Religion
Related: About this forumPoint of Discussion: Why Should Churches Be Exempt from Property Taxes?
Is that not an unfair thing for governments to do? Why is my little house taxed almost $2000 each year in property taxes, while the church a couple of blocks away pays nothing? Where is the justice in that? That church is worth far more than my home, and takes up the equivalent of at least 10 houses. It serves a small number of people, and that number is decreasing each year.
In the meantime, it benefits from the public streets and sidewalks that I am taxed for. It also expects a response from the city police and fire departments, which my taxes help to fund. What is the justification for their property tax exemption? In all 50 states, churches have this type of exemption. In Minnesota, only properties that are used for purposes of worship or other church activities are exempt. I don't know what the rules are in other states.
I would argue that, since churches enjoy benefits provided by the cities and counties where they are located, they should pay property taxes at the same rate, based on the value of the properties, as I do. Why are they exempt from paying their fair share, when they receive the benefits of services paid for by property taxes?
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)When I worked in a CPA firm in Ohio there was a personal property tax. I moved away and don't know if it still exists.
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)Property taxes where I live are based on the assessed valuation of the land and improvements on that land. Except for churches. They pay nothing in property taxes. I find that unreasonable. If the many, many churches in my city paid their share of taxes, property taxes could be lower for everyone, or services could be improved. But, churches pay nothing, while getting all of the services other property owners get. It is unfair, I believe, and should be changed to tax all properties equally.
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)but share in the services
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)Landlords pay property taxes and pass the costs on as part of the rental fees. Tenants are paying them, but not directly to the taxing jurisdiction. Nevertheless, they are paid.
utopian
(1,093 posts)[link:
|MineralMan
(146,309 posts)Igel
(35,309 posts)It was a non-profit. It had no permanent residents. In fact, it was a collective of people who paid taxes on the property they lived in and who would have potentially owned property that it didn't live in.
Similarly, Planned Parenthood is another kind of service organization.
I disagree with the way that Houston did its taxes after a flood event a few years ago: Everybody paid tax based on street-front extent. That included churches. It included food banks. It included private schools. It included public schools.
However, my disagreement is muted by the fact that it was even-handed. You have 3 feet of street-front, you pay 3 x base tax rate. You have 100 feet of street front, you pay 100 x base tax rate.
Too often there's the "yes, they're non-profits, but there are non-profits I approve of because I agree with them and those I think should be shut down on principle, and using property tax to burden them is a good start." For example, a Baptist wanting the mosque or synagogue to not be given tax-exempt status. Or somebody anti-abortion wanting to tax Planned Parenthood or such centers.
In general, civil society organizations are non-taxable. I like civil society as a good thing, and support even those aspects and organizations that I personally don't like.
Unions have a different status, mostly because of SCOTUS. They're collectives for collective action. They are deemed non-taxable because of that. I have trouble seeing much of the distinction, but this was resolved under the duress of the 1930s by judges under pressure to be pro-FDR so there's that.
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)It is not uniform, except for churches, which are exempt everywhere.
Igel
(35,309 posts)But they should be equally applied.
Personally, I think it shuts down civil society to the benefit of those who rule over society. That's just me. And the C&SS was in LA, hardly the most charitably forgiving state when it comes to taxes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Even PP consumes city services, and I don't see why they should be exempt just because they're non-profit.
I'd rather just ensure they have the funds to pay for what they consume.
Igel
(35,309 posts)It says diversity of viewpoints is good, as long as they're all like me. Otherwise, please, Mr. Government, please shut down the people whose version of society I disapprove of.
Shades of Puritan New England.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not everything they do, is.
marble falls
(57,093 posts)MineralMan
(146,309 posts)You should read that again, I think.
marble falls
(57,093 posts)buildings used for schools, canning, farming, animal husbandry, orchards, etc - property other churches don't ppay taxes on. You need to look into the facts before you distort the content of the linked article. The Mormons pay millions more than any other church into taxes they could avoid if they wanted to.
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)actually used for worship, as well. All properties used for worship are tax exempt, for Mormons, too. Or for any other church, for that matter.
I'm not sure what your argument is, really. Exemptions vary from state to state, with regard to church-owned property not used for worship or other religious purposes.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Valued Year 2017
Tax Year 2018
Appraised Land Value ($) 2,795,800
Appraised Imps Value ($) 5,034,500
Appraised Total ($) 7,830,300
Taxable Land Value ($) 0
Taxable Imps Value ($) 0
Taxable Total ($) 0
Just like the Lutheran church next door. And every other fucking church on that road.
