Time to rescind tax free status from religious institutions

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

You discriminate against people, you don't get tax breaks.  For churches that spend most of what they take in on ministries and expenses, then this will not be that big of a deal.  But for those that make a lot of money, fuck you.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You discriminate against people, you don't get tax breaks.  For churches that spend most of what they take in on ministries and expenses, then this will not be that big of a deal.  But for those that make a lot of money, fuck you.  

Also, I am willing to exempt schools (i.e. private schools, colleges, and universities) from this because paying tax would simply mean more burden on the students.  Further, I am not sure how much they are making as profit...

[workswithseed 2142]

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You discriminate against people, you don't get tax breaks.  For churches that spend most of what they take in on ministries and expenses, then this will not be that big of a deal.  But for those that make a lot of money, fuck you.  

Women outreach programs for the abused should be taxed then. Okay.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Women outreach programs for the abused should be taxed then. Okay.

Obviously, you are not watching the news, eh?

[workswithseed 2142]

Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Obviously, you are not watching the news, eh?

I have not heard anything. Mind posting a link? 

[hookemATL 12005]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

I have not heard anything. Mind posting a link? 

lemme dig up a 12 minute youtube video real quick...standby

[Brisketexan 105690]

I don't agree with Penelope's take -- the fact that some tax-exempt religious institutions are either super-shitty, racist, etc., or are primarily grifts to enrich a "pastor" (see Osteen) does not support a blanket revocation of the status.  The government should do its best to stay out of the affairs of religious organizations, and the fact remains that religious entities perform an enormous amount of actual ministerial and charitable work (the hell of it is, they mostly don't go out and try to grab headlines for that stuff....but the shittheels who burn Korans and preach white supremacy issue press releases).

That also means that I don't agree with the "conservative" take that would revoke/sharply limit things like WIC programs and the like, because of "welfare queens" and "they buy candy and soda with it!" -- the fact that some recipients of WIC and similar assistance misuse/abuse it doesn't mean that the programs are bad.  The truth is that millions are fed, legitimately and without abuse, by these programs.

I think we should be consistent.  Any program, exemption, etc, will see abuse and such.  If your position is that the entire program should be scrapped because of it, then be consistent.  If your position is the other way, then be consistent.

[workswithseed 2142]

1 minute ago, hookemATL said:

lemme dig up a 12 minute youtube video real quick...standby

Easier that way for me. I don't have time to read.

[Nivek 17076]

No sacred cows. Exemptions always get abused.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't agree with Penelope's take -- the fact that some tax-exempt religious institutions are either super-shitty, racist, etc., or are primarily grifts to enrich a "pastor" (see Osteen) does not support a blanket revocation of the status.  The government should do its best to stay out of the affairs of religious organizations, and the fact remains that religious entities perform an enormous amount of actual ministerial and charitable work (the hell of it is, they mostly don't go out and try to grab headlines for that stuff....but the shittheels who burn Korans and preach white supremacy issue press releases).

That also means that I don't agree with the "conservative" take that would revoke/sharply limit things like WIC programs and the like, because of "welfare queens" and "they buy candy and soda with it!" -- the fact that some recipients of WIC and similar assistance misuse/abuse it doesn't mean that the programs are bad.  The truth is that millions are fed, legitimately and without abuse, by these programs.

I think we should be consistent.  Any program, exemption, etc, will see abuse and such.  If your position is that the entire program should be scrapped because of it, then be consistent.  If your position is the other way, then be consistent.

Then let me clarify.  Private schools are exempt, whether they are secular or religious.

Churches lose their exemption.  Sorry, but the Archdiocese of NY has made a fucking fortune closing ministries and selling properties in NYC, hid fucking pedophiles and send the spoiles to the Vatican.  They should be subject to the same taxation as other businesses.  You spend everything you make, you won't pay tax.  Remember, the big exemption for religious institutions is property tax.  They get to sit on prime RE for fucking free.

[TwiceHorn 31705]

I'm more concerned about those churches that clearly employ the pulpit as a political platform.

I don't want tax exemptions revoked across the board.  I do, however, want enforcement of the provisions of Section 501 of the IRC and swift revocation of the exemption for those who do not qualify.

And similar treatment for those receiving state tax exemptions under state law.

I don't like it, but I think private individuals and organizations should mostly remain free to discriminate.  Let them get canceled.

