These prople pay taxes on the dilapidated house...

[Playinghardball]

Especially since churches regularly insert themselves into political issues, it's time they pay taxes live everyone else....

[Iggo]

1. Word.

[MineralMan]

2. K&R. I absolutely agree.

All church properties should be taxed at the prevailing property tax rates. Period. Let them pay their share, since they enjoy the benefits of that taxation, just like we all do.

The fire department and police department show up when called to a church, and the church is on a public street.

[lsewpershad]

56. +1

[Warren Stupidity]

3. kr

[CFLDem]

4. I want to agree

but the first amendment is too important to override.

Anything that is taxed is under government control. Government has no right to control religion in this country.

Besides, what the government taxes, it can also choose to selectively fund so we could easily find ourselves under a state religion if the first amendment is breached.

[jtuck004]

5. You mean like giving special dispensation to people who want to ignore the law that offers birth

control, while they hide behind a shield of the 1st amendment so they don't have to pay taxes?

[CFLDem]

7. If they are church employees

performing a function with no secular equivalent, then there's nothing wrong with that.

I do agree that denying hospital workers and religious teachers BC is BS, though.

[jtuck004]

14. Not talking about when they are handing out crackers and wine...

Here.

"In October 2012, severe back pain brought Savita Halappanavar to a Catholic hospital in Galway, Ireland. When it was revealed that her 17-week pregnancy was unsustainable, doctors ignored her pleas and refused to perform a life-saving abortion, citing Catholic doctrine. Savita died. Her death has implications for all women, knowingly pregnant or not, who enter a Catholic hospital anywhere in the world.
...
"

They want their religious beliefs to govern their actions, including what would be seen outside of their building as malpractice, maybe even murder. And they want us to pay for their superstition, and to avoid their fair share of the costs of our infrastructure, even when their decisions wreck the lives of others.

No.

[CFLDem]

17. Agreed

[jberryhill]

8. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment

This odd belief never seems to die.

Newspapers are protected by the First Amendment. Do newspapers, publishers, TV stations, etc. - all of whose activities are protected by the First Amendment - pay taxes?

YES, they do.

Do people who make and sell guns, under the second amendment, pay taxes? YES, they do.

Do attorneys, to whom you have a right under the sixth amendment, pay taxes? YES, they do.

Churches are not untaxed because they are "religious" per se. nor because their activities are Constitutionally protected. They are untaxed because they are non-profit organizations, like a lot of other untaxed non-profit organizations.

It has NOTHING to do with the First Amendment. A truckload of other First Amendment activities ARE TAXED.

[CFLDem]

9. Touché

[dbackjon]

11. Great post

As long as the taxes do NOT single out a church, or make them pay a different rate than a regular business, or pay taxes differently based on denomination - i.e. Islam Temples pay double, etc. it would be legal.

[Liberty Belle]

29. Newspapers don't pay taxes if they're nonprofits. But there are better answers to this problem.

I run a tax-exempt news organization that is barely sustainable now since nonprofits are limited on the ways they can raise funds. Nonprofit radio for instance can't sell ads, just underwriting spots with noncommercial messages, not what sponsors want. So tax exempt status for nonprofit media outlet is very important to preserve.

I'm certainly not a fan of megachurches or any churches that step over the line such as a local megachurch that has let right-wing politicians preach from the pulpit during election season. The answer is for the IRS to show some guts and yank their tax-exempt status.

But there are also many small and impoverished churches, some doing very good work - feeding the poor in our area, for instance, or serving the immigrant and refugee communities. They deserve their tax breaks. Let's not forget that the abolition movement started with some progressive-minded churches. Many churches have backed other social justice movements from the civil rights movement to the peace movement (ie Quakers).

the answer to helping the poor and oppressed isn't to gouge nonprofits. The answer is to make corporations pay their fair share, along with wealthy individuals, get better wages and benefits for workers, and yank nonprofit status from organizations that flaunt the rules. Also have regulatory enforcement against predatory lenders who made so many struggling folks lose their homes.

[jberryhill]

30. I wasn't taking a position

...just addressing a canard.

[Enthusiast]

40. + a shit load......nt

[Half-Century Man]

12. I think this is a non point.

You might have missed the point of freedom of religion. The first amendment protects religions from national favoritism, none may be nationally endorsed over any other. All are free to select any of the approved forms of worship (or none) and pursue happiness as they may.
Governmental control of religious organizations already exist and has from the start.
Churches must meet building codes for example.
Many forms of religion are outlawed ie, the traditional worship of Baal, the traditional worship of Kali, traditional festivals to Wooden, the traditional forms of submitting prayers to most of the Mesoamerican deities, all requiring human sacrifices.
Many religious practices are restricted or heavily regulated, polygamy, the use of herbal intoxicants, etc.

