Should Religious Organizations Pay Property Taxes?

[DiAnna]

My point is that you logic is just silly that we should shut down a whole program because of a small amount of abuse instead of trying to curb abuse.

If you'd actually read what I posted in Post #13, I said the tax exempt statutes should be overhauled, not shut down altogether.

 

[TobyOne]

They already do. Money that is donated to churches or other charitable organizations have already been taxed. The State doesn't need to extract its pounds of flesh from every transfer of wealth. Worry about paying your own taxes. Other peoples wealth isn't yours, Comrade.

Yes they should. Why should people who don't go to church pay the tax's for the church. They get the same services of roads, police, fire, & other stuff we pay for.

Let the people that go to the church pay the tax's.

 

[kjwins]

They already do. Money that is donated to churches or other charitable organizations have already been taxed. The State doesn't need to extract its pounds of flesh from every transfer of wealth. Worry about paying your own taxes. Other peoples wealth isn't yours, Comrade.

I think the OP is talking about property tax. That everyone who owns land pays. Not charitable contributions made to the institution. Since I don't follow a sky spook, why should I pay for someone else's crisco.

 

[Eric7216]

Not unless all non-profits start paying property taxes.
As long as we have tax exempt organizations religious organizations are as worthy as any other organizations.

 

[TobyOne]

You're not paying for it. The government isn't "giving" them your money. The idea that wealth not confiscated is somehow a redistribution of wealth from you to them is absurd but a common way of thinking on the left. The proper way to think about wealth is that it belongs to the people, not the government.

I think the OP is talking about property tax. That everyone who owns land pays. Not charitable contributions made to the institution. Since I don't follow a sky spook, why should I pay for someone else's crisco.

 

[Fletch]

Should Religious Organizations Pay Property Taxes?

Socialists are like vampires: always looking for new blood.

 

[Van Basten]

No, no, no, no.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Socialists are like vampires: always looking for new blood.

So you know what those "socialists" voted for?

 

[radcen]

Yep. They should also pay income taxes, just like every other business/individual in the country. The "religious exemption" loophole in tax laws, although created for altruistic reasons, has created massive tax fraud since just about any group can claim to be a religion, and partake of these benefits.

I totally get that, but... for me this falls squarely in the "Be careful what you wish for" category. If churches pay taxes they become part of government and they get access just any other taxpaying entity. If anything thinks they have too much access now, just wait and see what happens if they become a legitimized full-fledged player.

 

[kjwins]

You're not paying for it. The government isn't "giving" them your money. The idea that wealth not confiscated is somehow a redistribution of wealth from you to them is absurd but a common way of thinking on the left. The proper way to think about wealth is that it belongs to the people, not the government.

Yes I am. I pay a property tax that goes for the police, fire, roads, public library or what ever. The church does not. The community as a whole pays for that church, if we go there are not. If someone breaks into the church & steals something, who pays for the police to come & take care of it. If the church catch's on fire, who pays the firemen to put it out. NOT THE CHURCH.

Its not a left or right way of thinking, its common sense.

 

[chromium]

I totally get that, but... for me this falls squarely in the "Be careful what you wish for" category. If churches pay taxes they become part of government and they get access just any other taxpaying entity. If anything thinks they have too much access now, just wait and see what happens if they become a legitimized full-fledged player.

actually only those churches that *already* are intruding into government would be taxed

i don't see how they could have more influence when you have states passing needless "religious freedom" laws just to further **** on minorities that most churches despise, and declaring the bible the "state book"

if you look at latin america, lots of them are officially catholic yet had legalized things like gay marriage well before america. What the theocrats here have proven is if you have enough like-minded in high office, the constitution doesn't mean a damn thing. If that's their approach, we may as well sue the IRS to force them to be taxed, nothing to lose. The churches who don't attempt this have nothing to worry about and it would scare the others away from influencing politicians

 

[matchlight]

i just explained a few of the common ways

No, you did not. The First Amendment limits what government may do. It does NOT limit what churches may do.

 

[matchlight]

Yes I am. I pay a property tax that goes for the police, fire, roads, public library or what ever. The church does not. The community as a whole pays for that church, if we go there are not. If someone breaks into the church & steals something, who pays for the police to come & take care of it. If the church catch's on fire, who pays the firemen to put it out. NOT THE CHURCH.

