Should churches be taxed?

[zephcom]

Actually, a person buying product to sell (wholesale to be sold as retail) is not charged sales tax. Sales tax is paid only on retail...product paid to the end user. Taxes are not based on transfer of ownership. We do protect from taxing on taxed goods.

Income tax. If a church gets income, it should be taxed as income.

 

[blackribbon]

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 ! ) ?

A nonprofit is defined by what they uses their profits for. Most hospitals are non-profit even if they have large incomes. However, if the profits are reinvested in the hospital and a certain amount of bills are written off, they can maintain their non-profit status. That is how large non-profits can raise money for research

 

[blackribbon]

Income tax. If a church gets income, it should be taxed as income.

Income in a nonprofit is defined differently than in a "for profit" situation. Income for a church is like income for any other non-profit organization.

 

[blackribbon]

Non profit organizations don't pay sales tax or property tax either. Donations are not considered taxable income. Money I pay for my health insurance and put in my retirement fund is not considered taxable income either. It isn't like all income or expenses are rated the same way.

 

[zephcom]

Income in a nonprofit is defined differently than in a "for profit" situation. Income for a church is like income for any other non-profit organization.

Unless we decide that churches shouldn't be non-profit anymore. The thread title asks the question of whether churches should be taxed. Answering that question with a 'yes' like I did implies a change in their tax exemption.

Simply describing their current status doesn't answer the question asked.

 

[blackribbon]

Unless we decide that churches shouldn't be non-profit anymore. The thread title asks the question of whether churches should be taxed. Answering that question with a 'yes' like I did implies a change in their tax exemption.

Simply describing their current status doesn't answer the question asked.

That would mean changing the definition of non-profit and taking that status away from other non-profits at the same time. I suspect that almost all churches would still qualify as a non-profit and you wouldn't be able to tax a church unless you could prove it didn't qualify as a non-profit anymore.

So the original question would have to be do we start taxing all non-profit organizations.

 

[blackribbon]

Churches are not taxed based on qualifying as non-profit charities. There are activities that a religious organization can do that will be taxed. Trying to say that they shouldn't be taxed because they are a church even though they do qualify as a tax defined charity would definitely be descrimination against a religious organization/church.

Religious Nonprofit Organizations and Churches

 

[zephcom]

That would mean changing the definition of non-profit and taking that status away from other non-profits at the same time. I suspect that almost all churches would still qualify as a non-profit and you wouldn't be able to tax a church unless you could prove it didn't qualify as a non-profit anymore.

So the original question would have to be do we start taxing all non-profit organizations.

And I happily said that my vote to tax them had nothing at all to do with them being churches. I'm against ALL of the government 'give-away' things they do with taxes. I think that gross income from everyone and entity should be taxed based on a flat rate.

I'm not against government doing charity work even if that charity work involves giving (equally, of course. There is the constitution to comply with) tax money to churches. I'm against granting people the freedom to tell the government how much of their income was 'exempt' from taxes based on the mess our tax code is in.

It is absolutely impossible for a citizen to find out how much and for what someone or some corporation got from the government with our system. The proper way for government to handle the tax money is to collect it ALL and then use the budget process to decide who gets what relief.

For instance, when we bought our house we took out the furnace and put in a heat pump. There was several 'incentives' for us to do that including a $1,000 discount from the heat pump manufacturer. One of them was a tax credit from the government. And I'll bet you that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to find out the names of people who claimed that credit the year we did. If the government had a line item for incentives to convert to heat pump, then my check from the government would be on the record.

People are cheating the government right and left on taxes. And the richer they are the more they cheat because the government simply can not audit everyone.

My answer is for the government to handle our tax money properly. Collect it all based on gross income. Then write checks for the things the government thinks is appropriate.

Then we have a record of who gets what and why.

 

[blackribbon]

First of all, the tax code is a mess because it is controlled by the government. It isn't the tax payer that screwed it up.

How would it be fair that I'd be flat taxed on my gross income when I am responsible for supporting myself and two other people who are not old enough to support themselves...and next person is taxed at the same gross amount but only needs personal funds to pay for one person?

I think the answer is to reduce the things the government is responsible for paying for to the bare basics like military and inter-commerce ... and reduce the taxes load that way.

 

[zephcom]

First of all, the tax code is a mess because it is controlled by the government. It isn't the tax payer that screwed it up.

