Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions - Mark Openheimer

[Leonhard]

Well, at least one person on the other side started saying it in the open.

Read it here.

Source: Mark Openheimer

Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.”

But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears.

I don’t, however, like his solution. And he’s not going to like mine. Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Well, at least one person on the other side started saying it in the open.

Read it here.

Source: Mark Openheimer

Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.”

But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears.

I don’t, however, like his solution. And he’s not going to like mine. Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.

© Copyright Original Source

And the "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

[Starlight]

Well, at least one person on the other side started saying it in the open.

Not quite sure what you mean by this. I've never supported churches having tax-exempt status. Even when I was a Christian I thought it was a bizarre thing.

And the "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

No, it's "with great power comes great responsibility".

[seer]

No, it's "with great power comes great responsibility".

No it's not. The power to tax is the power to destroy or the power to control. Which is exactly what you leftists want.

[Chaotic Void]

Well, at least one person on the other side started saying it in the open.

Read it here.

Source: Mark Openheimer

Two weeks ago, with a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on the way, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which ensures that religious institutions won’t lose their tax exemptions if they don’t support same-sex marriage. Liberals tend to think Sen. Lee’s fears are unwarranted, and they can even point to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion in Friday’s case, which promises “that religious organizations and persons [will be] given proper protection.”

But I don’t think Sen. Lee is crazy. In the 1983 Bob Jones University case, the court ruled that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy.” So far, the Bob Jones reasoning hasn’t been extended to other kinds of discrimination, but someday it could be. I’m a gay-rights supporter who was elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision — but I honor Sen. Lee’s fears.

I don’t, however, like his solution. And he’s not going to like mine. Rather than try to rescue tax-exempt status for organizations that dissent from settled public policy on matters of race or sexuality, we need to take a more radical step. It’s time to abolish, or greatly diminish, their tax-exempt statuses.

© Copyright Original Source

Meh... I know a few pastors who would be more than happy to tell the Government where they can shove their tax exemption should it come down to that. In all honesty- should things REALLY get that bad- I'd prefer that churches lose their tax-exempt status than constantly risk being blackmailed by the state to violate their conscience. Churches don't need the tax exemption, though it certainly makes them more efficient in their ministry.

[seanD]

Meh... I know a few pastors who would be more than happy to tell the Government where they can shove their tax exemption should it come down to that. In all honesty- should things REALLY get that bad- I'd prefer that churches lose their tax-exempt status than constantly risk being blackmailed by the state to violate their conscience. Churches don't need the tax exemption, though it certainly makes them more efficient in their ministry.

But then they become a for-profit business and thus will likely lose first amendment protection.

[seer]

But then they become a for-profit business and thus will likely lose first amendment protection.

right...

[Spartacus]

right...

that would require overruling Citizens United, etc., which I know the Left wants to do anyway, but...

[Cow Poke]

The biggest tax advantage for Churches, in my opinion, is the ministerial housing allowance, which is also under attack. I expect it will eventually go away, but meanwhile it helps smaller Churches pay their ministers a "bigger bang for the buck" salary.

[Jedidiah]

If we substituted the Fair Tax for the Income Tax the problem would go away. No tax exemptions along with all the fiscal benefits of doing away with the whole tax structure. Of course we will never the the Fair Tax because that would take away masses of government control of peoples private lives. Control of people is what liberals are all about. This in the tax system, gun control and lots of other areas.

[Starlight]

If we substituted the Fair Tax for the Income Tax the problem would go away. No tax exemptions

So you're in favor of getting rid of the tax-exempt status of Churches (since they would not be tax exempt in your ideal Fair Tax system)?

[Jaecp]

that would require overruling Citizens United, etc., which I know the Left wants to do anyway, but...

Populist right wing people I know aren't exactly fans of it either.

Why even have this tax exemption in the first place?

edit:

Also, the link doesn't work in the OP

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Although I do have some issues with the ministerial housing allowance, I honestly don't have any problem with the tax exemptions offered by 501(c)(3) registration.

Interestingly, if these exemptions were to disappear, so would the rules which disallow 501(c)(3) organizations from directly taking part in politics. Pastors would be completely free to endorse specific candidates or legislation from the pulpit or to require that their congregations vote a certain way in order to retain membership. I honestly don't think that many of those people who are calling for the end of "religious tax exemption" have realized that they may actually be opening up something which they oppose even more strongly.

[Cow Poke]

Although I do have some issues with the ministerial housing allowance, I honestly don't have any problem with the tax exemptions offered by 501(c)(3) registration.

Interestingly, if these exemptions were to disappear, so would the rules which disallow 501(c)(3) organizations from directly taking part in politics. Pastors would be completely free to endorse specific candidates or legislation from the pulpit or to require that their congregations vote a certain way in order to retain membership. I honestly don't think that many of those people who are calling for the end of "religious tax exemption" have realized that they may actually be opening up something which they oppose even more strongly.

I don't think you understand how most churches operate. The notion that a pastor would (or could) "require people to vote a certain way to retain membership" is totally unrealistic.

[Chaotic Void]

Why even have this tax exemption in the first place?

From what I understand, it's so that charities/community service type groups can make their fund-raised money go further.

I like to joke that it's the Goober Mint's way of conceding inefficiency, since it's not exactly the world's best-kept secret that private charities typically provide more bang for your buck.