[Merlot]

15. Anything taxed is under govt control?

Paying property taxes on a house puts your house under gov't control? Sales tax on groceries makes your groceries under gov't control? How does that work?

[CFLDem]

19. Well

Two ways:
1) if it can be taxed at 1% it can theoretically be taxed at 100%.

2) If you cannot pay said taxes, the gov't can force a tax forfeiture.

I prefer my religion and gov't to stay as far apart of each other as possible (while keeping health and safety in mind).

[dbackjon]

32. And I prefer

Religion completely out of politics and government but that doesn't happen

Religion and their extremist have denied me equality for all of my life

Text mall in this comes from a preachers kid

[CFLDem]

46. Of course it doesn't happen.

Humans are superstitious creatures and gov't is run by humans.

Even if we elected a purely atheist congress, president, and Supreme Court, there would still be superstition in our laws.

Religion in gov't is bad, but government in religion is a recipe for instant tyranny.

[happyslug]

25. The power to tax, is the power to destroy.

Thus ANY tax can be used to destroy.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html

17 U.S. at 427:

That the power of taxing it by the States may be exercised so as to destroy it is too obvious to be denied.

[Curmudgeoness]

27. I don't see a First Amendment issue here.

If you tax all churches the same as anyone else, you are not setting up a state religion. And you are not giving special privilege to religious organizations, which I see as more of a government interference into religion than by treating all churches as you do anything else.

[CFLDem]

47. I would agree with that scheme.

Of creating an option for churches to pay a standard tax if they want to make political statements.

It might intimidate some churches into staying politically neutral and it would further hasten the decline of religion once it becomes openly political.

The only possible risk is the loss of social cohesion once religions make openly political statements.

[Curmudgeoness]

59. Since humans are very social creatures,

I am not sure that I agree that there would be a loss of social cohesion if churches and religion even disappeared. There are many other groups and causes that would bring people together. I will agree that in my part of the country, there are more social events sponsored by churches than just about anything else, but that would probably change if there were no churches. But I don't see a day when churches and religion would be gone, even if they were fairly taxed. After the brouhaha over taxing them settled down, if would be the same as all the rest of us who pay taxes....it would just be one more expense that had to be paid.

[fasttense]

38. Taxing something does NOT mean the state controls it.

Newspaper and TV profits are taxed, food is taxed, wages are taxed, water is taxed. Most everything is taxed. Why not religions who want to play politics. If they don't want the tax, don't go playing politics on us tax paying citizen's nickle.

[Enthusiast]

39. The government wouldn't seek to control,

only to collect taxes. We would not find ourselves with a state religion just because of taxes. Your argument is unsound.

Collecting taxes does not override the first amendment.

[mrmpa]

44. Perhaps.........

instead of viewing it as government would have "control" over religion, we could view it as religion "reaping" the benefits of what government has to offer.

[dsc]

49. actually it is the opposite

we grant the exemption to all charities but churches are the only ones which don't have to fill out paperwork to prove it is a charity.

[7962]

55. I agree, but tax church-owned property that is not the church or church school

There are many income producing properties owned by religious institutions that SHOULD be taxed.

[haele]

6. I see that Mormon cathedrial every time I go by UCSD.

It's on some PRIME La Jolla property. Just think of the revenue it could have made, the roads and lights and water mains it could have fixed...

Ah well.

Haele

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. I'd much rather focus FIRST on getting the 1% and corporations to pay their fair share.

After that we can take a look at everyone else. Shining cathedrals on the hill may piss me off but they're not the real enemy in economic inequity.

[kjones]

35. I think I'd agree with that.

I'm not religious in any way and I think super churches are ridiculous
and hypocritical (european cathedrals are pretty interesting though).
Still, I'm not keen on saying they should pay taxes.

Though, if you can somehow argue against specific churches acting
instead as businesses in and of themselves, well that might
change things for them.

[Enthusiast]

41. I agree, but only if religion stays out of politics.

[Bluenorthwest]

43. But in some cases the church is the 1%

Vatican is the world's 3d largest real estate owner, with holdings of around 177 million acres world wide. This includes prime commercial real estate collecting rents from all manner of tenants.

[hobbit709]

13. Jefferson and Madison thought they should pay taxes.

[onethatcares]

20. Jesus said

"render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceasers, render unto God, the things that are Gods"

I think that sums it up pretty nicely. But I may be mistaken.

[happyslug]

24. Please cite, modern real estate taxes are a product of the late 1800s....

Henry George was the big advocate of it, but then he only wanted to tax the land value NOT the value of what was built on the land. His rationale was simple, the value of the land had more to do with what was around that piece of land NOT what was built on it. For example two pieces of land, one right at the intersections of two highways and the other two miles away from that highway, can have the same lay, content and even structures, but people will pay more for the land at the intersection then the land two miles away.

