re: Religious 501(c)(3) need to be suspended

quote:

---

Churches should pay real estate taxes. 100%. My church, too. The churches use public infrastructure that our taxes pay for, such as the road and highway system to get there, the drainage system to make sure the roads don't flood so you can get there. The cost of obtaining easements for water, gas, electric. If there's a need for it, our police and fire services are at their disposal, too.

So why do churches get a tax exemption and not have to pay like everyone else does for all of these services? Don't give me this separation of church and state stuff. That has nothing to do (or shouldn't) with being a responsible organization that pays for it's share of city and state services.

---

1. Separation of church and state in this case is certainly real. When the state requires churches to pay taxes, the state has a necessary intrusion into the finances of the church, including financial audits. Once churches are subject to taxation, there is no limit to what an anti-Christian government can do to churches in the name of "fair taxation". Just look at what the Obama and Biden administrations did to go after Christians. The government can (and does) do a lot of damage to individuals and organizations through taxes, which is why conservatives have traditionally been against expanding taxation and have instead sought to reduce it.

2. One of the primary reasons why churches have been exempt from taxation is to incentivize the benefits they provide to communities. The assumption was that communities were better off when their citizens were going to church and being taught good morality (being better citizens), and when churches through their ministries were providing assistance to citizens that the state didn't need to provide. When collections are taken up to help a family in need, or when a soup kitchen is set up as a ministry by a church, it reduces the public burden. Those benefits have traditionally been seen as justification for not requiring additional taxes that could limit those societal benefits or eliminate them entirely by making it hard for churches to remain organized.

quote:

---

I'm saying that the state should not provide material roadblocks to the church, which an introduction of additional tax burden could do.

---

The problem is you're arguing from the position that our current state is the more natural/fair position, when it's the position of government treating 501c3s differently.

Making the law treat people more equally isn't a bad thing.

We would be removing an advantage that churches currently receive, not introducing an additional tax burden. That's the correct framing.

quote:

---

You're describing expenses with your examples.

---

Churches spend the donations (tithes and offerings) they receive, yes. The expenses go towards the good of the church and the community at-large. Taxing the donations to the church will not only lead to a decrease in those donations, but would reduce the amount of money churches have available for those benefits they provide.

quote:

---

The problem is you're arguing from the position that our current state is the more natural/fair position, when it's the position of government treating 501c3s differently.

Making the law treat people more equally isn't a bad thing.

We would be removing an advantage that churches currently receive, not introducing an additional tax burden. That's the correct framing.

---

More "framing"

Yes, I'm arguing that the current model of exemption from taxes for churches is more desirable for the reasons I've already provided. This isn't about "equality" as you're trying to "frame" it, because it's not actually equal. Churches are not businesses that are only operating for the sake of the shareholders and owners. Churches are also not individuals or individual households, who own property for the betterment of themselves, but churches operate for the sake of the betterment of the community. So no, it's not intended to be "equal".

In addition, the lack of taxes has always intended to recognize the separation of authority and jurisdiction between the church and the state in addition to being an incentive for churches to provide community services, such as teaching citizens to be moral and to provide help so the government doesn't have to.

quote:

---

Churches are not businesses that are only operating for the sake of the shareholders and owners.

---

Literally nobody is making this argument. You just keep responding to the straw man, as if you had pre-prepared statements for the topic

quote:

---

Churches are also not individuals or individual households, who own property for the betterment of themselves

---

Debatable in many instances

quote:

---

but churches operate for the sake of the betterment of the community. So no, it's not intended to be "equal"

---

This has nothing to do with the discussion about the taxation model

For-profit corporations also operate for the betterment of the community

quote:

---

In addition, the lack of taxes has always intended to recognize the separation of authority and jurisdiction between the church and the state

---

No it doesn't. This applies to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations. Your claim is patently false and easily disprovable.

quote:

---

in addition to being an incentive for churches to provide community services, such as teaching citizens to be moral and to provide help so the government doesn't have to.

