Saturday, January 31, 2009

Tax Churches? Not So Fast.

By: Brian Sikma

This article is in response to the suggestion by one commenter to this blog named "Bob" that the state begin the process of taxing churches, including the levying of property taxes on real property owned by churches and religious institutions. To paraphrase one of our nation's most insightful and distinguished diplomats, these assertions provide a "target rich environment". There is no need for, or right of, or duty to, the state to impose taxes on the real property or income of religious institutions, and specifically churches.

In being presented with the argument for the taxation of churches we are told that the taxation of churches will not infringe on the religious liberty of those churches. The taxes are to be regarded like any other cost imposed on the church as part of its endeavor to carry out its ministry. Yet those that make this assertion tend to make clear by the substance of their succeeding points that they do believe churches should either be regulated through taxes or given exemptions to regulations in exchange for the payment of taxes.

Churches and religious-based ministries provide a valuable and important service to society. In meeting the spiritual needs of individuals and families, and in promoting principles of honesty, decency, integrity, character and virtue, churches plays an absolutely essential role in contributing to the order of society. While government can impose penalties on criminals, religion can call men and women to voluntarily exercise virtue for a higher good and purpose. Government can prevent people from being bad, but it cannot make them be good.

This reason alone is sufficient to support the existing standard of no taxation of churches. Do churches make use of local services such as police and fire protection? Yes, though generally speaking the police are not needed to prevent the churchgoers from committing a crime. But the use of these public services is a trade-off that is well worth the public's benefit from the general teachings of religion.

Some, such as "Bob", have narrowed the focus of their request that non-profits pay taxes to mean only that religious non-profits, i.e. churches, be required to pay taxes. This differing level of treatment for churches is merited in their eyes because churches are different than other non-profits. They are allowed to discriminate in who they allow for membership, they are not required to serve all people equally, and they from time to time comment on issues being debated in politics and law. In order to continue to exercise these "privileges" churches should be required to pay taxes.

But what the churches are doing is not exercising privileges, but rights! The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects three important freedoms: the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. It also contains a prohibition on state support of churches; meaning that the government is not free to support one church or religious group over another church or religious group.

When rights are redefined as privileges, and the exercise of privileges being something that must be paid for in taxes, the debate over the taxation of churches has left the field of fiscal debate and morphed into a discussion of religious liberty, free speech, and the freedom of assembly. If we disagree with a particular church's membership requirements, hiring practices, moral views, or ministry focus, we can disassociation with that church and associate ourselves with a different group of religious adherents.

Requiring a church to pay taxes simply so it can act in accordance with Biblical principles is a direct and serious assault on religious liberty and a fostering of the "excessive entanglement with religion" that some advocates of church-taxation so decry. (As an aside, the phrase "excessive entanglement with religion" is not a Constitutional bar but rather a Supreme Court imposed standard that violates a fundamental concept of American self-government, but I digress.)

With respect to the need to tax churches because of the so-called issues loophole (where pastors and congregations express their views on policies, but not political candidates), it is not required of any other type of organization or association that they pay taxes to exercise their right to speak out about government issues.

Further, the muzzling, censoring, and silencing of churches when they attempt to speak out on the moral issues of the day is to deny them the ability to exercise their religion. It would be the government saying "you can believe whatever you want to believe, but don't you dare apply that belief to modern life or share what you believe with others." Such a totalitarian response to the minor problem of churches using public services without paying taxes should be dismissed without further thought by individuals dedicated to genuine liberty and freedom.

In conclusion, churches provide a very important contribution to society, their role should not be underestimated or slighted, the problem of limiting their access to Constitutionally protected rights by requiring them to pay taxes should not be overlooked, and the difficulty presented by their tax free status, if it can be called a difficulty, is far less of a problem than the problems that would be caused by taxation.

Friday, January 23, 2009

How we're "solving the problems" in St. Joe County

A. State government raises the sales tax by 17%, from 6% to 7%. This is to help "offset" loss of funds by capping property taxes.

B. State caps property taxes

C. Local Governements double the Local Option Income Tax to again "offset" losses in property taxes.

D. The Government spends more and you pay more than you ever did before.

I love how the government "solves" problems!