Jefferson wanted to remove taxes off ALL land (thus taxing Churches was OK with him for he would have exempted all LAND from taxation, thus undoing extending taxes to Churches). Jefferson also advocated people should invest in Slaves for their bring more money then investments in land (Jefferson was NOT a great economic thinker).

Henry George is considered one of the Great Economic Thinkers of this day. His book "Progress and Poverty" was fundamental in setting up real estate taxation in the US:\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_and_Poverty

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jgeorge.htm

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_George

http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/

His speech on the "Crime of Poverty":

http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/georgecripov.html

Just a comment is George is the person one should cite when it comes to taxes, the Founding Fathers wanted to take taxes from land and put it on others

Furthermore, Churches that are in the Center of Towns, tend to be meeting places in addition to Churches. This was a New England Tradition that caught on in Pennsylvania by the 1700s and spread across the US (Except in the South). On the other hand, most commercial establishments today are in the Suburbs, and in the Suburbs most Churches are in lower prices areas, thus the taxes, if they were accessed, would NOT be that high. On the other hand, most churches are low income churches and any taxes, more then they are paying now, may just bankrupt them and there goes the meeting place (and often the local voting place, for no place else has the room).

Sorry, I have to object to the idea of taxing churches, provided they are willing to rent out the buildings to others when such leases do NOT interfere with the purpose of the church (and most Churches will do so, this was the only restrictions imposed on Churches during the French Commune of 1871 and the Churches operated under those rules during the Commune). Churches often bring up the value of the houses near them, for churches, like schools are a good place for Children to play (When I was a Child I played in many a Church's parking empty parking lot without objection, just try that with a suburban mall).

I have rarely seen Churches in area of high property values (except in old town centers, but with suburbanization even in town centers those tend NOT to be high property values today) thus taxing them will do more harm then good. What we should do is increase LAND taxes, as Henry George advocated and abolish taxes on the buildings built on those lands (another Henry Georg point).

[dbackjon]

33. You need to check out the suburbs of most wealthy southern cities

Wealthy southern cities

The land that most Mormon churches are on it's always prime real estate

[Paper Roses]

16. Agree! n/t

[happyslug]

18. Do the people in the first house pay real estate taxes on that home?

Many states provide an "Homestead Exemption"

Exemptions by state (please note this list includes NOT only exemptions from taxes, but exemptions from Levys, some states do only the later, some states do only the former, and some states do both and neither):

http://www.lawchek.net/resources/forms/que/homestead.htm

It has some errors, for example Pennsylvania has a Homestead exemption from taxation, but it MUST be agreed to be your local government. The County of Allegheny has adopted such an exemption for its taxes, but the City of Pittsburgh and other municipalities within the County have refused.

The main reason for most exemptions is when it comes to values of homes below about $20,000, it is hard to determined its value given it takes about $2000 to "close" on the sale of a piece of property if the property is purchased with a mortgage.

List of Exemptions within Allegheny County for private homes:

http://www.alleghenycounty.us/opa/abate.aspx

Philadelphia County is exempting all homes worth less then $30,000 if owner occupied:

http://cityofphiladelphia.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/tax-relief-is-knocking/

Just pointing out the house to the left MAY be exempt from taxes just like the building on the RIGHT.

[Curmudgeoness]

28. If they live in PA, they do.

And if they live in TX, they do. Those are the two states where I have owned a house. Both have homestead exemptions. But those exemptions are not for the full amount of tax due, just a small percentage of the tax. I have not heard of any states that have a total exemption for homesteads.

[happyslug]

34. Pennsylvania adopted the Homestead exemption in 1998.

And then said it was local option. Philadelphia has adopted it, Allegheny County has, the City of Pittsburgh and other local governments have not. It was adopted under Act 50 of 1998 after the State passed a Constitutional Amendment permitting such exemptions.

[Curmudgeoness]

57. Are you saying that some localities in PA

are totally exempt from property taxes? My municipality did adopt it, but it is only for a small portion of the tax. I pay nearly $2000 property tax on my house, which would sell for about $30,000. I get an exemption of about $200. I still pay a significant amount.

[happyslug]

62. Homestead exemptions are limited as to amounts

Most have a cap, The First $20,000 of value, the value above that amount is still taxable. Philadelphia exempts the first $30,000 only:

http://www.phila.gov/OPA/AbatementsExemptions/Pages/Homestead.aspx

I suspect the $30,000 exemption is state wide, but can not find a state source in the few minutes I did search. I suspect the reason is it is a local option, i.e. if your local municipality does not adopt it, it does not apply. In Allegheny county, The county has opt for the exemption, but not the City of Pittsburgh and other local governments.