---

Like the SPLC? Planned Parenthood? Open Society Fund? Clinton Foundation?

quote:

---

My point was that those who complain about pastors like Joel Osteen making a ton of money aren't considering that they are already required by law to disclose their income and pay personal income taxes on that income.

---

And my point is that that is the same circumstance for every organization in the country. It's not a point of differentiation that explains why churches shouldn't have to pay taxes.

quote:

---

I do believe that the state has the obligation to promote conditions that are favorable for the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ

---

Based on what? Certainly nothing in the Constitution or any other founding documents. Nothing in the Bible, either. Jesus never expected Rome to proselytize. In fact, He said to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's, and that was an answer in direct response to a question about paying taxes.

If Jesus thought it was appropriate for believers to pay taxes to Rome (which was taxing them in an unfair and highly corrupt manner), how do you get that churches shouldn't pay taxes to government authorities just like every other organization in America?

quote:

---

Upwards of 70% of all churches/congregations in America have 100 or fewer members. That's why my focus is on smaller congregations.

---

O.k., but that 70% only accounts for around 14% of all churchgoers in the country. Almost 80% of American churchgoers attend churches that are in the largest 13% of congregations.

Remember, as someone else pointed out way earlier, you only have to pay income tax on money over and above operating costs. So the idea that taxing small, poor churches on income would close them down doesn't make sense. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" is nothing but an empty slogan in this case.

If they are breaking even or losing money, they owe zero income tax. If they are making a modest overage, then they pay only a modest tax. And you mentioned missions, which can also be deducted if structured correctly.

What this is really about isn't "shutting small churches down," or income tax, it's about property taxes. It's about churches owning property.

So here's the question: what do fewer than 100 people need to own discreet property for in order to gather and worship?

quote:

---

You think churches buy up prime land for no reason

---

Not at all. The anecdotal churches I'm talking about have probably been where they are for 100 years or more. But because they are exempt from property taxes, they are also exempt from the cost of the development of everything that surrounds them and benefits and continues to sustain them.

quote:

---

that they are wasting the space?

---

Of course they are wasting the space. And the smaller the congregation, the bigger the waste.

quote:

---

Whether the location is used for 2 hours a week or every day, is irrelevant to the usefulness of the church ministries that are carried out from those locations.

---

So is the existence of the building in the first place. That's what you guys won't admit.

You can't argue on one hand that worshipping has nothing to do with using property and then turn around on the other hand and insist that people must own property in order to worship.

Again, remember, we're talking specifically about these small churches with 40, 60, 90 members. What do congregations that small need to own a building for?

Sure, they need a place to gather, but they do not have to own a building—nor should they IMO with a congregation that size— to have a place to gather. At that point it's more of a distraction than anything else. Even without taxes roofs leak, pipes burst, light bulbs burn out, paint peels, and grass needs to be cut. It represents an unnecessary expense for a congregation that size.

Churches that size would be much better off meeting in a gym, in a community meeting room, in people's homes, or several of them sharing a church building. There are Saturday mornings and seven evenings available for worship/other event times besides Sunday morning when the average person isn't at work. Everybody wins in that scenario IMO. Each church has an opportunity to remain distinct and retain autonomy, the property tax/upkeep is split 3 or 4 or 5 ways so it's now affordable, and the building is actually useful to a degree that is proportional to its existence.

Anyway, I digress.

quote:

---

Many schools are basically shut down for several months a year, but few people complain about the wasted space during that time.

---

You are (deliberately, I think) missing the point. People may not "complain" about schools not being used during the summer, but that's because nobody is out there insisting that we need separate, discreet, physical school facilities for each separate group of 40, 60, or 90 students, either.

If they were, the lack of efficiency of usage would certainly come up in the discussion.

quote:

---

because that was the best way to have organized worship according to biblical directives.

---

What Biblical directives would those be?

I'm familiar with the history of the early church, btw. A summary of 33-300 A.D.+ is not necessary. And I think you're missing the biggest reason that buildings began to be built. Constantine funded them, to underscore Christianity's status as the state sponsored religion and to increase visibility for it. They were essentially public buildings.

quote:

---

The government does not need to tax churches at all.

