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

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I would definitely support property taxes for cemeteries. That's an even bigger waste of land than churches.

 

[Joe T]

Have we cleared up the "everyone pays taxes" myth yet? Or was it schtick. I'm assuming schtick at this point.

 

[Joe T]

Why does Harvard pay no property tax?

Bull ####....

 

[Joe T]

The arguments against taxing churches as I understand them are:

1. It keeps a more defined separation of church and state

2. It is a non-profit institution

3. In general, they do a lot of good in the communities they exist

Bump.

So, I've stated clear arguments against taxing churches.

So far the arguments for taxing churches are:

1. I hate churches

2. Everyone pays taxes

2. (revised) Some people pay taxes so the church should too

Anything I missed?

bump

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why does Harvard pay no property tax?

Bull ####....

I agree with this. Harvard should pay taxes.

 

[Schlzm]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Or family trusts in CA. There's no shortage of tax carveouts.

I don't know enough about this to understand how it works. If a property is placed in a trust, the trust doesn't pay property taxes on it? That seems weird.

The trust pays property taxes on it.

Property taxes are based on the assessed value of the property, and assessments are generally done whenever the property is transferred. There are a number of exceptions that avoid reassessment, including the transfer of a property into a family trust whose beneficiaries are related to the transferor (or something like that). So the trust pays taxes on it, but (assuming property values have increased since the previous transfer) the tax amount will be lower than if the property had been transferred to a stranger.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Or family trusts in CA. There's no shortage of tax carveouts.

I don't know enough about this to understand how it works. If a property is placed in a trust, the trust doesn't pay property taxes on it? That seems weird.

The trust pays property taxes on it.

Property taxes are based on the assessed value of the property, and assessments are generally done whenever the property is transferred. There are a number of exceptions that avoid reassessment, including the transfer of a property into a family trust whose beneficiaries are related to the transferor (or something like that). So the trust pays taxes on it, but (assuming property values have increased since the previous transfer) the tax amount will be lower than if the property had been transferred to a stranger.

Got it. This is dumb too, but at least some taxes are getting paid.

 

[NCCommish]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

 

[Schlzm]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Except for the fact that at a certain point on the downswing you pay nothing, then you actually begin to make something as well. You spend more you pay more is in fact more fair. I would even be open to sliding style percentage. Subsistance items are taxed extremely low, luxery and pointless items are higher. Fairness isn't soaking one side to keep the other dry.Schlzm

 

[Joe T]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

That's not fair. It's bull ####.

 

[NCCommish]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Except for the fact that at a certain point on the downswing you pay nothing, then you actually begin to make something as well. You spend more you pay more is in fact more fair. I would even be open to sliding style percentage. Subsistance items are taxed extremely low, luxery and pointless items are higher. Fairness isn't soaking one side to keep the other dry.Schlzm

Yeah because a 39.6% when you make over 400k is getting soaked. It's amazing to me that this country ran on a 92% top rate, which kicked in at 200k, and built the biggest economy on earth during the 50s.

 

[Schlzm]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Except for the fact that at a certain point on the downswing you pay nothing, then you actually begin to make something as well. You spend more you pay more is in fact more fair. I would even be open to sliding style percentage. Subsistance items are taxed extremely low, luxery and pointless items are higher. Fairness isn't soaking one side to keep the other dry.Schlzm

Yeah because a 39.6% when you make over 400k is getting soaked. It's amazing to me that this country ran on a 92% top rate, which kicked in at 200k, and built the biggest economy on earth during the 50s.

Maybe it's just getting a little wet as opposed to soaked but it isn't fair either. Schlzm

 

[Soonerman]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Except for the fact that at a certain point on the downswing you pay nothing, then you actually begin to make something as well. You spend more you pay more is in fact more fair. I would even be open to sliding style percentage. Subsistance items are taxed extremely low, luxery and pointless items are higher. Fairness isn't soaking one side to keep the other dry.Schlzm

Yeah because a 39.6% when you make over 400k is getting soaked. It's amazing to me that this country ran on a 92% top rate, which kicked in at 200k, and built the biggest economy on earth during the 50s.

When your competitors have all been recently bombed back to the Stone Age, you can get away with all kinds of stupidity. Not to mention that loopholes prevented almost everyone from actually paying at that rate.

