Why aren't these people paying taxes?

hippiemom

I won't reprint the whole article, because if you live in Ohio you know it already, and if you live elsewhere you don't care, but this has to do with Issue 3, which would legalize casino gambling. Churches are opposed to this. No big surprise there ... who wants to go to Vegas Night at St. Mary's when you can go to a real casino? But that's not what pisses me off, this is:

"Anti-gambling leaders in the East Ohio and West Ohio Conferences of the United Methodist Church, an early and staunch opponent of Issue 3, plan to place signs opposing the measure on church grounds throughout the state."

and this ...

"The Cleveland Baptist Association, representing 37 churches with 16,000 members, is providing church leaders with anti-gambling materials and updates."

These churches are using tax-exempt income and property to lobby on a political issue. Fuck that ... lobbyists pay taxes! I used to work for one, and I did the taxes for his business, so I know this to be true.

For the record, I plan to vote against this proposal, so I'm not upset about their position on the issue, but I am pissed off that taxpayers are subsidizing lobbying organizations.

The whole article, if anyone cares: http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/living/1159951390194190.xml?lrnew&coll=2&thispage=1

surferdude

I agree. I think it is fair for a church to bring up current issues as how they may relate to scriptures. BUt churches go to far when they tell people how to vote, or in this instance with the signage.

1970RR

I fail to see why any church should be exempt from taxes.

chopitdown

surferdude wrote:

I agree. I think it is fair for a church to bring up current issues as how they may relate to scriptures. BUt churches go to far when they tell people how to vote, or in this instance with the signage.

exactly. I think a church crosses the line when telling people how to vote. They can say a position etc... but endorsing a person goes a bit too far, for a tax exempt group.

surferdude

1970RR wrote:

I fail to see why any church should be exempt from taxes.

It kind of goes hand in hand with the seperation of church and state principle.
I think the state has to clearly define how much activism and what type of activismchurches are allowed, and then start fining churches that cross the line.

hippiemom

surferdude wrote:

It kind of goes hand in hand with the seperation of church and state principle.
I think the state has to clearly define how much activism and what type of activismchurches are allowed, and then start fining churches that cross the line.

Wow ... it seems as though they're going in exactly the opposite direction! Right after I posted this, I wandered on over the the NYT for the first time in a few days, and they've got a whole series on tax exemptions provided to churches, licensing provisions that they're exempt from, laws that they don't have to obey. It's a series of 3 articles and they're all fairly lengthy, but I'll post exerpts and links.

As Exemptions Grow, Religion Outweighs Regulation
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES
Published: October 8, 2006

At any moment, state inspectors can step uninvited into one of the three child care centers that Ethel White runs in Auburn, Ala., to make sure they meet state requirements intended to ensure that the children are safe. There must be continuing training for the staff. Her nurseries must have two sinks, one exclusively for food preparation. All cabinets must have safety locks. Medications for the children must be kept under lock and key, and refrigerated.

The Rev. Ray Fuson of the Harvest Temple Church of God in Montgomery, Ala., does not have to worry about unannounced state inspections at the day care center his church runs. Alabama exempts church day care programs from state licensing requirements, which were tightened after almost a dozen children died in licensed and unlicensed day care centers in the state in two years.

The differences do not end there. As an employer, Ms. White must comply with the civil rights laws; if employees feel mistreated, they can take the center to court. Religious organizations, including Pastor Fuson’s, are protected by the courts from almost all lawsuits filed by their ministers or other religious staff members, no matter how unfairly those employees think they have been treated.

And if you are curious about how Ms. White’s nonprofit center uses its public grants and donations, read the financial statements she is required to file each year with the Internal Revenue Service. There are no I.R.S. reports from Harvest Temple. Federal law does not require churches to file them.

Far more than an hourlong stretch of highway separates these two busy, cheerful day care centers. Ms. White’s center operates in the world occupied by most American organizations. As a religious ministry, Pastor Fuson’s center does not.

In recent years, many politicians and commentators have cited what they consider a nationwide “war on religion” that exposes religious organizations to hostility and discrimination. But such organizations — from mainline Presbyterian and Methodist churches to mosques to synagogues to Hindu temples — enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes. And the number is multiplying rapidly.