---

Let's try it this way. Does the government need to tax any organizations at all, including churches?

If your answer is "no," then consider the discussion over. At that point we agree.

quote:

---

One of the primary reasons why churches have been exempt from taxes is because of the service to communities they provide, thus the lack of taxes has been an incentive to continue to benefit communities, encouraging citizens to be moral and to offset costs to the public (government) through the ministries they provide.

---

Sure, and that's the rationale behind the government not taxing any non-profit (except the part about encouraging citizens to be moral).

But what is a congregation of 50 people (1/3 to 1/2 of whom are likely either children or old people) doing that is taking up the slack that the government would otherwise have to step in and handle?

Again, these are the churches we're talking about, right? The bigger ones could afford to pay the taxes.

Which brings me to:

quote:

---

Also, most of those mega churches that you and others think are operating like businesses are actually using their buildings every day due to their size and the number of ministries they support.

---

I haven't said much at all about mega churches except that there are 2-3 of them where I live. Other than that I don't recall making any comments about them.

But yeah, they do a lot of stuff. And they could likewise afford to pay the taxes. But that kind of goes to the part just above. Those are actually the churches big enough to move the needle on doing work that the government would otherwise have to do.

Anyway, this is not something I feel strongly about, I just got caught up in the discussion due to some of the statements being made early on. I'm not going to campaign against church tax exempt status or anything. It is interesting to me that some people have such a sense of entitlement about it, though.

quote:

---

I wasn't using it as a reason for why churches shouldn't have to pay taxes. I was using it to correct misunderstandings as to why some believe churches should pay taxes.

---

I don't see a difference between those two things in the context of your comments.

quote:

---

Our obligation to give honor to non-Christian governments doesn't change the fact that they will be judged for not giving honor to Christ.

---

O.k. What does that have to do with churches paying taxes? We're not discussing the fate of America for taxing churches, we're discussing whether American churches should be specially exempt from the taxes.

quote:

---

The notion that the state ought to honor Christ and provide opportunity for the gospel of Jesus Christ

---

And you get that notion where? This is the second time you've tried to smuggle that in, despite me asking (now twice) where you are getting it from.

quote:

---

We're talking about churches paying taxes, not church-goers.

---

Where does the money that churches use for operational costs come from?

quote:

---

Who is to say that another Democrat administration wouldn't raise or add taxes to religious organizations that can do further damage?

---

In order to do so they'd have to do the same thing with every business and organization in America. They couldn't legally just raise corporate taxes on churches. That would be illegal discrimination (when you pay taxes just like everybody else, look at that! You also get the protection of having to be treated like everyone else under the law).

So they could only get so punitive with it before they'd tank the stock market and get run out on a rail. No, I stand by my original statement.

quote:

---

Organization, oversight, and orderliness.

---

Of 40 people?

Balderdash. And you know it. Again, I'm not saying people don't need a place to gather. I'm saying if there are only 40 or 50 or 80 of them, they don't need to own it.

quote:

---

The nature of the tax exemption is that the church is accepted as providing public benefit that warrants the exemption from taxation for the use of roads, etc., and that it's more important to not have the government have additional intrusion into church affairs through taxation than the cost of the services that property taxes pay for.

---

Yeah, I get it, but when we're talking about a Sunday roll of 45 people, what degree of public benefit are they providing?

quote:

---

I'm arguing that the church has a fundamental requirement to obey God, and that having a localized place of gathering is the best way to do that.

---

I haven't said anything that prohibits any group (no matter how small) from having a localized place of gathering. In fact, I've said the opposite, many times just in my last couple of posts.

At this point you are obviously and deliberately participating in bad faith.

quote:

---

Whether that location is used one day a week or seven, doesn't matter.

---

But it really does. Your argument is that churches should have special privileges because of all the good works they do in the community. How are they able to do all those good works only operating 2 hours a week, to quote your previous post? And if they are able to do all those good works without needing the facility, then why do they need to own the facility? Just to use it a couple of hours a week?

