Should Churches be Tax Exempt?
Leading up to April 15, millions of Americans can be found scrambling to file their taxes for themselves and their businesses, unless they operate a church. According to U.S. tax law, religious organizations are not required to pay taxes because they're considered non-profit institutions and because they provide a public good. However, many are skeptical of this reasoning, arguing that churches can be enormously profitable and that the only benefits they provide are to their own members. Should churches keep their tax exempt status?
Churches Are a Public Benefit Worthy of Tax Exemption
- From Deal Hudson
By Deal Hudson - Director, InsideCatholic.com
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tax Exempt
The reason that churches should stay tax exempt has nothing at all to do with their perceived benefit as this article says. It has to do with them not mixing with the state.
They should not be mixed with politics in any way and should have no say when it comes to legislation because who's religion do you choose.
When the two mix they corrupt each other and neither needs any more help in this arena at this point.
- zenbuddha
March 26, 2009 4:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
..good post.
..it deals with the reality of the situation. people do not wish to give credit where credit is due, they wish to grant it to some profound new revelation, which in this case, is a complete fabrication. Thats the world we live in. this fix in many forms compounds to this formula: obscene lies. it stems from the powerful elite and their motivation is simple. what is profound is the high degree of error.
it's stagering to imagine the foundations of charity genorosity and good will in a time when life was ever so more fleeting and decency on the part of the lay man was ever so more absurd, in a life of the ruleing arrostorcacy. A self understood corrupt aristocracy.These basic tenets are not appreciated and are even academically disputed. They have nothing to stand on. They are death and deserve no life. LEt them be bold in their ignorance.. and let them die an perish at the breath of truth. they are the spawn of evil. for their sack may they learn their errror, but let justice prevail and let not a one single other be affected by their error. let it be finished. the truth is there. On their pride and error, let them be dead.
- jxzac April 1, 2009 2:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Churches a public benefit?
Let me say that we don't even need to begin to argue whether or not churches are a public benefit. The state has no right to fund religion , let alone fund some religions and not others. And what if a certain religion is deemed a cult and/or not of public benefit? Shall the state then decide what religions are tax exempt by how "valuable" and "good" they are?
- Blue Linchpin
June 3, 2009 3:08PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Spot on!
"I have yet to see an argument for eliminating the tax exempt status of churches that did not arise out of a desire to decrease the public influence of organized religion on American society ."
Spot on! The tax exempt status is EXACTLY something which helps churches force their dogma on other people! In other words: Completely unconstitutional brainwashing with help from the government .
- WayOfTheDodo October 28, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
depends
I think churches should be allowed to take deductions depending on what they do with the money just like everyone else. If they use money for charity works yes they should be allowed deductions not exemptions. If they just use the money to fancy up the church by stain glass and other no essential items i dont thank they should be allowed dedcutions or exemptions. There are too much humanitarian work that needs to be done in this day and time to waste it on making a fancy church for big shot members to show off.
- cbooh
October 29, 2009 12:07PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A public benefit???
Churches are in no way a public benefit worthy of tax exemption.
Whatever positive services they perform (charity and such) can be performed without the need to believe in superstitions that lack sufficient evidence.
The only reason that they have enjoyed this exemption thus far is that the church wields a great deal of political power in this country. That must end!
- Eric Collazo
December 4, 2009 2:54AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A public benefit???
It would seem that those who don't believe in what you refer to as "superstitions that lack sufficient evidence", don't experience the inner spirit drive to perform these (charity and such) may in fact be sufficient evidence in itself.
Without the church these positive services just won't be happening. Instead a more self serving and animal type survival of the fittest behaviors would become a replacement.
The church is made of people who donate their already several times taxed money to support the gathering which they are a part of and to re tax the donated money to their club would be ludicrous.
Am I attending a church? The answer is no, but the simplicity is only too clear.
- Me2
December 4, 2009 11:22AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE: Me2
Do you have evidence to support your claim that without the church people are less charitable?
Or is that just conjecture on your part? Do you have credible statistics that support that statement? I doubt that you do, but I'm open to being proved wrong.
BTW, the largest donations in history have been made by people who did not use the church as a means for charity (see Bill & Melinda Gates).
