The Shadows Devour You.
Tax all religious organisations then? A blow to one, a blow to all.
EDIT: Given that there are non-religious organisations around which deal with spiritual well being, like the humanists, that doesn't quite strike me as fair either.
edited 7th Aug '11 9:39:16 AM by GameChainsaw
The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
you wanted " ''a lot'' " for italics.
I dunno, at first thought, it seems utterly mean spirited, but then I read a bit more and it does make sense. Why should churches be exempt from having to follow the same rules as other charitable organizations?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The article says to not immediately give churches tax-exempt status, instead applying their policy regarding charitable organizations to them.
edited 7th Aug '11 9:42:00 AM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
Karkadinn
I don't understand why anyone would support a divisive and foundation-shifting solution like this when there are much less divisive and much simpler solutions in plain sight. If the left actually tried to do this, it'd be playing into the hands of the right and giving them more ammo for the culture wars.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
It'd take money away from socially conservative politicking. I'm all for it.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
You can't tax a church and leave a spiritual non-church group like the humanists alone. Congress cannot discriminate. It's either hammer them all including the humanists or leave them be.
It's more politically expedient to leave them be.
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
This is NOT about leaving all churches to be taxed.
This is about applying the restrictions on what a charitable, non-taxable organization to the churches, IE Treating them the same as humanist groups.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
I never really understood why churches aren't made to prove their non-profit status like other organizations.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
So, how much would this actually increase revenues? I have the distinct suspicion it's not a whole lot. Meaning that this would be a purely political move that would do little more than inflame opinions.
Belief or disbelief rests with you.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Churches are the source of most socially conservative moral hysterias. Making them shut up in politics would be a great win.
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
You know, SH, for someone who supposedly values freedom, you certainly don't hesitate to suggest silencing those who disagree with you.
Belief or disbelief rests with you.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Social conservatives criminalize innocent people that have not violated the rights of anybody. Any means employed in shutting them up are proportional to the monstrosity of their crimes. Silencing churches is a fairly moderate measure compared to their aggressions.
Simply quid pro quo: To be honest, my tolerance of authoritarianism is near or sub zero.
(They criminalize vice and strip those with vices of voting rights by felon disfranchisement, so they can keep their prudish bans in place. Silencing their rackets is far less heinous: They're not even losing the right to vote!)
If you get the churches to shut up when it comes to politics (or tax them so they can't afford their propaganda), the pro-life, anti-weed, pro-abstinence, pro-creationism crowd will get a hard blow. Even if taxing them were to cost money, it'd be well worth it.
edited 7th Aug '11 10:41:26 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
Two wrongs=/= right.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
agreed. I don't agree with you much, tom, but it is not the right of the government to say that people cannot say their mind if they are wrong.
This is off topic.
The increased revenue question is a good one. Anyone have any statistics about it?
edited 7th Aug '11 10:41:28 AM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
I don't like moral panics as much as the next guy but even I don't subscribe to the thought of legally silencing ANYONE.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Churches are typically pro-life. They lobby on abortion issues, but they're tax-exempt.
The pro-choice movement does not have such an exemption. How about stripping churches' privileges away, so they don't have an advantage when it comes to politics?
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
Micromastophile
Here's an idea, limit spending increases to inflation+population growth. I've read that will cancel things out in a few years.
I changed accounts.
Like you have a right to decide what is right and wrong in politics.
I say leave it be. Make churches make specific organizations for political dealings, and tax that. We start taxing churches, though, and it'll be used to snuff out religion. I guarantee it. It also blatantly flies in the face of the First Amendment, because it will very easily come down to a way to abridge the rights of those who subscribe to less "mainstream" religions.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
>Facepalm<
Seriously, this is not about making ALL churches taxed. This is about applying the rules about what organizations can and cannot be taxed to churches, which currently are given carte blanche to ignore those rules purely because they are churches.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry
I changed accounts.
What right do we have to qualify what is and is not a church? You want to worship a rock? That's your right, as long as you follow the law. Just because it's strange or stupid doesn't mean it has any less valuable, or is any more or less provable. I cannot prove a rock is not your god anymore than I can prove the Christian god exists or does not exist. Therefore, they are legally equal to me. Picking and choosing which is qualified as a church or not will only lead to abuse by the system.
I am now known as Flyboy.
Wandering Student ಠ_ಠ
>HEAD. DESK<
THE QUALIFICATIONS ARE LISTED RIGHT UP THERE. HERE, I'LL REPOST THEM FOR YOU.
- The organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes.
- The organization’s net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder.
- No substantial part of the organization’s activity may be attempting to influence legislation.
- The organization may not intervene in political campaigns.
- The organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
@USAF: More like, making churches prove that they're non-profit by filling out the applicable forms. JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ORGANIZATION.
If we're going with "churches should be tax-exempt automatically", then things like Game Stop should be untaxed because of the thousands of people that worship video games.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
Sounds like a bad idea.
