www.ditl.org

We've discussed this in a limited fashion before but I'm hoping to get a little more in depth with this; should religious organisations be exempt from paying taxes?

I'll go with no, for the simple reason that they enjoy the services and protection of the government without supplying anything of value in return, besides various charity work. For example if the priest/rabbi/iman etc relies on the donations of his members for his pay, that is income. Should he not be taxed on that? And the same for the money that is allocated to its infrastructure? I have no problem with allowing them to escape taxes on a soup kitchen for example, provided that 100% of the money they are given for that purpose is actually used for it and no profit is generated.

I'm not sure if I'm making any sense here, lots of my recent posts aren't clear to me (hence my less frequent posting).

From a libertarian perspective, you could say that tax-exempt status is harmful because (in the US, at least) it goes along with free speech restrictions, as religious organizations aren't allowed to advocate for political candidates.

No, that was perfectly clear, Kendall.

I agree. Charities, and religious charitable operations should be tax-free. But if the priest/minister/rabbi/imam/etc gets a BMW donated to him/her it should be taxed, as should any other income they make. If the church raises money to build a homeless shelter, no taxes; if the same church raises money to build a new cathedral/temple/mosque/whatever, it should be taxed.

I think charities should be tax exempt as most of you do. But I think based on the congregation size or apparent wealth of a church then they may or may not be taxed exempt. Taxing some churches which are struggling to stay afloat is it is could doom them and that would be bad. Capitalism is usually not applied to religions after all But if the church owns over a certain amount of land or has a certain number of annual visits or what not then sure. But make it so their charitable work is written off the amount of tax they owe the government.

I don't know that income for an individual is treated the same way as the proceeds of an organization. I can't speak for priests, vicars, imams, or other sorts of clerics; but if a synagogue hires a rabbi, they do so with a set salary and other perqs like any other job. I believe he or she is taxed on that like any other salary would be, unlike the actual proceeds of the synagogue itself.

What some fundie Jewish sects do (which I find despicable) is set up a room in their homes for religious study, call it a synagogue, and avoid property tax.

Mikey wrote:I don't know that income for an individual is treated the same way as the proceeds of an organization. I can't speak for priests, vicars, imams, or other sorts of clerics; but if a synagogue hires a rabbi, they do so with a set salary and other perqs like any other job. I believe he or she is taxed on that like any other salary would be, unlike the actual proceeds of the synagogue itself.

What some fundie Jewish sects do (which I find despicable) is set up a room in their homes for religious study, call it a synagogue, and avoid property tax.

I'm not 100% sure on what happens with employees of churchs and other religious institutions. I know they don't pay property tax though, and considering the amount of land owned by various churchs just in my county that is a lot of money that is being missed out on.

Lazar wrote:From a libertarian perspective, you could say that tax-exempt status is harmful because (in the US, at least) it goes along with free speech restrictions, as religious organizations aren't allowed to advocate for political candidates.

I would just slap a donation cap on them, equal to the amount an indiviudal can donate but refuse them permission to advocate for candidates. i think we can all agree that there is no good reason why a religious group should be allowed to push for a candidate.

I'd say Lakewood Church is an example of one that should most definitely be taxed. They spent over $75 million to buy what used to be the Compaq Center and turn it into their new church. I'd say that money could've been spent to help people, but whatever.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I would just slap a donation cap on them, equal to the amount an indiviudal can donate but refuse them permission to advocate for candidates. i think we can all agree that there is no good reason why a religious group should be allowed to push for a candidate.

I can think of one reason - it would be a good indication of who not to vote for.

Captain Seafort wrote:
I can think of one reason - it would be a good indication of who not to vote for.

True.

Screw 'em. Tax the churches the same way anything else is taxed. Unless they really are a charity in that they actualy donate a large portion of their profits to some needy group, they shouldn't get any exemption.