One of the things we are commanded to do is be good stewards of what God has given us. Make the case for me that that is being a good steward of resources.

quote:

---

You seem to be ignorant of Christian teaching, so I won't get into all the reasons why your reasoning is flawed from a Christian perspective, but needless to say that you are biased against Christianity in this discussion.

---

Whoa. Well, YOU seem to be flirting with outright dishonesty at this point. You haven't answered anything I've asked you about Biblical grounding for your opinions (that you claim are grounded in the Bible), and saying, "If you don't know why this is the right answer, I'M certainly not going to be the one to tell you," is nothing but a transparent (though gloriously arrogant—I really didn't think you were like this) tactic to avoid having to cash the checks you let your mouth write in this discussion. Needless to say, you are the one who is severely biased, and it sure looks like you are allowing that to lead you to a place I didn't think you went.

quote:

---

Why do we need primary schools, elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools? Why not just have one giant building for everyone?

---

Numbers and proportionailty. Like I keep telling you.

I did go to a K-12 private school that had only two classroom buildings, one for K-6 and the other 7-12, plus a gym building. We could have done fine in one classroom building if it was built like that.

But, we only had 300 students in the whole school.

People routinely homeschool in groups that are smaller than that.

And for groups that are bigger than that, the campuses are bigger.

Common sense. Reasonable proportionality. That's why.

What you are arguing is that every group no matter how small needs to own property. You have 30 kids over there, o.k., they need their own facility.

quote:

---

Orderly worship and elder-led oversight are summaries of said directives.

---

Yeah, so which verse says you have to own a facility in order to accomplish those things?

quote:

---

They don't need to levy those taxes against organizations, including churches, so I suppose the answer would be "no".

---

Then this will be my last reply to this thread. I agree. It doesn't have to tax any organization. There's nothing left to argue about.

quote:

---

But I don't think that ends the discussion.

---

I think it probably should. We have a point of agreement that could end it, so wouldn't it be better to do so?

Since you've commented on your perception of my knowledge of Biblical principles, I'll comment on yours. Your knowledge seems to be limited to those principles that happen to coincide with what you think you can use to facilitate your own desires or win your argument.

Namely, there are Biblical principles against believers arguing needlessly, especially in front of non-believers, as well as principes about not throwing pearls before swine, which you do every chance you get with Squirrelmaster.

I have comments on your last two paragraphs as well, but following Biblical principles, I'll keep them to myself and end my participation in the conversation.

Answer me if you like, but I won't be back to read it.

quote:

---

I don't see a difference between those two things

---

I wasn't making a positive argument for why churches shouldn't be taxed. I was making a negative argument against a reason why some want churches taxed. It was a defensive statement rather than an offensive one.

quote:

---

O.k. What does that have to do with churches paying taxes?

---

I said, "I do believe that the state has the obligation to promote conditions that are favorable for the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ", and then you asked, "Based on what?". I responded that it was based on Christ's authority over all things.

The connection is this: since Christ has authority over the nations and all nations should submit to Him, then the governors of those nations ought to make conditions favorable for Christ's Church and the spread of the gospel.

quote:

---

And you get that notion where? This is the second time you've tried to smuggle that in, despite me asking (now twice) where you are getting it from.

---

I've got limited characters to respond to you. I gave you the high-level explanation so I could address other things, but now you want the details. Here you go:

Jesus possesses all authority in heaven and earth (Matt 28:18). Civil authority is derivative from Christ's divine authority (Rom 13:1; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20-22). Kings are commanded to submit t the Son of God (Ps 2:12). The gospel advances when magistrates provide peaceful and orderly conditions (1 Tim 2:1-4). The conclusion is that all governments are commanded to honor Christ and remove impediments to the gospel.

This doctrine is called the mediatorial kingship of Christ, so if you want more detail, go look into it.

quote:

---

Where does the money that churches use for operational costs come from?

---

Church-goers, as donations. The issue being discussed is who should pay taxes. The discussion has been about churches as organizations paying taxes, not the church-goers.

quote:

---

In order to do so they'd have to do the same thing with every business and organization in America.

