Should "religious contributions" be tax deductible?

[welshTerrier2]

The US tax laws allow citizens to reduce their federal tax burdens by making contributions to "approved" religious institutions.

From one perspective, it might be assumed that these institutions are providing some form of needed social services to the society in a quasi-governmental way. By contributing to a church, temple or mosque, the services they provide would perhaps alleviate the strain on the federal budget.

The problem is, though, these institutions really are under no obligation whatsoever to provide services and, those who do are certainly permitted to provide services only to their own membership should they so desire.

A significant portion of the contributions, I've been told by a friend who is a priest, go to pay for the church's "infrastructure". In Massachusetts, many churches have had to close over the last decade or two due to severe financial problems. How much money could possibly have been available to provide government-like services under those circumstances?

Viewing religions as a collection of thoughts and beliefs, it's difficult to understand why one set of beliefs should qualify for a tax deduction while another set of beliefs should not. For example, if I "worship" welsh terriers, and I do, why shouldn't I be able to deduct the costs of caring for my dog? Or, perhaps on a somewhat more serious note, if I make contributions to MoveOn or to DU, why shouldn't those be tax deductible?

Put another way, why should contributions to religious institutions absolve you of some of your tax burden while contributions to other organizations that represent "systems of thoughts or beliefs" are not deductible? It seems like all the current laws are doing is subsidizing religion. Do you agree with that?

And once again, if you agree the deductibility of religious contributions is just plain wrong, do you agree that no politician would dare touch the issue? That's ultimately a flaw in our system. The big and powerful constituencies seem able to write their own laws and no one would dare to challenge them.

Comments?

[Totally Committed]

1. Only in a country where there is no seperation of Church & State...

otherwise, why give a tax break to religious contributions? (Note: Any religion, for any purpose)

TC

[liberal N proud]

2. I have no problem with it as long as the church stays out politics

As long as the church where the money is given does not preach political views to it's members.
Many churches do some great things in the community. In the smaller communities, the church is the first line assistance for many in need.

I think there needs to be a hard and fast way to determine if a church organization is involved in politics and it needs to be applied to all churches equally.

[welshTerrier2]

5. why should my tax dollars fund your statues?

churches violate the laws on political campaigning constantly. they do so even to the point of "recommending" candidates. so, I agree with the points you raised on that issue.

HOWEVER, i don't see why a portion of my tax dollars, and yours, should go to fund religious artifacts and bibles and statues and such ...

Perhaps, if religious institutions did indeed provide "great things in the community" to the general public, some portion of contributions they receive could be deductible. The bottom line is that the federal government should not be "subsidizing religion".

Does MoveOn, to take my earlier example, do "some great things in the community"? Does my local newspaper do great things? If they publish ideas to make a better informed electorate, should I be able to deduct the price I pay for a subscription? Why not? The paper espouses a set of ideas and values that I perhaps believe in. I value the service they provide.

The point is that calling something a "religion" seems very arbitrary. If you establish certain constructs, like there must be a God or a supporting text or some type of biblical historical basis to qualify as a religion, even then I would ask why such establishment should receive special treatment by the government while other systems of beliefs in other institutions does not? I understand there is all sorts of historical precedent but that hardly makes it the right thing to do.

[Mark_Pogue]

8. But yet...NRA is tax-exempt.

What's does NRA contribute to society?

[ieoeja]

33. Training

"NRA became the only national trainer of law enforcement officers with the introduction of its NRA Police Firearms Instructor certification program in 1960. Today, there are more than 10,000 NRA-certified police and security firearms instructors."

Source: http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

[liberal N proud]

10. I am sure there is much historical reasoning behind my opinion

I do however think there are very valuable things that a church does for a community and most of them are charitable.
Without the contributions from members those things will not be done with in those communities.
Although contributions to churches are tax deductible, many of the members who give that 20% each week don't take advantage of it or many don't realize they can include it to be eligible for itemized deductions and simply leave it off.

I am just willing to allow the deduction as opposed to some comfort services not being available in communities.

[lwcon]

3. Yes, it's a subsidy of religion, and it should stop n/t

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Mark_Pogue]

4. Only the contributions for a specific cause..

the religious organizations are already tax-exempt.
Something is wrong with the system.

There are too many churches, but the poor people are forced out of their homes because of "eminent domain"...to build another Wal Mart!
That city or township would have more tax revenue if these churches were taxed.

