All religious denominations should pay taxes

[Madeus]

---

Most Church-run schools are hardly making a profit. Were it bot for the donations, many of them would close up. The Catholic Church is NOT as rich as many imagine. And yet it provides the most important and effective social services in the country.

I agree to that.

If I have a kids, I'll bring them to catholic schools because these schools do not think for profit like they spend money for research, spend for equipments that will patch the quality levels required. So you can assure better education than most of the schools you found in the TV commercials -- they wont spend much because they will lose the business, thus, bad equipments, untrained instructors and etc.

[MrBiddle]

If I have a kids, I'll bring them to catholic schools because these schools do not think for profit like they spend money for research, spend for equipments that will patch the quality levels required. So you can assure better education than most of the schools you found in the TV commercials -- they wont spend much because they will lose the business, thus, bad equipments, untrained instructors and etc.

Whatever you do, don't send your kids to Mary Immaculate's Learning Center. It's a Catholic school with an elderly Marian devotee of a principal who was once charged for child molestation.

[giver_bert]

this time i'm afraid you're missing my point.

legality is not the issue here. that the church's money-earning endeavors are generally exempt from taxation under the law is well-settled from the time of this nation's birth. the issue here is whether or not there are logically valid grounds for such legal exemptions to continue.

i guess you're the one who's missing the whole deal bro.. tax imposition is basically based on legal technicalities.. principles brought upon by factors such as theoritical Justice and the ability to pay principle..

valid grounds? certainly, i could give you two basic constitutional reasons.
- first.. is to protect the exercise of religious freedom.. delegate Cloribel to the 135 constitutional convention put it in this way... “if churches, convents and their accessories are always necessary for facilitating the exercise of such freedom, it would also be natural that their existence be also guaranteed by exempting them from taxation.”

- secondly, that is to guarantee the separation of church and state... eliminating the exemption would “tend to expand the involvement of the government” in church affairs... retaining it “tends to compliment and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other...”

so what? other entities are doing these things, too. other government servants i know serve the underprivileged in ways that even risk their lives. and these poor servants are not tax exempt.

like what?? one principle behind such tax exemption for certain institutions is the goals/ends on which their activities are directed.. i feel the need to informed you that there are actually a lot of entities enjoying the same as the church does.. i'm talking about

- labor, agricultural or horticultural organizations not organized principally for profit..
- mutual savings bank not having a capital stock organized and operated for mutual purposes and without profit..
- a beneficiary society, order or association, operating for the exclusive benefit of the members such as fraternal organizations operating under the lodge system, or mutual, aid association or non-stock corporation organized by employees providing for the payment of life, sickness, accident, or other benefits exclusive to the members of such society..
- Cemetery company owned and operated exclusive for the benefit of its members..
- non-stock corporations or associations organized and operated exclusive for religious.. Charitable. Scientific, athletic or cultural purposes or for the rehabilitation of veterans..
- business league, chamber of commerce or board of trade..
- civic league or organization not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare..
- non-stock, non-profit educational institution;
- government education institution;

and the list goes on...

the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.. by uniformity, it means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate or be given the same privileges..

so there's the rub. in the united states and other wealthy countries, these commercial ventures, undertaken in the guise of propagating their faiths, are commonly used by religious organizations as an excuse to exempt them from taxes. and they are raking in money, lots of money.

our own supreme court in 1981 made this decision that "there must be proof . . . of fund raising activities or of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings and improvements and other activities for religious or charitable purposes to be exempt from taxation.” churches and as well as other exempt organizations still have to be subjected to taxing requirements (stewardship)

who says that tax exemptions for churches are absolute? of course, oppositors to tax exemption know that certain church properties and revenues are taxable. the opposition have no problem about church incomes subject to taxes. they are training their guns on the tax-exempt incomes - and for a very valid reason.

as what i have stressed, it has been a common misconception (myth) that churches enjoys totaly exemption from taxes, even i have that kind of impression, not until i studied Taxation..

the collections should ideally go to the coffers of the government, in the same way that church collections must go to where it should. and if by chance something goes wrong along the way, refusing or ignoring to perform one's duty to give the other his due is simply not a way to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

wrong.. taxes are imposed in order for Governement to carry out their obligations to the public.. you're right about give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.. give to the people a return on their contributions.. a thing that churches/religious institutions are more efficient at doing..

