Should donations to churches be tax deductible?

[they don't love you like i love you]

Asking because I realize now that I will be filing with these as I made a bunch this year that I have receipts for. I never put much thought to this policy until now.

I vote yes of course.

[memphis]

Absolutely not. Unless the church forms a seperate non-profit charity whose activities are not religious in nature.

[Хahar 🤔]

Insofar as churches are tax-exempt, yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If taxing them at the normal rate is too much, how about a lower rate?

[TJ in Oregon]

Churches are 501(c)3 organizations and it doesn't make much sense to classify them as anything else, so yes. If we have tax deductions at all, churches should be included.

[RI]

Of course, provided they're a real, recognized church.

[greenforest32]

No. Religious organizations should be ineligible for IRS tax deduction status as they are cults and cults should not be eligible for IRS tax deduction status.

If they want to do charity and have IRS tax deduction status then they should form a 100% secular charity.

There are a whole bunch of other special religious tax privileges that should be abolished as well: http://www.alternet.org/belief/153448/how_we_all_pay_for_the_huge_tax_privileges_granted_to_religion_--_it%27s_time_to_tax_the_church/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Churches are 501(c)3 organizations and it doesn't make much sense to classify them as anything else, so yes. If we have tax deductions at all, churches should be included.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Absolutely not. Unless the church forms a seperate non-profit charity whose activities are not religious in nature.

So you favor taxing religious charities even if they're otherwise no different from non-religious charities that (in your opinion) merit tax-exempt status?

It seems that you favor taxing churches just because they're religious--that is, you want to put atheism at a state advantage.

[bullmoose88]

So you favor taxing religious charities even if they're otherwise no different from non-religious charities that (in your opinion) merit tax-exempt status?

It seems that you favor taxing churches just because they're religious--that is, you want to put atheism at a state advantage.

Would you have any issue with taxing organizations that deal with the belief or non-belief in God?  That is to say, we'd tax churches (at whatever rate was decided, as Jfern got at)...and say some anaologus atheist or agnostic organization (if said organization exists)?

[memphis]

Absolutely not. Unless the church forms a seperate non-profit charity whose activities are not religious in nature.

So you favor taxing religious charities even if they're otherwise no different from non-religious charities that (in your opinion) merit tax-exempt status?

It seems that you favor taxing churches just because they're religious--that is, you want to put atheism at a state advantage.

Evangelizing is not charity. It is advertising and should be treated as such. I think all ad agencies should be taxed as well. I certainly do not want to give the irreligious world a "state advantage." I just want to remove the one churches currently (and unconstitutionally, IMO) enjoy. There is no special burden on churches. If a Church truly wants to help the needy and do so tax-free, they can simply set up a seperate charity whose work does not include government sponsered self-promotion.

[they don't love you like i love you]

There are certainly some tax loopholes that benefit religious organizations that should be closed (the mortgage interest thing described above is a great example), but churches aren't being treated any differently than other than non-profit 501c3s in having contributions be tax deductible.

I have a feeling people arguing "no" would be pretty unhappy with the consequences if this was changed and churches were no longer tax-exempt, meaning there was nothing preventing them from endorsing candidates and blatant politicking which is now prohibited with the penalty of losing tax exempt status.

[memphis]

There are certainly some tax loopholes that benefit religious organizations that should be closed (the mortgage interest thing described above is a great example), but churches aren't being treated any differently than other than non-profit 501c3s in having contributions be tax deductible.

I have a feeling people arguing "no" would be pretty unhappy with the consequences if this was changed and churches were no longer tax-exempt, meaning there was nothing preventing them from endorsing candidates and blatant politicking which is now prohibited with the penalty of losing tax exempt status.

The thing is, many already endorse candidates. Not officially, but it's not all that hard to figure out the Southern Baptists want you to vote GOP and the AME wants you to vote for the Dems. They tailor their message around election season. There is already plenty of blantent politicking afoot. Maybe it's just more evident in my part of the country. The more moderate mainline Prots and the Catholics wouldn't endorse even if they had the option because they wouldn't like the impression it would leave. I don't think they want their churches to become arms of political organizations.

[The Mikado]

So you favor taxing religious charities even if they're otherwise no different from non-religious charities that (in your opinion) merit tax-exempt status?

There's a pretty big difference between giving to religious charities (Salvation Army etc.) and flat out giving to a church.  Just IMO.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So you favor taxing religious charities even if they're otherwise no different from non-religious charities that (in your opinion) merit tax-exempt status?

There's a pretty big difference between giving to religious charities (Salvation Army etc.) and flat out giving to a church.  Just IMO.

The Sally Army, is a Church, dear.

(yes, yes, yes. I know, I know).

[opebo]

No, but the cost of the lions should be a legitimate expense.

[Napoleon]

No!

[2952-0-0]

Personally I think if any organization wishes to be tax-exempt, it should accept reasonable caps on salaries/"allowances" and expenses imposed by the government. It really doesn't make sense for a start-up firm to be forced to pay taxes while a glitzy McChurch preacher gets $100K tax free.

[they don't love you like i love you]

So you favor taxing religious charities even if they're otherwise no different from non-religious charities that (in your opinion) merit tax-exempt status?

There's a pretty big difference between giving to religious charities (Salvation Army etc.) and flat out giving to a church.  Just IMO.

The Sally Army, is a Church, dear.

Yeah I was going to say that. Terrible example.

[The Mikado]

...Do we have a blush emoticon here?

[they don't love you like i love you]

I actually know a guy raised in the Salvation Army, his parents are both officers (what they call ministers), he'll be the drummer of the worship band in the church that I donated to (which is basically going to be the extreme of what Al called "bandshirted happy clappyism" and also about 40% gay if the launch group is any indication.)

[Хahar 🤔]

...Do we have a blush emoticon here?

[CaDan]

The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise of a religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance.

For those who worship at the altar of "separation of church and state," taxing churches would involve FAR MORE government entanglement than would a tax exemption.

See Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664 (1970).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Churches themselves should be tax exempt, but I'm not sure contributions to them should also be tax deductible.

[BigSkyBob]

Wrong question. The real question is, "Should the state have the power to tax religion?"