[gratuitous]

6. What the money goes for

It varies greatly, depending on the structure of the congregation and its denomination (if there is one). Our teeny, tiny congregation has an annual budget of about $50,000. Much of that goes to pay the pastor's half time salary. He works full time, but we can only afford to pay him half time, a situation that obtains quite a bit more often than you might think watching the popular media.

Out of that $50,000, our congregation provides the office and day shelter space for an outfit that helps homeless families get back into housing (we charge them the princely sum of $1 a year for several thousand square feet of space that could reap $40,000 or more a year in the office rental market). Our goal is, in addition, to pay out at least 10% of our annual budget in "outreach," that is, cash donations to other organizations, including our denomination's district office, On Earth Peace Academy, Christian Peacemaker Teams and so forth. This sort of giving also spurs other donations from our congregants. In addition, we supply many persons to the boards for our local church camp, the district board, and the denomination's general board, all of whom volunteer their time for free, and make personal contributions besides.

As for our "big and powerful constituencies," wotta larf that is. As one of the historic peace churches, along with the Quakers and the Mennonites, we're quite accustomed to being ignored not only by our fellow Christians in the larger denominations, but being downright abused by society at large. Our tax dollars are increasingly used for such morally repugnant and sinful activities as war, torture, and militarization of our society. If I can redirect $25 of my tax burden by giving $100 to my church to feed the hungry or house the homeless, I'll willingly make that sacrifice.

[Totally Committed]

7. So, what do atheists get to contribute to for their tax breaks?

Are they not also citizens of the U.S. who pay taxes?

Just saying.

TC

[gratuitous]

9. Donate money to a charitable organization

Churches aren't the only tax-deductible organization out there. Sheesh. What a whiner.

[welshTerrier2]

11. do you support public funding for religious schools?

public funds are public funds.

allowing a tax deduction is fundamentally the same thing as direct payment for services. either way, money is either removed from the federal budget or is not collected into it. the effect is identical. given that, do you support tax deductions for payments to religious schools?

if you suggest that providing charitable services is a "public good", would you make the same argument for education?

and please answer this: to the extent that religious contributions are used for "religious activities and items" not directly related to charitable services, should those contributions be tax deductible? in other words, is it right to ask the public to subsidize the FULL salary of a priest or pay for a painting of "The Last Supper" ??

[Totally Committed]

13. But, for religious people that, too, is a tax deduction....

If religious people get a tax deduction not all Americans do, it is unfair. My tax dollars support your religion.

And, I'm not whining, I'm debating.

TC

[gratuitous]

19. What tax deduction?

You can make a contribution to my church and take it off your taxes just like I do. Or are you looking to get a deduction without making a contribution? That, I submit, would not be fair. And as the clerk and a legal officer for my congregation, if we're getting tax dollars from you, as you claim, then I'm sure not seeing it in our offering plate. But I sure do see the tax dollars that I undeniably pay out of every paycheck going to fund war, torture, and the long reach of American imperialism. I'm sorry you're so exercised about our congregation feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, and somehow thinking that we're doing that with your tax dollars. Imagine my chagrin to see my tax dollars actually being used directly to fund Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and pay the salaries and pensions of the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

If you're looking to reduce your taxable income, you can send money to Doctors Without Borders, Mercy Corps, the college of your choice, or any of hundreds of other organizations. I give some of my money to my church because as a wise man once said, where your treasure is, there will your heart be.

[spooky3]

32. You are missing the points.

1) Since TC objects to paying for your church's infrastructure, saying she has the opportunity to donate and take a tax deduction just as you do makes no sense. Why should she contribute to something she objects to?
2) Her point is that every one of the other charities you mention is available to you for contributions, PLUS you have another one, your church.
3) Her concern is not with finding ways to reduce her taxable income; I think she understands how to do that.
4) The concern shared by many is that Doctors Without Borders, etc., has to account for its administrative vs. charitable funding to a much greater extent than your church does. If it spent most of its money on its donors and employees it would not be tax exempt; the IRS can audit and take away that status and it is more likely to do that with charities than with churches. Further, there are websites that show how much money is spent on mission vs. administration for many charities, but not for churches.