Some of the exceptions have existed for much of the nation’s history, originally devised for Christian churches but expanded to other faiths as the nation has become more religiously diverse. But many have been granted in just the last 15 years — sometimes added to legislation, anonymously and with little attention, much as are the widely criticized “earmarks” benefiting other special interests.

An analysis by The New York Times of laws passed since 1989 shows that more than 200 special arrangements, protections or exemptions for religious groups or their adherents were tucked into Congressional legislation, covering topics ranging from pensions to immigration to land use. New breaks have also been provided by a host of pivotal court decisions at the state and federal level, and by numerous rule changes in almost every department and agency of the executive branch.

The special breaks amount to “a sort of religious affirmative action program,” said John Witte Jr., director of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at the Emory University law school.

Professor Witte added: “Separation of church and state was certainly part of American law when many of today’s public opinion makers were in school. But separation of church and state is no longer the law of the land.”

The changes reflect, in part, the growing political influence of religious groups and the growing presence of conservatives in the courts and regulatory agencies. But these tax and regulatory breaks have been endorsed by politicians of both major political parties, by judges around the country, and at all levels of government.

“The religious community has a lot of pull, and senators are very deferential to this kind of legislation,” said Richard R. Hammar, the editor of Church Law & Tax Report and an accountant with law and divinity degrees from Harvard.

As a result of these special breaks, religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses — and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that “religious” label — can only envy. And the new breaks come at a time when many religious organizations are expanding into activities — from day care centers to funeral homes, from ice cream parlors to fitness clubs, from bookstores to broadcasters — that compete with these same businesses and nonprofit organizations.

Religious organizations are exempt from many federal, state and local laws and regulations covering social services, including addiction treatment centers and child care, like those in Alabama.

Federal law gives religious congregations unique tools to challenge government restrictions on the way they use their land. Consequently, land-use restrictions that are a result of longstanding public demands for open space or historic preservation may be trumped by a religious ministry’s construction plans, as in a current dispute in Boulder County, Colo.

(continued here)

hippiemom

Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES
Published: October 9, 2006

J. Jeffrey Heck, a lawyer in Mansfield, Ohio, usually sits on management’s side of the table. “The only employee cases I take are those that poke my buttons,” he said. “And this one really did.”

His client was a middle-aged novice training to become a nun in a Roman Catholic religious order in Toledo. She said she had been dismissed by the order after she became seriously ill — including a diagnosis of breast cancer.

In her complaint, the novice, Mary Rosati, said she had visited her doctor with her immediate supervisor and the mother superior. After the doctor explained her treatment options for breast cancer, the complaint continued, the mother superior announced: “We will have to let her go. I don’t think we can take care of her.”

Some months later Ms. Rosati was told that the mother superior and the order’s governing council had decided to dismiss her after concluding that “she was not called to our way of life,” according to the complaint. Along with her occupation and her home, she lost her health insurance, Mr. Heck said. Ms. Rosati, who still lacks health insurance but whose cancer is in remission, said she preferred not to discuss her experience because of her continuing love for the church.

In court filings, lawyers for the diocese denied her account of these events. If Ms. Rosati had worked for a business or almost any secular employer, she might have prevailed under the protections of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Instead, her complaint was dismissed in December 2002 by Judge James G. Carr of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, who decided that the order’s decision to dismiss her “was an ecclesiastical decision” that was “beyond the reach of the court” because “the First Amendment requires churches to be free from government interference in matters of church governance and administration.”

Legislators and regulators are not the only people in government who have drafted special rules for religious organizations. Judges, too, have carved out or preserved safe havens that shield religious employers of all faiths from most employee lawsuits, from laws protecting pensions and providing unemployment benefits, and from laws that give employees the right to form unions to negotiate with their employers.

Some of these exemptions are rooted in long traditions, while others have grown from court decisions over the last 15 years. Together, they are expanding the ability of religious organizations — especially religious schools — to manage their affairs with less interference from the government and their own employees.

The most sweeping of these judicial protections, and the one that confronted the novice nun in Toledo, is called the ministerial exception. Judges have been applying this exception, sometimes called the church autonomy doctrine, to religious employment disputes for more than 100 years.

