News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Why Are We Still Subsidizing Religion?

Started by stromboli, September 14, 2015, 08:34:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

stromboli

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/14/americans-are-leaving-religion-why-are-we-still-subsidizing-it/

(David Niose is the legal director of the Washington-based American Humanist Association and author of “Fighting Back the Right: Reclaiming America from the Attack on Reason” and “Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans.” Follow him on Twitter: @ahadave)

QuoteThe arguments for taxing churches have been around for many years, but there is reason to believe that America’s changing religious demographics will soon give them more traction. As more Americans abandon organized religion, many of the newly secular are unsympathetic to subsidizing religion via the tax code.

Recent polling shows that almost one in four Americans, and more than one-third of those aged 18 to 33, now claim no religious affiliation. Back when virtually everyone subscribed to a religious faith (the unaffiliated number polled in the single digits for most of the 20th century) an across-the-board tax break for all religions was arguably fair â€" or at least inoffensive. But times have changed, and so have attitudes about the extraordinary perks that churches enjoy.

Perhaps the most egregious example of religious privilege under the tax code is the so-called parsonage exemption. Under current tax law, “ministers of the gospel” may deduct virtually all costs associated with housing from their income. At its worst, the exemption subsidizes the unseemly: televangelists enjoying multimillion-dollar estates on the taxpayer dime. But even in a more ordinary context, the allowance represents an indefensible benefit running to organized religion, subsidized by taxpayers.


Another gratuity to churches is the real estate tax exemption, which denies cash-strapped municipalities revenue that could be used for public safety, road repairs and other services. Like everyone else in town, churches benefit from services provided by municipal governments, but in most areas are exempt from property taxation simply because they are churches.

Some will defend this extraordinary handout by arguing that churches do much good through charity work. Even if this were true â€" and it certainly isn’t the case for every church â€" it hardly justifies tax exemption. Many individuals and corporations “do good” as well but still pay their property taxes.


Moreover, relying on churches to provide social services is hardly the mark of an enlightened society. A homeless person who happens to be a non-Christian should not have to depend on a local Christian church for help. In a modern pluralistic society, public resources should be available for social services. Instead, in America we use the tax code to prop up churches under the pretext that religious charity is essential.

Any real estate owner expects to pay property taxes, and churches should be no different. If churches claim that they cannot afford to be taxed, one must question how they afford real estate in the first place. A typical church that owns property has hundreds of members or more who could join together to cover the tax bill. Maybe those that don’t have such membership and support shouldn’t own real estate.

As we reassess religious privilege in America, even the notion of having churches pay income taxes should be on the table. Critics say requiring churches to report income and expenses would somehow be an improper intrusion, but this argument fails under scrutiny. Such reporting, which virtually every person and organization in America does routinely, is minimally intrusive and no great burden. It’s hard to see how such basic accountability would be detrimental to the public good, though we can be sure that religious leaders, from televangelists preying on society’s most vulnerable to the nation’s leading bishops, will argue otherwise.

As Americans increasingly gravitate away from organized religion, it only makes sense that public policy will follow suit. Government need not be hostile to religion, but neither should it bestow upon it special privileges. The nonreligious are now one of the largest categories of religious demographics and growing, and that means changes are on the horizon in the business of religion.

FOR YOUR FURTHER EDIFICATION: Tax exemptions for religious institutions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/14/primer-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/

I've been to two churches that qualified as megachurches in that they had over a thousand total members and built large and ornate buildings on big tracts of land. Whether these churches would survive taxation is unlikely, but I guarantee just about every small church would fold inside of a few months. Most churches are not large and are supported by at most a few hundred in the congregation. The only thing keeping these churches going is the tax write offs from property tax and parsonage tax. Most pastors are not rich, despite the image we see of the Creflo Dollars and Pat Robertsons. For every megachurch there are dozens of small churches that are getting by largely because of the exemptions given them.

Which is why the religious are going to fight tooth and nail to stop this. And if it happens, it will be a major indication that religion is on the way out.


peacewithoutgod

If churches paid their fair share of the tax burden, there wouldn't be a national debt.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

stromboli

#2
There would also be many less churches. The operant theory is that if churches existed and paid their fair share, there would be a beaucoup financial windfall. But the problem with that theory is that churches have to exist to provide that tax windfall. I was involved with one church, Jesus People Ministries, as a youth leader and I was also involved with funding issues. The church was marginal at best, and that was with a donated building and the pastor actually not drawing a salary.

By the time you throw in heating and cooling and lighting and other expenses like youth activities ans so on, the tithing and donations barely cover it, and only if you have a big enough congregation. We lost half a dozen members- a family of sisters and their husbands- and the church could no longer operate. That is how borderline most of the small churches are. That is why they are always screaming for more people to join the congregation.

You throw in the loss of parsonage and property taxes and goodbye church. Even a megachurch, assuming that all of the congregation pay their 10%, they would still get hit big time. Property taxes on large developed acreage and massive buildings would be huge. And loss of parsonage on mansions- Pat Robertson lives on a mountain top in Tennessee with two private jets and is worth somewhere between 100 million and a billion. His taxes would not shut him down, but it would definitely hurt.

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: stromboli on September 14, 2015, 09:55:37 PM
There would also be many less churches.
Still it's hard to think of a worse use for all that property they now hold. Beer distributor? Fast food? Tobacco shop? At least they would be generating tax income for their municipalities.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

stromboli

Secular learning centers or libraries would be my choice.

Baruch

Religion or politics?  If politics, then Rs can come and take your homes, by raising the property tax past what you can pay.  End justifies the means.  Law of the jungle.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

dtq123

Because fat, divorced people like Kim Davis who are so rich they can burn it and still be rich are in power and just can.
A dark cloud looms over.
Festive cheer does not help much.
What is this, "Justice?"

TomFoolery

#7
In Texas, churches also don't pay sales tax. I used to work at a bookstore, and we had a lot of people come in claiming various things were for their churches. A special order of 50 Bibles? Ok. The bag of candy your kid is currently scarfing down? Really?

But no shit, they didn't have to show any kind of documentation, they just had to fill out a short form that we turned into the state government each month. I had a lot of people walk up to my counter and say "I'm tax exempt." Like, you are? Just because you go to church?

Teachers could also get tax exemptions, but they had to show paperwork proving the items were for the school and fill out the same form as the churchies. The state of Texas makes teachers jump through more hoops than anyone who claims to go to church to buy literally anything. We had teachers who forgot their tax certificates and still let them get materials tax exempt just by asking them if there was ever a chance they would use the stuff for their church.
How can you be sure my refusal to agree with your claim a symptom of my ignorance and not yours?