http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp

5) Another concern is that a much greater proportion of your church's money may go for tending to its own flock (who presumably should pay for their own services rather than get a tax deduction, i.e., a subsidy from other taxpayers who have to pay higher taxes as a result) or supporting a religious agenda. In contrast, the typical charity or university (with many exceptions of course) expressly does NOT spend its money on such an agenda but instead focuses on educating everyone, helping the poor, etc. without regard to fostering a belief system. Why should taxpayers subsidize any organization that has the MAIN purpose of taking care of its own or fostering its beliefs on others, rather than has a MAIN purpose of helping the needy or other social good?
6) The Constitution provides for separation of church and state, but not separation of state and the public good, helping the poor etc. If the government directly gave all Christian churches a million dollars a year each, it would probably lose a lawsuit challenging that practice--this would be an example of the government's support of rather than separation from religion. Would it give similar amounts to organizations whose agenda is expressly to foster giving up religious views? The question is, how different is the allowance of tax deductions supporting churches (indirect support) from direct government support?

[gratuitous]

34. Speak for yourself

Totally Committed has chosen not to address any of my points, and I reject your attempt to speak for him or her. Nice try.

1. Where do either of you, though, get the idea that your tax dollars fund my congregation? I'm intimately acquainted with each and every source of funding for our congregation, and I sure as the world don't see any tax receipts from any governmental agency in the offering plate. It's a nonsense point. Neither you nor Totally Committed pays a dime toward running my congregation. You can either shitcan that bogus talking point, or I start hitting the alert button.

2. Oh boo hoo hoo! You give money to something I don't believe in, and get a tax deduction. That's not fair! Boo hoo hoo. Nonsense. You want a tax deduction, then make a contribution somewhere. You don't want to contribute to the same charity I contribute to, so it should be taken off the list? Does that sauce work for the goose as well as the gander?

3. What IS her concern, o great mindreader? Thus far, I've been unable to detect it, unless it's just more of the usual bashing of religious folks that's so hip at DU.

4. Our congregation is subject to the same reporting laws that every other charity in the country has to observe. Our budget is a matter of public record, our board and congregational meetings are regularly scheduled, open to the public, and conducted by a well-defined set of rules and procedures. You want a copy of our budget? I'll send it to you.

5. You so plainly don't know what you're talking about under this point, it would be a waste of bandwidth even to begin responding.

6. Well which is it? Does the government give my congregation millions of dollars every year, or doesn't it? You figure out what it is you're trying to say, and I'll be happy to discuss reality with you. As your post reads now, this is just more mindless, mean-spirited denigration of people of faith.

Finally, though I wish reality were different in this instance, I've mostly grown accustomed to it. I don't know why I bother to get into these threads at DU, but from time to time I do. This post will almost surely be deleted by our faultless moderators, and I'll get another snippy note from the admins (maybe even get tombstoned for my trouble), but this sort of unthinking bigotry and broad-brush prejudice gets my dander up from time to time. Bad enough to have to deal with the lizard brains on the neanderthal right; it's worse in many respects dealing with it in a purportedly progressive community.

[welshTerrier2]

35. you have not responded to the issues I've raised in this thread

question 1: should federal tax dollars subsidize your congregation?

you've said that no money goes to your congregation. you're wrong. i've addressed this issue several times in this thread. the argument that you've looked over the books is a total failure on your part to understand the funding mechanism. let's try this short example again:

you make a $1000 contribution to your congregation. let's say you're in the 25% tax bracket. you reduce your federal tax obligation by $250. you send your congregation $1000 and the we, the people, send you a nice little "tax discount" of $250 on your income taxes. aren't we generous. what was your NET CONTRIBUTION? the answer is $750. but your congregation received $1000. where did the extra $250 come from? that's right; it came from the taxpaying public. you didn't pay $1000 in total; you paid $750.

it's not a question of whether the federal government DIRECTLY sent a check to your congregation; the point is that your NET contribution was $750 and not $1000. the funding mechanism is INDIRECT but it is no less real.

that's point one.

secondly, you didn't answer my question about paying for religious schools. the current law does not allow deductions if you make payments for religious education. the reason for this is that it violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Do you think the law should be changed to allow a tax deduction for amounts paid to religious schools? I do NOT.

and finally, I've elaborated on my position in post #30 downthread if you would like to understand the argument I'm making more clearly.

and one last word speaking just for myself: my intent in starting this thread was to discuss what I view as a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. anyone suggesting that my intent in writing this post was in some way "anti-religion" or critical of religion in any way whatsoever makes such suggestions absent any information on my views. such just isn't the case. the topic of the thread is about whether federal monies should subsidize religious activities and religious artifacts. to emotionalize the discussion into a discussion of attacking religion or religious institutions is woefully misguided.