As a rule, state and federal judges will handle any lawsuit that is filed in the right place in an appropriate, timely manner. But judges will almost never agree to hear a controversy that would require them to delve into the doctrines, governance, discipline or hiring preferences of any religious faith. Citing the protections of the First Amendment, they have ruled with great consistency that congregations cannot fully express their faith and exercise their religious freedom unless they are free to select their own spiritual leaders without any interference from government agencies or second-guessing by the courts.

To do otherwise would be an intolerable government intrusion into employment relationships that courts have called “the lifeblood” of religious life and the bedrock of religious liberty, explained Edward R. McNicholas, co-chairman of the national religious institutions practice in the Washington, D.C., office of Sidley Austin, a law firm with some of the country’s largest religious organizations among its clients.

Judges have routinely invoked the ministerial exception to dismiss lawsuits against religious employers by rabbis, ministers, cantors, nuns and priests — those “whose ministry is a core expression of religious belief for that congregation,” as Mr. McNicholas put it.

But judges also have applied the exception to dismiss cases filed by the press secretary at a Roman Catholic church, a writer for The Christian Science Monitor, administrators at religious colleges, the disgruntled beneficiaries of a Lutheran pension fund, the overseer of the kosher kitchen at a Jewish nursing home and a co-founder of Focus on the Family, run by the conservative religious leader James C. Dobson. Court files show that some of these people were surprised to learn that their work had been considered a “core expression of religious belief” by their employer.

(continued here)

hippiemom

Religious Programs Expand, So Do Tax Breaks
By DIANA B. HENRIQUES
Published: October 10, 2006

The similarities between Holy Cross Village at Notre Dame, on the north side of South Bend, Ind., and Hermitage Estates, south of town, are almost disorienting. The two retirement communities have the same simple gabled ranch houses, with the same touches of brick and stone, clustered around a pond with the same fountain funneling spray into the air and ducks waddling down the grassy bank.

But the retired residents of Hermitage Estates pay an average of about $2,300 per unit in property taxes. The management of Holy Cross Village, the Brothers of Holy Cross, says that development should be exempt from property taxes, and it has taken that argument to court.

As the Brothers of Holy Cross, a Roman Catholic religious order, sees it, providing the elderly with the amenities of the village — a sense of security, social opportunities and various services to make independent living easier — is a charitable activity rooted in its pastoral mission to serve others.

Members of the St. Joseph County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, all but one of them lifelong Catholics, see it differently. To them, a charitable ministry does not consist of providing lovely retirement living to affluent people. The current residents of Holy Cross Village have an average net worth of $1 million. Those with deposits on the units under construction are even better off, averaging $1.6 million.

If Holy Cross Village is not taxed, members of the assessment board point out, a heavier burden will fall on the working families in the county that are struggling to pay the taxes on their small homes in careworn communities like the west side of South Bend.

“I was educated by the Brothers of Holy Cross” at St. Joseph’s High School, “and I have a great deal of respect, love and affection for them,” said Dennis J. Dillman, a longtime board member. “But I think what they’re doing is just not right. And that is based on the values they taught me at their schools.”

The conflict in South Bend echoes disputes from Alaska to Florida that raise the following issue: As religious organizations of all faiths stretch their concept of mission far beyond traditional worship, should their traditional tax exemptions expand as well? Increasingly, government at all levels is answering yes.

The property tax exemption is one of the oldest tax breaks granted to religious organizations, but it is not the only one. Lawmakers and judges have also approved what amounts to special tax treatment for religious organizations and some of their employees, including exemptions on personal-income and payroll taxes, and have made it easier for them to get tax-exempt construction loans for purely religious projects.

Like the exemptions from federal and state regulations that have proliferated for religious groups in recent years, these tax breaks are widely defended both as an acknowledgment of religion’s contributions to society and as a barrier to unjustified government limitations on the liberty that religious organizations enjoy under the First Amendment.

But in some communities like South Bend, tolerance of religious tax breaks is fraying as local governments struggle to provide basic services with limited resources.

There are no national figures on how much money these tax breaks save religious organizations and on how much extra cost is shifted to other citizens. But a typical state, Colorado, reported that religious real estate valued at more than $1.1 billion was exempt from local property taxes there last year. Nationally, tax-exempt financing for religious organizations totaled at least $20 billion during the decade that ended last year.