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Still Dedicated to low taxes

This blog has lain dormant for some time. It's author has encountered many changes. For one, I am now a Firefighter. I now have the opportunity to see this debate from the inside out. As a government employee, being paid with tax dollars and utilizing equipment purchased by public funds for public and firefighter safety, I understand better that this issue can be complex and very difficult at times.

However, my focus has in no way changed from lowering the tax burden on the people. I believe we must keep the pressure on all of our government entities. It is so easy for us (government people) to slide into a "wants" mentality and lose sight of the "needs" mindset, especially when you are the beneficiary of higher taxes. The public must stay vigilant! Government agencies must stay frugal!

So with that, let me encourage all to get involved someway with their government and its needs. And let me remind the politicians and government officials: You serve the people, their wants and their desires! NOT yourselves, your wants and your desires!

In God We Trust!

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Indiana's Spending Spree

The Tribune had an article today about increasing sales or income tax to replace property taxes. According to the Legislative Services Agency, to bring in the same amount of revenue without property taxes, sales tax would need to more than double – from 6 to 13 percent.

The other option would be to increase individual income taxes from 3.4 to 9 percent.

As the Tribune pointed out neither of these options would be very popular. Taxes never are.

Whether these numbers are accurate or not, I don't know. The fact of that matter is however, that Hoosiers will pay out the same amount no matter what form of tax, or combination of taxes it may be. I still advocate totally eliminating property taxes, but I am an even bigger advocate of cutting spending and increasing government efficiency.

Perhaps the reported percentage increases to replace property taxes will wake people up the ridiculous spending spree our government is on.

It's got to stop.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Daniels cautious about total elimination

Following from the South Bend Tribune:

Daniels open to killing property taxes?On Lakeville stop, governor says it's worth weighing

LAKEVILLE -- Gov. Mitch Daniels stopped short of saying he would seek to eliminate property taxes in Indiana here Tuesday, but suggested the issue is one that requires examination."We ought to look and see," Daniels said in response to a question. "We certainly need to head in that direction and go as far as we can."One way to start, according to Daniels, would be for counties to adopt local option income taxes that could be used to reduce property taxes dollar for dollar... more.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

TAX CHURCHES!!!!

On Sunday, the IndyStar had a story entitled “$2.7 billion in property untaxed in Marion County. One idea gaining traction nationwide is a fee for public services in lieu of property taxes.”

Here it comes. It’s time to tax churches and non-profits. Twenty years ago such a suggestion would have been unthinkable; now it’s being thrown out as a viable option.

This is one of the major reasons why property taxes should be eliminated completely, to protect churches from government taxation. To think something as un-constitutional as this is even being considered is amazing. But no sooner did the story come out than many bloggers started clamoring in agreement, as if tax-exempts are the cause for the current property tax crisis in Indiana.

This country has NEVER allowed the taxation of churches, not for any reason or any cause. Ten years ago non-profits were tax exempt in Indiana and it was not a problem with anyone. Now, in 2007, we have a tax crisis, and of course it is the non-profits that are the problem!

Well friends, I’m here to say that that is not the problem at all. As Polis Politics so adequately pointed out, uncontrolled spending and government waste is why we are where we are today.

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Eliminating Property Taxes: What will it take?

While support for the idea of eliminating property taxes seems to be on the rise, there is a difference in opinion about what it will take. Indiana property taxes bring in nearly $6 billion, and somehow, that figure will need to be replaced.

Eric Miller of Advance America has a plan to completely eliminate property taxes which would raise the state income tax from 3.4% to 4.4% and the sales tax from 6% to 8%.

However, many disagree with his figures, most notably some Senate Republicans.

Senator Luke Kenley has been on a commission studying property taxes for several years and also sponsored the bill this past session allowing Local Option Income Taxes (LOIT) to help relieve the property owner and set the "circuit breaker law" allowing only 2% of assessed value of private property to be taxed. Senator Kenley disagrees with Miller's numbers stating that either the income tax would need to rise to 8.4 percent, or the sales tax would need to rise to 12 percent.

This difference may be the fact that Miller's plan takes into account what he calls a "state spending cap" saving the state $1.543 billion, whereas Kenley probably does not include this in his calculations.

What seems to be the major difference in their calculations is that Miller's plan includes savings from spending cuts and Kenley's does not. Unfortunately, the Senate Republicans have not been overly enthusiastic about tightening the belt in the State budget and have approved funds for a number of new special programs which are paid on the backs of Indiana tax payers.

That needs to change.