In looking back over the past couple of years I have seen a growing call for churches to pay tax, in fact the call is so vicious it sometimes suggest churches not paying tax is the reason the average person is poor. This got me to wondering, and seriously so. I mentioned on a rabid atheist site once that perhaps churches could be means tested and be evaluated on their work in the community and what services they supply, this was met with aggressiveness akin to racist rantings on message boards. It stands to reason, taxing a church that feeds and clothes the homeless in an entire community does not seem like the right thing to do. That said, some new atheist driven councils in some US cities are doing exactly this and are also passing laws that prohibit churches from feeding the poor, offering them clothes and blankets and in one case, a church was no allowed to offer shelter to homeless people during a snow storm. So, you see why I might be a little hesitant on just blanket taxing, or carpet bombing groups because of some other, deeper seated disagreement.
How would a means test work? A church does need to raise money, as many, if not all, support organizations in poor countries, through food aid, education, clothing and in the case of Christian Blind Missions, the creation of industries for the poor to not only work in, but to own for the benefit of their communities. So, means testing would need to allow for the areas the churche's fund, all of them, and if a said tax means that one or more of those services cannot continue, then the tax is harmful to others and even the community. While I can say means test the churches as easily as any person, I see the difficulties in policing such a means test.
Does that mean no tax on churches? This is where the means test may have some value. In the USA and in some churches in Australia we are talking about multi million dollar businesses, and in some instances tax havens for mega wealthy church goers (maybe not actual goers, but principles on church boards to be more accurate) So, if a church, after all its program costs, still has a million dollar is the bank as some kind of holding, then yes perhaps a means test should be applied and appropriate taxes paid yearly.
What I see as the blanket problem with the ALL churches must pay tax argument is that the money given to churches, donated, has already, in many cases, been taxed, though wages, business taxes and even goods and services taxes, so the money is taxed money, it isn't free money that has just appeared. If a blanket tax was introduced on donations, then we have a double taxation system on the same money, and a opening for taxation on all donations regardless of the cause, religions or need. This would be applying an extra tax to people of religion, while those of non religious beliefs and understanding don't have to pay the tax. Once that door is opened, where the extra tax can be charged on anything labelled a donation then everything we understand in the charity world will start to decline. Charities struggle to raise funds for the needy as it is, to suddenly tax them is a bit unreasonable.
So, what does the loud call about taxing churches really mean? It might surprise many that over 90% of churches operate just above the poverty line; yes many own their buildings, after decades of dedicated donations to help pay for them and some even have a few thousand in the bank to cover maintenance and running costs, like employing a minister. There are ministers in the USA on over a millions dollars a year in salary, and who live in multi million dollar mansions with church memberships over 5000... for these that means test I mentioned needs to come into play - someone in these churches is hiding money. For the majority of churches world wide, it is a near poverty experience.
I don't think a blanket tax on churches is called for, mainly because most of its general motivation is not driven by a sense of fairness and just consideration, but more by ideology and hate. You cannot construct a tax system based on the hatred of a group or organization.
We can all agree, as individual churches, there needs to be some kind of review process in order to get tax free status, rather than perhaps the automatic system in place. Over 90% of churches will be granted the tax free status, because of what they do, what they bring in to cover debts and plan for the future (we cannot rob people for future planning - otherwise why not increase taxes on personal pension funds). There will be many huge churches in the USA that will fail the tax exemption review, but when major contributors to some of these money havens are politicians and law makers, you can seed such a review will not come anytime soon.
What I want people to consider, is when you call out that churches 'should' pay tax, what are you really saying? Are you saying you are not religious, but religious people should be made to pay tax twice, or are you simply reacting to wealthy flaunting churches only.
The rear view is fogging up from rage that I see coming my way, so I might just pull over for a while and have a sleep.
Out
No comments:
Post a Comment