If christians are to strictly take your line of reasoning, i'm afraid maunay mo sa tari nga inyong gidugsak sa rason sa opositor. History tells us that christian churches have their own abundant share of depravity and corruption. For this reason, do christians have to stop giving churches their dues too?

corruption will always be present.. some might even consider it as inherent in every things. i won't be too hyprocite so as to defend the church on it, i may have not observed such practises in our diocese, but i'm aware of the fact that it might happen to some other institutions.. in other countries, we don't hear people ranting about how corrupt their government is, although they knew that such is a fact, simply because their government were able to give the people "tangible" returns and cater their needs..

are we guaranteed that it will yield more benefits to people than those provided by these entities?
would this even give government officials a greater avenue for corruption?

there's no guarantee. and yes, it may even possibly create another opportunity for corruption. but these answers are useless to support the faithfuls' argument. for unless and until they actually happen, the answers sit in the realm of speculation. as such they neither provide an argument to sustain the faithfuls' position, nor do they serve to demolish the opposition's argument for tax exemption removal

this line of questioning proves one thing, though: that you are basing your position this time on your speculative answers to the questions. sadly, the same questions, whose answers have brought to mind the long, dark history of disgrace and ignominy that hounded the Christian church before, will also hound christian churches today.
.

it's already an established fact (from statistics.. even national ones) at how corrupt our government is right now! probabilities of tax collected by government from religious institions by then will only go to the pockets of pesky government officials/concerned government agencies is "highly probable"

my final say..

peace

[crinkle]

Crinkle wrote:

they probably should since they're earning money too...

Earning money is not hte same as generating profit. Even commercial companies that do not generate a profit are effectively not paying taxes.

Most churches, especially the Catholic Church, do not earn PROFITS. They provide services that are worth much more than the fees (if any) they charge for them. Also, their social contributions are worth far more than whatever they take in monetarily. The State recognizes this and thus certain activities and the "earnings" from such are exempt. Without such an exemption, the State would stand to lose such important services and have to spend more in proividing them.

Take note that in the Philippines, without the help of the catholic Chuyrch, social services would collapse almost entirely. The Church makes up for the failures of the government.

ngeee..i audit ang religious organizations nga nagdumala ug mga dagko nga eskuelahan, tan-awa kung wala ba na profit...

yeah... i've studied at one Catholic school to another from nursery til college and i know how they earn and even a ballpark figure of how much they must be earning.

[bfginus]

bfginus wrote:

this time i'm afraid you're missing my point. legality is not the issue here. that the church's money-earning endeavors are generally exempt from taxation under the law is well-settled from the time of this nation's birth. the issue here is whether or not there are logically valid grounds for such legal exemptions to continue.

giver_bert answered:
i guess you're the one who's missing the whole deal bro.. tax imposition is basically based on legal technicalities.. principles brought upon by factors such as theoritical Justice and the ability to pay principle..

repeat, legality is not an issue here. There is no question that, under the constitution and the statutes, churches are generally exempt from taxation. kung balaod ang basehan wala na’y angay lalisan kay exempted man gyud ang simbahan segun sa balaod.

so there is no need to resort to legal technicalities to support your views since the law granting churches certain tax exemptions is clear and leaves no room for debate.

likewise, the principle of "theoritical Justice and the ability to pay principle" are of no moment here since they apply to all entities in general, not just the church in particular, whose circumstances meet all the conditions required for tax exemption under said principles.

as you said, "the rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable.. by uniformity, it means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate or be given the same privileges..";
So again this is not an issue to tacke.

the beef here is the fact that, of all entities classified as non-profit, only churches get tax-exemption for profitable undertakings on the pretext of propagating their religion.
churches are able to enjoy tax exemptions that don't fall within the purview of the principles you mentioned. And, mind you, they manage to wangle these privileges not by invoking these doctrines, but by invoking these magic words: separation of church and state and freedom of religion.

so here lies, brother GB, the big issue that i'm raising, but which you've unfortunately failed to grasp.

