"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
Ben Franklin, (Poor Richard's Almanac, 1754)
"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt for equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community."
James A Garfield, 20th U.S. President (1881)
Many "non-profit" organizations in the nation are granted tax exempt status. The Red Cross, Boy Scouts, Salvation Army and numerous others, including all recognized churches. While many of these are truly not-for-profit institutions, anyone who believes that churches are not profitable should look at the vast resources and property that churches have acquired.
In order to qualify for tax-exempt status, an organization must show that its purpose serves the public good, as opposed to a private interest. Organizations that are exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) are those whose purposes are religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational. They may also foster national or international amateur sports competition, prevent cruelty to children or animals, or test for public safety.
In 2001, over 240,000 information returns were filed by tax-exempt entities. These organizations held over $1.6 trillion in assets, an increase of 4 percent from 2000, and reported $897 billion in revenue. Those numbers are undoubtedly much higher today. If property taxes were assessed on the real property part of the $1.6 trillion, and income tax were paid on the nearly $1 trillion in income, we would probably not have a budget deficit! Now here's the shocking part. The above numbers do not include churches! I have not been able to find a credible estimate for the lost income from church tax exemptions, but the number must be staggering.
Tax exemptions are a form of government subsidy. Therefore, tax exemptions granted to churches are government subsidies of religious institutions. As President Garfield said, a tax exemption is a tax on everyone else, because the exempt institution, by not paying its share, shifts that burden to the rest of society. Isn't that a violation of the First Amendment clause that says that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion?
Why are tax exemptions equivalent to subsidies?
Let's say you give $1000 to your local church over the course of a year. At the end of the year, when you prepare tax return, you can deduct that contribution from your taxable income if you itemize deductions. If you are in the 30% tax bracket, that means that the government does not get $300 in tax revenue that they would have collected if you had not made that donation. In effect, you are giving your church $700, and the government is giving them $300. How does this differ from the Oil Depletion Allowance subsidy offered to oil companies or the huge payments to agribusiness for not growing crops? There is no difference.
Ignoring for the moment the Constitutional question, is this good government policy? Tax exemptions are "expenditures" by the government over which they have absolutely no control. If you elect to give $2000 to the church next year, the government will have a revenue shortfall of $600. Multiply this by millions of taxpayers, and it is clear that the inevitable result must be some combination of higher tax rates, reduced funding for government services and increased government debt. These "expenditures" require no government action...no appropriations bill to be debated, no lobbying to influence the outcome. It is a silent and invisible drain on the nation's coffers. The IRS is the sole arbiter of who gets tax-exempt status. Theoretically, states could make independent exemptions, but in practice, state and local authorities abide by the IRS decisions.
Consider the other effects of the tax exempt status of churches. The Catholic Church is one of the largest landowners in the nation. All of that land and the structures on it are completely exempt from property taxes. The income that the church receives from donors is equally tax-exempt. Government at all levels is giving a lot of money to churches and other tax exempt institutions. The money they are giving is ours...money collected from us, the taxpayers. That deduction on your tax form may look good, but the government is collecting that, and probably more, from you in the form of higher tax rates than would otherwise be necessary without the tax-exempt drain on revenues.
Tax exemptions are offered because contributions to charitable institutions are seen as a "good thing...a desirable action by citizens that is to be encouraged. But do they pass the test? Are the results beneficial to the nation as a whole?
Clearly, churches do many "good works" by providing food and shelter for needy persons for example, but they also proselytize...push their religion...and even engage in political activities to advance their religious agenda. not only in Congress, but also in government at state and local levels. There is no restriction on how churches may use their money. Some of it surely is used to promote their faith through missionaries, printing of religious material, etc. This seems to me to be in direct violation of the Constitution.
The media have recently been full of articles about religious institutions using their facilities for political purposes. The IRS has warned several churches that they are in danger of losing their tax exempt status. IRS enforcement of this has been sporadic and uneven at best. At the moment, IRS attention seems to be focused on sermons from the pulpit that are critical of the Iraq War, rather than on the outright political campaigning for Republican candidates, mostly by southern churches, that has been reported in the media. Both activities are prohibited for tax-exempt institutions, but the current emphasis seems to favor the party in power.