Its not a left or right way of thinking, its common sense.

You make an interesting point. Justice Douglas commented in Zorach v. Clauson, sixty-odd years ago, on how the sorts of interaction between church and state you mention are inevitable. If the ladies at First Presbyterian start a fire in the church kitchen while making goodies for the bake sale, the city fire department is going to respond. And someone has to pay for that. I would leave it up to each state to decide if it wants to tax church property. States with a lot of sullen people who hate organized religion--e.g. collectivist drones and proponents of the homosexual agenda--might vote to tax them, while other states where many people are religious believers might vote not to.

 

[kjwins]

You make an interesting point. Justice Douglas commented in Zorach v. Clauson, sixty-odd years ago, on how the sorts of interaction between church and state you mention are inevitable. If the ladies at First Presbyterian start a fire in the church kitchen while making goodies for the bake sale, the city fire department is going to respond. And someone has to pay for that. I would leave it up to each state to decide if it wants to tax church property. States with a lot of sullen people who hate organized religion--e.g. collectivist drones and proponents of the homosexual agenda--might vote to tax them, while other states where many people are religious believers might vote not to.

Many church's do good things in the community. I take food to the church pantry every few months. I'm sure they let people use their buildings & space for many things. But then you also have so called church's that are just their to make a profit. All this should be taken into account when taxing them. I guess it should come down to how much it benefits the community as a whole & if the people want to pay for that.

 

[Paleocon]

No, it should be earmarked like gasoline taxes used to be: Gas taxes for roads, property taxes for schools.

You didn't answer the question. Would the state be justified in seizing all such property (for whatever purpose you feel it should go to)?

 

[Cephus]

I agree with that. A lot of organizations do some great charitable work, religious and secular alike.

And that way, you don't have to have separate rules for separate groups, give tax exemptions for charity only and let them pay for those big houses of corruption.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I don't have a problem with them being tax exempt if they meet the same standards as secular tax exempt non-profits.

 

[antiquity]

No they should not pay property taxes; they are non profit organizations.

Really, non profit? Tell that to Al Sharpton and the televangelists.

 

[Gaius46]

I believe those with children enrolled in a government school should. Some have said that for-profit business should because education constitutes workforce training.

If only those going to school pay for it we generally call that "tuition" not taxes.

School should not be about "workforce training" or not only about that. School should also be able teaching people to think.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes, they have buildings on property and should pay property taxes.

 

[cpwill]

Should Religious Organizations Pay Property Taxes?

Generally I think no one should pay property taxes. It's money that you get charged just for being. It's a way of saying "no matter what, we will find you, and we will force you to produce something, so that we can take it away from you".

That being said, among the groups who should least be required to do so, obviously non-profits fall in there.

 

[Van Basten]

Really, non profit? Tell that to Al Sharpton and the televangelists.

They are anomalies.

 

[Cephus]

Generally I think no one should pay property taxes. It's money that you get charged just for being. It's a way of saying "no matter what, we will find you, and we will force you to produce something, so that we can take it away from you".

That being said, among the groups who should least be required to do so, obviously non-profits fall in there.

You're not being charged for just being, you are being charged for owning property. People without property pay no property taxes and they're still "being". Property taxes pay for the services that make owning said property worthwhile, such as infrastructure. If you don't want to pay property taxes, don't own property.

 

[chuckiechan]

they should and in fact are required to if they betray the separation of church and state, such as telling their congregation who and what to vote for and bribing politicians. This is why an atheist group sued the IRS, which was not enforcing its own tax exempt code. You'd think a group as hated as the IRS wouldn't be afraid to tax churches that run afoul of the 1st amendment

i also have serious problem with the premium real estate taken up by churches. I noticed this in chicago, where the property tax is obscene yet here were all these churches operating tax free right next to homes and businesses the city foreclosed on

also there's the matter of fraud, such as the night club that avoided taxes by declaring itself a church

That depends on who you are. There are lots of politically protected churches that plainly violate the rules of advocating and campaigning for a candidate, usually for liberals. The standards are applied politically.

 

[cpwill]

You're not being charged for just being, you are being charged for owning property. People without property pay no property taxes and they're still "being".

That's an interesting claim. So you think that people who own rental property take property taxes in the chin - choosing to run as a loss - rather than passing the cost of those taxes onto their renters?