There are church revenues - big revenues, and properties - high-priced real and personal properties, that ought to be subject to tax but are not taxed because of the ridiculous excuses advanced by proponents of church tax exemptions in the guise of upholding religious freedom and the separation of church and state.

valid grounds? certainly, i could give you two basic constitutional reasons..

again, the presence of constitutional grounds is not an issue here. certain church businesses not being covered by the constititional guarantee but managed to get tax exemptions, is the issue. Not having met the requisites set by law and taking undue advantage of tax exemptions citing the same law as an excuse, is the issue.

delegate Cloribel's views and the opinion that "eliminating the exemption would 'tend to expand the involvement of the government' in church affairs... retaining it 'tends to compliment and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other..'.” are the excuses which serve only the tax-evasion purposes of churches and should, therefore, be abandoned to protect the interest of the state.

bfginus wrote:

so what? other entities are doing these things, too. other government servants i know serve the underprivileged in ways that even risk their lives. and these poor servants are not tax exempt.

giver_bert asked:

like what?

you mean you don't know? look at the government social workers, outreach agrarian workers, rural health workers, soldiers, teachers, etc. wa lang gyud diay ka kita nila?

giver_bert wrote:
one principle behind such tax exemption for certain institutions is the goals/ends on which their activities are directed.. i feel the need to informed you that there are actually a lot of entities enjoying the same as the church does.. i'm talking about …(entities enumerated)...and the list goes on...

no problem about that. all entities, including the church, that enjoy above-board tax exemptions for their assets, you can cite ad infinitum. The point is only churches have taken undue advantage of tax exemptions for supposedly taxable assets in the guise of upholding separation church and state and religious freedom. these are the assets - enjoying concessions and priviliges they don't deserve - that i wanted taxed.

bfginus wrote:
so there's the rub. in the united states and other wealthy countries, these commercial ventures, undertaken in the guise of propagating their faiths, are commonly used by religious organizations as an excuse to exempt them from taxes. and they are raking in money, lots of money.

giver_bert answered:
our own supreme court in 1981 made this decision that "there must be proof . . . of fund raising activities or of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings and improvements and other activities for religious or charitable purposes to be exempt from taxation.” churches and as well as other exempt organizations still have to be subjected to taxing requirements (stewardship)

very good. But since when has there been a serious move to look into the taxability of church assets without being attacked as an infringement of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and separation of church and state? None before, none as yet now, and perhaps none will there ever be. Unless and until the state musters the political will to expose the profit motive behind the veneer of religion and make it render its dues, the Supreme Court pronouncement will be but a meaningless set of words and phrases in the book pages of jurisprudence.

bfginus wrote:
who says that tax exemptions for churches are absolute? of course, oppositors to tax exemption know that certain church properties and revenues are taxable. the opposition have no problem about church incomes subject to taxes. they are training their guns on the tax-exempt incomes - and for a very valid reason.

giver_bert answered:
as what i have stressed, it has been a common misconception (myth) that churches enjoys totaly exemption from taxes, even i have that kind of impression, not until i studied Taxation..

sorry, I don’t share your (mis)impression, even though I haven’t studied taxation.

bfginus wrote:
the collections should ideally go to the coffers of the government, in the same way that church collections must go to where it should. and if by chance something goes wrong along the way, refusing or ignoring to perform one's duty to give the other his due is simply not a way to give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

giver_bert answered:
wrong.. "taxes are imposed in order for Governement to carry out their obligations to the public.."

it’s not. You’re appreciation of my answer is, and wittingly at that. I’m speaking in the context of ideal situation, and idiomatically at that. I need not insult one’s intelligence by expounding the obvious that "taxes are imposed in order for Governement to carry out their obligations to the public.."