But the real question is, "why tax exemptions?" It could be argued that tax exemptions give individuals control over which charitable institutions are supported, rather than letting government make those choices. The trouble with this is that wealthy individuals are given more "control" than the poor ones. Their larger donations mandate a larger increase in tax on everyone else. Is this fair? Shouldn't everyone have an equal "vote" in how government money is spent? If this is fair for funding of charities and churches, then shouldn't the rich individual have a proportionally greater say in how defense spending is allocated since he pays more in taxes? Should his vote for President or for members of Congress be weighted by how much tax he pays? You will look in vain in the Constitution for any such provisions. In fact, our country is based on the principle of "one man, one vote."
If the government wants to encourage certain activities, let them allocate the funds for that purpose explicitly, rather than through the "backdoor" route of tax exemptions. Let the light of day and public debate shine on each expenditure so that its merits can be judged.
What would be the results of such a radical change? The most important result is that tax rates could drop substantially. The resultant lower tax rates would leave most people with more disposable income, and many would probably be willing to maintain their donations to churches and other charities that they support. If they were not, then surely Ben Franklin is right.
But most importantly, religious organizations would be treated as the Constitution dictates, and you and I would not be paying for the government funding of religion.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 86
Where is Solomon when you need him?
Richard,
I understand your wish to encourage humanitarian services by churches, and I agree that is is an activity that should be encouraged, and I further agree that it is probably more efficient to have private institutions perform these services. But is tax exemption the way to encourage it? What prevents the church from using the money that it doesn't spend on taxes on missionary activities? Or worse yet, political activities?
Wouldn't it be better for the government to collect taxes from those institutions and then give them a grant...or a subsidy if you will...that is explicitly for those humanitarian activities? With careful oversight to assure that the money is used for the intended purpose?
The exemption also eliminates taxes from two parts of the collection system; from the donor, who recieves a tax discount for the donation, and for the recipient organization, which pays no tax on the gift either. Indeed, religion is being subsidized.
This is just one more example of corporate welfare in America.
Exactly right, Sean, with the added problem that it tangles the church and the state, and forces nonbelievers to contribute to religious institutions that they don't believe in.
Both would essentially be on after tax income, and the increased revenue would be offset by decreases in taxes on everyone. To be fair, there would need to be tax credits given to the poor & lower income brackets: since they do not pay federal taxes, it would amount to a new tax on the poor. Perhaps a better solution would be to reduce social security taxes, as that is a tax that disproportionatly afffects the lower classes.
With lower income taxes, the effective $300 government subsidy on your donation of $1000 would at least be reduced to $100-$200. Perhaps not a complete solution, but
Good comments as always. Thanks.
Social Security and sales taxes are both regressive taxes...i.e., they tax lower income people disproportionally. The current administration is all about reducing taxes on the rich. The result of that is either reduced services, greater debt, or increased taxes on the NOT rich.
Hopefully, this will change soon.
Churches have a right to tax exemption. Worshippers do not.
Why do churches have a "right" to tax exemption?
And I agree with you that worshipping cats should definitely be tax deductible!
I rarely feel the need to defend the First Amendment.
But I will add a caveat, that once any church or religious organization crosses into the political arena they risk loss of tax exemption. This has not been enforced with any vigor from the IRS, yet the Catholic church often donates large sums to anti-gay causes and threatens Catholic lawmakers. And one has to question the many Fundamentalist/Evangelical churches that routinely hand over their registry to the Republican Party. I find it impossible to describe the organizations of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as churches. They are steeped in a history of crime, corruption, and political manipulation.
People making >$75,000 pay 75% of all federal taxes.
And that's about the entire argument. They never mention that people making >$75k earn about 63% of the taxable income in the US. Nor do they mention all of the other regressive taxes that disproportionaly weigh on the poor (state, local, sales, property taxes). Here in PA, people in the top 1% income bracket pay about 3.5% in state & local taxes, while people in the bottom 80% pay about 8-11% (it's worse as one gets lower). (These are just some numbers I had on hand...)
churches are eligible, then they are safe from,
"enact no law to establish a religion" clause.
