If religious organizations were taxed

[Free Bird]

What could be paid for easily? Could spending be comfortably slashed to get a surplus? How much of a burden would this lift from lower-middle class people?

[afleitch]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

Liberal estimate is $82bn. That's bigger than the 2014 annual budget for any programme other than defence.

[AggregateDemand]

Since most of the people going after churches are intentionally ignorant of the codes and the workings of religious institutions, I'll do my best to explain.

First, many clergy have opted out of social security so whatever subsidy calculations attributable to tax-free investment schemes are largely specious. It's basically a wash.

Second, the $35B in income tax subsidies are not religious subsidies and they are not related to the church, rather individual income tax returns. The charitable deductions apply to PBS, United Way, and the Council of Secular Humanism who conducted the study to lobby against religious tax-exemption.

Also, churches don't have income any more than than other non-profits have income, and most churches file 990s to let the IRS know they have no profit or meaningful reserves. Furthermore, the organization conducting the study knows well that UBI collected/generated by volunteers is not taxable.

The entirety of the list is basically bunk except for the parsonage subsidies, in some instances, and the faith-based tax credits. The real cost to society is local property taxes and sales taxes, but as I pointed out before, the organization lobbying against religious tax-exemption is receiving the same benefits, and those local benefits do not cost federal tax payers anything.

[DC Al Fine]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

Liberal estimate is $82bn. That's bigger than the 2014 annual budget for any programme other than defence.

Not this crap again. The report for the Council of Secular Humanism was unbelievably ignorant of how taxes work. It was ridiculous. I posted about this a while back.

The report attempted to treat churches as for profit corporations.

The problem was that it assumed that revenue=net income, and taxed all of it at the top marginal rate. Even if you accept the premise that a church is a business, said church would be able to deduct salaries, building upkeep etc. Many businesses, especially smaller ones wouldn't pay the top marginal corporate tax rate.

Likewise, the report counted all tithes as reducing personal income revenue, but that isn't true in real life. Most people don't itemize their deductions, and even if they do, its not special treatment that any other charity can get. Donations to the homeless shelter and the symphony can both reduce your taxable income.

The only legitimate cases of churches getting special tax treatment were property tax and clergy housing allowances. Both are definitely subsidies, but they are nowhere near the 80 billion that the headlines were trumpeting.

[DemPGH]

They should be because they're indistinguishable from businesses and they seek to enter the public domain and public discourse every bit as much as businesses. As soon as they do that, they are eligible to lose tax exempt status. I think when you look at the mega-churches, the Catholic Church, the large mainstream churches, you could do quite a bit with that money. I would put it toward healthcare, like helping to fund single payer. But that's not the answer alone as we need to reduce the overall defense and military budgeting by a lot as well.

[Deus Naturae]

If you taxed churches, wouldn't you have to tax all non-profit institutions? The reason churches are tax-exempt isn't because they're religious organizations, it's because they meet the definition of non-profit organizations under IRS rules.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The IRS should simply wield a big stick to prove that churches are using their money for charitable ventures. Churches shouldn't be subsidised for just existing, they need to provide a greater benefit.

[Deus Naturae]

The IRS should simply wield a big stick to prove that churches are using their money for charitable ventures. Churches shouldn't be subsidised for just existing, they need to provide a greater benefit.

There are many non-profit 501(c)(3) organizations that use their money for purposes other than charitable giving (museums, fraternal societies, sports leagues, etc). Again, you're not understanding that the reason religious organizations are tax-exempt isn't because they get a special exemption for being religious, but because they fall under a wider category of institutions (non-profits) that are tax-exempt.

[DemPGH]

They're not considered non-profits. They can be considered non-profits if they fulfill certain criteria, but indeed the USA has laws that actually put churches and pastors in a favored, special category, which is outrageous. And look at the Catholic Church - they actually threaten people over the abortion issue. The main rule that protects churches is the "no electioneering" rule, but churches bust that all the time. It would make for a good lawsuit in a court that actually respects the Church / State separation.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

[Randy Bobandy]

this is a good idea. perhaps one of the best ideas

[DC Al Fine]

They're not considered non-profits. They can be considered non-profits if they fulfill certain criteria, but indeed the USA has laws that actually put churches and pastors in a favored, special category, which is outrageous. And look at the Catholic Church - they actually threaten people over the abortion issue. The main rule that protects churches is the "no electioneering" rule, but churches bust that all the time. It would make for a good lawsuit in a court that actually respects the Church / State separation.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Speaking as a tax accountant, the "no electioneering" rule is actually much looser than people think it is. Laymen read the legislation and think some non-profit they dislike falls afoul of it, but its usually not true. Even in the paper you provided, non-profits are allowed to do all sorts of election related stuff.

Besides, why would you think an organization as sophisticated as the Catholic Church be sloppy enough to not check with their lawyers and accountants to make sure they don't cross the line?

[Replicator]

this is a good idea. perhaps one of the best ideas

explain in depth detail? I say we tax the NFL because they're not taxed at all.

[© tweed]

this is a good idea. perhaps one of the best ideas

explain in depth detail? I say we tax the NFL because they're not taxed at all.

the whole "NFL is a non-profit" thing is way overblown.  the real issue is how sports owners extort municipalities for public funds for their stadiums, not the tax designation of the central NFL office.