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Religious contribution = charitable contribution

Religious organizations are classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under the US Tax Code. To get this classification, an organization must be a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Such groups are exempted from federal income tax, but not from other taxes such as employment or FICA.

Whether or not religious organizations should be classed as 501(c)(3) is your real question, I assume?

[Totally Committed]

14. That would work, I guess.

My tax dollars already go to buy bombs and makes wars I don't support. Why should they go to a religion I don't believe in?

I belong to the UU Church in my town, btw. We do a lot of charitable and peacemaking work, but a belief in "God" is not required. Social Justice, equality and peace are what matter. Any homophobes here want their tax $$$ going to our church to pay for the gay marriages done there? Any xenophobes want their tax $$$ going to our immigrant outreach programs? To feed the poor, maybe? Any gun enthusiasts want their tax $$$ to go to our anti-gun campaign?

Then why would I want my tax $$$ to fund a statue of a saint or the Ten Commandments in churches to which I do not belong?

It doesn't make sense.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

15. you assume correctly.

why should an organization "operated exclusively for religious purposes" receive a deduction???

if religious institutions devote a portion of their resources to charitable work, perhaps that "sub-organization" should be kept separate and distinct from the religious activities. then, contributions to that charitable organization would appropriately be classified as a charitable deduction.

absent that, the federal budget can be used to subsidize non-charitable religious activities. this is a tax law that has long since outlived its usefulness.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Because secular charities are a fairly new thing

Into the 1950s and 60s, much of the charitable work in the United States was done by churches and other religious institutions. Nowadays, most charitable services are provided by non-religious groups and few churches provide services outside their own congregation.

I agree that things have changed and religious groups should no longer get a free pass. If they want to be classified as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, they should be required to prove that they provide "substantial community services" in order to get the tax benefits. A church that runs a soup kitchen and operates a clothing bank that gives decent clothing free to those in need... I have no problem with them being tax exempt. A mega church that actively opposes civil rights legislation and make no meaningful contribution to the community... that, I have a real problem with.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. Depends upon the religious institution

My Order has a headquarters, and that's it. It's a couple of buildings at the original Shaker Community in New Lebanon NY. No big mosques or a lot of paid people. My Pir lives a very modest life, and most everyone else doesn't get paid. Money goes to programs and a website with information.

Personally, I'd donate whether or not I got a tax break--I'm not sure I even declare the donation on my taxes (I'd have to ask my husband, who prepares them). But I have no problem allowing tax breaks for religious institutions, even those whose philosophy is vastly different from my own.

[welshTerrier2]

18. my old stomping grounds

i used to take vacations in the Kinderhook area not too far from you. Always meant to visit the Shaker museum but never did.

you stated But I have no problem allowing tax breaks for religious institutions, even those whose philosophy is vastly different from my own. but that's NOT the objection I have to allowing religious deductions. btw, just as an aside, a high income earner gets a much larger tax reduction for every dollar they contribute to a religious organization than a low income earner does. something sure doesn't seem right there, eh?

it's not important whether I agree or disagree with the "philosophy" of any given religious organization. the point is that I don't see why I should have to subsidize your Order or anyone else's with my tax dollars. and this is not an "anti-religion" thread. everyone should be totally free to believe in whatever they want to believe in.

the distinction I'm making is that I don't see why contributions you make to support your beliefs should be tax deductible. why should you be able to reduce your obligation to support the national budget any more than someone who supports other types of organizations that don't qualify for tax reductions? and the assertion is not necessarily that anyone is getting rich from this tax provision. the assertion is that, certainly to the extent that contributions are used for specifically religious purposes, the federal government has no business subsidizing those activities. looked at another way, you are being allowed to earmark certain expenditures to religious organizations that then are not available to be spent as part of the federal budget.

again, I would ask why my contribution to DU and my contribution to MoveOn are not tax deductible. is your contribution to your Order somehow more valuable than the choices I make? Why is that? How do you reconcile the difference? Where I value the service to the society of one organization, e.g. MoveOn, you value another. By what definition do you support granting special tax treatment to your donations and prohibit mine? That's the distinction I don't agree with.

