Mega-churches VS the IRS

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't mind churches not being taxed - In the same manner other non-profits should not be taxed. Not a different one. With practically no oversight of spending, there's no way to make sure that... Well... They're really non-profit.

If they don't get anyone looking at their expenses, how do you know they're NOT participating in politics?

[Jason]

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

Then propose an amendment.

[crashhelmet]

Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954. That’s when the rule known as the ‘Johnson Amendment’ was enacted. Churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS.

In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In retaliation, Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

Did you write this article or did you just lift your entire paragraph from it?

Here's a pretty good article showing both sides of the argument, citing Supreme Court cases int he process.
From FindLaw.com

The truth of the matter is that these pastors can easily get around this law. It only obstructs them from influencing in an official setting. So in other words, from the pulpit or within the church itself. That doesn't stop them from encouraging their parishioners as a "normal citizen" or at events without ties to their church.

[Aethian]

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

Then propose an amendment.

Jason, you realize Raps isn't American right?

[Rapscallion]

Jason, you realize Raps isn't American right?

I'm also easily amused.

Rapscallion

[protege]

I'm also easily amused.

Very true

But, I've always said that if the churches want to interfere in politics...they have to pay like everyone else.

Plus, not all communities can handle having properties taken off the tax rolls by churches, their related schools and parking lots. Does the church benefit from things as parks nearby? What about police departments? Roads? Sewer and water systems? Many, if not all of those things are paid with taxes. Yet, because the church is exempt, they're not paying their share.

[Rapscallion]

That's actually a good point. If someone breaks into a church, are the police required to attend simply because the church hasn't paid into the system?

Rapscallion

[protege]

If someone breaks into a church, are the police required to attend simply because the church hasn't paid into the system?

I don't know if they're "required" to show up. But, if they don't, people will bitch about it.

[TheHuckster]

That's actually a good point. If someone breaks into a church, are the police required to attend simply because the church hasn't paid into the system?

They are as required to attend as they are any other non-profit or any other tax-excempt organization on American soil. Whether it's March of Dimes, The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the United Way, or Boy Scouts of America.

To be frank, I find it rather disturbing and on some level disgusting that one is suggesting that it's just to refuse services to an organization simply because they are, by statute, exempt from taxes.

[Rapscallion]

I find it disturbing that an organisation able to pay a share of the communal upkeep should be granted a special licence not to do so and yet still benefit.

I know there are people who will speak of the evils of socialism and protest that they shouldn't pay for someone else's benefits, but a proper society will only tax those who have the income to be able to pay a fair share. Here we're dealing with elitism - a church with a huge income won't pay any taxes on that, but require substantial upkeep in the form of roads, police and fire protection etc. Actually, taking out without paying in is pretty much the definition of being a parasitic organism.

Rapscallion

[TheHuckster]

I find it disturbing that an organisation able to pay a share of the communal upkeep should be granted a special licence not to do so and yet still benefit.

I know there are people who will speak of the evils of socialism and protest that they shouldn't pay for someone else's benefits, but a proper society will only tax those who have the income to be able to pay a fair share. Here we're dealing with elitism - a church with a huge income won't pay any taxes on that, but require substantial upkeep in the form of roads, police and fire protection etc. Actually, taking out without paying in is pretty much the definition of being a parasitic organism.

I agree that "for-profit" churches should be taxed, but that doesn't mean, because they are legally exempt now, if someone has a heart attack in a church they should be denied paramedics, or if someone robbed a church they should be denied a police investigation. That would have an effect, for sure, but it wouldn't be a good effect at all.

[Rapscallion]

The person needing a paramedic would be covered by their health insurance - over here the NHS, over there the health care provider of their choice. Not really a good principle to invoke.

Robbing a church and the police - that's an interesting point. I'm in two minds about this - I'd like to see criminals harried by the coppers, but I'm also amused by the whole idea of the attending policeman saying that it must have been god's will before walking off.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Over here, most of the populace doesn't have health insurance. Not yet, anyway.

As for churches and taxes, I think it would be more useful to figure a system whereby a church gets a certain allowance against taxation based on some criteria I don't have the knowledge to even really suggest and then further relief based upon their charitable works. If they don't do enough charity to balance their actual income, then whatever remains is subject to taxation.

Not only would that go a long way to encourage churches to continue to grow and be charitable, but it would force those massive MEGA churches to choose either to be appropriately charitable based upon their resources or to pay into the system for their failure to do so.

^-.-^

[Jason]

Could the same arguemnet be made about public (or private) school systems? They don't pay property taxes either.

[crashhelmet]

Could the same arguemnet be made about public (or private) school systems? They don't pay property taxes either.

How can you even compare them?

Public school systems are funded by taxes. Anything done in addition to it is through fundraising or parents shelling out the money because of the lack of funding. The land they're on is usually owned by the local government, so there's no need for property taxes.

Private schools get no governmental funding. That's all paid for by donations and tuition costs. I'm sure there are tax breaks here and there, like property and income taxes in lieu of being an educational institution, as well as a not-for-profit business (profits tend to go back into the school for athletics, arts, scholarships, etc).

But when is the last time a major institution has come out and said "All of you students need to vote for this person." They're typically diverse in having their clubs like "Young Democrats" and "Young Republicans" and such. The President of the University of California at Berkeley, often considered one of the most liberal schools in the nation, has never attempted to persuade the thousands of students and alumni that they need to vote for the liberal candidate in the election. Not even the major religious schools like Notre Dame or Boston College have come out with anything like that. BYU, maybe, but they pretty much are the government there so that may be the exception to the rule, and again would be subject to the IRS's investigation.