and determine how much of what they use is for charity. How do you determine what portion of the $20 I put in the collection plate at church is used for charitable stuff, and how much is to make the church spiffy, or just pay general bills (heating, electricity, salaries of the people who work there, etc.)

 

I didn't have a chance to watch the video, and while I don't specifically dislike Bill Maher I recognize him as somebody that is a bit extreme in his opinions. Comparing the look of a house of worship to a free clinic is kind of odd.

 

This may be another one of those agree to disagree moments, because you seem convinced that most (or a large percentage) of money collected by churches is used soley to build these McMansions as you call them. From my point of view (in my dealings with church organizations) this is simply not true. Quite a bit of the money collected by the churches is used first and foremost for operating expense.

[SEC=UGA]

Quite a bit of the money collected by the churches is used first and foremost for operating expense.

 

 

Like a few of the churches around ATL that have private jets and who's pastors live in multi-million dollar homes.

 

Good business model.

[Ice1]

But I'm not trying to do away with deductions for charitable giifts. Including the church. So, Red Cross, United Way, and all the guys you mentioned just get to keep on keeping on. Just like the church could, but could and should only get tax deductions to the degree to which they're actually doing charitable acts, not building monuments.

 

Once again, referencing the Bill Maher video I linked to earlier. He shows a photo of some free clinic in LA. Just a dumpy looking facade in a strip mall. It would appear that they're not spending a whole lot of the money they get on making their place look spiffy. He compared that to the Mormon Temple of San Diego, which is stunning to say the least. See, it's good for business for the Mormons to make their temples pimped out, because you want to go hang out there. But as a non-Mormon, I get nothing from that. Well, I get worse than nothing from that, I subsidize the building of massive religious McMansions that aid in the proliferation of an ideology that I then have to fight against. After all, that church spends a ton of money on political causes that I oppose. And, of course, they're free to think how they want and vote how they want and all that. But they're basically using my money to do so.

 

The other side uses this argument when they talk about federal money going to a place like Planned Parenthood, even if the money is not allowed to be spent on aborotions. Because they don't like abortions, they don't want any public money going to anyone who has anything to do with them, even if the public money is going to help poor women get basic health care. So, it's fine to cite religious reasons to deny health services to people because they're being conducted by a group who supports something you don't agree with, but the notion of not using public dollars to build garish temples is completely off the table?

 

So, if they want to go feed a bunch of poor people, even if they make those people worship with them right after they feed them, whatever, write that off. That's charity. But, given the tax status, we're equating giving money to the needy with helping people build and maintain crystal castles on the hill. And that just seems rather effed up. Especially for a country that doesn't seem to have a bunch of money laying around.

 

 

My take is Bill Maher will use whatever to sell his view or position.

 

Maybe in this case, you should Google a picture of the American Red Cross Headquarters which receives around 200 million annually in donations; or you could consider PPFA (Planned Parenthood) recently just purchased a headquarters for around 35 million which is part of around 570,000,000 in property holdings.

 

Point being there are plenty of non profits out there that many outside of you oppose that do not pay any taxes by design, Obviously, Bill Maher didn't show like size institutions to drive his message as the impact would most likely be much different. Both types of institutions have a platform centered on charity and both do work but it depends on perspective of the individual as to the degree. If you tax one, you would have to tax all of these organizations but massive resistance would come from both entities for obvious reasons.

 

In fact if he showed all of PPFA's holdings vs. the Mormon holdings the impact would have been nothing. The man has a well understood agenda so it should be considered as he campaigns at every opportunity for the Liberal side while trying very hard to paint Obama's opponent in any negative light.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Ice1

[stevegrab]

Like a few of the churches around ATL that have private jets and who's pastors live in multi-million dollar homes.

 

Good business model.

 

 

A few of the churches, so because a few have these kind of rich life style the majority of churches should be punished.

 

You and detlef are talking about the exceptions which make up a very small percentage of the total. You seem to be extrapolating that out to "all churches have overly lavish buildings, and pastors who live in a mansion." I've grown up in the church (my father RIP was an Orthodox priest) and still have a lot of dealings within our larger church body. None of these buildings are so lavish, nor are their priests living in fancy houses.

 

You're taking a few extreme examples and trying to project that out to the masses. Like every church has a millionaire pastor with a personal jet and country club style living. I don't deny that those exist, but they are not the average church.

[SEC=UGA]

A few of the churches, so because a few have these kind of rich life style the majority of churches should be punished.

 

You and detlef are talking about the exceptions which make up a very small percentage of the total. You seem to be extrapolating that out to "all churches have overly lavish buildings, and pastors who live in a mansion." I've grown up in the church (my father RIP was an Orthodox priest) and still have a lot of dealings within our larger church body. None of these buildings are so lavish, nor are their priests living in fancy houses.

