Why churches should not be taxed.

[37818]

Freedom of religion - the separation of church and state - was the reason such institutions should not be taxed. see: http://www.latimes.com/la-oew-lynn-s...p23-story.html

[KingsGambit]

I agree with tax exemption with some limits. A group like the Church of Scientology that hides behind the veneer of religion to wreak havoc on people's lives, including those of non-adherents, should not have the right to tax exemption. At some point you have to draw some limits so that people are not claiming to be a religion to hide profits.

[Darth Executor]

I agree with tax exemption with some limits. A group like the Church of Scientology that hides behind the veneer of religion to wreak havoc on people's lives, including those of non-adherents, should not have the right to tax exemption. At some point you have to draw some limits so that people are not claiming to be a religion to hide profits.

That line is drawn merely by being a non-profit. Employees of non-profits still have to pay personal taxes. So there's no reason to draw any special limits. If the Church of Scientology is wreaking havoc on people's lives via criminal means then prosecute the people responsible.

[KingsGambit]

That line is drawn merely by being a non-profit. Employees of non-profits still have to pay personal taxes. So there's no reason to draw any special limits. If the Church of Scientology is wreaking havoc on people's lives via criminal means then prosecute the people responsible.

But the line between what is and isn't a non-profit isn't entirely clear, as the exorbitant salaries of some religious leaders suggests. At some point there's a difference between a religion and a front organization.

[Darth Executor]

But the line between what is and isn't a non-profit isn't entirely clear

Legally, it is. If you want to run a non-profit you can't touch the money, except in the form of a salary, which is taxed.

, as the exorbitant salaries of some religious leaders suggests. At some point there's a difference between a religion and a front organization.

Again, their salaries are not non-profit. They are salaries and they are subject to income tax like any other employee. It's only the organization's operations that are non-profit, but it's impossible for an individual to legally profit from this. Either they get paid (and are thus subject to tax) or they cannot personally use the money for themselves without breaking the law.

You get more deductions and pay less tax just running a for-profit business than you do running a non-profit.

[Tassman]

I agree with tax exemption with some limits. A group like the Church of Scientology that hides behind the veneer of religion to wreak havoc on people's lives, including those of non-adherents, should not have the right to tax exemption. At some point you have to draw some limits so that people are not claiming to be a religion to hide profits.

ALL religion "wreaks havoc on people's lives" and on society in general and should be taxed. The exception being the charitable components of many religious organisations.

[37818]

ALL religion "wreaks havoc on people's lives" and on society in general and should be taxed. The exception being the charitable components of many religious organisations.

Hmm. . . not all, ". . . Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. . . ." -- James 1:27.

[KingsGambit]

ALL religion "wreaks havoc on people's lives" and on society in general and should be taxed. The exception being the charitable components of many religious organisations.

It's odd that you're making a sweeping statement and even capitalizing "all", yet then admitting an exception.

[Tassman]

It's odd that you're making a sweeping statement and even capitalizing "all", yet then admitting an exception.

The exception is not related to religion but to the charitable work of many churches. Good works (from any source) should be supported by taxes, religious propaganda should not.

[Starlight]

The exception is not related to religion but to the charitable work of many churches. Good works (from any source) should be supported by taxes, religious propaganda should not.

There is a bit of a difficulty separating charitable work from religious work with many religious charities - a lot of them view themselves as doing both.

To give three points on the spectrum I have seen from particular Christian charities I have encountered: (1) they might view the food and drink they give to drug addicts as nothing but a way in for their 'true work' of bringing people to Jesus. (2) they might provide assistance to poor people with budgeting and helping them work through the backlog of bills, but if a person happens to come to Christ through their work with them, they count that as just as much of a win as if they'd helped them balance their budget. (3) World Vision USA refuses to hire gay employees because of their religious affiliation, but their charity work itself is, AFAIK, entirely secular.

I've come to the view that anything religious in origin is tainted, and I now make sure prior to donating to any charity that their origin isn't religious (that includes World Vision NZ, even though they've been okay with gay employees for years).

I don't think religious groups or religious charities should be tax-free. Especially not in my country where ~50% of people are non-religious. Why should particular groups who believe wacky things get taxpayer support?

[Tassman]

There is a bit of a difficulty separating charitable work from religious work with many religious charities - a lot of them view themselves as doing both.

To give three points on the spectrum I have seen from particular Christian charities I have encountered: (1) they might view the food and drink they give to drug addicts as nothing but a way in for their 'true work' of bringing people to Jesus. (2) they might provide assistance to poor people with budgeting and helping them work through the backlog of bills, but if a person happens to come to Christ through their work with them, they count that as just as much of a win as if they'd helped them balance their budget. (3) World Vision USA refuses to hire gay employees because of their religious affiliation, but their charity work itself is, AFAIK, entirely secular.

I've come to the view that anything religious in origin is tainted, and I now make sure prior to donating to any charity that their origin isn't religious (that includes World Vision NZ, even though they've been okay with gay employees for years).

I don't think religious groups or religious charities should be tax-free. Especially not in my country where ~50% of people are non-religious. Why should particular groups who believe wacky things get taxpayer support?