[Nivek 17076]

Religious organizations do not provide a greater good than a grocery store or than an engineer that builds bridges and roads. This idea that God’s House should not pay taxes like the rest of us shifts that tax burden to others based on a belief system/clubhouse. It is absurd that this exists.

It is easy to find examples of abuse, but the whole system is predicated on a lie that it is special and that religious folks are special because of a belief system.

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Religious organizations do not provide a greater good than a grocery store or than an engineer that builds bridges and roads. This idea that God’s House should not pay taxes like the rest of us shifts that tax burden to others based on a belief system/clubhouse. It is absurd that this exists.

It is easy to find examples of abuse, but the whole system is predicated on a lie that it is special and that religious folks are special because of a belief system.

[Brisketexan 105690]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Religious organizations do not provide a greater good than a grocery store or than an engineer that builds bridges and roads. This idea that God’s House should not pay taxes like the rest of us shifts that tax burden to others based on a belief system/clubhouse. It is absurd that this exists.

It is easy to find examples of abuse, but the whole system is predicated on a lie that it is special and that religious folks are special because of a belief system.

The reason for the tax exemption actually isn't "because churches do good."  It's much more elementary than that.  Taxation is an influence on and/or impediment to conduct and behavior.  The US made a foundational decision that the government should stay the fuck out of religion, because once the gov't gets involved, favorites get picked, less-preferred faiths get shit on, etc.  So we just said "nope, stay the hell out altogether."

The gov't generally doesn't regulate or tax jack shit with respect to Baptist churches, mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, what have you.  For all of them, the government follows its GTFO principle.  

And the exemption and the question of political/non-political activity doesn't relate to whether the religious outfit is good or bad, or does good or bad.  Rather, it's about the true nature and character of the entity.  If it is instead a political entity, then it's not entitled to treatment as a religious entity (I say that as a general proposition of law, there are details and specifics behind that).

I can certainly understand criticism of this path, but you should understand that it's not a novel or controversial thing that we chose to do.  Rather, it was one of our initial, foundational decisions about how our system of government should work: it should stay the hell out of the affairs of religion, across the board.  Now, I have some criticisms about how that principle has been interpreted (several courts have taken the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine too far, IMHO), but I don't quibble with the fact that it IS a foundational principle.

[Guest Lobo]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

No sacred cows. Exemptions always get abused.

You call altar boys' mouths, exemptions?  Sickie. 

[deadshank 24653]

2 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Easier that way for me. I don't have time to read.

Why no time to read?  Took on two jobs? 

[956 Worldwide 34994]

There are a shit-ton of secular nonprofits that enjoy tax free status, sit on prime real estate, advance causes that are noxious, and/or defraud the system and exist primarily as money making ventures for those that run and establish them. In fact, I’d wager that the percentage of secular non-profits that exist solely as tax shelters and don’t really engage in their core mission far outweighs the number of “fake” churches. 

Unless you’re going to blow up tax-free status for them, too, I don’t see how this isn’t simply an attempt to use the state to smother a belief(s) you don’t like, and raises serious first amendment questions. 
 

Go after entities that break laws and violate the no political speech restrictions, don’t blow up the whole system. 

[deadshank 24653]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You discriminate against people, you don't get tax breaks.  For churches that spend most of what they take in on ministries and expenses, then this will not be that big of a deal.  But for those that make a lot of money, fuck you.  

I didn't realize it's that time of year again.  

The offseason sucks.

[Walden Ponderer 12639]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The reason for the tax exemption actually isn't "because churches do good."  It's much more elementary than that.  Taxation is an influence on and/or impediment to conduct and behavior.  The US made a foundational decision that the government should stay the fuck out of religion, because once the gov't gets involved, favorites get picked, less-preferred faiths get shit on, etc.  So we just said "nope, stay the hell out altogether."

The gov't generally doesn't regulate or tax jack shit with respect to Baptist churches, mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, what have you.  For all of them, the government follows its GTFO principle.  

And the exemption and the question of political/non-political activity doesn't relate to whether the religious outfit is good or bad, or does good or bad.  Rather, it's about the true nature and character of the entity.  If it is instead a political entity, then it's not entitled to treatment as a religious entity (I say that as a general proposition of law, there are details and specifics behind that).