They haven't paid property taxes on that lot/building since 1997.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Any non-profit should be taxed. This might result in some having to shut down, including food banks and shelters and other things often provided by these groups.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)they should lose their non profit status. We have churches in Oklahoma that tell their parishioners that if they vote for a Democrat they are going to burn in hell. They should not be a non profit entity.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,695 posts)MineralMan
(146,309 posts)I think they should pay property taxes at the same rate I do. As long as they benefit from the services of their jurisdiction, they should pay in the same way for those services.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,695 posts)That's not to say I disagree also, but they decide these things and I don't. More from Walz:
Determining that the legislative purpose of tax exemption is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion does not end the inquiry, however. We must also be sure that the end result -- the effect -- is not an excessive government entanglement with religion. The test is inescapably one of degree. Either course, taxation of churches or exemption, occasions some degree of involvement with religion. Elimination of exemption would tend to expand the involvement of government by giving rise to tax valuation of church property, tax liens, tax foreclosures, and the direct confrontations and conflicts that follow in the train of those legal processes.
Granting tax exemptions to churches necessarily operates to afford an indirect economic benefit, and also gives rise to some, but yet a lesser, involvement than taxing them. In analyzing either alternative, the questions are whether the involvement is excessive and whether it is a continuing one calling for official and continuing surveillance leading to an impermissible degree of entanglement. Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.
The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees "on the public payroll." There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion. As Mr. Justice Holmes commented in a related context, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921). The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)cannot assess property taxes on churches. It simply says that the exemption doesn't violate the Constitution.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,695 posts)violating the establishment clause and the separation of church and state since James Madison wrote, "It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against the trespasses on its legal rights by others." When the issue of taxation arose later, courts and legislatures were guided by this notion - the need to avoid the entanglements between the state and religion that the minutiae of taxation would require - as well as by Chief Justice Marshall's observation in McCulloch v. Maryland that the power to tax "involves, necessarily, the power to destroy."
The Walz court pointed out that "The exemption created a more minimal and remote involvement between church and state than did taxation because it restricted the fiscal relationship between church and state and reinforced the desired separation insulating one from the other." The fundamental reason for not taxing religious institutions is to protect the separation of church and state that would necessarily be breached if the government involved itself in determining how and to what extent they should be taxed.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,695 posts)it is more important to preserve the separation of church and state by preventing the government from getting involved with taxation questions, or is it more important to collect the revenue that the government is missing out on by not taxing religious organizations? And that's really the policy question the courts and legislatures have struggled with.
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)I don't expect the exemptions to change. They have tons of history behind them. I just think they should. I don't think churches should have any advantage over non-profit organizations of other types. If any non-profit has to pay property taxes, and they do, then all non-profits should have to pay them.
However, I don't think that is likely to happen.
Permanut
(5,608 posts)with a complicated history. Goes way back, of course. In 1874, Charles Eliot, president of Harvard University, sent a letter to the Massachusetts tax commission, arguing that "..churches, colleges, and hospitals serve the highest public ends." It was thought that taxation would discourage the good work that the churches were doing. Eliot's argument has been used extensively by other groups.
There is also the separation of church and state, an argument that has been used on every level. The Supreme Court, in Walz vs. Tax Commission of City of New York (1970),held that the legislative
purpose of New Yorks property tax exemption of religious property used for religious purposes
was not aimed at establishing, sponsoring or supporting religion but rather the exemption simply
spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit
institutions. The court went on to state:
"The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state,
far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between
them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from
the other."
None of this, of course, answers your question. Just a quick review of how we got here. The argument that a dollar going to the state in taxes means one less dollar going to charitable purposes makes sense on its face, but in practice it hasn't worked that way.
And on the federal level, the income tax comes under the same kind of consideration, but under the federal tax rules, churches are proscribed from certain activities, e.g. advocating for a political candidate. If the staff of a church violates those prohibitions, the exemption from income tax should be removed. Ain't happening.
[link:https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/lro/Documents/RR%203-17%20Prop%20Tax%20Ex%20for%20Lit%20Charit%20and%20Scientific.pdf|
shraby
(21,946 posts)the rest of the field is mowed and none of it is taxed.
Isn't that the next thing to money laundering? Use the money to buy way more than they need then just sit on it. Then if and when they ever decide to sell (maybe if the cost of land goes way up) they can make a tidy untaxed profit.
They should be taxed on the land that their church does not cover. An acre and a half should be plenty of space for the church and parking, not the 5 acres + that many have.
gibraltar72
(7,504 posts)they were a public good not a profit center.
MineralMan
(146,309 posts)they receive, though, I believe.
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)The 2 blogs are quite enlightening.
Bruce was preacher in IFB (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) denomination, one Bob Jones U is universty for. His discussions of his background and change of outlook are very interesting.
Freddie
(9,265 posts)Or sales tax (most things) at least here in PA. I belong to a community concert band, we are a non-profit and own our building and we do not pay property tax. My church has a parsonage (2 separate parcels), the church does not pay tax but we pay it for the parsonage which is a dwelling.
MarcA
(2,195 posts)if they can't pay their property tax they lose their homes.
Another example where this nation gives benefits to artificial
entities but not real humans.