Besides, your above-quoted statement is not a responsive answer to your question as to where the tax collection would go. Rather, it answers the question as to the purpose for which taxes are exacted .

giver_bert wrote:
you're right about give unto Caesar what is Caesar's.. give to the people a return on their contributions.. a thing that churches/religious institutions are more efficient at doing..

yes, i’m right about the “give unto Caesar what is Caesar's” edict. But, sadly, again you’re wrong in its interpretation. You took it in the wrong context; thus, the wrong application. I suppose your in a religious group. You ought to know better. that's in the bible.

bfginus wrote:
If christians are to strictly take your line of reasoning, i'm afraid maunay mo sa tari nga inyong gidugsak sa rason sa opositor. History tells us that christian churches have their own abundant share of depravity and corruption. For this reason, do christians have to stop giving churches their dues too?

giver_bert wrote
corruption will always be present.. some might even consider it as inherent in every things. i won't be too hyprocite so as to defend the church on it, i may have not observed such practises in our diocese, but i'm aware of the fact that it might happen to some other institutions..

see, and yet you don’t find this embarrassing fact a reason for the faithful not to pay their church dues, do you? just what i did say in the previous post -

...i'm pretty sure, the faithful are not about to concede that churches don't deserve their monetary earnings despite this embarassing reality.

The “corruption” line of argument does not apply to the church, why should it apply to the state? Conversely, if the argument applies to the state, why should it not apply to the church?
Logical consistency, that’s what we need. Otherwise, it’s gonna be juice for the gander but poison for the goose.

Besides, your line of argument - i’m saying its yours because I suppose the church does not toe this line - is dangerous, very dangerous. I wonder if you’re giving this argument a careful thought. Have you ever thought of the dire implications if all individuals and entities subscribe to your proposition and translate their stand into action? Again I don’t have to expound it. I suppose it obvious to you as it is to all rational thinkers.

giver_bert wrote:
are we guaranteed that it will yield more benefits to people than those provided by these entities? would this even give government officials a greater avenue for corruption?

bfginus answered:
there's no guarantee. and yes, it may even possibly create another opportunity for corruption. but these answers are useless to support the faithful's argument. for unless and until they actually happen, the answers sit in the realm of speculation. as such they neither provide an argument to sustain the faithful's position, nor do they serve to demolish the opposition's argument for tax exemption removal.

this line of questioning proves one thing, though: that you are basing your position this time on your speculative answers to the questions. sadly, the same questions, whose answers have brought to mind the long, dark history of disgrace and ignominy that hounded the Christian church before, will also hound christian churches today.

giver_bert replied:
it's already an established fact (from statistics.. even national ones) at how corrupt our government is right now!

tsk. this rebuttal missed its target by a mile. your questions begged for speculative answers involving a future occurrence. the supposed "corruption" referred to in your question is a speculative occurrence, an event that may or may not happen in a future time. that’s why i maintain that “ unless and until they actually happen, the answers sit in the realm of speculation. as such they neither provide an argument to sustain the faithfuls' position, nor do they serve to demolish the opposition's argument for tax exemption removal.

your rebuttal proves only the occurrence of past corruptions. It does not prove anything that’s gonna happen in a future time. Statistics on past events doest not prove or negate the occurrence of future events. the best you can do, therefore, is predict or speculate. the worst thing you can do is insist that future occurrences are already proven by past events.

giver_bert wrote:
probabilities of tax collected by government from religious institutions by then will only go to the pockets of pesky government officials/concerned government agencies is "highly probable".

So you’re now confirming my answer. these are all but probabilities, a matter of speculation. So it’s kinda funny of you to disprove a speculative answer with statistics on past occurrences.

Anyway, probabilities, speculations, or even actualities – they are no reason to abdicate the duty to sustain the life-blood of the very institution upon which every civilized society depends for its survival.


Corruptions, corruptions, in church and state there are,
Probabilities, probabilities, corruptions there will be,
Bounties to the state that people should pay,
By dear church they shall be carted away,
he-he-he. - by bfginus


peace be also with u, brother

[mannyamador]

bfginus wrote:

the issue here is whether or not there are logically valid grounds for such legal exemptions to continue.

I think I already answered this one. The asnwer is simple: the Church (and other churches) generally are better stewards of funds given to them and also provide other valuable services the government has not been able to deliver.

Our government is CORRUPT beyond belief! What logic can there be in taking money from the Church (which is far less corrupt) and giving to an entity that will surely waste most of it?

Historians, philosophers, and political scientists have long recognized the beneficial effects of religion for the good of the State. That is the legal and political basis for tax exemption for churches and even for the separation of Church and State.

Can you imagine the social effects of the loss of Church-run services on ur country? Our health and higher educational system would collapse! Our corrupt civil "servants" will run roughshod over human rights in numerous areas! People will pay with their lives.

