What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

State Senator tells churches "pay your taxes" (1 Viewer)

The company I work for does good things. We provide good paying jobs and benefits, stay located in a ##### neighborhood, donate money, time, and used assets like furniture to local schools and charitable organizations, and more. Using the logic in other posts, why should my company be taxed?
So they don't write off the donations?
Yes, we do. I don't know our marginal tax rate is, but let's just say its 40%. Every dollar of property tax expense or charitable donation expense only saves $0.40. Why should I have to pay the other 60%?

Recently people in my office got together to accumulate toys for needy children during Christmas. There is also a company sponsored group doing a road run for some local charity. People's time spent in these events can't be written off as expense, either company expense or on individual taxes.

I normally agree with you on a lot of things, so I'm not trying to stoke your fire. My point is just that lots of individuals and organizations play important roles in society and in general do a lot of good things. Where do we draw the line on who gets the breaks and who doesn't? The more property taxes that aren't paid by businesses, non-profits, and churches, the more that revenue has to be paid by individuals. The more burden placed on individuals, the less money they have to donate to churches and other charitable organizations.

 
Yeah, I can't think of any reason why entities that don't make money shouldn't pay taxes either.

:mellow:
Churches don't have revenue? Huh, could have fooled me.

Goodwill doesn't have revenue? Strange. Last time I went to Goodwill, they had items that I could purchase in exchange for money.

Also, if your assertion is that entities with no revenue don't have to (or shouldn't have to) pay property taxes, that's demonstrably false. If I quit my job, I would not suddenly become exempt from property taxes on my house, would I?
I'm open to the possibility of taxing non-profits (against it, but open to persuasion), That said, you don't do your side any favors by confusing revenue with profit.
I don't confuse them at all. I do, however, think that in a lot of cases, "non-profit" is more or less an accounting trick, though.

 
Here is a compelling argument why churches should not pay taxes:

Should Churches Be Tax Exempt?Why is your church tax exempt? Why should it continue to be tax exempt? If I were to sit down and ask you these questions, would you have a clear and coherent answer? I suspect this is something we seldom think about. After all, tax exemption for churches has always been given and we assume, because of its historical longevity, it always will be given.

The fact that most Americans cannot explain why their church is tax exempt indicates a forgotten history and is emblematic of a society that has systematically devalued the church as a beneficial societal institution.

Whenever I litigate a case about church tax exemption or Pulpit Freedom Sunday, the inevitable media comments go something like this: “Churches should pay taxes just like everyone else! They have tons of money, so why can’t they pay their fair share? Why should churches get a free ride? Make them pay!” Comments like these are more prevalent today than any other time I can remember.

Cases involving local governments attempting to tax churches are also becoming more prevalent. For example, ADF recently litigated and won a case against the City of Mission, Kansas, for attempting to impose a “driveway tax” on churches. Or consider the case of Liberty Assembly of God in New Hampshire which was slapped with a property tax bill simply because the local taxing authorities rifled through the church buildings and concluded that because some rooms were “untidy,” the church was not using them for a religious purpose.

So why should churches be tax exempt? There are very sound and valid reasons for church tax exemption. First, there is the “social benefit” theory of tax exemption. This recognizes the fact that churches provide great benefits to society by their good works. Churches minister to the poor and needy in the community, provide numerous social services for the downtrodden among us, and reach out to the “least of these” in thousands of different ways. The social benefit theory justifies tax exemption for churches as a kind of bargain – churches provide needed services, so they are entitled to tax exemption.

One corollary of the “social benefit” theory that is often overlooked is what I have termed the “intangible benefit” theory of tax exemption. This highlights the intangible and often unseen benefits provided by churches to the community. Things like reduced crime rates resulting from transformed lives, suicides prevented when people surrender to Christ, and people with destructive behavioral patterns that harm the community changing into hard-working and virtuous citizens who contribute to the well-being of the community. It is difficult to put a price tag on these types of intangible benefits provided by churches, but there is no question that they exist.