 

You're taking a few extreme examples and trying to project that out to the masses. Like every church has a millionaire pastor with a personal jet and country club style living. I don't deny that those exist, but they are not the average church.

 

 

I think this has gone a bit too far off track with regard to my stance. I'm adovacting property taxes, not income taxes.

 

Yes, I took it to an extreme. But, If you take your average church sitting on, oh, say, 10 acres of land and levy a property tax on them it should be easily covered out of their budget that pays for trip to Guatemala to build churches there. It isn't much to ask, I don't think.

[muck]

A quick personal observation about the new church my family and I have been attending since our recent move ...

 

The pastor doesn't get paid a penny; he's ordained and he's a computer programmer. The church has no paid staff. The building is paid for and there are no building plans. If the HVAC goes out, we'll pass the plate, but until then, the plate doesn't get passed.

 

It is his view that tithing is an old testament thing that is primarily trotted out by pastors who wish to expand their fiefdom, rather than actually doing what the scriptures commanded (preach the Christ represented in scripture, not how society wishes Him to be). After all, Paul was a tent maker and a preacher, and made no apologies (and didn't request any sympathy) for it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Just look at a plat book and you can see how much land is owned by churches. Many people will donate land to the church..... not expecting them to build condo's or apartment buildings to create income.

[detlef]

Detlef,

 

I think what you are proposing with "but could and should only get tax deductions to the degree to which they're actually doing charitable acts, not building monuments." would be virtually impossible to do. It would create another berueacracy to run that and determine how much of what they use is for charity. How do you determine what portion of the $20 I put in the collection plate at church is used for charitable stuff, and how much is to make the church spiffy, or just pay general bills (heating, electricity, salaries of the people who work there, etc.)

 

I didn't have a chance to watch the video, and while I don't specifically dislike Bill Maher I recognize him as somebody that is a bit extreme in his opinions. Comparing the look of a house of worship to a free clinic is kind of odd.

 

This may be another one of those agree to disagree moments, because you seem convinced that most (or a large percentage) of money collected by churches is used soley to build these McMansions as you call them. From my point of view (in my dealings with church organizations) this is simply not true. Quite a bit of the money collected by the churches is used first and foremost for operating expense.

 

You audit them just like anyone else. Other non-profits need to prove that they're actually a non-profit and are scrutinzed, why not churches? Make them file some version of a tax return, just like my business has to. And if your church is some humble building and the pastor is a volunteer and you spend so much money on doing good that you have to pass the plate to fix the HVAC, then you may not have much of a tax bill, if any. Perhaps if your church is small and non-profitable enough, you qualify for a waiver. If, however, you're generating mad cash and flying your pastor around in a private jet and all that, well, you're going to have a tax bill. If the amount of money you put towards charity is dwarfted by the amount of money you spend on building castles on the hill, then you get a tax bill.

 

It goes back to my golf club example. I don't think that should be a church any more than the rest of you. It was just taking the example of what can masquerade as a church to the next step. I'm sure plenty of you see that as a mockery of the church. Well, I see some of these fanciful churches generating crazy dollars and befoming powerful political businesses as a mockery of the tax code.

 

But it comes down to this. Take Muck's example. Say you've got a simple little church. Chances are, the property tax would not be super high and, if your church really does spend so much of its money doing charitable work. Well, if that's the case, they're basically a charity and should be able to qualify just like other charitable groups. But, if all you do is worship there, then, as far as I'm concerned, you should pay for that out of your own pocket and not ask me to chip in. That's your choice to worship, not mine. Again, as long as a group like Planned Parenthood is going to be under attack from the right and they're going to try to take away tax dollars, even if those dollars are simply going to non-abortion services, because people have religious-based objections to other things they do, then I don't see why churches should also expect for secularists to pony up for their privilage of going to a house of worship.

 

Ice1, I understand that other charities get to avoid taxes. But Planned Parenthood builds buildings for a very specific purpose, to provide health services. I've made it rather clear how I feel about political contirbutions. So, if they're spending money on that sort of thing, then I'd feel the same way as I do about the church doing so. They don't preach ideology, they just provide health services. I know that many like to think that they're out there promoting abortions, but they're not. They'll do one if you want one, but I've known plenty who have worked in that group or for advocacy groups. Nobody is "pro-abortion" to the extent that they'd ever try and convince some stranger to get one. They just believe that you should be able to get one if you really want one. So, they'll sit down with you and explain your options.

 

So, there's no sizable chunk of the money they go through that is merely spent indoctrinating people into a belief system. To the extent that a church is actually providing help to the citizenry in a tangible way, then they should also be given tax relief.