These discussions could be backlash caused
by what is going on now, or, it could valid
foresight with respect to what may yet to
come down in the future. I know that as
part of a wish to "reform" the public schools,
the New Right is jumping through hoops to
get private (as in, church) schools going
and you and I to pay for them.
That's the whole idea of "vouchers" as I understand it.
Those private schools can legally teach their Creation Science while we taxpayers pay for it. Again, in violation of the Constitution. They never give up. As Dover, PA shows, they are willing to lie, even perjure themselves to do "God's work."
Edward,
The first amendment says:
Note that this is a blanket prohibition. It doesn't say that just showing a preference is prohibited. Freedom of religion means also freedom from religion. And it certainly does NOT say that a church should not be taxes like any other business.
with paying taxes?
Just as an aside, the political platform of the
Christian Coalition was posted on Gather.
I think this is the group that has Pat Robertson
in it. The third item was to make the tax cuts
permanent. I thought to myself, "Jesus Christ,
what the hell does that have to do with religion?"
First, in the interest of transparency, let me give my religious background. I was reared in a Lutheran family and went to a Lutheran elementary school, but I have not been a member of or associated with any religion since 1986 because I don't believe the doctrines and creeds that any religion I know teaches. I, do, however, value the kindness and spirituality that I see as the core of most religions, although they often become corrupted.
Your arguments rely heavily on economic reasons for not allowing tax exemptions for churches and for the people who contribute to those churches. But there are other aspects of society that contribute to the well-being of a society, such as community. Local churches/synagogues/mosques give their members a sense of belonging. They offer support and encourage altruism. When religions are healthy and uncorrupted by the power and greed of their leaders, they help their members have a richer and more meaningful inner life. This is particularly important as our world expands into globalization, as family members live distant from one another and as work increasingly separates family members. It is especially true for poorer people, who do not have the resources to buy support, enrichment and help in these areas.
I know a woman who joined a church though she did not believe its tenets because it gave her an avenue to join with others in working for social justice. She felt she could trust the leaders and people of this congregation more than she could our government leaders.
A religious group's community value benefits society and the government and gives individuals and society stability.
If the tax deduction is eliminated, people, especially the wealthy who are the ones most benefiting from the tax exemption, are likely to give less to religious groups. Religious groups will falter and perhaps fail, leaving many individuals with no support network.
I think we also have to be careful not to judge religion by the abusive use of religion we've seen in the US in recent years. The current government and some religious leaders have used religion to manipulate people and curry favor. They have used religion as a bargaining chip and a prop. We need to be careful that our disgust and anger at this inappropriate use of religion doesn't spill over into hate and punishment of all religion.
Regarding the first amendment, I've interpreted it to mean that we shall have no state religion, such as exists in other countries. In practice, the government can't favor one religion over another. A better case for doing away with tax incentives for religions could be made if the tax incentives were for one religion and not another. But I don't know the case law in this area so I could be wrong in my view.
In summary, while I would love to see more money coming in to the government from people/organizations/businesses who have more money than I do, I don't think we should do away with tax incentives for contributing to religious organizations at this time. It might be appropriate in the future if there's less disparity between haves and have-nots and if there are more community support networks available to serve everyone.
Thanks for your good and thoughtful comments, as always.
Churches do many good works, as you say. Would they do less if they paid taxes like every other business? Maybe. The wealthy who make big contributions still have to come up with 60% of the contribution, so to say that they "benefit" from the tax deduction is not exactly correct. Lower-income people who don't itemize deductions would see no difference at all. But my argument is not just economic. I really believe that the Constitution does not limit its prohibition of support for religions to preferential support. I believe it is a blanket prohibition. I think the founders' intent was that no citizen should be forced to support any religion through the taxes he pays. But I admit that it is not very clear-cut. Evangelicals interpret it completely differently...they say that it means government can't meddle in the churches, but churches CAN meddle in the government...and supposedly create advantages for their religions through tax breaks or other government subsidies. I think it's hard to defend that position, but the writers of the Constitution were not as explicit as I would have liked.
I believe the current administration is taking advantage of this right now by funding "faith-based" charities. Pat Robertson's operations have collected millions in "grants." I find this outrageous!