I can certainly understand criticism of this path, but you should understand that it's not a novel or controversial thing that we chose to do.  Rather, it was one of our initial, foundational decisions about how our system of government should work: it should stay the hell out of the affairs of religion, across the board.  Now, I have some criticisms about how that principle has been interpreted (several courts have taken the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine too far, IMHO), but I don't quibble with the fact that it IS a foundational principle.

Tax exemption is the opposite of staying the fuck out; it is a positive endorsement of organizing as a religious organization, and government shouldn't be doing that.

[Js1 85892]

5 minutes ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Tax exemption is the opposite of staying the fuck out; it is a positive endorsement of organizing as a religious organization, and government shouldn't be doing that.

Right? That's where I'm at.  There's a disconnect there.

[Brisketexan 105690]

1 minute ago, Walden Ponderer said:

Tax exemption is the opposite of staying the fuck out; it is a positive endorsement of organizing as a religious organization, and government shouldn't be doing that.

Sorry, but that's flatly wrong.

Taxes are absolutely a governmental tool to influence behavior and implement gov't policy, and always have been (going back to the crown, when we were colonies).  They aren't just a neutral fundraising mechanism.

Giving a tax credit for an electric car or solar panels isn't "neutral" -- they're policy actions to favor green transportation and energy.

"Sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes aren't "neutral" -- they are policy actions to disfavor harmful vices.

 

I just pulled out a couple of easy ones....there are 11 billion other ones in both state and federal tax codes.  Taxation inevitably creates policy winners and losers, and the government -- or actually, the people who created the government from the get-go -- decided that with respect to causing policy impacts on religious enterprises, our approach is

[Serak The Preparer 3436]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sorry, but that's flatly wrong.

Taxes are absolutely a governmental tool to influence behavior and implement gov't policy, and always have been (going back to the crown, when we were colonies).  They aren't just a neutral fundraising mechanism.

Giving a tax credit for an electric car or solar panels isn't "neutral" -- they're policy actions to favor green transportation and energy.

"Sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes aren't "neutral" -- they are policy actions to disfavor harmful vices.

 

I just pulled out a couple of easy ones....there are 11 billion other ones in both state and federal tax codes.  Taxation inevitably creates policy winners and losers, and the government -- or actually, the people who created the government from the get-go -- decided that with respect to causing policy impacts on religious enterprises, our approach is

I wise man once told me "If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice". The decision not to tax non-profits the same way that other properties / businesses are taxed is inherently favoring non-profits (religious or otherwise). This may or may not be good, that is a separate discussion, but all decisions on tax (high, low, or non-applicable) are driven by incentivizing behavior.

[956 Worldwide 34994]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sorry, but that's flatly wrong.

Taxes are absolutely a governmental tool to influence behavior and implement gov't policy, and always have been (going back to the crown, when we were colonies).  They aren't just a neutral fundraising mechanism.

Giving a tax credit for an electric car or solar panels isn't "neutral" -- they're policy actions to favor green transportation and energy.

"Sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes aren't "neutral" -- they are policy actions to disfavor harmful vices.

 

I just pulled out a couple of easy ones....there are 11 billion other ones in both state and federal tax codes.  Taxation inevitably creates policy winners and losers, and the government -- or actually, the people who created the government from the get-go -- decided that with respect to causing policy impacts on religious enterprises, our approach is

The obvious answer is that if I want to start a Society to Secularly Discuss the Meaning of the Universe and Advance Mutual Benevolence— I can absolutely do that and not pay taxes. And if the government comes along and says that the people doing the same thing next door, but with Jesus, have to pay taxes, then all of a sudden the government had plunged straight into taking sides in religion. Which is something we don’t do.

[Brisketexan 105690]

7 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I wise man once told me "If you choose not to decide you have still made a choice". The decision not to tax non-profits the same way that other properties / businesses are taxed is inherently favoring non-profits (religious or otherwise). This may or may not be good, that is a separate discussion, but all decisions on tax (high, low, or non-applicable) are driven by incentivizing behavior.

All churches are non-profits (well, they're supposed to be).

Not all non-profits are churches.  We made a decision to exempt non-profits from taxation.  So, the "Society to Discuss Stuff" can have its tax-exempt status changed by a new policy decision, and that would NOT run afoul of our foundational principle of "gov't stays out of religious affairs."

