Religions: Should they be taxed or be exempt?

[HIC SVNT LEONES]

I'm doing this from an American standpoint, but I've never really understood the whole exempting religions (that are approved as religions by the Gov or whatever agency) from taxes. Why are they exempt? I don't think they should be - don't get me wrong, I'm not peddling another 'theism' versus 'atheism' thread, but I don't think it should happen! Especially in this day and age.

So, discuss! Give your opinions on this matter. Even if you're outside of America. I know that a lot of countries have different policies, and even still have state religions, so your opinions are valid as well!

[Chaigidel]

they sell absolution, tax

[CobraStallone]

Mmm, the ones that report considerable income should be taxed, likle the Catholic Church, not like a Budist temple on some mountain.

[Celsius]

Mmm, the ones that report considerable income should be taxed, likle the Catholic Church, not like a Budist temple on some mountain.

Catholic churches belong to the Holy See of Rome. They are taxed by it.

[MaximiIian]

I'm doing this from an American standpoint, but I've never really understood the whole exempting religions

It's not specifically religions or even specifically religious organisations. It's just non-for-profit or charitable organisations in general. Many religious organisations fit the criteria, while some others do not.

So, as long as a given organisation fits the criteria, it should be tax-exempt.

Mmm, the ones that report considerable income should be taxed, likle the Catholic Church

IIRC, the Roman Catholic Church is taxed in the US. It didn't fit the criteria for a non-for-profit charitable organisation under the 501(c) tax code.

[Manoflooks]

They pay thousands of priest, and they get to hold power over millions of people. Religion should be taxed.

[My Favorite Martian]

Those who have contributed the last 500 years to civilization should not be taxed, those who have not should be, their properity should be seized and sold. The refenues should flow in funds to help to feed and educate children slave-workers and women that are forced to work in prostitution. My personal preference would be to start with parasite and pseudo-cultic organisations which have their headquarters in the United States. The money could be given to the Aga Khan Development Network because they have experience and would know where to invest.

[Machiavelli25]

This obsession you people have with taxing is silly.

In this case though, its probably a good idea.

[Rich86]

Charitable Organizations should not be taxed...that's what 50% of a church is anyway.

Then tax the other 50%.

Also - what happens if say, a church raises money for aid work - but delivers this aid along with attempts to convert? i.e. here have this food and medicine - but first listen to me about how great Jesus is - is that still ok?

The church is made up of people that are already being taxed

So is Microsoft - should we stop taxing Microsoft too?

The church's income is donations.

Many churches sell things also.

So the church is already being taxed.

.....No - people in the church being taxed doesn't mean the church is taxed.

If you tax the church, you're taxing people for meeting together.

lol how are you doing that? You're taxing an institution that is handling cash - selling products - providing services etc.

Only historical churches should be exempted from tax, because they have already done something for the country.

Yet by taxing only the new ones you would be making it harder for them to 'do something for the country' would you not?

[Pious Agnost]

Depends.

I think that Scientology should be taxed.

But then again the Church I went to barely scraped through, it funded itself through donations and Church outings (Certain amount of money to go to camps, paintball, e.t.c).

This issue is tricky for me, to say the least

[cenkiss]

I thought only Catholics were exempt of taxes.Muslim imams do not have any privilages when it comes to taxes

[MaximiIian]

In the case of Televangelists and the like who are essentially lining their own pockets by taking advantage of peoples' good nature - they should be taxed up to the eyeballs, if not banned.

Well, banning goes too extreme. It limits free exercise of religion.
And, IIRC, most Televangelist-type churches are taxed; though some others (like Pat Robertson's organisations) manage to slip through via loopholes.

I thought only Catholics were exempt of taxes.Muslim imams do not have any privilages when it comes to taxes

Where would this be? It's certainly not, you know, the country the OP was talking about.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

It's quite simple really. Charitable Organizations should not be taxed...that's what 50% of a church is anyway.

[Fiyenyaa]

It's quite simple really. Charitable Organizations should not be taxed...that's what 50% of a church is anyway.

That's fine... if the said Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple/Whatever is actually being charitable.

In the case of Televangelists and the like who are essentially lining their own pockets by taking advantage of peoples' good nature - they should be taxed up to the eyeballs, if not banned.

[Tigrul]

It's quite simple really. Charitable Organizations should not be taxed...that's what 50% of a church is anyway.

Wow... what great country do you live in?

The orhtodox church in my country seems to care mostly about building bigger and bigger churches and getting more and more money from the state, while also interfering heavily in the politics. (It goes so far as priests actually recommending, during sermon, certain candidates)

50% of the church? Where does that apply? In my country it certainly doesn't, unfortunately. Also, if 50% of the church performs social service, then exempt them from 50% of the taxes, not 100%.

@PureInfantryWins
It depends on what people understand by "taxing the church". In my country, priests go door to door before christmas, easter, baptize holiday (dunno how it is in English, it's sometime at the beginning of January), and they get payed for those, without handing receipts or paying any taxes for the income they get that way. They also get payed for weddings, baptize ceremonies and funerals, and again, they offer no official financial paper for that service, so they don't pay any taxes for that either.

I for one find it silly to tax something which gets no income. But the churches do get income, quite some income. It's not a matter of taxing people meeting, it's a matter of taxing people who get money by performing a certain service. What difference is there betwee the religious services offered by the church and the accomodation services offered by a hotel? (other than the fact that the effects of the latter are noticeable immediately, and not after death) If a hotel gets taxed for getting money via offering services, why should a church be exempt?

[Imperator Romani]

Agree with above post.

The church is made up of people that are already being taxed. The church's income is donations. So the church is already being taxed.

If you tax the church, you're taxing people for meeting together.

[nopasties]

Do not tax charitable activity but other church activity should be taxed. Pat Robertson for one runs a billion some dollar collection of organization and most of that is tax exempt.

[Barry Goldwater]

It's quite simple really. Charitable Organizations should not be taxed...that's what 50% of a church is anyway.

Exactly.

[Taiji]

If they make a prophet, I think it should be taxed.

(sorry )

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Agree with above post.

The church is made up of people that are already being taxed. The church's income is donations. So the church is already being taxed.

If you tax the church, you're taxing people for meeting together.

I agree.