Edward,
After I stopped laughing at the above, I thought about what you are saying, and it's clear that the spiritual aspect of religion has taken a back seat to the economic aspect in the activist, evangelical and fundamentalist sects of Christianity. They understand that politics is all about power and the root of that power is money. They are no different, or any less corrupt than any other politicians.
OK, so far, so good. Item two had something to
do with restoring the family. Then, they hit us
with number three: make the tax cuts permanent.
It was like a rider. I almost fell off the chair.
I understand your concern and share it.
On the other hand, if they did not have an exemption, then they could participate in the political process as any other individual or business can.
I think that "spiritual" organizations should not get involved in mundane matters like politics, but if they do, it should certainly not be funded by MY nickel!
When you explain how much money would be saved by making churches pay taxes, I think you may be forgetting how our taxes will be used to pay for the very things the churches are providing.... food, shelter, and life improvement. Even the Pat Robertson's church (shudder) provides train loads of food throughout our country and to many other countries. This work that is done with the money saved from taxation is work which would cost even more for the public, as the work may not be accomplished with so many volunteers.
I agree with you about the flaws of this system, however, and applaude your bringing it out.
I know of small churches who are very poor. Yet they give all they have to help improve the lives of others through education, shelter, and clothing, not to mention food. What of these churches? We must be careful not to cut a wide swathe which will bring the truly holy down.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Loss of tax-exempt status would not destroy churches or eliminate their humanitarian activities. It would reduce the amount of money they have to work with by (rough estimate) 20-30 percent. As I said in the article, I would even favor government subsidies to help them continue their humanitarian efforts. I just don't want to pay for their activities that promote their faith or their political activities.
The rest of the comments here talk about the Church's humanitarian activities. Well, I for one agree. Churches are the only institution that I know of who give freely regardless of status, income or political affiliation. I believe that, with the amount of homeless and mentally afflicted citizens on our streets today, we have a need for those programs--one day, even I may need those programs myself.
Churches are tax exempt, in that they don't pay taxes -- on some things. They pay taxes on non-church related business (Christian Brothers Winery pays business taxes -- the monastery itself does not. Beacon Press pays taxes, the Unitarian Universalist Association does not.). All churches pay payroll taxes and suchlike. MANY churches pay PILOT -- Payment In Lieu of Taxes -- just as Harvard and MIT do to the City of Cambridge.
I'll note that, for example, any government property that belongs to the feds in Boston doesn't pay taxes to the city of Boston, because governments are tax exempt. Yet the city has to provide any federal buildings with fire protection and so on.
Hospitals, which make gobs of money, can be tax exempt.
The Chamber of Commerce doesn't have to pay taxes, but donations to a chamber organization can't be deducted as charitable by the donor. But they can, generally, be deducted as business expenses.
Schools, hospitals, churches, arts organizations, and various institutions are both exempt from taxation, and may be supported by tax-deductible donations. But only if they file the right paperwork with the IRS. Part of this paperwork specifies that the organization will not participate in electoral politics, or in lobbying for anything but the survival of the organization (thus, a hospital could lobby for a bond issue to save it from shutting down in a poor area, but could not lobby for universal health care).
It's really an incredibly complicated issue. If you strip churches, where do you stop? Do you only strip the "bad" churches? Do you get to decide that a big stone church with a steeple is legit, but a pagan religious organization is not? Do you get to decide that a church that is built by its members with lots of valuable art should be taxed, but a museum with lots of valuable art should not?
If churches get stripped of tax exempt status, then should schools get stripped of tax exempt status too? Should Harvard, with all it's land holding and development interests, have to pay just as much taxes as any biotech business in Cambridge?
Why pick on churches?
As an example, I offer Barbara Bush's "humanitarian" contribution after Katrina - check this out: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3742329.html
Former first lady's donation aids son
Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush's software program
You make some very good points. I would say that probably most tax-exemptions should not exist. What purpose do they serve? Would people NOT give money to them if there were not a tax deduction? As I said before, the donor still has to come up with most of the money out of his/her pocket. I don't understand why all of a sudden they would stop donating (In answer to Sandy) just because it is not tax-deductible. Tax deductions for charities are something we have gotten used to...like rebates on new cars. If we didn't have them, I don't think we would miss them.
I will offer myself as an example. Since I retired, my reduced income and lack of deductions (house and cars are paid for) has made it impossible for me to itemize, so I take the standard deduction. I still give just as much..probably more... to charities as I did before. Am I that unique?
To answer Shava's question...schools vs. churches...schools don't proselytize. Government subsidies for that activity violate the Constitution in my opinion. But should private schools be tax-exempt? What if they are church-based? Same Constitutional problem. But if they are secular? I am not sure, to be frank. Of course public schools are already being paid for by taxes, so taxing them would be pointless...a money circle.
You both brihg up good points, and make it clear that it is not a simple problem. Thanks to you both.
Flipping away from 'churches' and flipping into industrial, financial, commercial, services and other private business issues, how does your thinking deal with executives who via salaries, bonuses and options take a good deal of money away from employees, customers, and stockholders? Salaries, Prices, and Dividends/Share Prices?
Any thoughts? These multiple comments are making you a true expert! These questions are heart-throb issues within a free enterprise society, trying to be fair and logical and unbiased, I think!
Dick
Whoa! A whole new subject! I wish you would write an article on this.
I think executive compensation is waaaay out of line in this country, but you can't blame the executives. They are just getting whatever the traffic will bear. It's the boards of directors and, yes, the stockholders who allow it to happen. I'm not talking about the obvious fraud cases that have been in the news...those guys are criminals. But it's perfectly legal for CEO's to collect 50 or 100 million in salary and stock if the board votes it.
If I were a stockholder in one of those companies, I would either participate in a stockholder revolt or vote with my feet. Sell the damn stock! I don't think we want government meddling in it, though, unless there is criminal activity.
There's a lot more to be said about this issue, though. Write it, Dick!
It seems utterly incongruous that any religious organization should be exempt from taxes, given what the First Amendment clearly and unambiguously states.
As you seem knowledgeable on this topic, I have a question: Do organizations such as Pat Robertson's "700 Club" and his "Christian News Network" benefit from this income and property-tax exemption and the tax-exempt donation rule?
This unconstitutional tax advantage has spawned many dubious organizations that would probably not exist without it. Reverend Moon's gang, as well as the Scientologists and others benefit from this advantage -- they may even exist entirely because of it. The damage they do has been plain to see. The Church of Scientology and the Moonies have engaged in kidnapping, fraud, and intimidation, and they have done so freely and often: in my view they are simply criminal orgainzations. It is a crime that they are given any tax advantages at all. I believe that if the tax advantage were revoked, as it should be, these gangs would either disband or become much less of a nuisance.
Robertson's pernicious influence and his Christofascist organization are no less fraudulent, criminal, and dangerous -- maybe they are even more dangerous because they are not fringe loonies. They have highjacked mainstream religion so that it serves as a host for these reactionary parasites, allowing them to infest the body politic itself, giving us such phenomenon as George W. Bush's presidency, Neoconservative radicalism, Christian Zionism, and the continuing rape of Iraq.
They must be stopped. I won't say, as Malcom X did, "By any means necessary." But I will say, "By any means available, legally."
It took the federal government to enforce nondiscrimination, the right to vote, the right to attend schools, and the right to be served in all business establishments, and if the states and the churches had been left to take care of these things, the south would still be ruled by Jim Crow. If the federal government handles, as it does, hand-outs of public funds to corporations, big agriculture, military contractors (Halliburton/KRB), and god knows what other welfare programs for the rich, then it has an obligation to help individual Americans who require it.
Maybe rightists think that by going back to a Dickensian system of letting the poor or oppressed depend upon their oppressors to provide food when needed or to enforce their rights as citizens, but I do not. If the government can burn billions on useless missile defense systems, wars of aggression, and for the personal protection of crime-families such as the Bushes, they can at least manage fair and equal systems of food and medical assistance to those who need it.
To answer your first question, I believe that Robertson's organizations have been granted tax-exempt status, but I will re-check this with Google and let you know if I find anything different.
I agree with you completely that many dubious organizations are tax-exempt. The problem is, if exemptions are to be granted, where does the IRS stop? If Moon declares his business to be a religion, can the IRS discriminate? Of course the whole problem goes away if NOBODY gets a tax exemption.