The decision to not tax churches was not one of incentivizing that particular behavior; it was part and parcel of a suite of decisions to not get involved in religious affairs.  Some of those other decisions: churches can discriminate in their hiring and firing decisions, and churches can adjudicate contractual disputes between members using bizarre religious principles as decision points, among numerous other things that would be an issue if a non-religious entity did them.

The government just stays the fuck out.

I'm not arguing against what may be your position -- that the government should treat religious enterprises like any other entity.  Someday, we may alter our Constitution to allow just that.  Just understand that it opens the door to exactly what you abhor -- favoritism of religion (that is, a PARTICULAR religion).  So, the State of Texas can decide that all religious organizations must pay property taxes....unless that religious organization files a form acknowledging that it believes that gun-toting Republican Jesus is the Lord and Savior of all mankind, and THOSE organizations get a tax break.  Which, of course, is exactly what the founders were trying to avoid -- having ANY mechanism available (and taxation is one of those mechanisms) to establish what amounts to a State Religion.

If we want the government to treat all faiths -- christian, hindu, muslim, etc. -- equally, then the only way to guarantee that is for the gov't to stay the fuck out altogether.

[WhatTheBuck 28851]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You discriminate against people, you don't get tax breaks.  For churches that spend most of what they take in on ministries and expenses, then this will not be that big of a deal.  But for those that make a lot of money, fuck you.  

Scientology lawsuits coming in 5, 4, 3, 2...

[TwiceHorn 31705]

40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The reason for the tax exemption actually isn't "because churches do good."  It's much more elementary than that.  Taxation is an influence on and/or impediment to conduct and behavior.  The US made a foundational decision that the government should stay the fuck out of religion, because once the gov't gets involved, favorites get picked, less-preferred faiths get shit on, etc.  So we just said "nope, stay the hell out altogether."

The gov't generally doesn't regulate or tax jack shit with respect to Baptist churches, mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, what have you.  For all of them, the government follows its GTFO principle.  

And the exemption and the question of political/non-political activity doesn't relate to whether the religious outfit is good or bad, or does good or bad.  Rather, it's about the true nature and character of the entity.  If it is instead a political entity, then it's not entitled to treatment as a religious entity (I say that as a general proposition of law, there are details and specifics behind that).

I can certainly understand criticism of this path, but you should understand that it's not a novel or controversial thing that we chose to do.  Rather, it was one of our initial, foundational decisions about how our system of government should work: it should stay the hell out of the affairs of religion, across the board.  Now, I have some criticisms about how that principle has been interpreted (several courts have taken the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine too far, IMHO), but I don't quibble with the fact that it IS a foundational principle.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Daniel Webster, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

18 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The obvious answer is that if I want to start a Society to Secularly Discuss the Meaning of the Universe and Advance Mutual Benevolence— I can absolutely do that and not pay taxes. And if the government comes along and says that the people doing the same thing next door, but with Jesus, have to pay taxes, then all of a sudden the government had plunged straight into taking sides in religion. Which is something we don’t do.

I would be in favor of all non profits being taxed.  If they followed the same model as companies, then if you are spending everything you take in, no income tax.  On property, the benefit from the services that property taxes pay for, so why not have to pay them?

 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Scientology lawsuits coming in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Specifically, I am talking about this dangerous idea that you can be a terrible shitbag if it is because of your religion (see the SCOTUS finding against Philly).  I can discriminate because I say it is against my religion.  It basically creates castes of people who are treated worse than others.  It is bullshit.

[South Austin 52764]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Daniel Webster, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Haley v. United States. Haley seven, United States nothing. You see it can be done!

[956 Worldwide 34994]

11 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I would be in favor of all non profits being taxed.  If they followed the same model as companies, then if you are spending everything you take in, no income tax.  On property, the benefit from the services that property taxes pay for, so why not have to pay them?

 

 

You’ve just reversed course from your own self earlier in the thread when you wanted a carve out for schools. Why schools and not hospitals (while we’re talking about a real estate racket)? And if hospitals are OK, why not AA or NA? And if AA can get an exemption, then….

You’re just walking down a road of the government deciding what type of do-gooding and motivation is acceptable to earn the “privilege” of tax-free status. And that’s rubbing against the grain of our legal tradition. 