[jberryhill]

31. Fine, let God pick one as his primary residence

When I first heard a church called "God's house" as a kid, I thought "dang, he's got a lot of houses".

[arthritisR_US]

21. I agree! nt

[passiveporcupine]

22. Any time a person, corporation, or other entity

makes enough wealth to build a structure like that, it means they are keeping too much money and not divesting it appropriately in the community. Property taxes should apply to property owned by churches...not necessarily their income. I am an atheist, so I have no problem taxing their income as well, but that income is often used in charitable ways. Building a monolith like that is not using the money for the good of the people...it is using it to glorify the religion, and no religion should be glorified like that. It's obscene. The vatican is obscene too.

[mopinko]

23. in chicago, they also get free water.

any nonprofit, no matter how wealthy, can get free water. the rest of us watch our water bills double every few years.
i don't mind those that really serve, like hospitals, but churches?
yeah, enough with the free ride.

[logosoco]

26. Any entity that benefits from the roads, schools, fire departments,

etc. should pitch in. Elderly people can get exemptions if they are low income. Churches should have to show that they are benefiting the community if they want to get out of paying taxes. Any corporation that uses workers that got a public education should pay taxes. Anyone who makes a profit through the use of roads should pay taxes.
I do not see how a church paying taxes to their local community is not square with the 1st amendment. They should want to help the community schools, roads, fire department, etc. It does not make them "under government control". The government is not telling them they can't be there, the government is not telling people they must go there.

[Enthusiast]

42. +1 a whole bunch.......nt

[daleanime]

36. K&R....

[Live and Learn]

37. I disagree. They shouldn't be taxed but they should be regulated.

They should be regulated to ensure that they do not interfere financially in the political process.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. RCC owns about 177 million acres of real estate world wide, including very high end prime commercial

sites in every major city and they are the largest holder of NYC real estate. All tax free, even those properties that are profit making and have absolutely no liturgical use, rented to banks, luxury jewelers, hotels, you name it.

[Thor_MN]

48. Churches are media outlets, with virtually no laws

When they start broadcasting, I think they are no different than any other television or radio entertainment and should be taxed as such. Property taxes pay for local services which churches consume and should be assessed. Church employees should (and may, I have no idea) pay income tax. The church itself should be able to offset income by the cost of charitable work (even though though it's "double deductioning" as the money comes from charitable donation) but pay taxes on everything else.

[Festivito]

50. Some churches benefit a community, some do not.

It is hard to describe and harder to codify the difference between those who do and those who do not, as difficult as it is to describe the difference between art and pornography.

You know it when you see it. But, even then we as a people will disagree -- on some of it.

Should churches pay their fair share? Of course.
Should that fair share account for the benefits a church offers? Of course.

Is that going to be easy to determine? Hell no!

[INdemo]

51. Really... I count 14 steeples

and that's just one side. Do people really need a multi-million dollar church to worship in?..I would just bet liberals aren't allowed in this church. And yes I'm serious.

[philosslayer]

63. Do you really?

Do you have any links or examples where liberals were physically not allowed in a church? I'd be interested if that has ever happened.

[reformist2]

52. The tax-exempt loophole is a big reason there's so much religious craziness in America.

I have to say the religious protections afforded by the first amendment were done with the best of intentions, but it was practically an engraved invitation for every kook, cult leader, or fraud to get rich by setting up a "church."

But, having said that, there are still many legitimate religious institutions out there that do a lot of good and offer a unique counterpoint to the worldly and money-driven interests of the government. So I still have to err on the side of the separation of church and state - no taxes on churches. And no muzzle on what they can say.

[Historic NY]

53. What sayeth the leaders...

“The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt from equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization, to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community.” ~James A. Garfield, Congressional Record, 1874

"I would also call your attention to the importance of correcting an evil that, if permitted to continue, will probably lead to great trouble in our land....it is the accumulation of vast amounts of untaxed church property....In 1850, the church properties in the U.S. which paid no taxes, municipal or state, amounted to about $83 million. In 1860, the amount had doubled; in 1875, it is about $1 billion. By 1900, without check, it is safe to say this property will reach a sum exceeding $3 billion....so vast a sum, receiving all the protection and benefits of government without bearing its portion of the burdens and expenses of the same, will not be looked upon acquiescently by those who have to pay the taxes....I would suggest the taxation of all property equally, whether church or corporation." -Ulysses S. Grant

[Stryder]

54. Spot on.

[99Forever]

58. Personally...

... I think that any church that sticks it's nose into politics should pay triple the tax rate for all of it's income and property,

There should be ZERO tax deductions for "contributions" to any religious organization. Period.

[pansypoo53219]

60. big part of the french revolution.

[hughee99]

61. Yes, we need to start taxing all non-profit organizations! n/t