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Pro-Freedom Fanatic
Religious groups covertly campaign: They do so with a tax exemption. It's a fact of life that churches are generally socially conservative.
Either socially liberal political pressure groups are exempted from taxation as well (pro-weed groups, pro-choice groups, pro-gay marriage groups, labor unions, consumer advocacy groups... the whole deal), or churches (which generally oppose those things) should pay taxes as well.
Things as they are, they financially favor (radically so, BTW), the socially conservative side. That's unfair, and should be fixed.
edited 7th Aug '11 11:05:46 AM by SavageHeathen
You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.
I changed accounts.
They have every right to do so.
If we're going with "churches should be tax-exempt automatically", then things like Game Stop should be untaxed because of the thousands of people that worship video games.
Fine, that I can agree with (the non-profit), but I don't really get the political thing. They shouldn't be a political party onto themselves, but an inherent part of politics and religion is morality. Shouldn't a religion be allowed to get behind politics that coincide with what it believes?
Of course, the double-edged sword here is that law cannot be based on religion alone...
I still don't see a good way of doing this that won't be abused to attack religion, though...
I am now known as Flyboy.
And besides it would also hurt churches that support liberal politics.So you are shooting both sides at the same time.Plus it can get ugly to the point that other religious organizations could be taxed as well.
Plus churches have been shown to do charity work in this country and overseas.I have seen a lot of conservative churches who have done things like helping the poor,doing food drives,taking care of the elderly,giving support to people in poorer countries,and etc.Conservative churches do a lot in their spare time than you think.
edited 7th Aug '11 11:17:38 AM by jazzflower14
An editorial, from a highly liberal-slanted website, to start off the discussion:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/03/tax-reforms-should-include-removal-of-automatic-tax-exemptions-for-all-churches/
The five qualifying factors for charitable organizations to gain tax exemption are the following, according to the IRS:
While charities and religious organizations must apply for tax exemption status and prove that they meet these criteria, churches are virtually automatically tax-exempt. They do not need to apply for the exemption. Nor must they do anything significant to prove that they qualify under the above guidelines.
Not every church violates these qualifiers, but many violate one or more. Giving churches blanket tax-exempt status, without the means to adequately verify that the qualifiers are being met, opens up the system to rampant violations. The answer is simple: Base tax exemptions on specifically documented actions rather than on a “blanket” church tax exemption.
Recent political events illustrate why there is a growing need to change the church tax policy.
With the flood of fundamentalist-backed legislation passing in GOP-controlled states, as well as in the GOP-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, it is most likely that many churches are in violation of the third of these qualifiers. In addition, with an increasing number of churches holding political rallies at their locations, the fourth qualifier is in danger of being ignored as well.
An example of this violation occurred in Republican Representative Allen West of Florida’s 22nd congressional district. On numerous occasions West has not only used various churches for political events, he has also made political appearances at functions officially organized by churches. The IRS maintains that while a politician as a non-candidate may speak at a church event, the event must be non-partisan. However, at one public forum held at a church when one of his constituents asked a legitimate question, which Representative West did not like politically, she was removed forcibly. Hardly a non-partisan reaction!
Additionally, money floating around in churches, in many cases, provides church leaders with an affluent and profitable lifestyle. This may disqualify many churches on the grounds of the second requirement.
In fact, one could argue that churches are not charities at all, they are businesses. They may perform charitable acts at times but so does the average citizen, who is definitely not granted the boon of automatic tax-exempt status. The primary objective of a church is to maintain and recruit members to their organization, and to spread its theology (in other words sell its product) regardless of any factual support. In the process it often makes a profit financially as well as other growth. Thus, churches are either for-profit businesses, private clubs with extensive marketing campaigns, or both. In any event, accordingly, they should pay their fair share of taxes.
In extreme, or perhaps all too common, cases it appears that the only qualifier which some churches meet is the first and possibly the fifth. The church tax exemption code was for small local churches whose major purpose was tending to their “flocks.” However, large mega-churches, many of which have deep political agendas and deeper pockets, are granted the same tax-exempt allowance using large legal staffs to twist the tax code to their own advantage.
Churches should be allowed to itemize charitable exemptions like the rest of America does, no more, no less. If they do perform legitimate acts of charity or substantial non-religious services to the community from which they do not profit, they should be able receive a tax exemption to cover the loss. Though, if they profit from an action it is no longer an act of charity and the church should be taxed accordingly, just like any other business.
I'm not sure I can agree with the article, the reason that churches* seems pretty grounded in the 1st Amendment's freedom of religion. OTOH, especially in the last two decades or so, there's been a lot of money going straight from churches into politics; Prop 8 is just one of the more notorious ones.* Personally, I think that the IRS just needs to be looking more closely at the churches involving themselves in politics, and then adjusting their tax status from there.
[edit] too many forums, too many markup rules [/edit]
edited 7th Aug '11 9:38:04 AM by BlueNinja0
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw