7 ms·

> The majority of tax-exempt organizations today are business-like in form and function, including credit unions, hospitals, utilities, insurance companies, uni

> The majority of tax-exempt organizations today are business-like in form and function, including credit unions, hospitals, utilities, insurance companies, universities, professional athletic associations, golf clubs, and consulting firms, to name a few. Missing a big one there. I know that taxing religious organizations would NEVER fly in the US, but.. can you imagine?

babypuncher 2y ago
I'm OK letting religious institutions keep their tax exemption, but we should make them adhere to the same standards as 501(c)(3) organizations (non-profits). A whole lot of churches would either start paying taxes, or expose themselves as frauds with those financial transparency requirements.
- r00fus 2y ago
  This exactly - the existing hypocrisy leads to religious organizations essentially being tax-exempt political organizations.
- nickpeterson 2y ago
  I think you’re right, but it’s probably better to try and remove their exemption and then settle on this. They’ll scream either way because unethical hucksters will do anything to keep fleecing people.
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    It might make them feel even more empowered to inject their religious beliefs into politics. Nowadays there is a paper thin pretend curtain around that, I believe, due in part to tax exemption.
- PopAlongKid 2y ago
  There is a loophole where a religious organization doesn't even have to file any paperwork with the IRS to establish its tax exempt status. While $5,000 doesn't sound like a lot, that limit was probably set many years or decades ago and never adjusted for inflation (so the original intention could well have been a much higher level of revenue). "Tax Exempt Organization Search (Pub. 78 data) is based on information received in applications seeking recognition of exemption under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). Churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, and public charities whose annual gross receipts are normally not more than $5,000 may be treated as tax-exempt without filing an application. Also, many churches are included in group exemptions (see below). Thus, they may not be listed in Tax Exempt Organization Search (Pub. 78 data)." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/contributors/other-eligible-donees https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/contributors/other...
- Alupis 2y ago
  This doesn't work in practice, because of freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and separation of church and state, ie. constitutionally guaranteed rights. Taxing churches would then be a way for government to suppress and eliminate religion/religious organizations they do not like. Start taxing today with a "reasonable" tax, and tomorrow you can raise tax obligations until operation is unsustainable. A la "subsidize things you want more of, tax things you want less of". Despite what non-religious and/or anti-religious people may want, this is untenable and almost certainly unconstitutional. As an aside - the federal government has plenty of money. We don't need to go looking in the seat cushions for pocket change. Instead of "Reining in America's $3.3T Tax-Exempt Economy", we should be "Reining in America's Overindulgent Lifestyle and Runaway Spending Spree".
  - toast0 2y ago
    > Taxing churches would then be a way for government to suppress and eliminate religion/religious organizations they do not like. I don't know what the IRS standards are for recognizing religions, but taxing unrecognized religions and not taxing recognized religions seems like a bigger potential for suppression of undesired religions than taxing all of them. That said, I don't think I've heard of a case where IRS/government refused to acknowledge a claimed religious organization? Of course, you can't have free exercise of religion if it's taxed. I do think it'd be nice to have public tax returns or similar, but I guess that's really for the membership to demand more than the government.
    - sneak 2y ago
      > That said, I don't think I've heard of a case where IRS/government refused to acknowledge a claimed religious organization? Perhaps illustrating your point, but worth noting anyhow: the dangerous for-profit cult of Scientology actually had to infiltrate the IRS with their own people to get their tax exempt status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
  - guntars 2y ago
    By that logic, does having philosophical or political discussions at a local coffee shop once a week qualify it for a tax exempt status?
- sneak 2y ago
  Religious organizations are not tax exempt. Congress is authority-exempt from making laws that can apply taxes to them in the first place. It's not like we tax everyone, then exempt religious organizations; the "everyone" that is able to be taxed does not include establishments of religion in the first place, thanks to the wording of 1A.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Sure they can. They can’t selectively tax only the ones they don’t like. Which is actually closer to what happens now.
segasaturn 2y ago
The phenomenon of "megachurches" and "televangelists" in America fascinate me, you have guys like Pat Robertson driving Rolls Royces and flying in private jets, all paid for tax-free, in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor. It's all so perverse.
- hobotime 2y ago