You make a very good point about administration of public welfare programs. Turning them over to private tax-exempt organizations is bound to result in uneven, even discriminatory distribution of the benefits unless the government has a strong oversight program...which they do not.
A better way, it seems to me, is for the government to run the programs on a strict "make or buy" basis...choose the "cvontractor" who can supply the most bang for the buck and manage the program just as they do defense spending, for example. If a government agency can provide the service cheaper and/or better, then that is the way it should be done.
American Center for Law and Justice: Tax exempt
As far as I can tell, the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) is not tax exempt.
The 700 Club is a program on CBN, so it is not tax exempt.
The Christian Coalition is an overtly political organization that was tax exempt until Americans United for Separation of Church and State challenged that status in 1998. The IRS revoked it in 1999 for its partisan political activities, including publishing "voter guides" endorsing specific candidates.
Operation Blessing International is a tax exempt relief organization. It has been criticized for using funds to supportr Robertson's mining business in Africa. It has received big handouts from Bush's faith-based funding programs.
Tax issues aside, though, it is so depressing that people as low, as unconscionable, and as malicious as Robertson, Coulter, Savage, and a host of others like them can gain such a foothold in the media, in publishing, and in the public consciousness. But that this antipathy toward everything the Constitution stands for seems to have gripped roughly half of this nation (which, let's face it, has always been an essentially reactionary nation) is very disturbing.
I was quoting a Dilbert title to a friend, yesterday. One of the Dilbert books is entitled, "When did Ignorance become a Point of View?" My friend answered, "I think that was in 2000." But ignorance has been a point of view for roughly half the population for a long, long time, and there seems to be nothing that will disabuse them of their ignorance -- unless perhaps their economic lives are in worse shape. Until then, the loss of liberty doesn't bother them at all. In fact, it pleases them. It's what they like. They are comfortable, that way.
H.L. Mencken wrote, "The American people, taken one with another, constitute the most snivelling, timorous, poltroonish, ignominious mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered together under one flag in all of Christendom, [and they] become more snivelling, more timorous, more poltroonish, and more ignominious, every day." He wrote that in the early part of the last century. As a prediction, unhappily, it was spot-on.
I never knew about that Mencken quote. Sad but true.
I don't know what to make of the American public. Polls show that a majority favor the teaching of religion in public schools. What are they thinking of? Don't any of them read the Constitution? Ignorance IS a point of view, I fear, for most of them.
And yet...there seems to be a backlash against the born-again Christian neocons who are running our country into the ground. I guess we won't know for sure until next November, though. Polls can be misleading. Maybe it's just that the Iraq War and the escalation of threats against Iran has driven up gas prices so they are having trouble keeping the SUV's filled up.
Right, Lyndon. All you have to do is look at the ostentatious, gaudy and ridiculously expensive churches, cathedrals and mosques that religions build to realize that they are ANYTHING BUT nonprofit organizations. They amass huge sums, funded by tax exemptions. Part of it goes to help the poor and needy, but a lot of goes into these monstrously expensive structures...and proselyltization, of course. A good use of taxpayer money? Hardly!
Not to mention the "priceless" artwork and jewelry.
I went to Catholic church and school. As a child, it disgusted me to hear the sermons about how we were not supposed to care about "worldly goods" from priests and nuns who lived in homes that were at least five times as "worldly" as those of most people in the parish. They drove nicer cars, had people who cooked and cleaned for them - all the while telling couples who already had more children than they could cram into their tiny houses and cars that they could not exercise birth control and they should take 10% off the top and give it to the church.
If there are any churches left that live within their means, keep religion and politics totally separate, and give back to the community (not just their flock) every cent above building maintenance, I would support tax exempt status for them.
The Catholic churches are not nearly as bad as the "TV Preachers" many of whom live in palatial mansions, drive Rolls Royces and live the life of movie stars or royalty, flying around in their private jets. Why people would give money to such charlatans is beyond me.
A pragmatic question: Could non-profits, all of them including churches, be viewed as a low cost means of emergency hedging?
Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) seems to have other requirements attached than just the benefit of tax-breaks. A close acquaintance is the executive director at a multi-church/multi-faith non-profit that essentially seeks to minimize redundancies in local services, food pantry, shut-in calling etc. Their facility is at the disposal of the government should any number of events happen, flooding, fires, bombings, earthquakes, epidemics etc. As a pragmatist I see churches serving a societal need in more than one way. In a direct way through membership people find peace-even though I may personally see that as a false peace. Indirectly their programs tend to benefit the least advantaged. Food, temporary financial assistance. I realize as do most people that the government also has some institutions in place to cover these needs, food stamps, temporary assistance etc. The accessibility is the problem. Even though I am currently without a religion and possibly faith I still see churches as providing, on a local level in ways that the government does not. More to the pragmatic point, every church can be viewed as an emergency hedge. A low-cost safety net for the government to have places, plans, and programs implemented in case of an emergency.
As to transparency of financing, the church that I have carry-over membership from my youth still sends me their annual report and the non-profit that I am familiar with sends out annual reports to everyone who is connected to it: board members, local officials, donors, and volunteers.
My knowledge on this subject is limited as I lack solid numbers that Bert provides. I am saying these things out of desire to be proven wrong or right by someone with more expertise than myself.
On a personal note I joined this website and will be looking at your other posts because of the great points made in this article.
I certainly agree that churches do good things. But they also spend money proselytizing, funding missionaries both here and abroad, and even engaging in politics. There is no practical way that I can think of for government to monitor those activities for every church to ensure that they are not spending tax-exempt money to support them. Other non-profits have strict financial reporting requirements, but churches have none. This also seems wrong to me. I am not suggesting that government should meddle in religion, but if a church chooses to "take" government money (through tax exemptions) then I think it is reasonable for them to provide information on how they use that money.
Churches do provide a "safety net" for some needy people, and also serve as emergency services. But are the most efficient providers of this service that the government can fund? Wouldn't it be better if the churches competed for government contracts to provide these services, just as defense contractors compete for weapons contracts?
Here is a link to another piece I wrote a few months later on this subject.
I understand pretty well how all the money in the government is distributed. By and far, this is not a perfect system. But I feel it is a better system than the rest of the world. I have yet to know of a single taxpayer that actually wishes to give more taxes than is actually owed.
What would be interesting is actually having a choice of where all that money I send to the IRS, actually would go.
This is why I give to my Church. My Church prints out a bulletin stating what funds were received the week before and breaks it down to where it all goes.
I very much would like to see the political gestures made in the pulpit be addressed by the Fed's.
Just my 2 cents worth, well, maybe 1.5 cents.
Mark
http://www.federalbudget.com/
Amen to that! Especially now that so many churches are filling my mailbox and front door with advertisements.
Nice discussion here.
Private businesses all pay taxes, and I would hardly call all businesses "nationalized."
As far as restricting what anyone says, taxing churches would actually free them from any kind of government restriction on how they use their money, especially for political purposes. They would have EXACTLY the same status as any other business enterprise, free to give money to and endorse any political candidate.
I truly wished that the media would cover more of the good that Americans do. Yes, we're in a war. And yet noone will read the papers unless it has some terrible headline in bold letters that depicts the USA as bad. Even the weatherman wants to make it look worse than it actually is. I knicked my finger today with a paper cut. A little blood, but if an AP reporter seen it, it was a bloody mess with injuries reported, possible amputation.
Hillary Clinton was a director of Wal Mart for six years, starting in 1986. So she was no longer a director when Clinton became president. That was twenty years ago, Mark.
Trying to make a connection now between Clinton and Wal Mart is really reaching, but why would WM's proposed clinics be affected one way or the other by a national health plan? They would be just another provider.
You have touched on a very raw nerve of mine. Under the present system, I believe no part of a church that does not directly function as the church or it's parsonage (rectory) should be tax exempt. Some cities have up to 60% percent of their land and property on these roles.
This is one of the reasons I believe that a small flat tax with no exemptions is much fairer, along with use taxes such as is currently on gasoline,SEC ( stock trades), etc. The people that use the services should pay for them. We should not have to pay for services used by others.