There is no sense in taxing the Church, unless we want to inflate the coffers of the corrupt at the expense of the poor.

[Von!-x]

Churches should pay taxes on activities that are not related to their religious activities. And they should not even argue with that. Ministers, priests, pastors, should also pay taxes, and the correct one for that matter.

We might say that the government is corrupt, but would you corrupt just because others are corrupt too. It's better to follow the law than look for loopholes.

Usual income of churches are the following:
1. Tithes (10%)
2. Offerings - not necessarily the 10%.
3. Donations and pledges
The above should not be taxable.

Income generated from properties owned by churches
1. Rental income (to avoid taxation - consider it as a donation, he he he)
This one should be taxable. But to avoid taxability don't charge fixed rental but donations.

[Von!-x]

We've seen how certain religious leaders have expanded their wealth in the name of religion. And their business ventures are enjoying income/vat/percentage tax exemption not due them. tsk tsk tsk.

The church is still paying indirect taxes, just like any one of us.

[bfginus]

the Church (and other churches) generally are better stewards of funds given to them...

frankly, i don't see any logic in a premise which is immaterial to the issue. the crux of the controversy is the obligation of the church to pay taxes to the state. and by taxes i mean the government exactions on taxable assets which religious groups refuse to pay on the pretext of preserving religious freedom and separation of church and state.

assuming arguendo that the church is a better financial steward (notwithstanding its own history of corruption), it does not in any way negate the church oblgation to pay taxes and, thus, such obligation remains. better financial stewardship is not an excuse.

(church) also provide other valuable services the government has not been able to deliver.

not a valid excuse for tax exemption, still.

Our government is CORRUPT beyond belief! What logic can there be in taking money from the Church (which is far less corrupt) and giving to an entity that will surely waste most of it?

the logic lies in the fact that tax is something that the church owes the state, and should be given by the former as matter of duty to the latter. the church gives, the state collects (not take) - plain and simple.

government corruption issue is a different matter altogether. it involves the conduct of government affairs, which does not negate the church's duty to pay taxes. it involves state governance with which the church has no business interfering, by directly or indirectly meddling in the state's financial affairs. which brings to fore the illogic of using government corruption as church's excuse for non-payment of taxes. separation of church and state, remember that? or are you saying this time that the oft-invoked separation empowers the church to meddle in government affairs?

Historians, philosophers, and political scientists have long recognized the beneficial effects of religion for the good of the State. That is the legal and political basis for tax exemption for churches and even for the separation of Church and State.

but how many more modern thinkers are now agitating for the scrapping of such exemption?

Can you imagine the social effects of the loss of Church-run services on ur country? Our health and higher educational system would collapse! Our corrupt civil "servants" will run roughshod over human rights in numerous areas! People will pay with their lives.

your question calls for assumptions, which you in fact readily gave in your answers. why are you talking about loss of "church-run services" anyway? we are talking about the obligation of the church to pay taxes. your own question and answers are irrelevant.

There is no sense in taxing the Church, unless we want to inflate the coffers of the corrupt at the expense of the poor.

at the expense of the poor? or at the expense of the moneyed church. at any rate, the assertion is logically incorrect. non-sequitor, as philosophers call it. by taxing the church, it does not follow that the taxes will go to the corrupt. and if it will, it does not follow it will be "at the expense of the poor".

[mannyamador]

assuming arguendo that the church is a better financial steward (notwithstanding its own history of corruption), it does not in any way negate the church oblgation to pay taxes and, thus, such obligation remains. better financial stewardship is not an excuse.

Yes it does. To tax the Church is to waste our money by transferring it to the government which is WORSE steward of finances. This is a practical consideration.

The obligation to pay taxes tot he State, by the way, is NOT ABSOLUTE. Thus, your premiss is immaterial and erroneous. From a legl and historical point of view, the exemption is firmly established, and thus it is incumbent on those to want the Church to be taxed to PROVE that it must be so, not the other way around.

The idea of a rich Catholic Church is a total MYTH. The Vatican's entire national budget is smaller than some medium-sized Western companies. Many parishes are struggling just to keep essdential social services running. Much of the Church's "riches" are dead assets that cannot be transformed into useful capital.