How would it be fair that I'd be flat taxed on my gross income when I am responsible for supporting myself and two other people who are not old enough to support themselves...and next person is taxed at the same gross amount but only needs personal funds to pay for one person?

I think the answer is to reduce the things the government is responsible for paying for to the bare basics like military and inter-commerce ... and reduce the taxes load that way.

I didn't say the taxpayer screwed it up. I didn't place blame on anyone. If I were to do that, I would place the blame on the wealthy people who own the people running the government.

What makes my plan fair is that it isn't dependent on anyone's personal situation. It is only dependent on how much your gross income is. -If- those people in charge of the government feel that you deserve some charity because of the people you support, they can create a line item in the budget and urge you to apply for relief.

And, quite frankly, I would urge you to do it and hope you got some relief.

 

[blackribbon]

I didn't say the taxpayer screwed it up. I didn't place blame on anyone. If I were to do that, I would place the blame on the wealthy people who own the people running the government.

What makes my plan fair is that it isn't dependent on anyone's personal situation. It is only dependent on how much your gross income is. -If- those people in charge of the government feel that you deserve some charity because of the people you support, they can create a line item in the budget and urge you to apply for relief.

And, quite frankly, I would urge you to do it and hope you got some relief.

It isn't an even playing field until a base amount for each person is accounted for. What job I choose is dependent on what I need to pay for. If I was just paying for me, I could take an easier lower paying job and pay less taxes. It is only an equal situation if all jobs are equal and require equal amounts of effort and knowledge. If I work harder and get paid more because of that, I don't think that means the government should be getting the benefit at my expense.

I don't have any desire to accept "charity" from my own money...I would much rather limit the governments assumption that they have any right to touch MY income.

 

[zephcom]

It isn't an even playing field until a base amount for each person is accounted for. What job I choose is dependent on what I need to pay for. If I was just paying for me, I could take an easier lower paying job and pay less taxes. It is only an equal situation if all jobs are equal and require equal amounts of effort and knowledge. If I work harder and get paid more because of that, I don't think that means the government should be getting the benefit at my expense.

I don't have any desire to accept "charity" from my own money...I would much rather limit the governments assumption that they have any right to touch MY income.

Sure it is an even playing field. Everyone pays the same percentage of their gross income. How they structure their personal lives has nothing at all to do with it.

And, yes it is charity. All those deductions and credits and incentives are all charity. Everyone in the country pays a little bit more every time someone takes advantage of them. And I'm not one to begrudge someone for accepting a bit of help.

All I want is for all that to be 'in the budget' and recorded. Instead everyone 'writes their own check' without any method to check on honesty. Sure we have random audits but the government keeps the number of audits so low that the chance of being audited is nearly zero. I've been paying taxes of over fifty years and never been audited.

I think it is government's job to help people. I just think it should be done 'in the budget' and not 'before the budget'.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Would that go against separation of church and state? It would tax not only properties but school buildings and places that feed the poor.

Churches should definitely not be taxed. It would indeed go against separation of Church and state.

 

[Monksailor]

There are some groups who create a "church" as a front to deal drugs and other criminal activities, like the Moorish American "Beys" Church in Detroit years ago. The Mayor eventually formed a task force to try to round them all up and put them where they belonged. There are other groups, even demonic, who form "churches" to also get a tax free status. I think that a church has to have a preponderance of the evidence to show that it IS a ministry with not only good intentions but sufficient evidence to show it IS active in being more than a self-serving/perpetuating ministry or club. It should show that it IS outreaching and serving the community and world in tangible, positive, and beneficial ways. Contributions to secular and/or governmental entities should not be recognized for this. The Christian Church has one primary mission (Acts 1:8) given by Christ Himself as He ascended back to be with God, the Father, again. Just by fulfilling that one mission churches help to transform society into a less crime burdened state, with more joyful and responsible citizens who believe in good work and citizen ethics. In addition to that widows, the needy, the forsaken, and hurting should be ministered to DIRECTLY by church ministry. It is the inherent benevolence unto the surrounding community (and world) of the Christian Church which earned it its tax free status, I believe, or it should be. The burden upon tax payers would be significantly more if many Christian Churches were not ministering to the needs of the local community/country and being successful in transforming lives.

