Taxes, Churches and "Is this a Problem?"

[Ooberman]

Research Report: How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States
Ryan T. Cragun, Stephanie Yeager, and Desmond Vega




The home in the photo (above) is the $1.75 million mansion of the Reverend Randy White, the former head pastor of Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Florida. While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion—to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

We mention Rev. White because he was the impetus for this article. White and his mansion came up in a class taught by lead author Ryan T. Cragun. In that discussion, the other authors asked how much Pastor White pays in taxes on his income. The answer wasn’t readily available. Only a handful of publications in the sociology of religion have examined the finances of religions, and they are largely aimed at telling religions how to increase donations.1 Nowhere did we find prior research summarizing and detailing religious finances and tax policy, so we decided to investigate it ourselves. This article is the result. It took some digging, but we think we now have a moderately clear understanding of the tax laws regarding religions in the United States. What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today. In this article we estimate how much local, state, and federal governments subsidize religions.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... ragun_32_4



My apostasy occurred when I opened a Madelaine O'Hare book and saw how Churches are subsidized by the government.

It seems that if churches do any good, they should receive aid. However, if they can't take credit for the Good they do, then their status is in question.

For example, it's not as if they are responsible for prayers being answered. That would be something worth paying for!

[micatala]

I would agree, providing a tax deduction on a house worth 1.75 million seems not make sense.

On the other hand, I am not sure I buy that the distinction between charitable work and other church activities should be relevant with respect to taxes. To me, the key issue is that churches are non-profit. Now, I am admittedly probably ignorant about tax law, but is it not true that any organization registering officially as a non-profit would not be subject to income and property taxes?

Charitiable activities, I admit, provide more benefits to the society at large than ordinary church acitivities like worship. However, that by itself should not, in my view, make the worship and other activities subject to taxation.


I would consider the implementation of some sort of limit on the 'tax-freeness.' If a pastor is living in a 1.75 million dollar house, and if his church can support that, it seems to me they could afford to pay taxes on at least a portion of that value.

[East of Eden]

I would agree, providing a tax deduction on a house worth 1.75 million seems not make sense.

On the other hand, I am not sure I buy that the distinction between charitable work and other church activities should be relevant with respect to taxes. To me, the key issue is that churches are non-profit. Now, I am admittedly probably ignorant about tax law, but is it not true that any organization registering officially as a non-profit would not be subject to income and property taxes?

Exactly. A church is no more taxable than any other non-profit. I don't know of many churches that would have a profit to tax. Even businesses that don't show profits don't pay income tax.

Charitiable activities, I admit, provide more benefits to the society at large than ordinary church acitivities like worship. However, that by itself should not, in my view, make the worship and other activities subject to taxation.


I would consider the implementation of some sort of limit on the 'tax-freeness.' If a pastor is living in a 1.75 million dollar house, and if his church can support that, it seems to me they could afford to pay taxes on at least a portion of that value.

Unless the pastor is using the big house to house people he is ministering to, I'd have no problem with a cap on such homes after which property taxes would kick in.

[micatala]

I would agree, providing a tax deduction on a house worth 1.75 million seems not make sense.

On the other hand, I am not sure I buy that the distinction between charitable work and other church activities should be relevant with respect to taxes. To me, the key issue is that churches are non-profit. Now, I am admittedly probably ignorant about tax law, but is it not true that any organization registering officially as a non-profit would not be subject to income and property taxes?

Exactly. A church is no more taxable than any other non-profit. I don't know of many churches that would have a profit to tax. Even businesses that don't show profits don't pay income tax.

Which is a good point. The mega-churches of course make the headlines. The vast majority of churches, even many mainline denominational churches, bring in modest revenue and often live on a shoe string.

There are many non-profits that might engage in activities that some people might find useless or even offensive. The author of this article might feel church activities are useless, while charitable activities are beneficial. That is fine as an opinion.

It does not seem to me to be at all relevant as a criteria for tax exemption.

Is the National Odd Shoe Exchange OK for tax exemption?

http://www.oddshoe.org/

How about Canstruction.

http://www.squidoo.com/canstruction

How would the OP decide on issues like this.

Charitiable activities, I admit, provide more benefits to the society at large than ordinary church acitivities like worship. However, that by itself should not, in my view, make the worship and other activities subject to taxation.


I would consider the implementation of some sort of limit on the 'tax-freeness.' If a pastor is living in a 1.75 million dollar house, and if his church can support that, it seems to me they could afford to pay taxes on at least a portion of that value.