Congressional budget records show that just the income tax breaks uniquely available for ministers, rabbis and other clergy members cost taxpayers just under $500 million a year.

And the price is almost certainly increasing, experts on taxation and congregational growth agreed, because today’s larger congregations need more land, employ more clergy members and pay them more money. Moreover, the definition of a religious mission is expanding beyond schools and hospitals to include operations as obscure as a biblical theme park in Florida and as upscale as a retirement community at Notre Dame.

Every state affords some type of property-tax exemption to churches, synagogues, mosques and other religious landowners, typically through statutes that also cover charities, libraries, museums, private schools and other secular nonprofit groups. Indeed, when the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of this tax break in 1970 it noted approvingly that the benefits did not fall exclusively on churches.

(continued here)

jeffbr

1970RR wrote:

I fail to see why any church should be exempt from taxes.

I agree with you. I understand the historical reasons for the tax exemption, but don't think they're relevant.

1970RR

surferdude wrote:

It kind of goes hand in hand with the seperation of church and state principle.
I think the state has to clearly define how much activism and what type of activismchurches are allowed, and then start fining churches that cross the line.

I think that granting special exemptions from taxes and allowing them to bypass regulations everyone else must follow is the opposite of "seperation" and is ,in reality, government subsidies.
The last thing you need is government evaluating what is or is not activism in order to revoke a churches tax-exempt status.

PaperPlates

surferdude wrote:

It kind of goes hand in hand with the seperation of church and state principle.
I think the state has to clearly define how much activism and what type of activismchurches are allowed, and then start fining churches that cross the line.

Except that by definition of "separation of church and state" the STATE cant regulate nor "define" the CHURCH. Yet you're proposing just that. That wouldnt be very separate would it?

Cosmo

PaperPlates wrote:

Except that by definition of "separation of church and state" the STATE cant regulate nor "define" the CHURCH. Yet you're proposing just that. That wouldnt be very separate would it?

...
If the Church goes into affairs of the State... shouldn't the reverse apply? Or is it a One Way street?

stuckinline

i absolutely hate the commercials for issue 3!!!!
they never mention gambling, they only try to play on your emotions with the bit about college tuition for every ohio resident. what a crock!


btw, i also agree that churches should NOT be posting political signs on their property.

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
If the Church goes into affairs of the State... shouldn't the reverse apply? Or is it a One Way street?

The "church" isnt going "into affairs of the State" by sponsoring, endorsing, or "choosing" which candidate they feel best represents their beliefs. The pastor giving a sermon in church is allowed to vote. He's just as allowed to give his opinions on a candidate as you or I. And if the PEOPLE who give money to the church have no objection to that money going towards a candidate they support, who are you or I to tell them they can't do that?

What pisses me off more than tax exemption for Churches, is tax exemption for immigrants. You wanna live here, chip in. None of this 7 year tax free bullshit. But since it involves a church, you guys get your panties all up in a twist.



*** note**** as previously stated many times, I hold no affiliation with any organized religion, im as "non religious" as the rest of you. I simply abhor people who talk out both sides of their mouths.

prism

......

polaris

PaperPlates wrote:

*** note**** as previously stated many times, I hold no affiliation with any organized religion, im as "non religious" as the rest of you. I simply abhor people who talk out both sides of their mouths.

ha! ... abhor!! ... great word!

anyhoo ... church is not gonna lose the tax exemption status as they are the main forum which allows the gov't to control the populace ... next to mtv and fox ...

Cosmo

PaperPlates wrote:

The "church" isnt going "into affairs of the State" by sponsoring, endorsing, or "choosing" which candidate they feel best represents their beliefs. The pastor giving a sermon in church is allowed to vote. He's just as allowed to give his opinions on a candidate as you or I. And if the PEOPLE who give money to the church have no objection to that money going towards a candidate they support, who are you or I to tell them they can't do that?

What pisses me off more than tax exemption for Churches, is tax exemption for immigrants. You wanna live here, chip in. None of this 7 year tax free bullshit. But since it involves a church, you guys get your panties all up in a twist.