[WhatTheBuck 28851]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Specifically, I am talking about this dangerous idea that you can be a terrible shitbag if it is because of your religion (see the SCOTUS finding against Philly).  I can discriminate because I say it is against my religion.  It basically creates castes of people who are treated worse than others.  It is bullshit.

I agree it’s bullshit. But I tuned into MSNBC for a little bit at noon today (for Andrea Mitchell Reports which was hosted by Kasie Hunt while Andrea was over in Europe covering Biden’s trip) and the top stories were the two SCOTUS decisions. Someone pointed out that no gay couples have ever sought to adopt a child through the Catholic Church in Philly and there are dozens of other organizations to choose from.

Believe me, I think religion does more harm than good in the world. It’s more of a way to divide people into “Us” versus “Them” and we don’t need it to care about others. But the Scientologists enjoy tax exempt status because they filed harassing lawsuits against every politician who opposed it until they just threw up their arms and said, ‘Fuck it.’ So that’s just the fucked up world we live in. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5139]

In general I find it hard to reconcile the dual belief that a member of my organization should be protected from the law if he is a pedophile, but at the same time some random gay couple shouldn't be allowed to raise children or to teach them, or in some cases even attend the schools my organization runs.

I don't know what the answer is other than to not give money to any organizations with those views and to encourage others to follow my example.

I will say that US churches in general have spent the better part of the life of this country persecuting my people, and the part of me that craves revenge would be completely on board with a little reverse persecution.  They've definitely earned it.  I also do not like the idea of my taxes being what they are in part to make up the shortfall that happens because these persecutors are tax exempt.  

I try not to be revenge minded, though, so I don't have a good answer to this question.

 

 

[Js1 85892]

19 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Specifically, I am talking about this dangerous idea that you can be a terrible shitbag if it is because of your religion (see the SCOTUS finding against Philly).  I can discriminate because I say it is against my religion.  It basically creates castes of people who are treated worse than others.  It is bullshit.

That ruling ended up being more complicated than it appeared/was reported. 

The lawyers can handle it, but it was not a blanket "all adoption agencies have a blanket right to ban adoptions to gay couples" 

[Brisketexan 105690]

Just now, Js1 said:

That ruling ended up being more complicated than it appeared/was reported. 

The lawyers can handle it, but it was not a blanket "all adoption agencies have a blanket right to ban adoptions to gay couples" 

Correct.  It's complicated.  It's based on the fact that the contract had an out clause of "but anyone can get an exemption from the city's 'no discrimination' rule at the sole discretion of one city official."  That meant that it was NOT a "law of general applicability" such that it didn't need to be scrutinized for encroachment on the church's free exercise of religion (the standard of the Smith case).  Of more concern was the dissent of Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, functionally calling for Smith to be repealed, and ALL laws, even general laws, if they impact on a religious entity, should be subjected to "strict scrutiny" review.  Barrett and Kavanaugh are open to reconsidering the broad Smith rule, but not to a full repeal and application of strict scrutiny across the board.  In any case, there could be a change coming.   And most posters on this thread would not like it (I wouldn't either).

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

You’ve just reversed course from your own self earlier in the thread when you wanted a carve out for schools. Why schools and not hospitals (while we’re talking about a real estate racket)? And if hospitals are OK, why not AA or NA? And if AA can get an exemption, then….
You’re just walking down a road of the government deciding what type of do-gooding and motivation is acceptable to earn the “privilege” of tax-free status. And that’s rubbing against the grain of our legal tradition. 

I just said all non profits. Tax them all like business. Fuck it.

[Fudge Nuggets 19292]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Sorry, but that's flatly wrong.

Taxes are absolutely a governmental tool to influence behavior and implement gov't policy, and always have been (going back to the crown, when we were colonies).  They aren't just a neutral fundraising mechanism.

Giving a tax credit for an electric car or solar panels isn't "neutral" -- they're policy actions to favor green transportation and energy.

"Sin taxes" on booze and cigarettes aren't "neutral" -- they are policy actions to disfavor harmful vices.