An interesting study conducted a few years ago attempted to put a value on the economic worth of one church. The study estimated that the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia provided over six million dollars of economic value to the community, a figure that is nearly ten times the church’s annual budget.

It is easy to see the benefits provided by churches. In fact, churches provide more social services and intangible benefits to the community than they would ever pay in taxes. It makes no sense to tax churches because the tax dollars taken from the church reduce the amount of benefits it can provide to the community. In a very real sense, taxing churches harms society.

But there is also a constitutional reason why churches are tax exempt. Our history is one of an unbroken practice of exempting churches from taxation. Churches were exempt from the very first time the tax code was passed at the federal level, and have remained exempt in every iteration of the tax code ever since. Every state in America also exempts churches from property taxes. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case regarding the property tax exemption of churches, called Walz v. Tax Commission, it stated that providing a tax exemption for churches was a less intrusive option under the Constitution than requiring churches to pay taxes.

That makes sense when you stop and think about it. As the Supreme Court said in a very early case, “The power to tax involves the power to control.” Taxation is, in essence, a very strong assertion of control by a sovereign over its subjects. Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches.

Overall, there are very good reasons why churches are tax exempt. We need to remember these reasons and proclaim them to others in society who reflexively shout that the Church should pay its fair share. We should take up the cause of passionate defenders of church tax exemption like Kentucky State Representative Whittaker. During the debates on the Kentucky Constitution in 1890, he loudly proclaimed, “Let an untaxed Gospel be preached, in an untaxed church-house, from an untaxed pulpit; let the emblem of a crucified, but risen Christ be administered from an untaxed altar, and, as the spire points heavenward, . . . let it stand forever untaxed.” Amen.
Yep.
He lists the following as compelling reasons why churches be exempt from (property) taxes.

1. "Social benefit" theory, or essentially, churches should be exempt because they do good things for the community. I've already rejected this argument, as we don't exempt other entities simply for "doing good things for the community". Lots of people do good things. Lots of corporations do good things. Yet people and corporations aren't exempt by virtue of doing good things, so I fail to see why churches should be exempt on the basis of this alone.

2. "Intangible benefit" theory, or essentially, churches should be exempt because they create benefits for the community. Ditto my answer from the previous paragraph.

3. "Taxing churches harms society" by preventing them from doing as much good as they would otherwise. One could just as easily argue that "taxing corporations harms society" by preventing those corporations from hiring more workers and providing more jobs to the community. We don't exempt corporations on this ground, so I fail to see why we should exempt churches on the same.

4. "It's always been that way." Obviously, "it's the way it's always been" is a foolish retort to the question "should it be that way".

5. "Exempting churches is a way to ensure that the state cannot control churches." Probably the best of the bunch, but still not very good. An argument along the lines of "the state should not be allowed to tax churches in a different manner than it taxes other entities" would certainly apply here, but allowing taxation at all is not tantamount to granting control.

 
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.

 
The company I work for does good things. We provide good paying jobs and benefits, stay located in a ##### neighborhood, donate money, time, and used assets like furniture to local schools and charitable organizations, and more. Using the logic in other posts, why should my company be taxed?
So they don't write off the donations?
Yes, we do. I don't know our marginal tax rate is, but let's just say its 40%. Every dollar of property tax expense or charitable donation expense only saves $0.40. Why should I have to pay the other 60%?
It would make it much easier for everyone to do good works if you can just pass the bill on to the tax payers. Put me down for $1M to The People Fund.

 
Rich Conway said:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Yesno. The only problem with your statement is what is actually considered a compelling reason. It's entirely subjective upon who is arguing from which side and can change entity to entity. Excellent examples of this, tiny local church that helps the community any way it can? Yeah let's give them a break. Westboro Baptist assclowns? No, in fact why haven't we burned their properties to the ground yet? Regional organization that fundraises to fight scolioses? Yeah I think their little offices could use some help. Susan G Komen foundation? #### them. etc...Schlzm

 
Rich Conway said:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Religious freedom is the compelling reason and why it was written in our founding documents. Churches should never be under the state.