*** note**** as previously stated many times, I hold no affiliation with any organized religion, im as "non religious" as the rest of you. I simply abhor people who talk out both sides of their mouths.

...
Settle down, Bevis.
I don't want the government involved with the Church just as much as I don't want the Church involved in my government.
A political endorsement from the Church is the same as a political endorsement from any other organization.
Besides... look at fucking Iraq... the Cleric is the one who tells his people who to vote for. You may think that's okay, but I do not believe that is a 'democracy', according to my definition.

PaperPlates

polaris wrote:

ha! ... abhor!! ... great word!

anyhoo ... church is not gonna lose the tax exemption status as they are the main forum which allows the gov't to control the populace ... next to mtv and fox ...

MTV, fox and GW Bush, the tru axis of evil ?

Ahnimus

PaperPlates wrote:

The "church" isnt going "into affairs of the State" by sponsoring, endorsing, or "choosing" which candidate they feel best represents their beliefs. The pastor giving a sermon in church is allowed to vote. He's just as allowed to give his opinions on a candidate as you or I. And if the PEOPLE who give money to the church have no objection to that money going towards a candidate they support, who are you or I to tell them they can't do that?

What pisses me off more than tax exemption for Churches, is tax exemption for immigrants. You wanna live here, chip in. None of this 7 year tax free bullshit. But since it involves a church, you guys get your panties all up in a twist.



*** note**** as previously stated many times, I hold no affiliation with any organized religion, im as "non religious" as the rest of you. I simply abhor people who talk out both sides of their mouths.

Well, that would be ok if anyone could register a church for their beliefs.

Let's say I believe Aliens exist, the republican party is all evil and psychodelic drugs are the gateway to enlightenment. Neither the U.S. nor the Canadian government will allow me to register and run a Church. Even if I didn't think the republican party was all evil. I simply can not register a church because? My beliefs aren't grounded in sacred texts? But they do jive with shamanistic practices and science. There is really no reason, I should be able to organize a church with those beliefs. If I did manage to have a church, should I be tax exempt? and should I be allowed to post "Republicans are Evil" signs around my church?

There was a place in the city here, I can't remember what it was called, but they said they were a part of the "Church of the Universe" it was really just a place for people to sit around and smoke weed. The police kept shutting it down, the owner would try to find some other way of setting up the Church, but the police would raid it constantly. All of the members of this Church of the Universe (obviously) believe in smoking weed for some reason or another. Who are we to say it's wrong and send cops in?

PaperPlates

Cosmo wrote:

...
Settle down, Bevis.
I don't want the government involved with the Church just as much as I don't want the Church involved in my government.
A political endorsement from the Church is the same as a political endorsement from any other organization.
Besides... look at fucking Iraq... the Cleric is the one who tells his people who to vote for. You may think that's okay, but I do not believe that is a 'democracy', according to my definition.

Noone in these churches FORCES anyone to vote a certain way. That would cancel out democracy. And I'm not quite sure why you felt a need to call me a name. "bevis". Good one. As far as 'getting your pokes in' that one hardly seemed worth it. Im sure you can do better.

PaperPlates

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, that would be ok if anyone could register a church for their beliefs.

Let's say I believe Aliens exist, the republican party is all evil and psychodelic drugs are the gateway to enlightenment. Neither the U.S. nor the Canadian government will allow me to register and run a Church. Even if I didn't think the republican party was all evil. I simply can not register a church because? My beliefs aren't grounded in sacred texts? But they do jive with shamanistic practices and science. There is really no reason, I should be able to organize a church with those beliefs. If I did manage to have a church, should I be tax exempt? and should I be allowed to post "Republicans are Evil" signs around my church?

There was a place in the city here, I can't remember what it was called, but they said they were a part of the "Church of the Universe" it was really just a place for people to sit around and smoke weed. The police kept shutting it down, the owner would try to find some other way of setting up the Church, but the police would raid it constantly. All of the members of this Church of the Universe (obviously) believe in smoking weed for some reason or another. Who are we to say it's wrong and send cops in?

I believe in order to be a church, you'd need a congregation who actually believed the nonsense you spew. A preacher with no crowd is just a nutjob yelling on the corner.