And in the end, as a bottom line, if a religious organization chooses to spend money on religious artifacts and pay the salaries of those who preach the gospel, why is it right to have the federal treasury subsidize that? no one is making the argument that religions are not valuable to some; the argument is that the public should not be required to contribute to them.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. As I understand it,

political organizations cannot be tax deductible. Now, my Order makes a strict and strong point of being non-political. I can be as political as I want as an individual, but it is absolutely forbidden to make a political statement on behalf of my Order. I strongly agree with this stance and the law that says that any religious institution that gets mixed up in politics loses its tax-exempt status.

I checked with my husband and found that we don't claim the money we send to the Order as a tax write-off. I have no problem supporting my organization without that incentive.

But one thing in your writing that I frankly don't understand--how is someone getting a tax break by making a contribution translate into using your tax dollars to support that institution? Please clarify this for me.

[welshTerrier2]

28. that's a fair question

let me see if i can explain the answer.

maybe an example would be useful. let's say you make a $1000 tax deductible contribution to an approved religious institution. and let's say you're in the 25% tax bracket. by taking a $1000 deduction, you would effectively reduce your tax liability to the federal government by $250 ($1000 times 25%). with me so far?

in this example, for every $1000 you contribute, the government kicks in $250. your "net" out-of-pocket contribution was actually only $750.

now, we could stop at this point and simply say that every single American had to chip in to refund that $250 dollars to you (given this hypothetical). my little tiny share of that would, granted, amount to virtually nothing but we each own a share of the federal budget. looked at another way, money spent to "chip in" for religious contributions is not available for other programs. let's say the budget for Pell grants is cut or benefits for veterans is cut or whatever. Those seeking to utilize these services now have to pay more. my point is NOT that this is ALL caused by just a single tax law. But each time a "tax discount" is allowed, it's a cost to another budget priority. it's a public cost.

so, if you were trying to see if I'm being forced to send a check directly to your Order, that's not how the money flows. it's much, much more indirect than that. but every single taxpayer "chips in" for every "tax discount" and every single taxpayer "chips in" for actual federal expenditures. the money has to be coming from someplace. in the case of federal taxation, it comes from everyone.

one other way to look at this is that everyone's tax rate could be just a little teeny weeny bit lower if we didn't allow tax deductions for religious activities. because that deduction currently exists, we have to all pay for them.

that's about the best I can do trying to explain it. again, none of my views should be viewed in any way as a criticism of religion. that's not at all my point. but i don't see why the PUBLIC should be chipping in for religious activities and religious artifacts.

you acknowledged the issue of your Order remaining non-political which is a requirement of the law IF they want to retain their tax exempt status. i would ask the same question again: why shouldn't my political contributions, say to the Democratic Party or to MoveOn qualify for a tax deduction? Why is it fair to assume that the work that your Order does is somehow more valuable to the society than trying to stop a war or trying to bring fairness to the courts or any other political issue MoveOn might wage? It's not to say the work your Order does isn't valuable; it's to ask why political work is any less so. In the end, my view is that the government should not be subsidizing religious activities.

Hope this answered your question. It's about as close as I could get.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. Yes it did

And you may recall that I also stated that I didn't take the tax deduction for the contributions to my Order-so in my case, my contribution didn't cost you a dime.

You don't like paying out to religious non-profits-I understand. But I don't like paying out to non-religious non-profits that have a conservative agenda. And I'm sure those who believe only in the "cut and drug" version of "modern" medicine would resent paying out to cover those who donate to a holistic health non-profit. And then there's the Boy Scouts, who appear to have certain biases against gays that many resent. What I'm getting at is that there are a wide variety of non-profits out there, and I'm sure each and every one of them has at least one taxpayer who doesn't agree with their mission statement. So what do we do? Eliminate all tax deductions for non-profits?

I say no--the value of non-profits in general far outweighs my objections to certain non-profits. What really gets MY goat isn't "paying" for non-profits but having to pay for the military-industrial complex and crooks in government.