 

[jonessed]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Except for the fact that at a certain point on the downswing you pay nothing, then you actually begin to make something as well. You spend more you pay more is in fact more fair. I would even be open to sliding style percentage. Subsistance items are taxed extremely low, luxery and pointless items are higher. Fairness isn't soaking one side to keep the other dry.Schlzm

Yeah because a 39.6% when you make over 400k is getting soaked. It's amazing to me that this country ran on a 92% top rate, which kicked in at 200k, and built the biggest economy on earth during the 50s.

And a 22% rate which kicked in at $2K.

 

[The Commish]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

I think he's talking about a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more you pay etc. I won't get into all the loopholes that drive up our percentages. Reality is a small consumption tax would be more effective than what we have today.

 

[Schlzm]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

I think he's talking about a consumption tax. The more you consume, the more you pay etc. I won't get into all the loopholes that drive up our percentages. Reality is a small consumption tax would be more effective than what we have today.

 

[RCon]

I think organizations dedicated to charity and community service should be tax-exempt. They are generally more efficient at serving local communities than government.I'm not going to get into a pissing match with atheists about the relationship between religious organizations and the communities they serve though .

Re: the pissing match between atheists and not, I don't want to either. To that end, I'm even stipulating that if we agreed that non-profits should be exempt from taxes based on a compelling reason, that I'd agree that churches should be exempt under the non-profit category. This should seem fair enough, and should allow us all to avoid the atheist/religion pissing match altogether.

I really don't understand why non-profits should be exempt from taxes. As I said, I can't think of any compelling reason why non-profits should be exempt. You're suggesting they should because they're more efficient at serving communities than government, but I can't accept that reason, as I think pretty much everything is more efficient than government, yet everyone/thing else in not exempt. That is, my local supermarket is more efficient at distributing food than government, but my local supermarket isn't exempt from taxes.

 

[RCon]

I think public schools should pay taxes. / Conway

No, it's obviously pretty inefficient for public entities, whether they be schools, parks, or museums, to pay taxes. Private schools and private museums should absolutely pay taxes.

 

[RCon]

Have we cleared up the "everyone pays taxes" myth yet? Or was it schtick. I'm assuming schtick at this point.

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that, absent a compelling reason, no one should be exempt from paying (property) taxes. Now we're simply debating what qualifies as a compelling reason and for whom.

 

[jon_mx]

When the country was designed, it was agreed that government is to keep its hands off churches and that includes taxation. Unless people think the First Ammendment needs to be stricken, that is not going to change. This debate is pointless.

Yeah and in return churches were supposed to keep out of politics.

Unlike Government, there is no agreement which places such limitation on the church. The government is bound by the Contitution. The government was created with restrictions.

 

[Joe T]

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

 

[msommer]

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

So you are saying Scientology doesn't make money?

 

[RCon]

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

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?

 

[Joe T]

Have we cleared up the "everyone pays taxes" myth yet? Or was it schtick. I'm assuming schtick at this point.

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that, absent a compelling reason, no one should be exempt from paying (property) taxes. Now we're simply debating what qualifies as a compelling reason and for whom.

In fact, that was the assertion.

You pointed out that Maurile pointed out that everyone is supposed to pay property taxes and that's why churches should pay. I then pointed out that there are a lot of ####### entities out there not paying property taxes. Which we now all agree on.

 

[Joe T]

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

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.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for summarizing it so accurately.

 

[Joe T]

In reality, this isn't a churches should pay property taxes debate. This is an "everyone" should pay property taxes debate. I look forward to the new thread.

 

[RCon]

Have we cleared up the "everyone pays taxes" myth yet? Or was it schtick. I'm assuming schtick at this point.

That wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that, absent a compelling reason, no one should be exempt from paying (property) taxes. Now we're simply debating what qualifies as a compelling reason and for whom.

In fact, that was the assertion.

You pointed out that Maurile pointed out that everyone is supposed to pay property taxes and that's why churches should pay. I then pointed out that there are a lot of ####### entities out there not paying property taxes. Which we now all agree on.

Maurile's exact post said:

I think the basic argument for taxing anyone, including churches, is to raise money to build and maintain roads and whatnot. If the city builds a road to your property, you can help pay for it.There may be good reasons to exempt certain property-owners from taxation, but the burden is on showing why they're a special case, not the other way around.