Unless the pastor is using the big house to house people he is ministering to, I'd have no problem with a cap on such homes after which property taxes would kick in.

It would create an administrative issue, but I do think some kind of cap is reasonable to consider as a way to prvent abuses. Essentially, if someone is living in an extravagent lifestyle due to tax exempt funds, they are arguably acting out of profit.

I don't know. Maybe it would be too difficult to enact. You do have some organizations considered highly legitimate non-profits whose heads bring in large six figure salaries.

[Alchemy]

Research Report: How Secular Humanists (and Everyone Else) Subsidize Religion in the United States
Ryan T. Cragun, Stephanie Yeager, and Desmond Vega




The home in the photo (above) is the $1.75 million mansion of the Reverend Randy White, the former head pastor of Without Walls International Church in Tampa, Florida. While some people may be bothered by the fact that there are pastors who live in multimillion dollar homes, this is old news to most. But here is what should bother you about these expensive homes: You are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion—to the tune of about $71 billion every year.

We mention Rev. White because he was the impetus for this article. White and his mansion came up in a class taught by lead author Ryan T. Cragun. In that discussion, the other authors asked how much Pastor White pays in taxes on his income. The answer wasn’t readily available. Only a handful of publications in the sociology of religion have examined the finances of religions, and they are largely aimed at telling religions how to increase donations.1 Nowhere did we find prior research summarizing and detailing religious finances and tax policy, so we decided to investigate it ourselves. This article is the result. It took some digging, but we think we now have a moderately clear understanding of the tax laws regarding religions in the United States. What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today. In this article we estimate how much local, state, and federal governments subsidize religions.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... ragun_32_4



My apostasy occurred when I opened a Madelaine O'Hare book and saw how Churches are subsidized by the government.

It seems that if churches do any good, they should receive aid. However, if they can't take credit for the Good they do, then their status is in question.

For example, it's not as if they are responsible for prayers being answered. That would be something worth paying for!

Not sure what they would be called exactly in the US but why can't Non profit organisations pay taxes like land tax, taxes that provide for garbage collection, road manitenance and other local services but be exempt from income tax? Some might argue that if you tax religion, you can control it and there by violate the non interference in the church. EVen so, I don't believe anyone could argue that a tax for garbage collection could ever be used to control the church.

Houses like this are a clear abuse of the system unless you can successfully argue that a mansion is required for the church to run.

[East of Eden]

I would agree, providing a tax deduction on a house worth 1.75 million seems not make sense.

On the other hand, I am not sure I buy that the distinction between charitable work and other church activities should be relevant with respect to taxes. To me, the key issue is that churches are non-profit. Now, I am admittedly probably ignorant about tax law, but is it not true that any organization registering officially as a non-profit would not be subject to income and property taxes?

Exactly. A church is no more taxable than any other non-profit. I don't know of many churches that would have a profit to tax. Even businesses that don't show profits don't pay income tax.

Which is a good point. The mega-churches of course make the headlines. The vast majority of churches, even many mainline denominational churches, bring in modest revenue and often live on a shoe string.

There are many non-profits that might engage in activities that some people might find useless or even offensive. The author of this article might feel church activities are useless, while charitable activities are beneficial. That is fine as an opinion.

It does not seem to me to be at all relevant as a criteria for tax exemption.

Is the National Odd Shoe Exchange OK for tax exemption?

http://www.oddshoe.org/

How about Canstruction.

http://www.squidoo.com/canstruction

How would the OP decide on issues like this.

Charitiable activities, I admit, provide more benefits to the society at large than ordinary church acitivities like worship. However, that by itself should not, in my view, make the worship and other activities subject to taxation.


I would consider the implementation of some sort of limit on the 'tax-freeness.' If a pastor is living in a 1.75 million dollar house, and if his church can support that, it seems to me they could afford to pay taxes on at least a portion of that value.

Unless the pastor is using the big house to house people he is ministering to, I'd have no problem with a cap on such homes after which property taxes would kick in.

It would create an administrative issue, but I do think some kind of cap is reasonable to consider as a way to prvent abuses. Essentially, if someone is living in an extravagent lifestyle due to tax exempt funds, they are arguably acting out of profit.

I don't know. Maybe it would be too difficult to enact. You do have some organizations considered highly legitimate non-profits whose heads bring in large six figure salaries.