 
Rich Conway said:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Yesno. The only problem with your statement is what is actually considered a compelling reason. It's entirely subjective upon who is arguing from which side and can change entity to entity. Excellent examples of this, tiny local church that helps the community any way it can? Yeah let's give them a break. Westboro Baptist assclowns? No, in fact why haven't we burned their properties to the ground yet? Regional organization that fundraises to fight scolioses? Yeah I think their little offices could use some help. Susan G Komen foundation? #### them. etc...Schlzm
California use to give property tax emptions out to non-profits like candy. Now that it budget is tight, it rejects requests left and right.

 
ummich10 said:
The company I work for does good things. We provide good paying jobs and benefits, stay located in a ##### neighborhood, donate money, time, and used assets like furniture to local schools and charitable organizations, and more. Using the logic in other posts, why should my company be taxed?
So they don't write off the donations?
Yes, we do. I don't know our marginal tax rate is, but let's just say its 40%. Every dollar of property tax expense or charitable donation expense only saves $0.40. Why should I have to pay the other 60%?Recently people in my office got together to accumulate toys for needy children during Christmas. There is also a company sponsored group doing a road run for some local charity. People's time spent in these events can't be written off as expense, either company expense or on individual taxes.

I normally agree with you on a lot of things, so I'm not trying to stoke your fire. My point is just that lots of individuals and organizations play important roles in society and in general do a lot of good things. Where do we draw the line on who gets the breaks and who doesn't? The more property taxes that aren't paid by businesses, non-profits, and churches, the more that revenue has to be paid by individuals. The more burden placed on individuals, the less money they have to donate to churches and other charitable organizations.
You raise good points. But again I say to you and to Rich: our main priority for changing any law, (excepting those that are clearly unjust, which this one is not) shouldn't be what is most fair, but whether the result will be a net positive or a net negative. Taxing the properties of churches would be a net negative IMO, for reasons I stated earlier.
 
ummich10 said:
The company I work for does good things. We provide good paying jobs and benefits, stay located in a ##### neighborhood, donate money, time, and used assets like furniture to local schools and charitable organizations, and more. Using the logic in other posts, why should my company be taxed?
So they don't write off the donations?
Yes, we do. I don't know our marginal tax rate is, but let's just say its 40%. Every dollar of property tax expense or charitable donation expense only saves $0.40. Why should I have to pay the other 60%?Recently people in my office got together to accumulate toys for needy children during Christmas. There is also a company sponsored group doing a road run for some local charity. People's time spent in these events can't be written off as expense, either company expense or on individual taxes.

I normally agree with you on a lot of things, so I'm not trying to stoke your fire. My point is just that lots of individuals and organizations play important roles in society and in general do a lot of good things. Where do we draw the line on who gets the breaks and who doesn't? The more property taxes that aren't paid by businesses, non-profits, and churches, the more that revenue has to be paid by individuals. The more burden placed on individuals, the less money they have to donate to churches and other charitable organizations.
You raise good points. But again I say to you and to Rich: our main priority for changing any law, (excepting those that are clearly unjust, which this one is not) shouldn't be what is most fair, but whether the result will be a net positive or a net negative. Taxing the properties of churches would be a net negative IMO, for reasons I stated earlier.
Also as we saw earlier in this thread what is considered "fair" by one group usually isn't anywhere close. Schlzm

 
ummich10 said:
The company I work for does good things. We provide good paying jobs and benefits, stay located in a ##### neighborhood, donate money, time, and used assets like furniture to local schools and charitable organizations, and more. Using the logic in other posts, why should my company be taxed?
So they don't write off the donations?
Yes, we do. I don't know our marginal tax rate is, but let's just say its 40%. Every dollar of property tax expense or charitable donation expense only saves $0.40. Why should I have to pay the other 60%?Recently people in my office got together to accumulate toys for needy children during Christmas. There is also a company sponsored group doing a road run for some local charity. People's time spent in these events can't be written off as expense, either company expense or on individual taxes.

