Taxing Religions

[pure_agnostic]

Religious organizations in the US get a free ride when it comes to paying taxes. Both directly and indirectly. (Red numbers indicate estimated amount lost to local, state, and federal governments in 2011. I don't have reliable estimates for entries without numbers.)

• They don't pay federal income taxes. $35.3 billion lost.
• They don't pay state income

Comments

[alyoshas_world]

Do these same organizations provide any benefit to the state, or does the stare just give them this free money out of the government's generous hearts?

[the_rukh]

It depends but some do charity work, I could see the specific charity work being written off, some do quite a bit. The ones soaking already fairly poor people so the preachers can drive around in platinum limos might have a hard time justifying it though.

[alyoshas_world]

What about schools, hospitals, etc.? Do these add any benefit to the state?

[pure_agnostic]

I'd say schools and hospitals do provide benefit to the public. Many of which are run by religions and receive taxpayer funds.

However, many religious based schools and hospitals implement policies aligned with religious dogmas. (e.g. - No contraception or abortions provided at those hospitals even for nonreligious patients. All students at the school must attend religious services even though they don't practice that particular religion. etc...) Which basically means these schools and hospitals use taxpayer funds to enforce religious doctrines on those who don't practice their religions.

[alyoshas_world]

Regarding the hospitals not providing contraception or abortion services, that isn't forcing anyone to practice their religion; it's rather saying that no one can tell them not to practice theirs. It's a first amendment right. Furthermore, if my comment ever gets unspammed, you'll see that you are misinformed when you suggest in another comment that not preaching or proselytizing is a condition for receiving tax exemption. Catholic schools teach religion, and they always will. It's their first amendment right to do so. As a non-profit organization who fulfills all the necessary requirements for 501(c)(3), they are de fact exempt, as are all organizations, religious or not, who meet these requirements. Same is true of religious hospitals. Offering services contrary to their religious beliefs is not a 501(c)(3) requirement for tax exemption.

The problem here is that you simply are grossly misinformed about tax exemptions, how they are applied, why they are applied, and what are the conditions of their application.

[pure_agnostic]

So let's say a poor and non-Catholic woman needs birth control pills to regulate her hormonal cycle. She goes to hospital to buy them, and let's say the Catholic Church owns the hospital. So they tell her no. Are you trying to say the Catholic Church is not pushing its dogma onto a non-Catholic?

[alyoshas_world]

If a Catholiv hospital does not perform a service because it contradicts their religious belief, it is not pushing dogma on anyone because it is not telling anyone what to believe, but rather not acting in a way that is contrary to what it believes itself. If a Quaker exercises its right not to be drafted into military service, he is not pushing dogma on anyone but rather exercising his right not to give up his own.

[caerfrli]

well, since the Quaker isn't going to war, someone else may have to in his place, so his religion is affecting others

[alyoshas_world]

I don't know where anyone said anything about his choice not affecting others. The issue was one of "pushing dogma." We do not leave as individuals in isolation, so every single choice we make affects others.

[the_rukh]

Of course they do.

[alyoshas_world]

So the OP's assertion that religions are getting a free ride isn't exactly on the mark, is it?

[the_rukh]

I'm not sure how this assertion follow from your conditions.

[alyoshas_world]

If an organization's work benefits the state in a variety of ways, then providing them with a tax benefit is not the same as saying they receive a free ride. In fact, they perform a service that benefits the state, they meet the requisite conditions to receive tax benefits, and they then receive those benefits. That does not equate to a free ride.

[pure_agnostic]

Many church activities and properties provide no benefit to society. The Mormon church owns a $2.6M dollar home in Florida, but pays only $824.80 per year on it. Another property, owned by a private citizen, is worth $47,000 and gets taxed at $802.01 per year. Why should the Mormon church pay a similar amount in taxes per year on a home that is worth $2.6 million? That home has no religious purpose.

Here is another one. The Without Walls International Church in Tampa Florida bought a $1.6M home for its former pastor, Reverend Randy White. The church owns the property and pays a pittance in taxes on it. This is a retired man's home - not a hospital or school. Why should other Florida citizens pay 55 times as much in property taxes as what churches pay?

[alyoshas_world]

All systems are subject to abuse. Rev. White is under Senate investigation, so apparently the government thinks it's shady, too. That isn't an argument to tear down the whole system, however.

[the_rukh]

See, that didn't follow from your assertions because the primary assertion is that the churches are not a huge benefit to the state. I did say previously where you replied to me that specifically their charity ventures could be tax deductible but the churches themselves should not be.