Yes, you would have to apply that rule to all non-profits.

[Ooberman]

Yes, I think N-P's should not be taxed, but only if what they are doing can be shown to provide a service that is demonstrable and can't be provided by some other more efficient N-P.

I imagine that puts a lot of N-P's on notice, but I see no reason not to apply basic ideas of efficiency and proof of effectiveness to these things.

Let's put our money to effective means.

I understand many churches provide some things that are hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Personally, I'd like Churches that make supernatural claims to be taxed and allow the ones who operate community aid functions to get the big tax breaks.

I don't mind if the head of a N-P makes a decent living, if he is doing a decent job. But being a pastor in a wealthy area, or someone who has learned to make more money from his flock is not what we expect of our religious leaders.

Religious leaders, like police, politicians, etc. are held to a different standard.

[East of Eden]

Yes, I think N-P's should not be taxed, but only if what they are doing can be shown to provide a service that is demonstrable and can't be provided by some other more efficient N-P.

I imagine that puts a lot of N-P's on notice, but I see no reason not to apply basic ideas of efficiency and proof of effectiveness to these things.

Let's put our money to effective means.

I understand many churches provide some things that are hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Personally, I'd like Churches that make supernatural claims to be taxed and allow the ones who operate community aid functions to get the big tax breaks.

I don't mind if the head of a N-P makes a decent living, if he is doing a decent job. But being a pastor in a wealthy area, or someone who has learned to make more money from his flock is not what we expect of our religious leaders.

Religious leaders, like police, politicians, etc. are held to a different standard.

Who gets to decide who is taxed? You don't think churches that make supernatural claims (which means about all of them) provide a real service, I don't think Planned Parenthood does.

[micatala]

Yes, I think N-P's should not be taxed, but only if what they are doing can be shown to provide a service that is demonstrable and can't be provided by some other more efficient N-P.

I imagine that puts a lot of N-P's on notice, but I see no reason not to apply basic ideas of efficiency and proof of effectiveness to these things.

First, you are conflating two different things here. Engaging in activities that are perceived to provide a service is different than engaging in an activity in an efficient manner. I might be very efficient at counting blades of grass. It is not likely anyone will consider this a service.

Let's put our money to effective means.

Who is "our?" Who is "us?"

You seem to be implying we as a society should be imposing rules on non-profits who are using "our money." The problem is, not all of the money non-profits take in is from taxes. Tax money could be considered "our money."

Donations that private citizens give to non-profits is not "our money" unless "our" is redefined to mean only those contributing to that non-profit.


Now, if you want to advocate that those giving to non-profits should seek to have their money used efficiently, that is one thing. If you are seeking to have the government intervene to tell them how to have their money spent in a way that you deem efficient or worthwhile, that is another matter.

Please clarify.

I understand many churches provide some things that are hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Again, especially given the lack of clarity above, this is opening a huge can of worms. Are you going to open this can for all non-profits or just churches?

Personally, I'd like Churches that make supernatural claims to be taxed and allow the ones who operate community aid functions to get the big tax breaks.

Please explain how such a criteria would be even remotely constitutional.

I don't mind if the head of a N-P makes a decent living, if he is doing a decent job. But being a pastor in a wealthy area, or someone who has learned to make more money from his flock is not what we expect of our religious leaders.

Religious leaders, like police, politicians, etc. are held to a different standard.

Again, we need some clarification. You seem to be implying the government should be involved in determining when the head of a N-P is doing a decent job. I don't think you have thought through the details of how this would work to any great extent. I'll grant that if the government grants a tax exemption, they have a right to set out rules for those getting the exemption.

However, the rules have to be fair, and they should also be feasible to enforce. If you make only churches follow certain rules while classifying them within the larger group of non-profits, fairness is going to be an issue.

You speak of holding people in certain roles to a different standard. Is the government doing that in your view? How are they going to do it?

[bluethread]

I find the "not-for-profit" status little more than a shell game. All one need do is hand out executive bonuses in ordered to recognize a non-profit. Even they are not a non-profit, that is why Facebook is paying no taxes this year. They simply issued stock options and since stocks always sell for multiples of the underlying value, the exercised options more than cover and profit.

The true inconsistancy is the taxation of corporations. Any profit that is distributed to owners or employees are taxed as income to those owners and employees. Those profits that are shovel back into the corporation increase the value of the corporation that is either taxed as captial gains to the employees or owners, or are taxed a the time of eventual distribution.