 

I just pulled out a couple of easy ones....there are 11 billion other ones in both state and federal tax codes.  Taxation inevitably creates policy winners and losers, and the government -- or actually, the people who created the government from the get-go -- decided that with respect to causing policy impacts on religious enterprises, our approach is

Aren’t you married to a preacher woman?  We are on to your nefarious ways and know why you’re really for keeping things the way they are.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19246]

Correct.  It's complicated.  It's based on the fact that the contract had an out clause of "but anyone can get an exemption from the city's 'no discrimination' rule at the sole discretion of one city official."  That meant that it was NOT a "law of general applicability" such that it didn't need to be scrutinized for encroachment on the church's free exercise of religion (the standard of the Smith case).  Of more concern was the dissent of Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, functionally calling for Smith to be repealed, and ALL laws, even general laws, if they impact on a religious entity, should be subjected to "strict scrutiny" review.  Barrett and Kavanaugh are open to reconsidering the broad Smith rule, but not to a full repeal and application of strict scrutiny across the board.  In any case, there could be a change coming.   And most posters on this thread would not like it (I wouldn't either).

Yes, I'm aware. It is still pointing to, you can discriminate against people if you claim it's due to religion. It's disgusting.

[Brisketexan 105690]

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Aren’t you married to a preacher woman?  We are on to your nefarious ways and know why you’re really for keeping things the way they are.

Yep.  And believe me, if she managed to make it a money-making enterprise, I'd be all for it.  Several times, I've pitched to her the idea of us becoming a great televangelist huckster couple, making millions off of the suckers, but she stubbornly insists on "good theology" and "being a good person."  I swear, I have no idea why I married her.

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.  It's complicated.  It's based on the fact that the contract had an out clause of "but anyone can get an exemption from the city's 'no discrimination' rule at the sole discretion of one city official."  That meant that it was NOT a "law of general applicability" such that it didn't need to be scrutinized for encroachment on the church's free exercise of religion (the standard of the Smith case).  Of more concern was the dissent of Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas, functionally calling for Smith to be repealed, and ALL laws, even general laws, if they impact on a religious entity, should be subjected to "strict scrutiny" review.  Barrett and Kavanaugh are open to reconsidering the broad Smith rule, but not to a full repeal and application of strict scrutiny across the board.  In any case, there could be a change coming.   And most posters on this thread would not like it (I wouldn't either).

Yes, I'm aware. It is still pointing to, you can discriminate against people if you claim it's due to religion. It's disgusting.

ZERO disagreement from me.  Cruel discrimination pisses me off.  Cruel discrimination in the name of religion -- most every one of which preaches that the essence of God is love -- takes that rage to 11+.  It's utter dickishness squared.

[Chewbacca 7807]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You discriminate against people, you don't get tax breaks.  For churches that spend most of what they take in on ministries and expenses, then this will not be that big of a deal.  But for those that make a lot of money, fuck you.  

You gonna take away tax exempt status from all nonprofits, or just ones you don't like?  Because that's really all they are.  Nonprofits.  You can start your own nonprofit if you want.

 

I do agree that they should lose the special rules they get where they don't have to disclose all the information that other nonprofits do.  That should be done away with and they should be treated just like every other nonprofit out there.

[Chewbacca 7807]

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

No sacred cows. Exemptions always get abused.

So no more nonprofits for you, too?  No more Planned Parenthood?  No more American Cancer Society?  

Or do you just want the ability to discriminate yourself?

[Brew 3049]

I’m with Brisket for the most part. There is good and bad in the world on nonprofits and churches, but the good far and away outweighs the bad and I don’t think you go after all of them for the sins of a few. There should be a system the challenges their status periodically to make sure they are  following their formation documents though.

Also, churches should have to file 990’s rather than it be optional. That makes no sense and that way comp, lawsuits, and other spending is disclosed. I also think they should have to pay property tax. 

[Nivek 17076]

The reason for the tax exemption actually isn't "because churches do good."  It's much more elementary than that.  Taxation is an influence on and/or impediment to conduct and behavior.  The US made a foundational decision that the government should stay the fuck out of religion, because once the gov't gets involved, favorites get picked, less-preferred faiths get shit on, etc.  So we just said "nope, stay the hell out altogether."
The gov't generally doesn't regulate or tax jack shit with respect to Baptist churches, mosques, synagogues, Hindu temples, what have you.  For all of them, the government follows its GTFO principle.  
And the exemption and the question of political/non-political activity doesn't relate to whether the religious outfit is good or bad, or does good or bad.  Rather, it's about the true nature and character of the entity.  If it is instead a political entity, then it's not entitled to treatment as a religious entity (I say that as a general proposition of law, there are details and specifics behind that).
I can certainly understand criticism of this path, but you should understand that it's not a novel or controversial thing that we chose to do.  Rather, it was one of our initial, foundational decisions about how our system of government should work: it should stay the hell out of the affairs of religion, across the board.  Now, I have some criticisms about how that principle has been interpreted (several courts have taken the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine too far, IMHO), but I don't quibble with the fact that it IS a foundational principle.

