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.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Actually, we SHOULD tax churches. Repealing churches' tax exemption threatens no one's freedom of religion. If a church sought to rent property from a private owner to conduct religious services but could not afford the rent that the owner was asking, would the church members' freedom to practice their religion have been destroyed? Obviously not: the freedom to practice religion that is guaranteed by the First Amendment does not mean that a religious group has an absolute right to take any property they want for their own use. Church taxation is the same. If a religious group could not afford to pay taxes on property that they owned, this does not mean that this group has been prevented from practicing its religion; it means that the group must seek out a new location to do so, one which they can afford. In the highly unlikely scenario that a church could not find any property whose taxes they could afford to pay, they would still be free to hold services on public property, such as a park, or in their individual members' residences. Even in such a case, no one's freedom of religion has been infringed in any way. The only "right" that is threatened by church taxation is the facetious and imaginary right of a religious group to do anything they want just because they are religious.
Repealing churches' tax exemption makes sense, given that they are unlike not-for-profit organizations. Churches are fundamentally unlike the other kinds of groups that usually declare not-for-profit status. Charities and educational institutions, for example, serve all people equally. However, churches do not. They are free to discriminate, and do discriminate, against people who do not share their beliefs (this is called the "ministerial exemption"). They can and do discriminate against people for being gay, for being women, for being unmarried, for their age, for having health problems, or for virtually any other reason. (A recent New York Times article, "Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights", gives more information on the liberties given to churches that would never be granted to any other employer.) At the very least, these groups should pay taxes if they intend to treat their employees in this way. Even better, this special treatment should end, and they should be held to the same anti-discrimination rules as any other business.
Actually, Bob, you just made the case for why taxation of churches is dangerous to religious liberty. Read your first paragraph minus the little talking point about it not hurting religious liberty and compare it to the substance of you your second paragraph. You are advocating in the second paragraph for policies that restrict a church's religious practices and saying that such restrictions must either be imposed or an exemption bought by participation in property tax levies.
Post a Comment