In other words, exactly what I posted, which is, "absent a compelling reason, no one should be exempt from paying (property) taxes."

 

[Joe T]

Maurile already gave the reasons for taxing churches. In summary, absent a compelling reason against, everyone should pay taxes.

nip

 

[RCon]

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

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.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for summarizing it so accurately.

:shrugs:

Churches do make money. Goodwill does make money. They may also spend an equal amount of money, or even more. But that's not a compelling reason to be exempt from paying property taxes. I make money. I also spend money. If I spend more than I make in a given year, should I be exempt from property taxes?

 

[RCon]

Maurile already gave the reasons for taxing churches. In summary, absent a compelling reason against, everyone should pay taxes.

nip

Right, so you now agree that the assertion wasn't "everyone pays taxes".

 

[Joe T]

Since not everyone pays property taxes now (churches, museums, univerisities, other non-profits), how can anyone argue that churches should pay property taxes since everyone else does?

As I stated earlier, not EVERYONE pays property taxes.

 

[Joe T]

In reality, this isn't a churches should pay property taxes debate. This is an "everyone" should pay property taxes debate. I look forward to the new thread.

 

[RCon]

Since not everyone pays property taxes now (churches, museums, univerisities, other non-profits), how can anyone argue that churches should pay property taxes since everyone else does?

As I stated earlier, not EVERYONE pays property taxes.

I don't know, but then, no one is making that argument.

 

[Joe T]

Since not everyone pays property taxes now (churches, museums, univerisities, other non-profits), how can anyone argue that churches should pay property taxes since everyone else does?

As I stated earlier, not EVERYONE pays property taxes.

I don't know, but then, no one is making that argument.

So what is your argument again?

Churches should pay property taxes because everyone should pay property taxes unless there is a compelling reason that you happen to agree with?

 

[RCon]

In summary:

RC / fatguy / some others: Absent a compelling reason not to, everyone should be subject to paying property taxes.

Joe T: Churches should be exempt by virtue of being non-profit organizations.

RC: Agreed, so long as there's a compelling reason to exempt non-profit organizations from paying property taxes. What's the compelling reason?

 

[RCon]

Some immediate thoughts come to mind when searching for compelling reasons to exempt an entity (person, corporation, whatever) from property taxes.

1. Entity does not own property. Seems self-explanatory. Of course, the exemption would disappear should the entity acquire property...

2. Entity is owned by the government. Seems silly and inefficient for the government to pay itself property taxes. I could perhaps see some merit in federal/state governments paying local property taxes and vice versa, but that's not really what we're debating here.

I'm having trouble coming up with any other compelling reasons. Obviously, someone gave the example of corporations getting sweetheart deals in order to attract the business. I understand why this happens, but I don't much agree with it, as it feel like legalized bribery to me.

 

[Joe T]

In summary:

RC / fatguy / some others: Absent a compelling reason not to, everyone should be subject to paying property taxes.

Joe T: Churches should be exempt by virtue of being non-profit organizations.

RC: Agreed, so long as there's a compelling reason to exempt non-profit organizations from paying property taxes. What's the compelling reason?

fatguy didn't know others weren't subject to paying property taxes so I'm not sure he made that argument.

And you have my reason(s) inaccurate even though I've posted it about 5 times.

 

[RCon]

In summary:

RC / fatguy / some others: Absent a compelling reason not to, everyone should be subject to paying property taxes.

Joe T: Churches should be exempt by virtue of being non-profit organizations.

RC: Agreed, so long as there's a compelling reason to exempt non-profit organizations from paying property taxes. What's the compelling reason?

fatguy didn't know others weren't subject to paying property taxes so I'm not sure he made that argument.

And you have my reason(s) inaccurate even though I've posted it about 5 times.

The non-profit thing was one of your reasons, wasn't it?

Another was "they do good things". Sorry, but that's clearly not a compelling reason to be exempt from property taxes, or lots of people and corporations would also be exempt.

The third was "to more clearly define the separation between church and state". I have no idea what the hell that means or why it should be a reason to be exempt.

So, since the non-profit one seems to be the one that I can't rule out immediately, I chose to focus on that.

 

[Joe T]

I guess I still haven't heard a compelling reason churches should be taxed.

