Taxing the churches

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-05-01 02:36am

I'm trying to figure out how much revenue taxing of churches in America would generate. However I have no idea how I would go about figuring that out. The closest thing I could find was that in 1971 the real and personal property owned by churches was values at $110 billion. What rate are churches that are taxed taxed at? What is the total value of real and personal property owned by religious institutions in America? How much money would we get, and how does it compare to other taxed things e.g. small businesses, segments of the population, etc.

Thanks.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2008-05-01 03:08am

That might be almost impossible to figure out since I don't think most churches have to open their books to the government.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2008-05-01 04:19am

GR might has a good answer for this.

My thought is that you would maybe tax an individual church like a waitress/waiters tips as far as what they get from the flock since each church is going to generate different amounts of income. Or maybe each church being taxed as a whole would make more sense so the the church heads could take more from the larger more profitable churches so as not to put a starin on the smaller ones.

I would imagine property tax would be a nice bump in what the gov gets. Fuck, $110B is a whole truck load of money now. If that's what it was in '71, then damn.

Jaevric · Post by **Jaevric** » 2008-05-01 12:34pm

havokeff wrote:Or maybe each church being taxed as a whole would make more sense so the the church heads could take more from the larger more profitable churches so as not to put a starin on the smaller ones.

That would be hilarious, just to see the big "MegaChurches" around my area scramble to find a way to avoid having to pay their part of the taxes and foist all the expense on the smaller churches; after all, maintaining a church the size of a football stadiums is expensive.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2008-05-01 01:47pm

That would be hilarious, just to see the big "MegaChurches" around my area scramble to find a way to avoid having to pay their part of the taxes and foist all the expense on the smaller churches; after all, maintaining a church the size of a football stadiums is expensive.

I don't think that's what he was suggesting. Rather, I think he meant taxing the entire Methodist Church or Southern Baptist Conference as an organization, rather than specific church buildings.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-05-01 02:20pm

havokeff wrote:GR might has a good answer for this.

My thought is that you would maybe tax an individual church like a waitress/waiters tips as far as what they get from the flock since each church is going to generate different amounts of income. Or maybe each church being taxed as a whole would make more sense so the the church heads could take more from the larger more profitable churches so as not to put a starin on the smaller ones.

I would imagine property tax would be a nice bump in what the gov gets. Fuck, $110B is a whole truck load of money now. If that's what it was in '71, then damn.

Problem with that is that a lot of say the RCC's property is tied up in assets. Assets they have held for 100s of years etc etc. I would be in favor of taxing their income, but property taxes on what are basically historic landmarks that have a cultural heritage is just... it seems wrong to me.

Jaevric · Post by **Jaevric** » 2008-05-01 02:25pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I don't think that's what he was suggesting. Rather, I think he meant taxing the entire Methodist Church or Southern Baptist Conference as an organization, rather than specific church buildings.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought he was saying. My response was that I could easily see the local megachurches having a screaming fit and playing politics with the church bureaucracy to make sure that they avoid losing as much money as possible, even if it means increasing the burdens on other churches in the same sect.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-05-01 02:28pm

Jaevric wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:I don't think that's what he was suggesting. Rather, I think he meant taxing the entire Methodist Church or Southern Baptist Conference as an organization, rather than specific church buildings.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought he was saying. My response was that I could easily see the local megachurches having a screaming fit and playing politics with the church bureaucracy to make sure that they avoid losing as much money as possible, even if it means increasing the burdens on other churches in the same sect.

The problem is, pretty much everyone but the orthodox and catholic churches are not really unified organizations... more of a confederation individual churches with similar beliefs, which is why they can split so easily,,,

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-05-01 02:58pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
havokeff wrote:GR might has a good answer for this.

My thought is that you would maybe tax an individual church like a waitress/waiters tips as far as what they get from the flock since each church is going to generate different amounts of income. Or maybe each church being taxed as a whole would make more sense so the the church heads could take more from the larger more profitable churches so as not to put a starin on the smaller ones.

I would imagine property tax would be a nice bump in what the gov gets. Fuck, $110B is a whole truck load of money now. If that's what it was in '71, then damn.
Problem with that is that a lot of say the RCC's property is tied up in assets. Assets they have held for 100s of years etc etc. I would be in favor of taxing their income, but property taxes on what are basically historic landmarks that have a cultural heritage is just... it seems wrong to me.

You know what most of the RCC's revenue generating property assets are, right? Not their museums. Parking lots. I'm not kidding, back in the day the RCC hit a cash crunch because most of their assets were things like art and cultural artifacts, so they couldn't sell them. So they brought in a guy to manage their money. He was a forward thinker, saw that automobiles were taking off, and invested what they had in buying up tracts of land in major cities so people could park. Took the money from that, invested and diversified, to get it to where it is today.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-05-01 03:13pm

Ender wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
havokeff wrote:GR might has a good answer for this.

My thought is that you would maybe tax an individual church like a waitress/waiters tips as far as what they get from the flock since each church is going to generate different amounts of income. Or maybe each church being taxed as a whole would make more sense so the the church heads could take more from the larger more profitable churches so as not to put a starin on the smaller ones.