[welshTerrier2]

30. you're still missing the point

first of all, this is NOT about you and whether you take a tax deduction. the topic is about whether you should BE ABLE to take a tax deduction.

and secondly, the issue is NOT about what I LIKE or what YOU like. the issue is about the CONSTITUTIONALITY of these tax deductions. Amendment One to the US Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

This law is why citizens cannot reduce their tax liability when they pay to send their children to private religious schools. The point I'm raising is that it is not being enforced in a consistent way when 501C(3) status is granted to religious institutions.

This has nothing to do with whether qualified non-profits receive money for doing progressive things or for doing conservative things. And it has nothing to do with the argument that we are stuck paying for all sorts of things "we don't like." It has to do with using the federal treasury to pay for religious activities and artifacts, whether I like them or not, which I view as a clear violation of the first amendment to the Constitution.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. Ok, NOW I understand

How about this? In Arkansas, there are 501c3s and 501c3R--both are non-profits, but the latter is the non-profit religious institutions can get. The basic difference is NOT in the payments, but rather that you don't have to provide as much paperwork (if memory serves, the Rs don't have to have a mission statement; I helped a retreat center get non-profit status about 15 years ago, which is why I know anything about this). What is interesting is that religious institutions in Arkansas have a choice-to go straight 501c3 or not. Most opt for the "R", but they don't have to, if they wish to go through the extra hoop of paperwork.


So what do you do if a religious institution opts as a 501c3? And their mission statement is, say, to run a used clothing/furniture store for people in the town so that folks can find affordable clothing and victims of fires can get furnishings and clothes? Would you still have an objection to a non-profit like this, just because the people organizing it are, for example, the local Ministerial Alliance? I ask because we have such a non-profit where I work. There is no preaching, no Bibles (unless one is donated, and I've not seen one in the used book section--all I've seen are Reader's Digests, kid's books, and romances), just a group of ministers who run this store. Would you deny them non-profit status because the people running it are from area churches instead of, say, the Humane Society or Hospital Auxillery ? (We have used clothing stores run by these groups as well). If your answer is yes, then aren't you practicing discrimination against people because of religion?

[welshTerrier2]

37. excellent response - thank you

we're finally really communicating ...

here's my answer to your question: work that religious organizations provide that could reasonably be considered a "public good" should absolutely receive the exact same tax treatment as non-religious organizations that provide the same service. so, in your example, if a religious group runs a Humane Society or a Hospital Auxillary, they should fully qualify for 501(C)3 status for those public functions. there should be no discrimination given these facts.

now, consider this - some non-religious non-profits, in addition to providing some sort of "public good", for example free reading tutoring or working with the blind, also might seek to get involved in politics. many of these organizations setup a completely separate organization to clearly delineate between their 501(C)3 activities, which are tax deductible, and their political activities which are not. this is perfectly appropriate. no one is denying them a right to participate in the political process but, according to current law, contributions to the political group are not tax deductible. by maintaining essentially two organizations and keeping their functions separated, they are in full compliance with the tax laws.

i think there are two ways this same "keeping things separate" might be approached by religious institutions. the "cleanest" way to do it is to clearly separate religious activities from "public service" activities by forming a separate organization. contributions to the latter should be tax deductible; contributions to the former, i.e. the religious organization, should not be (imo).

a second method, subject to greater confusion, would be for the religious institutions to keep a record of what expenditures go for religious purposes and what expenditures go for public service. then, the institution would have to file something with the IRS and notify any contributors what percentage of their funds are spent on "deductible" activities. for example, if you made a $1000 contribution to your Order and your Order spends 75% of its funds doing public service, you could deduct 75% of the $1000 contribution or $750. this second method seems to create a nightmare of paperwork. a separate organization, in my view, would be the way to go.

right now, the tax laws almost automatically grant a 501(C)3 status to any "bona fide" religious organization. They wouldn't let me start my own church called: The Divine Church of DU Wackos (although some have suggested this to me). But any bona fide religious group is essentially automatically approved for tax exempt status. The examples you've been providing have been perfect in that they exactly highlight the issue I'm raising. The public should not be subsidizing religious activities and artifacts but it's perfectly appropriate for the public to subsidize public service activities. Of course, this then requires an additional qualifier when you broach the subject of the deductibility of tuition to religious schools.

Right now, such tuition payments are NOT tax deductible. One might argue that providing such education is a "public good". My view is that if the government, be it federal, state or local, provides the service, i.e. mandates that public education be made available to all, then this adds a new wrinkle to the discussion. In this case, although one might argue about a religious education being a public good, I do NOT support the deductibility of such payments.

