An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Clinton Supporters’ Demanding Emails To Superdelegates May Be Backfiring (UPDATED)

Young voters portend a Millennial Makeover »

Is tax-exempt status for Churches an obsolete idea?

Posted by PAUL SILVER in Economy.
May 9th, 2008 | Comments

The Carpetbagger Report has a piece on Churches to put their tax status on the line for the GOP?

Apparently some conservative churches want to be politically active AND keep their tax exempt status. I hope this issue provokes a serious reconsideration of the rationale for special tax treatment.

I have never been much of a fan of the idea of tax exempt status. It seems to me that these organizations use the resources of the community as much as anyone else: Police, Fire, EMS, Street maintenance, Water, Sewage… And to the extent that they do not share in the tax burden the rest of us have to pay more than our fair share. I can accept that these spiritual operations may be providing some services that benefit the community such as feeding the poor that deserve some consideration. Perhaps they can pay slightly lower taxes in proportion to the services they provide or the government can pay them for the services provided.

This is true also for the tax exempt status of government entities. Here in Austin the land and buildings owned by the State and Federal government do not pay property taxes and their holdings are significant. In downtown Austin the State owns more than 13,000 parking spaces in the form of lots and structures. Again, to the extent that these entities do not pay property taxes the higher are those taxes for the rest of us.

I used to think that the GOP would be the party to lead the effort to revisit the long term habits of government that may no longer be reasonable or justified. The current effort of the White House to resist excessive farm subsidies is welcome but it is only a tiny bite of a very large problem. All of our taxes would be lower if the exemptions were as few as possible.

Holly_in_Cincinnati

Americans United Condemns Religious Right Plot To Politicize Pulpits
Friday, May 9, 2008

Asking Churches To Violate Federal Tax Law Is Deplorable, Says AU's Lynn

A Religious Right group’s plan to ask churches to violate federal tax law on electioneering is deplorable, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is urging clergy to defy the tax-law ban on candidate endorsements by tax-exempt groups. Ministers are being pushed to use their pulpits on Sept. 28 to preach about candidates and spark a showdown.

The ADF, a theocracy-minded legal operation founded by right-wing religious broadcasters, hopes the Internal Revenue Service will launch investigations of these churches, thus opening the door to a federal test case of the constitutionality of the law......

http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsA...

Tim_in_Wisconsin

Uh... if government agencies had to pay property tax, wouldn't they just have to raise taxes in order to cover the costs of paying taxes?

I've got no problem with tax-exempt status for churches as there are for all apolitical non-profits. As non-profits provide services that augment what the government is capable of doing, and as they are obviously not making a profit, I think it is reasonable to not assess taxes on them. Every tax dollar assessed is one less that they can provide in services. To assess taxes on a church just because of its religious nature while not doing so on other non-profits would be a clear violation of equal protection. Their employees are not exempt from income tax or Social Security, so we're not missing out on anything there.

If, however, a church engages in actual electioneering, bring the hammer down. But the overwhelming majority of churches, synagougues, mosques, meeting houses, etc. do not do that.

GeorgeSorwell

This is the second post today to feature the Alliance Defense Fund.

Eventually, these issues will be determined by the courts. Federal Judges receive a lifetime appointment, once confirmed.

Elections have consequences.

runasim

I've believed for a long time that simply being a religious organization should not be a qualifier for tax-exempt status,

But I'm not against all tax-exemptions. Tax-exemptions can be a useful tool to spur activities that benefit the nation. For example, when I remarked how much in need of repair many of the landmark cathedrals in France appeared to be, I was told by many Frenchmen that donations were sparse because there is no equivalent to our tax exemptions in France. If true, then that's one thing to consider.

Related to this is the argument that churches provide services that answer needs where government can't reach. I would agree, but a church is much more than the humanitarian services it provides, It also spends a lot of money on simply expanding its own brand of religious influence. Tax payers should not underwrite proselytization.or its equivalents.

It appears to me, then, that tax-exemptions according to what an organization dioes, not accoridng ot what it is (church, etc) can be useful.
The risk is, however, that when such exemptions become automatic and are not periodically reviewed, they may end up encouraging activities that are out of date and no longer necessary.

We need to develop a more sophisticated way of looking at this. To begin, granting tax-exempt status to any group.should never be automatic according to classifications such as religion.

I don't know enough to make a judgment about government lands and buildings.
A first reaction, though, was to wonder if this wouldn't be like asking a landlord to pay rent to himself.

Slamfu

I'm against anything that gives whiny persecution complex prone christian righties more crap to complain about.

superdestroyer

Runasim, I guess you skipped the constitution question. Your heavy handed regulationof regulation is definitely forbidden. I guess liberal always believe that Separation of church and state is in the constitution and that prohibition on free exercise of religion is not. After reading the "liberals are not authoritarisn" meme ten times a day, It is not hard to fing the liberals really are authoritarians in your comments.

blog comments powered by Disqus