AFA Spokesman Says Tax Those Who Don't Attend Church

[emmiedahl]

It's not? Really? I know religious nuts have attempted a lot things and laws, but they still have failed nearly all of them. While churches can endorse organizations, they can't endorse politicians and things related to elections. They try, yes, which is why I don't want them having any more say than they already do. Do you all really want churches to have more influence? You really want them to be able to pour money into politicians as well politics and parties? Some churches have millions of dollars to pour into those. It's bad enough they get to put money into crisis pregnancy centers and advocate bills like the personhood and prop 8, but we're lucky that personhood is considered unconstitutional. It does seem they're trying to weasel into politics and I don't want to open the door to let them slip dollars into the pockets of a party or politician. If you do, fine, but I think you're going to open up a major can of worms you wish you hadn't opened if you get rid of the tax exempt status.

They can currently influence elections, like Prop 8 in California, but they cannot endorse a party or candidate. Honestly, given their current political involvement, I think it is obvious that it cannot really get worse. Like I said earlier, you have presented a viewpoint I have never considered and I give you major props for that. But I think you are underestimating the amount of influence that churches have over who votes and why. Even if they do not endorse the Republican party, if they tell members to vote pro-life and give money to pro-life causes (that in turn give to candidates) the effect is the same. The religious nuts have been very successful in limiting my reproductive choice and legislating who I can marry, and in many cases they are doing it with tax-exempt funds.

I think we have the same goal: keep religion out of politics. I guess my disagreement is that I strongly feel that religion is already deeply in our politics.

[Burris]

It's not? Really? I know religious nuts have attempted a lot things and laws, but they still have failed nearly all of them. While churches can endorse organizations, they can't endorse politicians and things related to elections. They try, yes, which is why I don't want them having any more say than they already do. Do you all really want churches to have more influence? You really want them to be able to pour money into politicians as well politics and parties? Some churches have millions of dollars to pour into those. It's bad enough they get to put money into crisis pregnancy centers and advocate bills like the personhood and prop 8, but we're lucky that personhood is considered unconstitutional. It does seem they're trying to weasel into politics and I don't want to open the door to let them slip dollars into the pockets of a party or politician. If you do, fine, but I think you're going to open up a major can of worms you wish you hadn't opened if you get rid of the tax exempt status.

Which would you prefer - that these preachers and their paeans make their big money deals behind closed doors and fund "arms-length" organizations that can do their political stumping for them, or that they step out of the shadows and endorse their favorite candidates directly, having to use their own voices to make up for the money they lose to taxation? They can already fund spiffy ad campaigns to convince people things like Prop 8 are really about protecting families rather than promoting religious bigotry. They can already do almost everything but openly endorse a candidate from the pulpit. Instead, they can use all that tax-free money they get from old pensioners to have others do their speaking for them.

They don't have logic on their side. A lot of their power comes directly from the money they raise.

[dairyfreelife]

Which would you prefer - that these preachers and their paeans make their big money deals behind closed doors and fund "arms-length" organizations that can do their political stumping for them, or that they step out of the shadows and endorse their favorite candidates directly, having to use their own voices to make up for the money they lose to taxation? They can already fund spiffy ad campaigns to convince people things like Prop 8 are really about protecting families rather than promoting religious bigotry. They can already do almost everything but openly endorse a candidate from the pulpit. Instead, they can use all that tax-free money they get from old pensioners to have others do their speaking for them.

They don't have logic on their side. A lot of their power comes directly from the money they raise.

If you want them to pay taxes and have all the same rights as a business, fine. If you want to open that door then go for it. Sure, some churches do fund organizations. They have that right, but that's all they have. Nothing else can be done. You want them to have the same rights as businesses do in politics, then fine. . It scares me that those on this board so against religious involvement in government would be for churches being allowed in more than they already are. I'd rather they fund stupid organizations that attempt to do political stumping than being able to endorse and fund politicians and parties. Without a doubt I do. If you all want them to be have that influence just for a few more dollars in the government's pocket, I don't know what else to say, I really don't.

[debrand]

Dairy free, are you sure that the money generated by not being tax exempt would only be a 'few dollars in the government's pocket"?

Here is an interesting article about the issue

The money involved is enormous. Combined, federal tax breaks on donations to churches and exemptions from state and local property taxes likely add up to something on the order of $25 billion in lost revenue each year.

Last year churches received $96 billion in tax-free contributions, according to estimates compiled by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Unlike other types of charities, churches do not have to file financial statements with the government. There are only rough estimates of church endowment or investment income, which is also tax-free and believed to be larger than annual contributions.

Using tax data from the U.S. Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation and data on giving to churches from the Indiana Center, a Reuters analysis found that tax breaks on church giving shaved $12 billion or so from total U.S. tax collections in 2011 and approximately $145 billion over the last decade.

The property tax break is probably even bigger. In their 2011 book "Politics, Taxes, and the Pulpit," law professors Nina Crimm and Laurence Winer calculated that houses of worship received $12.7 billion in property tax exemptions on $685 billion of property in 2006, a figure large enough to have played a role in city and state budget deficits of recent years

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... EP20120621

[emmiedahl]

If you want them to pay taxes and have all the same rights as a business, fine. If you want to open that door then go for it. Sure, some churches do fund organizations. They have that right, but that's all they have. Nothing else can be done. You want them to have the same rights as businesses do in politics, then fine. . It scares me that those on this board so against religious involvement in government would be for churches being allowed in more than they already are. I'd rather they fund stupid organizations that attempt to do political stumping than being able to endorse and fund politicians and parties. Without a doubt I do. If you all want them to be have that influence just for a few more dollars in the government's pocket, I don't know what else to say, I really don't.

The LDS Church singlehandedly funded Prop 8. Again, I think you underestimate the amount of pull that religion currently has in American politics.

[Burris]

If you want to open that door then go for it. Sure, some churches do fund organizations. They have that right, but that's all they have. Nothing else can be done.

Yeah - "nothing" else can be done but that they can spend untaxed and sometimes virtually unlimited money on political campaigns. They're essentially being paid billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money not to speak a candidate's name from the pulpit - and why wouldn't they take the deal? They don't need the pulpit when they can buy up media support and trot out paid 'experts' to do all their talking for them. And yet they can still say, "Choose the most moral candidate. Check out this arms-length website for 'unbiased' ratings!"

Or they could do what VF does and run a giant "non-profit" arm tax-free along with a for-profit arm that's taxable, and from which they can name candidates without losing the tax exempt status for the religious "charity" of virtually the same name and with an interlinked website.

[FlorenceHamilton]

Perhaps a smarter way to handle this would be to lobby for a better wall of separation between church and state. I agree that religious authorities are way too deep in financing a political agenda. I do not see how taxing them carte blanche would make that any better. Instead, they shold be penalized and lose their tax exempt staus if they cross the wall of separation. Perhaps some of these wealthy churches will be more inclined to actually spend their money providing for the needy instead of financing the 1%.

[emmiedahl]

It is a difficult situation because I personally took part in lobbying when I worked for Catholic Social Services. We were lobbying to get more funding for programs for the poor from a conservative state representative. In that context, I think some political involvement is okay and even necessary. But not all lobbying is charity-related.