I would imagine property tax would be a nice bump in what the gov gets. Fuck, $110B is a whole truck load of money now. If that's what it was in '71, then damn.
Problem with that is that a lot of say the RCC's property is tied up in assets. Assets they have held for 100s of years etc etc. I would be in favor of taxing their income, but property taxes on what are basically historic landmarks that have a cultural heritage is just... it seems wrong to me.
You know what most of the RCC's revenue generating property assets are, right? Not their museums. Parking lots. I'm not kidding, back in the day the RCC hit a cash crunch because most of their assets were things like art and cultural artifacts, so they couldn't sell them. So they brought in a guy to manage their money. He was a forward thinker, saw that automobiles were taking off, and invested what they had in buying up tracts of land in major cities so people could park. Took the money from that, invested and diversified, to get it to where it is today.

I am happy taxing that revenue source...

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2008-05-01 03:17pm

Ender wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:
havokeff wrote:GR might has a good answer for this.

My thought is that you would maybe tax an individual church like a waitress/waiters tips as far as what they get from the flock since each church is going to generate different amounts of income. Or maybe each church being taxed as a whole would make more sense so the the church heads could take more from the larger more profitable churches so as not to put a starin on the smaller ones.

I would imagine property tax would be a nice bump in what the gov gets. Fuck, $110B is a whole truck load of money now. If that's what it was in '71, then damn.
Problem with that is that a lot of say the RCC's property is tied up in assets. Assets they have held for 100s of years etc etc. I would be in favor of taxing their income, but property taxes on what are basically historic landmarks that have a cultural heritage is just... it seems wrong to me.
You know what most of the RCC's revenue generating property assets are, right? Not their museums. Parking lots. I'm not kidding, back in the day the RCC hit a cash crunch because most of their assets were things like art and cultural artifacts, so they couldn't sell them. So they brought in a guy to manage their money. He was a forward thinker, saw that automobiles were taking off, and invested what they had in buying up tracts of land in major cities so people could park. Took the money from that, invested and diversified, to get it to where it is today.

I was under the impression that just because the Church owned something, that doesn't automatically make it tax exempt? Only if the property has an actual church on it.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2008-05-01 03:22pm

havokeff wrote:I was under the impression that just because the Church owned something, that doesn't automatically make it tax exempt? Only if the property has an actual church on it.

I honestly have no idea (hence teh thread

). Hell, the RCC is its own country - how does that come into play?

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2008-05-01 03:26pm

Ender wrote:
havokeff wrote:I was under the impression that just because the Church owned something, that doesn't automatically make it tax exempt? Only if the property has an actual church on it.
I honestly have no idea (hence teh thread ). Hell, the RCC is its own country - how does that come into play?

Good point. Don't they have diplomatic status and representatives? I wonder if we pay property taxes on our embassies in other countries. If the RCC is indeed classified as a country, then couldn't their churches be classified as embassies?

Raesene · Post by **Raesene** » 2008-05-01 03:36pm

havokeff wrote:
Ender wrote:
havokeff wrote:I was under the impression that just because the Church owned something, that doesn't automatically make it tax exempt? Only if the property has an actual church on it.
I honestly have no idea (hence teh thread ). Hell, the RCC is its own country - how does that come into play?
Good point. Don't they have diplomatic status and representatives? I wonder if we pay property taxes on our embassies in other countries. If the RCC is indeed classified as a country, then couldn't their churches be classified as embassies?

If I remember a documentary about the Vatican correctly, not even everyone working and living there (including high clergy) were Vaticanic (?) citizens.
Diplomats have to be accredited, so I don't think every church has the same status as a consulate or embassy, and every priest/monk/nun that of a diplomat.

Priests in Austria are normal citizens and have the usual rights and duties (with a few exceptions; I think they can't be called as members of a jury etc). They also have to pay regular (income) taxes - is a US-preacher automatically tax-exempt ?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2008-05-01 04:07pm

Raesene wrote:
havokeff wrote:
Ender wrote:I honestly have no idea (hence teh thread ). Hell, the RCC is its own country - how does that come into play?
Good point. Don't they have diplomatic status and representatives? I wonder if we pay property taxes on our embassies in other countries. If the RCC is indeed classified as a country, then couldn't their churches be classified as embassies?
If I remember a documentary about the Vatican correctly, not even everyone working and living there (including high clergy) were Vaticanic (?) citizens.
Diplomats have to be accredited, so I don't think every church has the same status as a consulate or embassy, and every priest/monk/nun that of a diplomat.

Priests in Austria are normal citizens and have the usual rights and duties (with a few exceptions; I think they can't be called as members of a jury etc). They also have to pay regular (income) taxes - is a US-preacher automatically tax-exempt ?

No. A protestant minister is not by himself tax exempt, nor are their employees. The church itself however is tax exempt, so it does not have to pay organizational income tax or property taxes. It is basically treated like any other non-profit entity which functions off donations. If the church owns a business IIRC that is probably not tax exempt, unless it is a church parking lot not during church hours...

Catholic priests I am not sure on. Probably depends on their order. Jesuits for example do not actually own anything...