  Pat's income from his mega church and gifts in kind are taxable. I'm not saying he's a good person, but he has personal income just like the rest of us. The odd clergy exemptions to the personal income tax are not that large: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > he has personal income just like the rest of us And like the rest of his fellow mega-wealthy, he'll be able to fiddle it away in a number of ways. The flights (and dinners, and cushy hotels, and big parties) will be for "church business". The "fair rental value" of his home will be immense, and "reasonable compensation for the minister's services" will be something the IRS is reluctant to fight over.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- pram 2y ago
  A lot of the original evangelical megachurches were directly influenced and guided by Peter Drucker who was a big "scientific management" figure, if that tells you anything. He was a direct mentor to Rick Warren who started the Saddleback Church, which is like the modern megachurch template. Pretty interesting rabbit hole to go down.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  > in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor Yeah, too bad that's a command they don't even follow.
downrightmike 2y ago
Religious orgs do nothing but prey on the weak and break them so that they can never be free and have to rely on the church. And then there's all the land that they use once a week, and that is a complete waste. All that needs to be taxed, they shouldn't exist. You want to pray, cool, don't waste resources and pay your share.
throw7 2y ago
Nah. I can imagine the country without the first amendment and it wouldn't be pretty. The big one they missed were think tanks. That's where the real corruption is. Oh and will you look at that... the Tax Foundation is a 501(c)(3) think tank based in D.C. Things that make you go hmmm.
- rho138 2y ago
  How is this covered by the first amendment? No one is stopping anyone from practicing their own belief system.
sircastor 2y ago
I used to belong to a very large Christian faith, with members all over the economic spectrum. One of the major tenants of the faith is paying tithing. I think most people adhere to it, but I seriously wondered many times if the wealthier among the faith would pay their tithing if it didn’t result in a substantial tax break.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  > would pay their tithing if it didn’t result in a substantial tax break Do you understand how tax breaks work? If you make 100k, and tithe 10% of that you don't get a 10k tax break, you just don't pay taxes on that 10k. You're still out the money, and best case you could rationalize it as only costing you 8-8.5k (depending on your marginal tax rate), but it's not some magic sauce that gets 'the wealthier' free money.
  - sircastor 2y ago
    The concept is this: When you're donating reasonably large amounts of money to charity (a church in this case) you can deduct that amount from your taxable income while simultaneously supporting an organization that you like (your church) If that feature goes away, and now you have to pay tithing on top of paying taxes at your full income tax bracket rather than a reduced bracket, are you still willing to pay your tithing?
    - 1oooqooq 2y ago
      didn't trump change to tax limit donations to 300 now?
larsiusprime 2y ago
Good question! Let's imagine! Most of the value of churches is in real estate. I imagine a lot of the Mainline protestant denominations (typically the most liberal), who have low and declining attendance, would be hit the hardest as they own a lot of historic downtown properties worth in the tens of millions. Conservative Protestant, and Catholic churches own a lot of real estate too, but they have bigger congregations. If you have a $10,000,000 property that owes 1.5% property taxes a year, that's about $150,000 in taxes every year. If you have 15 families earning $100,000 a year who each tithe (or 30 families earning $50,000 a year), then you break even on those taxes (you still have the rest of your church expenses to pay, of course). I'm not aware of the rate of tithing and attendance in Conservative Protestant, and Catholic churches, but I'm guessing it's higher than in mainline Protestant Churches. I imagine non-mainline churches also have a wider portfolio of real estate; they probably own their own share of prime real estate in downtown city centers, but most of their churches are likely dispersed in suburban and rural areas with much lower value land. My hypothesis (confidence: 75% sure, but haven't done all the necessary math) is that if you were to push for a full repeal of church property tax exemptions, Megachurches, Conservative Protestants, and Catholics would be very upset about it, but would probably be able to weather the storm, and Mainline protestant churches and other minority religious organizations with high value urban property and low relative attendance would essentially be wiped out overnight. In short -- if you're a liberal, be careful what you wish for.
- galleywest200 2y ago
  Who says it has to be property taxes? Make them pay taxes on advertising or other such activities.
- happyopossum 2y ago
  Your entire scenario here is based around a local (state and county) tax, and has nothing to do with the federal tax code the parent article is concerned with.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    The church has no profits. Making religion pay property tax is the only thing turning them into for profit institutions would do.