- Eric Collazo
December 4, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
RE:Me2
Lets look at our everyday community where the rubber meets the road and needy people are effected.
Not in Africa where circumcision is pawned off as a false sense of curing HIV . Std and HIV are not the result of having a foreskin but that of having sexual relations with an infected partner. I highly doubt that a circumcised American male would be will to engage in sexual activity with a known infected partner and if so doing, would expect a safe outcome.
The communities are fully aware of the church sponsored charities which as again I make mention that I do not attend a church. In spite of not being a church supporter, I am not so naive as to accept what your putting across. I give credit where credit is due and not follow my non religious biases.
It might be a more valid act for you to provide evidences of Charitable involvement within the communities outside of the churches in North America where there is no high media profile and many needy lives are effected in a positive way without an underlying self serving fulfillment for recognition.
Better yet, shy away from the flavor of the day political catch phrase relating to evidences. The transparency again of the item is only too clear. Bill and Melinda Gates or any one for that matter has a long trip in coming anywhere near even on group known as the Salvation Army.
There are many such church sponsored groups. Don't be blinded by Darwinism. Charles Darwin was a more honorable person than the spin off ism that has fallen out from his theories.
- Me2
December 4, 2009 5:10PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wow.
The fact that you refer to my statement as "flavor of the day political catch phrase relating to evidences" tells me that I'd be better served debating with a wall.
By all means, don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs.
I will not waste any more time with posts on this matter.
- Eric Collazo
December 5, 2009 1:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The truth
Bill & Melinda Gates built a house for themselves for 53 million dollars and could have built a complex for 700 starving and suffering people in the Philippines. Some of the 40 children that I sponsor have slept on the dirt floor of their dwelling since they were born. Bill and Melinda gave 70 million dollars worth of computers to the Seattle schools to get them hooked on computers like a crack dealer does to get their customers hooked on crack. Bill wouldn't tell the news casters that the 70 million dollars was retail price, not his cost , plus he got to write it off his taxes .
Church people puts a GNAT'S amount into the suffering children and put the CAMEL'S portion into crafted temples that God does not live in according to His words in Acts 17:24 and Matthew 23:24. They teach their followers to lie and say that God is in thier heart and use God's words totally out of context and sugar coat His words.
Now prove me wrong through the inspired word of God.
- walkinglass February 9, 2010 10:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ugh!
Obviously, facts are an elusive concept to you so I'm not going to continue this debate further. Asking me to "prove me wrong through the inspired word of God" is a joke. There are no gods or words inspired by them so proving anything using the so-called "word of god " is irrelevant.
I'm done.
- Eric Collazo
February 9, 2010 10:21PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ugh
Who made any mention here as to some kind of inspired word of god ?
Where your coming from is popping out like mushrooms of issues. The documented conversation here is about charitable donating not philosophical ideologies. I think?
Religious bias or prejudice or ever church belief isn't the item. Charitable functions being performed by the everyday church is.
As I repeat, the members have donated to their club, money that has been taxed several times already and from them personally. Should their club now be taxed again on that money?
If you started a Charles club and your members donated their already taxed money to support your club, in spite of the functions that it might perform, I would be equally bent if someone suggested that your club should now be taxed again on that money.
- Me2
February 26, 2010 12:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
taxes
It doesn't matter if something is a public benefit or not. Does the argument that public benefits should be tax-exempt mean that entities that are not tax-exempt detract from the public? Individuals are not tax-exempt. Are all individuals detriments to society ? I should think not. In fact, I should think that these taxable entities, individuals, are generally beneficial to society. Yet we have not tax-exempted every single individual on the grounds that individuals are a "public benefit".
THE TRUTH IS: EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TAX-EXEMPT. TAXATION IS IMMORAL.
Taxation is a concept which has as its underlying foundation the use of physical force, violence, aggression, to achieve some end. Regardless of what benefits the government gives "in return", taxation on principle is based on the ethos of slavery - that the government can force any individual to give a value they've created, in this case wealth, for an end that the government has decided is the good.
This is why I voted "Yes" for "Should Churches be exempt from taxes ." Churches and everything else should be exempt from taxes.
- etanheller
January 5, 2010 5:38PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.