---

No, they don't. As the recent IRS scandal demonstrates, targeting and selective enforcement are very much on the table.

For one, since church property valuation is difficult to compare, local governments can over value church properties to increase property taxes to a point that makes it difficult for all smaller churches to afford them. They can then fall back on the difficulty of assessment if challenged in court.

Imminent domain can also be abused to simply take the land from churches, as has happened in the past, but removing tax exemption status also removes an additional protection that would make it even more difficult to fight in court. Zoning laws could potentially be used to discriminate against or harass churches, especially if protections like tax exemption are removed.

The IRS could over-tax all aspects of the ministry as revenue-generating activities, forcing congregations to fight it in court to great expense, which most churches can't afford.

It also can use exemption to coerce doctrine, as since the new baseline would be taxation, the government could provide exemption status only to those churches who support the general public policy standards promoted by the government, such as not teaching against homosexuality, abortion, or other sins that the administration wants to promote.

quote:

---

Of 40 people?

---

Yes. The Bible provides instruction for orderly worship, and that applies to churches of all sizes. Most of the congregations in my denomination have less than 100 members, even by design (we don't generally promote large churches due to the lack of intimacy and difficulty in shepherding that large numbers can cause), including several with 30 to 60 members. The Bible provides instructions for orderly worship, including the administration of the Lord's Supper, and church oversight and discipline by elders, including presbyteries that have oversight over each congregation. Having a centralized building is almost always easier for public worship, which is why most churches that start our small in houses try to save money and grow membership so they can eventually have their own dedicated building.

quote:

---

when we're talking about a Sunday roll of 45 people, what degree of public benefit are they providing?

---

I had to use AI for this one, but estimates seem to be that for the estimated $26–$71 billion annually lost in tax revenue from churches, society receives $418 billion in congregational economic activity. For smaller congregations (of say 45 people), $25k–$35k is tax revenue lost results in a return of well over $500k of economic impact annually.

This doesn't even touch on the impact of morality being taught in churches that extends to society broadly.

quote:

---

I haven't said anything that prohibits any group (no matter how small) from having a localized place of gathering. In fact, I've said the opposite, many times just in my last couple of posts.

---

You're arguing against land/building ownership. I'm arguing for why having a dedicated public space is better to meet the biblical demands than someone's home.

quote:

---

Your argument is that churches should have special privileges because of all the good works they do in the community.

---

I don't think it's a special privilege to be immune from taxation as a church. I believe it's an additional and unnecessary burden that governments should avoid for the sake of honoring Christ.

I'm also not saying the good works in the community is the only argument for why churches shouldn't be taxed.

quote:

---

How are they able to do all those good works only operating 2 hours a week

---

That's just for the formal worship services. Usually pastors occupy an office in the building for the week for preparation and study for their sermons. Secretaries use that space for logistical work, such as printing bulletins. Deacons use the space for training grounds for diaconal service. Buildings are used for outreach events like VBS, food banks, and other works. It's also used for fellowship activities for children and youth. Bible studies and counseling occur there. So on and so on. Most buildings are not only used for 2 hours a week, but my point was it doesn't matter if they were only used for that time: it's a benefit to have a centralized, visible and public place for worship.

quote:

---

And if they are able to do all those good works without needing the facility, then why do they need to own the facility?

---

There are tons of advantages of having a public, church-owned place of worship, compared to operating out of a member's home, for instance. One of the biggest ones is flexibility of service and operation that doesn't exist in being in a home or a leased space.

quote:

---

One of the things we are commanded to do is be good stewards of what God has given us. Make the case for me that that is being a good steward of resources.

---

Those who perform upkeep on their church buildings and grounds are being good stewards over what God has given them. No additional case is necessary for why it's a bad steward to own a public space. The Temple and various synagogues are example enough from the Bible of even the expected public places of worship.

quote:

---

Common sense. Reasonable proportionality. That's why.

---

That's what I'm arguing for. A church building that supports 50-100 people will have a smaller footprint than one that supports 5,000 people. The building is proportional to the needs.

Chicago is dying from within, and nobody there cares...