babypuncher 2y ago

I'm OK letting religious institutions keep their tax exemption, but we should make them adhere to the same standards as 501(c)(3) organizations (non-profits). A whole lot of churches would either start paying taxes, or expose themselves as frauds with those financial transparency requirements.

r00fus 2y ago
This exactly - the existing hypocrisy leads to religious organizations essentially being tax-exempt political organizations.
nickpeterson 2y ago
I think you’re right, but it’s probably better to try and remove their exemption and then settle on this. They’ll scream either way because unethical hucksters will do anything to keep fleecing people.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  It might make them feel even more empowered to inject their religious beliefs into politics. Nowadays there is a paper thin pretend curtain around that, I believe, due in part to tax exemption.
PopAlongKid 2y ago
There is a loophole where a religious organization doesn't even have to file any paperwork with the IRS to establish its tax exempt status. While $5,000 doesn't sound like a lot, that limit was probably set many years or decades ago and never adjusted for inflation (so the original intention could well have been a much higher level of revenue). "Tax Exempt Organization Search (Pub. 78 data) is based on information received in applications seeking recognition of exemption under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3). Churches, their integrated auxiliaries, conventions or associations of churches, and public charities whose annual gross receipts are normally not more than $5,000 may be treated as tax-exempt without filing an application. Also, many churches are included in group exemptions (see below). Thus, they may not be listed in Tax Exempt Organization Search (Pub. 78 data)." https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/contributors/other-eligible-donees https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/contributors/other...
Alupis 2y ago
This doesn't work in practice, because of freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and separation of church and state, ie. constitutionally guaranteed rights. Taxing churches would then be a way for government to suppress and eliminate religion/religious organizations they do not like. Start taxing today with a "reasonable" tax, and tomorrow you can raise tax obligations until operation is unsustainable. A la "subsidize things you want more of, tax things you want less of". Despite what non-religious and/or anti-religious people may want, this is untenable and almost certainly unconstitutional. As an aside - the federal government has plenty of money. We don't need to go looking in the seat cushions for pocket change. Instead of "Reining in America's $3.3T Tax-Exempt Economy", we should be "Reining in America's Overindulgent Lifestyle and Runaway Spending Spree".
- toast0 2y ago
  > Taxing churches would then be a way for government to suppress and eliminate religion/religious organizations they do not like. I don't know what the IRS standards are for recognizing religions, but taxing unrecognized religions and not taxing recognized religions seems like a bigger potential for suppression of undesired religions than taxing all of them. That said, I don't think I've heard of a case where IRS/government refused to acknowledge a claimed religious organization? Of course, you can't have free exercise of religion if it's taxed. I do think it'd be nice to have public tax returns or similar, but I guess that's really for the membership to demand more than the government.
  - sneak 2y ago
    > That said, I don't think I've heard of a case where IRS/government refused to acknowledge a claimed religious organization? Perhaps illustrating your point, but worth noting anyhow: the dangerous for-profit cult of Scientology actually had to infiltrate the IRS with their own people to get their tax exempt status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
- guntars 2y ago
  By that logic, does having philosophical or political discussions at a local coffee shop once a week qualify it for a tax exempt status?
sneak 2y ago
Religious organizations are not tax exempt. Congress is authority-exempt from making laws that can apply taxes to them in the first place. It's not like we tax everyone, then exempt religious organizations; the "everyone" that is able to be taxed does not include establishments of religion in the first place, thanks to the wording of 1A.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Sure they can. They can’t selectively tax only the ones they don’t like. Which is actually closer to what happens now.

segasaturn 2y ago

The phenomenon of "megachurches" and "televangelists" in America fascinate me, you have guys like Pat Robertson driving Rolls Royces and flying in private jets, all paid for tax-free, in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor. It's all so perverse.