I think "fee for service" works for some things, but not others. For instance, I don't think older people should be exempt from school taxes, even though their kids are grown and gone. Scbools, like many other government functions, benefit all people and should be paid for by all. Another example...national defense.
The flat tax idea has been around for awhile, but has not gained great public favor. Very poor people would obviously have to be exempted. Progressive taxes...the notion that the wealthy can afford to pay more (proportionally)...has been around for a long time, almost from the beginning of income tax in this country. I'll have more to say about this soon...I am in the midst of writing a little piece on income taxes. Stay tuned...I would like your comments on it.
i'll have to play, of all things, Gods' Advocate (pluralization intended): such direct intervention by the government MAY be a violation of the Church/State Separation. so, also, the political shenanigans of churches.
Kinda.
that's the problem with America, though; a nifty idea that can never breathe real air. it's like Communism in this--good on paper, bad on people.
and it's the people at fault.
WE the.
it's sugar-coating to say, "There's no easy answers." there's no answers--just shots in the dark, and their ricochets, and sometimes a bit of blood.
Verie Sandborg delivered some nice points (Churches As Help-Meets Both Mental & Monetary), but there's a deeper mystery here: we team up.
we do! -get a bunch of us listening to a leader (oooh! what if he's SILVER-tongued?!), and we'll pretty much go along to get along. like Verie (and a few others) said: we like that sense of community.
it's just irritating to know that, due to a misplaced quill (or misinterpretation of a jot, or tittle)...you have to finance so many people outside of YOUR community. whether we like it or not, we're pitted against one another--and the idea of financing a potential foe makes most stomachs churn.
in your case, Bert, you're forced to straddle an uncomfortable line. because you agree with some of the things a church MIGHT do, and have (once or twice) seemed to imply that oversight's the answer (as in the quoted i extracted).
i'm happy to be the insane one.
from where i'm sitting, churches should be taxed. end of story. NOT taxing them was a bad idea from the get-go--too much money flows through too many of them.
on taxing as a whole, i can only say: i wish we were intelligent enough to watch our own backs--that we could be counted on to 1)support our government because 2)our government represents us in its ev'ry respect. our "majority", at the very least.
but... that's not the way it is.
so here we are, grinding along--trying to shore up the weaknesses, or exploit them (depending on a whole gamut of personality traits i won't even beGIN to discuss).
and what does our (legal: illegals, as it should be, don't enter my consideration...until they overthrow the government which renders them "illegal", or join it) majority want, Bert?
i mean, UNDER ev'rything?
we want ev'rybody to think like us, or go away.
even those of us who are "tolerant" will, left to our own devices, "Gather". which is inherently exclusionary.
we want to live in relative comfort.
believe it or not, most of us want to WORK--not too hard, of course; but humans like to feel Necessary, and industrious--we enjoy pointing and crying out, "I did that!"
we want peace.
we don't want to fight.
but we have to.
I may not have stated my position well in the article...maybe I should have fixed that...but I clarified it in the comments:
Elsewhere, I said that I didn't have a problem with churches competing for contracts to provide emergency services, etc. That is, of course a secular business that the church is running, and none of the government funding should be used for any religious purpose.
this is a good trait--Obama's best, for instance.
i think a lot of people see that in him, even if they can't articulate it--that he, left to his own devices (he won't be), would ATTEMPT to mediate and find that elusive thing: What's Best For All Parties.
thus making one.
i won't vote for Obama (or ANYone, actually).
feels like throwing a lamb to the wolves.
while the band plays on.
No, I think you misunderstood me, and that is probably my fault for not making my position clear. I am generally AGAINST funding of religious organizations to do secular work, because it presents a huge oversight and enforcement problem to ensure that they don't use the money for proselyzation or whatever. But IF those organizations can provide efficient services, and can compete for contracts, I think it would be discriminatory to NOT allow them that opportunity.
Government has to walk a fine line between ADVOCACY and OPPOSITION. Being neitral is a whole lot harder...like balancing on a knife edge.
And if you don't vote, you can't complain. Well, you can, but you don't deserve to.
bonus question
Should they be allowed to have 501c3 arms? Probably not. As you say, too much oversight.
Man, I wish all quizzes were this easy! grin