Should churches be taxed?

In general yes, churches should not be taxed.

However, if a church oversteps its role and tries to start a business in it (e.g. serving food for profit), I could see churches losing its tax-exemption status. (specifically only the business stuff)

Rubiks said:

In general yes, churches should not be taxed.

However, if a church oversteps its role and tries to start a business in it (e.g. serving food for profit), I could see churches losing its tax-exemption status. (specifically only the business stuff)

Click to expand...

Why should churches not be taxed (thus not giving caesar what is caisar's ? ) .

Look at the property holdings, vehicles, airplanes/jets, buildings, auditoriums,
of many different religious groups,
and
can someone show how they are not businesses ? (or not profitable ! ) ?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

thus not giving caesar what is caisar's ?

Click to expand...

This verse says nothing about what taxes should and should not exist. It just says to pay them.

Rubiks said:

This verse says nothing about what taxes should and should not exist. It just says to pay them.

Click to expand...

Good. So pay them.

Resha Caner said:

It's considered an infringement of the "free exercise" clause.

There is a lot of history behind why the first amendment was written the way it was. Most people think in terms of the abuses of the extreme Roman Catholic popes (church against the state), but there were also events such as Henry VIII seizing church property (state against the church).

Another thing people don't realize is that by the time of the American Revolution, the English Constitution already had the most liberal religious freedom laws in the world. Many of the FFs thought that was good enough, and didn't see a need for an amendment about religious freedom. So, it was largely a political move to aid ratification, and not given as much thought as it should have. The way the first amendment has played out has largely made churches a ward of the state.

Click to expand...

I'm not in the mood to argue over what the English Constitution said or what the Founding Fathers thought. Those are things for the courts to deal with. What I do understand is that the government can't favor one religion over another.

Not taxing religions is a part of the tax code. The tax code can and should be changed. This discussion is specifically about churches.

My opinion is that the tax code needs to be tossed out completely and a new one put in place which taxes EVERYONE one flat rate based on their gross income. There would be no deductions, no exemptions, no write-offs. The only ones not following those rules would be individuals making so little that it is ridiculous pursue collection.

With that behind my reasoning, it is obvious that churches should be taxed. And I am convinced that churches would have no special claim on exemption or discrimination based on some ancient English laws.

But I would be happy to have the courts adjudicate that along with the millions of other cases filed by people who think they are too special to help pay for keeping things running in this nation.

Rubiks said:

This verse says nothing about what taxes should and should not exist. It just says to pay them.

Click to expand...

That's right. Christ said give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is Gods.

So what is Caesar's tax? Well Caesar and the roman regime is gone now, so this shows civil authorities pass away and are replaced with new ones. And if governments changed that means a new Caesar and different regime. So who decides what the next regime will be? Well that would be the population. I as part of the population support a small government. One that does not steal/tax the church.

Christ did not advocate for large taxes,nor do I.

Daniel C said:

Christ did not advocate for large taxes,nor do I.

Click to expand...

How much did Christ tell all of His followers that they would have to give up
if
they wanted to be His disciple ?

zephcom said:

I'm not in the mood to argue over what the English Constitution said or what the Founding Fathers thought.

Click to expand...

You do seem to be in a mood, though. I'm not sure what set you off. If you will review my first post, you will find I said I would be OK with taxing churches. So I'm not among the self-important looking for a free ride (as you seem to imply toward the end of your post).

You asked me a question. I answered it.

zephcom said:

Not taxing religions is a part of the tax code. The tax code can and should be changed. This discussion is specifically about churches.

Click to expand...

It is not simply part of the tax code. It's a constitutional issue. So if you really want to change it, you'll need to understand that. If you don't believe me, read this article from the LA Times.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

How much did Christ tell all of His followers that they would have to give up
if
they wanted to be His disciple ?

Click to expand...

Where did the money go?

Daniel C said:

Where did the money go?

Click to expand...

You answer first.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

You answer first.

Click to expand...

I'll do both.

Christ said to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow him.

The poor.......not the government.

Resha Caner said:

You do seem to be in a mood, though. I'm not sure what set you off. If you will review my first post, you will find I said I would be OK with taxing churches. So I'm not among the self-important looking for a free ride (as you seem to imply toward the end of your post).

You asked me a question. I answered it.



It is not simply part of the tax code. It's a constitutional issue. So if you really want to change it, you'll need to understand that. If you don't believe me, read this article from the LA Times.

Click to expand...

I read the article. It talks about selectively removing churches from exemption based on how the church deals with politics. And I find that to be a reasonable discussion, especially in today's politics where government is being used to punish people who disagree with the leadership.

But with that said, the article only barely touches on the Constitution's separation of church and state and even that was because of the selective removal tax exempt status based on the churches behavior.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with selective removal of tax exemption. I'm talking about treating every single religion absolutely equally. This does not favor or disfavor any religion or church. It isn't based on a churches politics or any perceived favoring of one candidate over another.

And since what I'm saying doesn't involve any of that discussion, I don't find it germane to any Constitutional issue in removing tax free status across the board for religion. But I'm happy with the courts ruling on the issue.