Finally, to directly answer the last question you asked: YES, the example you cited would clearly be discrimination against people because of religion. I would never support doing that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

38. All right!

Yes, indeed, this is becoming a stimulating discussion. Now here's a kicker:

Let's suppose your suggestions are taken-that is, that religions are not tax deductible, but if they do some good, such as, say, providing used clothing for burn-out victims(as in the previous example), or providing an English literacy program to immigrants, they can apply for a 501c3, just like any other service organization. Couldn't it get a bit tricky if some (but not all) of the books used in the literacy program had some religious content? What if they used, say, the 23rd Psalm in the literacy program, because it is a work that is known to their client population in their native tongue? They don't try to interpret it, or anything--it's just part of the reading material. Would that organization then lose its non-profit status? Or would the organization have to go further than that to make the literacy program taxable by your suggestion?

Here's another question: what if an organization, in order to increase humanity's understanding of different cultures and thought, posted an on-line library of the world's spiritual traditions? There is no commentary, nothing saying one scripture is better than another; in all possible cases, several different translations of the original text are given so that the researcher can compare them, and of course links to the original language text are also there. The only thing that comes close to a commentary is a search engine, where you can put in key words like "love" or "service" and find all the passages from all the books where these words are found. Would this sort of organization be allowed tax exempt status if your suggestion was in effect? Or would it only be allowed if, say, the works of Darwin or Freud (or pick your favorite secularist)were included?

[welshTerrier2]

39. ahhhh, the "Gray Zone"

well, OK ... let's take these two examples one at a time ...

first, by way of full disclosure, i am closely associated with a 501C(3) literacy program. good literacy programs use something called "student-centered learning." the idea is to select teaching methods and materials best suited to individual students. if a student is very familiar with the Bible, or very motivated to read it, then that's what should be used. if a "non-substantial" portion of the religious institution's teaching materials are religious, my view is that this should NOT constitute a breach of what I'll call the "public service" requirement. What is "non-substantial"? I have no idea. The point is that if the literacy program could also reasonably be viewed as a bible study program, I think that should jeopardize the program's tax exempt status. The watchword here is reasonableness. In the specific case you raised, teaching primarily the 23 Psalm would, EVEN IF THE TARGET POPULATION MIGHT BE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, cross the line in my opinion. Again, a little flexibility and judgment should be part of the evaluation process but if a religious organization is teaching the Bible, it's hard to not see a substantial religious component to their program.

in your second example, you asked about what I might call "teaching not preaching". To be sure, there is a distinction between the two. A comparative course about religions of the world is much different from "peddling" a specific religion.

HOWEVER, the question to be asked here goes beyond the one you asked. While it's true the example you raised would not disqualify a religious organization from receiving a tax exempt status, a second question still must be asked. That question is: should an organization, religious or otherwise, that offers a website to teach the public about religions of the world qualify for tax exempt status at all. Just to emphasize that point, if I build a website to teach people about the excitement of being a Yankees fan or why it's so much fun owning a welsh terrier or where to vacation in upstate New York, should I qualify as a tax exempt organization?

Now, we could argue the merits about whether your group is providing more valuable information than my group and we could try to somehow measure what websites we value more than what other websites. this seems like an inappropriate use of the 501C(3) tax code provision. this is not to say that all groups with websites or information campaigns should be automatically excluded. I guess my personal view is that "teaching about religion", while I agree it is not a "religious activity", still should not qualify as a tax deductible public service. A public service? yes. A valuable service? perhaps. But tax deductible? I just don't see why. A group like the Red Cross with a website that provides public health information? sure. A veterans organization that tells vets where to get help? sure. Information about religion. not so much. Philosophy? not so much. Travel? of course not.

So, to your Darwin or Freud question, I would not use that as a requirement to make a 501C(3) determination. The reason is that even if a website published only information about Darwin and Freud, I can't see why the organization should be tax exempt. Adding either Moses or Matthew really doesn't make it better or worse. There might be some public value to publishing the site but the standard for tax exemption should require more than that. I would say the same for a website that only teaches about religions of the world. Good information? perhaps ... but not tax exempt.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. Let's define the grey area a bit more

What about a state college that offers an anthropology degree and has classes in religion? My brother and his entire family are anthropologists and have taken many of these type of courses. The one they found most interesting was taught by a shaman who said she could turn herself into an animal (they never told me if they got an in-class demonstration! :) ) Would the school's special status be in peril if they put up a website featuring the holy books of various religions?

