Should churches have to pay taxes?
I wonder why our society gives this one particular field a pass when it comes to taxes. Should we?
The Mormon Church for example brings in about 4.7 billion dollars a year, completely free of taxes. The profit margins in the faith business are staggering. While our government is going bankrupt, churches are making more than ever, completely free of tax.
People use our public streets to get to church and donate those billions. The grid that chuches use for power and water and sewer, was all paid for by the public. Why should they not have to pay into that system that allows them to pull in billions of dollars a year?
I think the religious community should take a tiny fraction of thier billions of dollars in profits every year, and just pay thier fair share like everyone else.
Damn right they should
Side Score: 34
|
No, we shouldn't have to pay
Side Score: 31
|
|
|
|
A church is a business like any other, they have overhead and profit margins and demographics. Like any enterprise they depend upon the public infrastructure to gain profits. They should have to pay for that infrastructure, like we all do. Unlike a charity, churches can allocate funds from those profits to pay for solid golden crucifixes, huge flamboyant temples of gold and ivory, and church clergy salaries. Anything can be paid for with this money, not just charitable causes. Calling a priest that is draped in gold and silk (that is getting a fat paycheck and preaching from a golden temple of excess) a philanthropist is absolutely ridiculous. Like any other business, the churches profit should be taxed. Side: Damn right they should
You can't paint this problem with a wide brush. There are some religious institutions that should not be taxed because they are small, and could not afford to pay. But there are some institutions like the Mormon Church and Scientology that bring in massive amounts of cash, and I am skeptical as to where it really goes. They should also contribute to society like everyone else. Side: Damn right they should
The Bible says that Jesus said to "render unto Caesar what is Caeser's, and render unto God what is God's. I can look this up and post if anyone is interested. Side: Damn right they should
Thank you! What a relevant quote. If I had been clever enough to think of it I would have put it in the description. "Should we pay them, or shouldn't we?" Jesus saw through their hypocrisy and said, "Why are you trying to trap me? Show me a Roman coin, and I'll tell you. When they handed it to him, he asked, "Whose picture and title are stamped on it?" "Caesar's," they replied. "Well, then," Jesus said, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God." His reply completely amazed them." Well there you have it, right from Jesus himself. Ismaila just dropped some scripture on you! Side: Damn right they should
1
point
1
point
well i only think they should have to pay taxes if they decide to get political and involve themselves political . since there is supposed to be separation in the first place and speaking against the Gov that is paying for them to even be around in the first place is messed up Side: Damn right they should
1
point
-3
points
1
point
|
3
points
Where should the line for what is a charity and what is just regular business be drawn? I you boil it down to what it is then the church is just a organisation who provides a service and in return some people donate and some churches bill their "clients". If you would allow churches to skip on taxes then every one who just relies on donations should also be freed from taxes. now the question rises how to ensure that it really is donations and not a requirement to be use the services provided by that church. Side: Damn right they should
2
points
If you would allow churches to skip on taxes then every one who just relies on donations should also be freed from taxes. now the question rises how to ensure that it really is donations and not a requirement to be use the services provided by that church. In case you haven't noticed, most churches are not Mormon, they are not extremely rich and do not require a tithe. Most American churches (even catholic churches) are relatively small and don't ask for a tithe, they just pass around a basket and anyone who wants donate can. And "ensuring" that churches don't make the attendants pay for going to church would be EXTREMELY. Some churches operate on a nation level, but most operate on a parish by parish, country by county, church by church basis. Following the current trend of the government, regulation would likely follow the taxation. Regulation religion is also not a good idea. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
2
points
The taxation on charities would have devastating affects on donations just as does taxation have on investment, there would be less donations. Taxation on churches would mean less voluntary charity work along with many other unintended consequences that are unforeseeable. Taxation already affects the amount of donations people give from the demand side. Imagine when donations are taxed from the supply side. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
2
points
0
points
2
points
It is donated. The church doesn't force people to pay them money, they just pass around a basket and anyone who wants to donate can do so. They aren't selling anything and its completely voluntary. PS: There are a ton a christain charities, do don't act like the money doesn't go to help people. Donations should not be taxed. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
1
point
The last time my church did any renovations it was after a hurricane had flooded it. I have worked on a number of programs that have been sponsored almost exclusivly by churches. In fact, most of those projects were to help fix houses owned by people in need at no cost to them. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
So what if a church spends its money on an ivory gold plating on their roof. Isnt it their business to be able to spend donated money however they please? Furthermore churches build themselves on the money the members donate themselves. So if a member chooses to donate money to a church to build an ivory gold roof thats their business not the governments business to try and squeeze the money out of them. And id just like to point out that the public infrastructure the church uses to give out tracks is paid for by their members(most of the time). Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
religious people pay their taxes already. we dont need to tax people through the nose in every way possible and have a bunch of hidden taxes. money that goes to churches are donations. do you think donations should be taxed? if a person gets an income from a church, or the church sells stuff, then tax in those instances, but lay off the donation money. you people are like the evil sheriff of Nottingham in the animated Robin Hood movie, trying to steal as much as you can from churches. im an atheist and i still think that crosses the line Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
This is just about spot on a lot of churches survive purely on donations and as you have said the attendees at said churches already pay their taxes. I do think though that some of these TV preachers who make millions off selling books and doing speaking tours etc should pay though, I think a lot of these guys are just in it for the money not faith and give religion a bad name. The only way I can see that working is by setting a profit ceiling if a church makes above a certain amount in a year then they pay tax on that amount would be the only fair way. That way the guys that subsist on donations would be ok but the people that use religion as a money making machine have to pay. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
1
point
I don`t think they should since they run through donations and they have no private businesses. If they would be to pay for taxes, then they would have to start their own business as well. It is also in the law that charitable institutions are exempted or at least reduced from the burden of taxes. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
1
point
Churches are completely voluntary donations from members, there are no profits. The most bothersome phrase is "fair share." It is a conveniently vague term with no meaning, who decides what fair share means? Fair Share Analogy: While in school, there is a bully who steals children's lunch. The only fair way is for each person to volunteer on a different to have his money stolen, so that he steals from the same amount from everyone, WHY, it is only fair. When some kids refuse to be bullied, the other kids rightly get angry at him for not paying his fair share. IT IS ONLY FAIR. Side: No, we shouldn't have to pay
|