I don't recall saying you, specifically, do think you are too special to pay taxes. What set me off is the idea that there are so many people who DO think they are too special to pay taxes that they are creating a burden on the few who do pay. This nation is becoming like a feudal country from the Dark Ages where the rich, the King and the Church exempted themselves from taxation and the sheriff's job was to take as much money as he could from the peasants.

And, as a peasant, I'm getting tired of it. My stance on the OP's specific issue, the churches, is based on a much broader issue of taxes in general. And I'm convinced that there is no Constitutional issue as long as the government continues to treat religions equally.

Daniel C said:

I'll do both.

Christ said to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow him.

The poor.......not the government.

Click to expand...

He also paid the tax. So after giving everything up to be His disciple,
do as JESUS DID, and pay the tax, when it comes up.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

He also paid the tax. So after giving everything up to be His disciple,
do as JESUS DID, and pay the tax, when it comes up.

Click to expand...

So we're back to square one again, pay the taxes......hello Caesar

Daniel C said:

So we're back to square one again, pay the taxes......hello ...

Click to expand...

Either obey Jesus, or don't. That's always the choice. Caesar is the one you pay the tax to, not me. How easy to get those things mixed up !

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Either obey Jesus, or don't. That's always the choice. Caesar is the one you pay the tax to, not me. How easy to get those things mixed up !

Click to expand...

No you misunderstand what I was saying. You have taken us back to your original point: pay Caesar

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Why should churches not be taxed (thus not giving caesar what is caisar's ? ) .

Look at the property holdings, vehicles, airplanes/jets, buildings, auditoriums,
of many different religious groups,
and
can someone show how they are not businesses ? (or not profitable ! ) ?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone on this thread has denied paying business tax but some reject the church being taxed.

Daniel C said:

I don't think anyone on this thread has denied paying business tax but some reject the church being taxed.

Click to expand...

Jesus paid the tax for Himself and for Peter. He also said why.

People do not have to believe Him (most do not ) , nor do they usually do what He says.

zephcom said:

But with that said, the article only barely touches on the Constitution's separation of church and state and even that was because of the selective removal tax exempt status based on the churches behavior.

Click to expand...

It confirms what I said: this is a constitutional issue. To quote:

Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it.

[An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

zephcom said:

I don't find it germane to any Constitutional issue in removing tax free status across the board for religion.

Click to expand...

Then you don't understand the issue. Ever heard the phrase "no taxation without representation"? I understand you don't like history, but certain historical events have created a situation in which corporations are considered legal persons: Corporate personhood. As a result, no less than Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has indicated maybe they should be given the vote.

Churches are also legal entities (at least most traditional churches are). In order to legally define who owns church property and how their income will be managed, many churches incorporate. That is not new. It was something that started around the time of the Revolution as people tried to figure out what it meant to no longer have a state church.

So, if corporations were to be given a vote, and if churches were taxed, they would likely get the vote as well. Based on the attitude you've demonstrated so far, I don't think you'd like that idea. But, you see, politics isn't just about what makes sense to you. It's about what the entire body politic decides to do.

Be careful what Pandora's Box you open.

Resha Caner said:

It confirms what I said: this is a constitutional issue. To quote:

Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it.

[An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.



Then you don't understand the issue. Ever heard the phrase "no taxation without representation"? I understand you don't like history, but certain historical events have created a situation in which corporations are considered legal persons: Corporate personhood. As a result, no less than Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has indicated maybe they should be given the vote.

Churches are also legal entities (at least most traditional churches are). In order to legally define who owns church property and how their income will be managed, many churches incorporate. That is not new. It was something that started around the time of the Revolution as people tried to figure out what it meant to no longer have a state church.

So, if corporations were to be given a vote, and if churches were taxed, they would likely get the vote as well. Based on the attitude you've demonstrated so far, I don't think you'd like that idea. But, you see, politics is just about what makes sense to you. It's about what the entire body politic decides to do.

Be careful what Pandora's Box you open.

Click to expand...

<chuckle> I recall that a pundit commented that he would believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

If the country sinks so low that that it is going to give corporations a vote, so be it. After all, it has been made pretty plain to everyone who listens that our votes don't count anyway. If they did, we would be enjoying the tenure of America's first woman president instead of whatever that is in the White House now.

If the cost of straightening out our taxation mess is giving one vote to every 'taxpayer' instead of every citizen, at least my idea of making a taxpayer out of everyone makes sense.

zephcom said:

I recall that a pundit commented that he would believe a corporation is a person when Texas executes one.

Click to expand...

They have: Category:Defunct companies based in Texas - Wikipedia

zephcom said:

If the country sinks so low that that it is going to give corporations a vote, so be it. After all, it has been made pretty plain to everyone who listens that our votes don't count anyway. If they did, we would be enjoying the tenure of America's first woman president instead of whatever that is in the White House now.

Click to expand...

If you want to go down that path, you'd better look at this. One of my beliefs is that people who think there are easy answers usually haven't spent much time engaging with the problem.