[angus]

A bit off topic, but while we're squelching misconceptions it seems like a good time to say that the Amish do, in fact, have to pay school taxes and property taxes.  It is a very widely held misconception hereabouts that they do not.  Amish pay school and property taxes just like you and me, and since most live on 50- to 100-acre farms and generally do not send their children to attend the public schools, they pay more than their fair share.  However, Amish are exempt from paying taxes for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid because they have waived the right to receive benefits.  Also, those Amish business that employ non-Amish workers do pay Social Security taxes for those non-Amish employees, as required by federal law.

Just thought it might be a good time to clear that up. 

[Wolverines34]

If you taxed churches, wouldn't you have to tax all non-profit institutions? The reason churches are tax-exempt isn't because they're religious organizations, it's because they meet the definition of non-profit organizations under IRS rules.

I agree but disagree. Catholic Church, Protestant churches, etc should not be taxed but cults like scientology or jeovah witnesses should be taxed (well their not legit).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

If you taxed churches, wouldn't you have to tax all non-profit institutions? The reason churches are tax-exempt isn't because they're religious organizations, it's because they meet the definition of non-profit organizations under IRS rules.

I agree but disagree. Catholic Church, Protestant churches, etc should not be taxed but cults like scientology or jeovah witnesses should be taxed (well their not legit).

And there we have the problem. Say what you like about the Jehovah's, they are a legitimate religious organisation with a grand tradition. Who is to describe what is a "cult" and what is a "religion"?

[politicus]

If you taxed churches, wouldn't you have to tax all non-profit institutions? The reason churches are tax-exempt isn't because they're religious organizations, it's because they meet the definition of non-profit organizations under IRS rules.

I agree but disagree. Catholic Church, Protestant churches, etc should not be taxed but cults like scientology or Jehovah witnesses should be taxed (well their not legit).

And there we have the problem. Say what you like about the Jehovah's, they are a legitimate religious organisation with a grand tradition. Who is to describe what is a "cult" and what is a "religion"?

Cults are the ones we don't like, you see.

[t_host1]

 I have no problem with this, equally, all political org. are fare to pay also. They would be free to politic to their hearts desire.   

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Going to have to agree with L-NY with the Latin name and DC Al, actually.  Tax law is so complicated that I'm almost sure churches qualify as non-profit and tax exempt.  So, as far as the current reasoning goes, they are correct.  I'd tax them, of course... but I have my own reasons and rationale. 

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

This is a terrible idea. The idea of taxing charlatans like Joel Olsteen is pretty attractive but I have no appetite for ruining important community organizations that give sanctuary/aid to the homeless, immigrants and the impoverished.

muh bill maher doe!!!!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is a terrible idea. The idea of taxing charlatans like Joel Olsteen is pretty attractive but I have no appetite for ruining important community organizations that give sanctuary/aid to the homeless, immigrants and the impoverished.

muh bill maher doe!!!!

I couldn't agree more. You don't have to be religious to agree that Churches do a lot of good for a lot of impoverished people.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

This is a terrible idea. The idea of taxing charlatans like Joel Olsteen is pretty attractive but I have no appetite for ruining important community organizations that give sanctuary/aid to the homeless, immigrants and the impoverished.

muh bill maher doe!!!!

I couldn't agree more. You don't have to be religious to agree that Churches do a lot of good for a lot of impoverished people.

Do they still require you trade your mental faculties for their hogwash or would even an atheist hobo receive a soup? 

[bore]

This is a terrible idea. The idea of taxing charlatans like Joel Olsteen is pretty attractive but I have no appetite for ruining important community organizations that give sanctuary/aid to the homeless, immigrants and the impoverished.

muh bill maher doe!!!!

I couldn't agree more. You don't have to be religious to agree that Churches do a lot of good for a lot of impoverished people.

Do they still require you trade your mental faculties for their hogwash or would even an atheist hobo receive a soup? 

I can't speak for America but in Edinburgh Christian organizations run a hugely disproportionate share of services for the homeless, and no one turns people away based on their religion.

[t_host1]

This is a terrible idea. The idea of taxing charlatans like Joel Olsteen is pretty attractive but I have no appetite for ruining important community organizations that give sanctuary/aid to the homeless, immigrants and the impoverished.

muh bill maher doe!!!!

 A legit charity will and can expense their activity to where there isn’t much or any tax due.
The important thing is to avoid all scrutiny of operation by paying the fare, especially for the political org., after all, for most, is a religious position.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

This is a terrible idea. The idea of taxing charlatans like Joel Olsteen is pretty attractive but I have no appetite for ruining important community organizations that give sanctuary/aid to the homeless, immigrants and the impoverished.

muh bill maher doe!!!!

I couldn't agree more. You don't have to be religious to agree that Churches do a lot of good for a lot of impoverished people.

Do they still require you trade your mental faculties for their hogwash or would even an atheist hobo receive a soup? 

I can't speak for America but in Edinburgh Christian organizations run a hugely disproportionate share of services for the homeless, and no one turns people away based on their religion.

Very good.  Now, onto Round 2.  Does the soup come with a pamphlet?