One more--what about a group whose primary focus is to achieve cross-cultural understanding and to work on peace between peoples-this group employs movement and sacred phrases from ALL spiritual/cultural traditions without any form of preaching-all are welcome, no one is asked about their religious affiliation-would this group also lose their tax exemption, even though their purpose is NOT a religious one?

[LiberalFighter]

20. They should pay property taxes at full value if the land is over 1 acre

They should pay the cost of any infrastructure improvements by the local or state government.

They should pay income taxes on any profit they produce from the sale of goods or services.

Maintain tax exemption for the church for any tithing received. But eliminate tax deductions for the contributor unless it is given to a religious organization that provides services to the public in general regardless of religion.

[CK_John]

21. Your OP is not factual. Non profits have to file for tax exempt status and just being religious

does not make your contribution tax exempt.

[welshTerrier2]

23. is there something non-factual about this?

from the first line of the OP: The US tax laws allow citizens to reduce their federal tax burdens by making contributions to "approved" religious institutions.

i have a previous background in tax theory. what exactly is not factual about my statement. did you miss the word "approved"?

[CK_John]

24. To me the tax code applies to non profits not religious per se. Religious

organizations take advantage of this as well as many non religious.

[welshTerrier2]

25. these links seem to say churches "automatically" qualify as 501c(3)'s

check out post #12 upthread ...

the point is that no religious activities should be subsidized by the federal government. if by qualifying as a 501c(3) a bona fide religious institution, say a church for example, qualifies for special tax status, I think that's wrong.

i think the church should have to distinguish between its "public welfare", community service activities and its religious activities. contributions to one MIGHT be deductible; the other should NOT be.

check this out about qualifying as a 501c(3):

source: http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm

Churches Are “Automatically Tax-Exempt”

According to IRS Code § 508(c)(1)(A):

Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations.

(a) New organizations must notify secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.
(c) Exceptions.

(1) Mandatory exceptions. Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to—

(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches.

This is referred to as the "mandatory exception" rule. Thus, we see from the IRS’ own publications, and the tax code, that it is completely unnecessary for any church to apply for tax-exempt status. In the IRS’ own words a church “is automatically tax-exempt.”

and check this out regarding the deductibility of contributions (from the same source as above):

Churches Are “Automatically Tax-Deductible”

And what about tax-deductibility? Doesn’t a church still need to become a 501c3 so that contributions to it can be taken as a tax deduction? The answer is no! According to IRS Publication 526:

Organizations That Qualify To Receive Deductible Contributions

You can deduct your contributions only if you make them to a qualified organization. To become a qualified organization, most organizations other than churches and governments, as described below, must apply to the IRS.

In the IRS’ own words a church “is automatically tax-deductible.”

[truebrit71]

22. No.

.

[Bravo Zulu]

27. no

[Vickers]

31. Hell no.

Without going into specifics, I am privy to just how much money a local church wastes, and it would blow your mind.

[mzteris]

40. NO!

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

Absolutely NOT.

[Tesha]

42. The money that goes to support the clubhouse shouldn't be tax-exempt.

My view is that you can pretty-cleanly divide a church's
receipts into two parts:

1) One portion goes to support any good works that
the church does. That, plus a modest set of expenses
for the administration of those programs certainly
should be tax-exempt. (We might haggle over what works
count as "good works", of course. I'd argue that
proselytizing expenses shouldn't count since they
are basically marketing.)

2) But the lions' share of most church receipts just
goes to support what is, essentially, a clubhouse
enjoyed by the members of the church. They get an
obvious benefit from having their clubhouse so that
portion of the receipts shouldn't be tax-exempt.

It's the exact same situation as when, say, public radio
hosts a fund-raiser that features some big-name entertainment.
You don't get p deduct the full price of your ticket because
you're getting some benefit from the entertainment.

Tesha

[New Era]

43. No absolutely not

And churches themselves should be taxed as well. Well at least any church that hands out voting list. Whether it is telling their sheep to vote right or left, they need to be taxed.