Exemptions from taxation was commonplace for certain religious groups by the Brits. This notion of exemption didn’t start here. I highly doubt the founders were worried that Zoorasters and Buddhists would be treated unfairly but they wisely made blanket proclamations because we were a land that owed its foundations as a sanctuary for asshole pilgrims who lost favor for being assholes in England.

Not taxing them is the endorsement. It is not staying out of religion it is favoring it. We have laws which govern women’s basic animal functions, laws about where you can insert your penis in your bedroom with your wife. This is from an infection of religion into government with government approval. This certainly isn’t GTFO. And don’t tell me we have freedom of religion not from religion speech. I know that. But let’s not pretend government isn’t interfering when it regulates women’s bodily functions, man’s need to drink, etc, or how one religion is favored on holiday over all others in forms of recognition. But let’s back on track:

You are still free to believe in God and enjoy pot luck meals and pay taxes. Paying taxes does not prevent you from going to church or prevent your church from hosting. If they need to move or raise money selling holy wafers breakfast cereal, so be it.

[WhatTheBuck 28851]

23 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

So no more nonprofits for you, too?  No more Planned Parenthood?  No more American Cancer Society?  

No more NCAA?

[Keef 795]

I'm not totally clear on the status of the Johnson Amendment (I think it is still technically on the books?), but I once went to a church service while visiting my grandmother in small town west Texas where the pastor compared the "persecution" of Trump to Jesus.  It's basically impossible to enforce/police, but if you're getting a tax break from the government, you should not be a political vehicle.  I'm sure the IRS ignores 99% of cases because it would immediately be put on blast on Fox News ("IRS stormtroopers audit freedom loving small town church over its Christian beliefs and free speech").

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

If we made all non profits pay property taxes we would basically have to eliminate property taxes for them to even exist in most large metro areas.

[Brew 3049]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If we made all non profits pay property taxes we would basically have to eliminate property taxes for them to even exist in most large metro areas.

Maybe or maybe they use their support differently or raise additional funds. I do work for a nonprofit that has 20 or so employees. They have had offers in excess of $40M to buy their current headquarters. What helps them meet the purpose of their charter more, that tied up in one piece of real estate or that available to be spent on their work?

[Nivek 17076]

The obvious answer is that if I want to start a Society to Secularly Discuss the Meaning of the Universe and Advance Mutual Benevolence— I can absolutely do that and not pay taxes. And if the government comes along and says that the people doing the same thing next door, but with Jesus, have to pay taxes, then all of a sudden the government had plunged straight into taking sides in religion. Which is something we don’t do.

Sure John Oliver made a church and I can too. What does the state need to do then to offset the taxes on the religious buildings I now own?

Exemptions on taxes lead to those taxes being made up elsewhere. If we had a homogenous society and we all went to church than it works itself out, once we diversify, than we have winners and losers. I lose because I get to pay for baptist real estate. Some baptist wins because those taxes are socialized to me. This isn’t public land, they can restrict access.

Your idea forces me into actions to come up with a system that socializes my clubhouse that I don’t want or need in order to have an equal system. Which raises taxes upon everyone else. Which is the point.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13567]

Found a John Oliver clip from several years ago. He mentions (@ 10:10 mark) that the IRS can audit a church, and at that point they had audited 3 churches in 3 years. The takeaway being that a church can be used to funnel money to individuals and they most likely will never get caught by anyone. Especially if they're successful.

 

[Nivek 17076]

If we made all non profits pay property taxes we would basically have to eliminate property taxes for them to even exist in most large metro areas.

Then maybe they would be forced to streamline and end after their mission is complete (MADD) or not have lavish parties in Vegas (wounded warrior) and become perpetual fundraising machines.

[Keef 795]

There is also a distinction between non-profits and tax-exempt entities.  Not all non-profits are tax-exempt (like the NFL a few years back) - to qualify for tax-exempt status, there are all sorts of additional hoops you have to jump through to demonstrate to the IRS that you should be tax-exempt.