 

[Arcangl86]

But not all religions are proselytizing religions. While works of charity are a part of most religions, they are often individualized, not part of the institution. And the Internal Revenue Code does provide for fraternal organizations, which by their natures are self-serving and self-perpetuating.

 

[Hank77]

NM

 

[Hank77]

.

 

[Monksailor]

Thank you for reminding me that not only churches have tax-free status. The IRS code needs to be changed (again), IMO, due to the perversion of our forefathers intentions.

For ex., there is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, "Separation of Church and State" phrase in our Constitution but ever since some two-bit ACLU attorney created it in the 40's (1940's) it gained popularity and somehow is constantly quoted as coming from our Constitution almost 200 yrs earlier. The ACLU had the phrase inserted into our country's legal documents and all of those who embraced eradicating Christianity from our country echoed and reverberated the phrase every chance they have had. This is also what "Fake News" and rewriting history in our children's text books and the attitude of having to seek out and adopt/conform to what's popular accomplishes. OOOPS! Sorry for that. Back on topic.

As you, I, point out there are SOLELY self-serving and self-perpetuating groups out there under the "Tax-Free" umbrella. I think that IRS should look at the entity while deciding to approve or deny the status on a basis of how the entity will actively serve citizens of this country directly or indirectly, as in proselytizing unto a life style which will reduce the burden upon governmental expenses. If the entity helps citizens in a way which reduces governmental spending may need to be the qualifier. If it promotes beliefs and activities which increase governmental spending or is against the government, I do not think it should get a tax-free status; it enjoys the liberty and freedom to operate within legal parameters even in a "state" which it may hate or oppose but I do not think the government, we, should be supporting it with a tax-free allocation.

It is too bad that we as a "Christian" nation have come to the consideration of this legalistic/financial qualifier for tax-free status. What I propose may be impossible to determine and maybe percentages toward or against may need to be established. Certainly, an annual statement/accounting of their complying with the intended purpose(es) which were responsible for obtaining the status would need to be processed.

And the manner/protocol in which groups/individuals are selected for audit would need to be certified random or just cause.

 

[Monksailor]

I understand that that may cause some Christian churches to "go bankrupt." But if so, it will be because they are not doing what our Lord, for whom we are named, instructed us to do. Isn't that interesting? The government would have to end up being the one disciplining a church for GOD. And people who murder babies see their cause as actually helping society; so if baby killers have a tax-free status that dilemma is amazingly "undecided" in courts as of yet.

 

[Hank77]

Thank you for reminding me that not only churches have tax-free status. The IRS code needs to be changed (again), IMO, due to the perversion of our forefathers intentions.

For ex., there is NO, ABSOLUTELY NO, "Separation of Church and State" phrase in our Constitution but ever since some two-bit ACLU attorney created it in the 40's (1940's) it gained popularity and somehow is constantly quoted as coming from our Constitution almost 200 yrs earlier. The ACLU had the phrase inserted into our country's legal documents and all of those who embraced eradicating Christianity from our country echoed and reverberated the phrase every chance they have had. This is also what "Fake News" and rewriting history in our children's text books and the attitude of having to seek out and adopt/conform to what's popular accomplishes. OOOPS! Sorry for that. Back on topic.

As you, I, point out there are SOLELY self-serving and self-perpetuating groups out there under the "Tax-Free" umbrella. I think that IRS should look at the entity while deciding to approve or deny the status on a basis of how the entity will actively serve citizens of this country directly or indirectly, as in proselytizing unto a life style which will reduce the burden upon governmental expenses. If the entity helps citizens in a way which reduces governmental spending may need to be the qualifier. If it promotes beliefs and activities which increase governmental spending or is against the government, I do not think it should get a tax-free status; it enjoys the liberty and freedom to operate within legal parameters even in a "state" which it may hate or oppose but I do not think the government, we, should be supporting it with a tax-free allocation.

It is too bad that we as a "Christian" nation have come to the consideration of this legalistic/financial qualifier for tax-free status. What I propose may be impossible to determine and maybe percentages toward or against may need to be established. Certainly, an annual statement/accounting of their complying with the intended purpose(es) which were responsible for obtaining the status would need to be processed.

And the manner/protocol in which groups/individuals are selected for audit would need to be certified random or just cause.

What money would you want to tax? The donations that have already been taxed once? They are donations not profit.