 

[Joe T]

Property tax exemptions for parsonages are currently in force in all 50 states. Due to concerns about the Warren case, the exemptions have been reaffirmed unanimously by both houses of Congress as well. Apparently, treating churches more like schools than like factories still makes sense to lawmakers.

This seems to be settled.

 

[Tchula]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Not when the person making $400 a week is getting $600 a week in a combination of food stamps, government housing, welfare, heating oil subsidies, school lunch programs, government paid cell phones, government paid healthcare, etc. That's why the loser on welfare has $200 sneakers and a 60" TV.

 

[RCon]

I guess I still haven't heard a compelling reason churches should be taxed.

They should pay property taxes because government needs money to perform services like building and maintaining roads. That's a compelling reason.

 

[RCon]

Property tax exemptions for parsonages are currently in force in all 50 states. Due to concerns about the Warren case, the exemptions have been reaffirmed unanimously by both houses of Congress as well. Apparently, treating churches more like schools than like factories still makes sense to lawmakers.

This seems to be settled.

The debate is whether churches should pay property taxes, not whether they currently do pay property taxes. I don't think anyone is making the argument that churches are currently forced to pay property taxes, are they?

 

[Joe T]

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.

 

[RCon]

Unfortunately, that one is going to take more time to read, digest, and respond than I currently have available. I'll have to come back to it later.

In the meantime, I'd just like to take one step back and ask whether 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. If you don't, I suppose there's no point in continuing the discussion, as the statement seems self-evidently true.

 

[urbanhack]

Joe T seems angry and obsessed.

 

[GoFishTN]

In summary:

RC / fatguy / some others: Absent a compelling reason not to, everyone should be subject to paying property taxes.

Joe T: Churches should be exempt by virtue of being non-profit organizations.

RC: Agreed, so long as there's a compelling reason to exempt non-profit organizations from paying property taxes. What's the compelling reason?

fatguy didn't know others weren't subject to paying property taxes so I'm not sure he made that argument.

And you have my reason(s) inaccurate even though I've posted it about 5 times.

The non-profit thing was one of your reasons, wasn't it?

Another was "they do good things". Sorry, but that's clearly not a compelling reason to be exempt from property taxes, or lots of people and corporations would also be exempt.

The third was "to more clearly define the separation between church and state". I have no idea what the hell that means or why it should be a reason to be exempt.

So, since the non-profit one seems to be the one that I can't rule out immediately, I chose to focus on that.

Westboro Baptist says stuff a lot of people don't like. Their property taxes keep going up every year. They appeal, but that takes time and more money. Eventually they run out of it. No more Westboro Baptist.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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

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.

 

[humpback]

But everyone doesn't pay taxes. So the everyone should pay taxes doesn't really hold water.

Who are the other non-tax paying entities you're talking about exactly? Corporations with sweetheart deals?

Yes, and the thousands of other "entities" that pay no taxes but live in this country.

Everyone cries fairness when headed in one direction but cries foul when it swings back the other way. You want to be fair? Abolish all taxes and set up a flat national sales tax on everything. Done. Fairness achieved across the board.

Schlzm

Accept a Flat Tax isn't fair to those who aren't making out. The less you make the more it hurts.

Of course it's fair across the board. Everyone pays exactly the same as everyone else. I'm sorry if the taxes on that 65" 3d tv is outside your wealth band but realize that's just how it is and learn to live within your means. No preferential or penalizing treatment. I would even be open to allowing breaks/subsidies for basic subsistence items to those which fall under a certain income range. You can't cry "fair share" then add a bunch of shifting caveats to make things unfair again.Schlzm

No it in't fair. 5% of 400 week hurts a lot more than 5% of 1000 a week. Thats why we have a progressive tax system, fair is you make more you pay more.

Except for the fact that at a certain point on the downswing you pay nothing, then you actually begin to make something as well. You spend more you pay more is in fact more fair. I would even be open to sliding style percentage. Subsistance items are taxed extremely low, luxery and pointless items are higher. Fairness isn't soaking one side to keep the other dry.Schlzm

Yeah because a 39.6% when you make over 400k is getting soaked. It's amazing to me that this country ran on a 92% top rate, which kicked in at 200k, and built the biggest economy on earth during the 50s.