I normally agree with you on a lot of things, so I'm not trying to stoke your fire. My point is just that lots of individuals and organizations play important roles in society and in general do a lot of good things. Where do we draw the line on who gets the breaks and who doesn't? The more property taxes that aren't paid by businesses, non-profits, and churches, the more that revenue has to be paid by individuals. The more burden placed on individuals, the less money they have to donate to churches and other charitable organizations.
You raise good points. But again I say to you and to Rich: our main priority for changing any law, (excepting those that are clearly unjust, which this one is not) shouldn't be what is most fair, but whether the result will be a net positive or a net negative. Taxing the properties of churches would be a net negative IMO, for reasons I stated earlier.
Fair is subjective. Negative/positive are also subjective. To me, principles of proper government are more important than either.

 
Rich Conway said:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Religious freedom is the compelling reason and why it was written in our founding documents. Churches should never be under the state.
So you agree with the statement then. All entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity not to.

We can certainly debate what is or is not a compelling reason, and obviously, "compelling" is a subjective term.

 
Rich Conway said:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Religious freedom is the compelling reason and why it was written in our founding documents. Churches should never be under the state.
So you agree with the statement then. All entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity not to.

We can certainly debate what is or is not a compelling reason, and obviously, "compelling" is a subjective term.
There is nothing to debate. The burden is on you to find a compelling reason to change our Constitution.

 
Rich Conway said:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Religious freedom is the compelling reason and why it was written in our founding documents. Churches should never be under the state.
So you agree with the statement then. All entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity not to.

We can certainly debate what is or is not a compelling reason, and obviously, "compelling" is a subjective term.
There is nothing to debate. The burden is on you to find a compelling reason to change our Constitution.
Again, you agree with the statement, then?

Re: whether "being a church" is a compelling reason to be exempt from property taxes, why would the Constitution need to change? Which exact words in the Constitution exempt churches from property taxes?

 
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Religious freedom is the compelling reason and why it was written in our founding documents. Churches should never be under the state.
So you agree with the statement then. All entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity not to.

We can certainly debate what is or is not a compelling reason, and obviously, "compelling" is a subjective term.
There is nothing to debate. The burden is on you to find a compelling reason to change our Constitution.
Again, you agree with the statement, then?

Re: whether "being a church" is a compelling reason to be exempt from property taxes, why would the Constitution need to change? Which exact words in the Constitution exempt churches from property taxes?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Religious institutions have and will always have a legal carve out to controls like taxes. At least until that carve out is removed from the Constitution.

Taxing a church would enable things like seizing a church due to back taxes or influencing where they might worship.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now, back to my question from the previous page... For those of you who think churches (and/or non-profits in general) shouldn't pay property taxes, do you agree with this statement:

(Ignoring the debate that property taxes may not be the most appropriate method of funding government in the first place,) all entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity or type of entity not to.
Religious freedom is the compelling reason and why it was written in our founding documents. Churches should never be under the state.
So you agree with the statement then. All entities should pay property taxes, unless there's a compelling reason for a particular entity not to.

We can certainly debate what is or is not a compelling reason, and obviously, "compelling" is a subjective term.
There is nothing to debate. The burden is on you to find a compelling reason to change our Constitution.
Again, you agree with the statement, then?

Re: whether "being a church" is a compelling reason to be exempt from property taxes, why would the Constitution need to change? Which exact words in the Constitution exempt churches from property taxes?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."Religious institutions have and will always have a legal carve out to controls like taxes. At least until that carve out is removed from the Constitution.

Taxing a church would enable things like seizing a church due to back taxes or influencing where they might worship.
That doesn't say churches are exempt from taxes. By that logic, so are all newspapers and TV stations.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top