hobotime 2y ago
Pat's income from his mega church and gifts in kind are taxable. I'm not saying he's a good person, but he has personal income just like the rest of us. The odd clergy exemptions to the personal income tax are not that large: https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417 https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > he has personal income just like the rest of us And like the rest of his fellow mega-wealthy, he'll be able to fiddle it away in a number of ways. The flights (and dinners, and cushy hotels, and big parties) will be for "church business". The "fair rental value" of his home will be immense, and "reasonable compensation for the minister's services" will be something the IRS is reluctant to fight over.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pram 2y ago
A lot of the original evangelical megachurches were directly influenced and guided by Peter Drucker who was a big "scientific management" figure, if that tells you anything. He was a direct mentor to Rick Warren who started the Saddleback Church, which is like the modern megachurch template. Pretty interesting rabbit hole to go down.
Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
> in the name of a religion that commands its followers to give everything they have to the poor Yeah, too bad that's a command they don't even follow.

downrightmike 2y ago

Religious orgs do nothing but prey on the weak and break them so that they can never be free and have to rely on the church. And then there's all the land that they use once a week, and that is a complete waste. All that needs to be taxed, they shouldn't exist. You want to pray, cool, don't waste resources and pay your share.

throw7 2y ago

Nah. I can imagine the country without the first amendment and it wouldn't be pretty. The big one they missed were think tanks. That's where the real corruption is. Oh and will you look at that... the Tax Foundation is a 501(c)(3) think tank based in D.C. Things that make you go hmmm.

rho138 2y ago
How is this covered by the first amendment? No one is stopping anyone from practicing their own belief system.

sircastor 2y ago

I used to belong to a very large Christian faith, with members all over the economic spectrum. One of the major tenants of the faith is paying tithing. I think most people adhere to it, but I seriously wondered many times if the wealthier among the faith would pay their tithing if it didn’t result in a substantial tax break.

happyopossum 2y ago
> would pay their tithing if it didn’t result in a substantial tax break Do you understand how tax breaks work? If you make 100k, and tithe 10% of that you don't get a 10k tax break, you just don't pay taxes on that 10k. You're still out the money, and best case you could rationalize it as only costing you 8-8.5k (depending on your marginal tax rate), but it's not some magic sauce that gets 'the wealthier' free money.
- sircastor 2y ago
  The concept is this: When you're donating reasonably large amounts of money to charity (a church in this case) you can deduct that amount from your taxable income while simultaneously supporting an organization that you like (your church) If that feature goes away, and now you have to pay tithing on top of paying taxes at your full income tax bracket rather than a reduced bracket, are you still willing to pay your tithing?
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    didn't trump change to tax limit donations to 300 now?

larsiusprime 2y ago

Good question! Let's imagine! Most of the value of churches is in real estate. I imagine a lot of the Mainline protestant denominations (typically the most liberal), who have low and declining attendance, would be hit the hardest as they own a lot of historic downtown properties worth in the tens of millions. Conservative Protestant, and Catholic churches own a lot of real estate too, but they have bigger congregations. If you have a $10,000,000 property that owes 1.5% property taxes a year, that's about $150,000 in taxes every year. If you have 15 families earning $100,000 a year who each tithe (or 30 families earning $50,000 a year), then you break even on those taxes (you still have the rest of your church expenses to pay, of course). I'm not aware of the rate of tithing and attendance in Conservative Protestant, and Catholic churches, but I'm guessing it's higher than in mainline Protestant Churches. I imagine non-mainline churches also have a wider portfolio of real estate; they probably own their own share of prime real estate in downtown city centers, but most of their churches are likely dispersed in suburban and rural areas with much lower value land. My hypothesis (confidence: 75% sure, but haven't done all the necessary math) is that if you were to push for a full repeal of church property tax exemptions, Megachurches, Conservative Protestants, and Catholics would be very upset about it, but would probably be able to weather the storm, and Mainline protestant churches and other minority religious organizations with high value urban property and low relative attendance would essentially be wiped out overnight. In short -- if you're a liberal, be careful what you wish for.

galleywest200 2y ago
Who says it has to be property taxes? Make them pay taxes on advertising or other such activities.
happyopossum 2y ago
Your entire scenario here is based around a local (state and county) tax, and has nothing to do with the federal tax code the parent article is concerned with.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  The church has no profits. Making religion pay property tax is the only thing turning them into for profit institutions would do.