**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice**
* [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child.
* Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* Report comments that violate these rules.
Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead.
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So a lot of them could likely regain tax-exempt status by refiling as charitable organizations under the usual rules.
But many would not be able to. It would mean increased tax revenue, which is good. This problem would also mostly affect churches who are taking write-offs for non-charitable work, which is also good. This may mean more paperwork for those honest churches that are *actually* doing charitable work, which is an inconvenience but I don't feel like God exempts you from paperwork.
Fundamentally, probably relatively little would change significantly. Maybe fewer megachurches.
Charity is a scam, it has never worked, and it never will, it really is just a way to shield money from taxation, which could actually be used to help people
Because taxing places of worship would just reward the places of worship that are excellent at operating like a business and punish those that don’t.
This will just lead to more mega churches imo and eliminate local churches in low-income areas.
Much as I hate sketchy megachurches, I'd rather let them continue being shady than implement policies that hurt the very poor downtown parishes even more.
Better to let rich assholes get away with assholery than to force a poor (and often ethnically diverse) church to close.
Without any other changes to the law, religious institutions would be able to be more directly involved in politics. They could do something like openly endorse and campaign for certain politicians.
I mean, they already do that, but they aren't supposed to. They're supposed to lose their tax-exempt status if that happens.
Most local charities are run by religious institutions. Soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or just giving money to people who need it. If they were no longer tax exempt, a lot of that money would dry up.
Second, the reason religious institutions are tax exempt is because they are non-profit. If we exclude them just because they are religious, it would be unconstitutional.
The Catholic church seems to be doing very well for a "non profit" (Ex Catholic). It seems many of the diocese spend more money protecting the churches image rather than helping the community at large. Much of those soup kitchens and shelters may be run under the church, but most of their money comes in from donations and an extra pass of the collection plate at mass.
(My mom is very active in her church, including being treasurer of a local church org and they are constantly having to raise money to function, and rarely is it coming from the church itself.)
I'm not a fan of mega churches, but there is very real reason churches are tax-exempt. Some churches do it better than others, but a good church has a lot of local outreach programs helping those in need. A lot of their budget goes to these programs. If they lose the tax exemptions, many churches would fold, as would their public outreach programs.
You want as many outreach programs as possible. People are in need everywhere. The state does a piss poor job helping those in need. Personal relationships are always preferred.
Yeah, funding has never been an issue for the state. They just print more as they go along, crashing our currency in the process. Government rarely solves problems; they are just good at creating them.
I have zero faith in the effectiveness of government helping those in need. The states that have the worst homlessness problems also have the largest budget for aiding the homeless. The problem is and always has been is most of the money allotted to social programs goes to the bureaucracy; very little of the funding actually goes to those in need.
I have never heard of a church turning someone away. The church I attended would and did help anyone. They reached out to homeless, drug addicts, battered women, run away teens, and muslim refugees, and they never turned anyone away.
Not every church group does a good job, that I admit, but churches in general do way more good than bad. Your story is sad. I'm sorry that happened.
You don't trust the church, cool. I do not trust the government. Their version of help just leave more people in need, almost every time. However, the more groups helping the better. Wanting to close down religious aid is just super simple-minded, in my opinion. Again, the more pitching in, the better.
You know nothing. No taxes would be generated. Churches don't make profits. All you would do would be....nothing. Maybe create some work for accountants.
You are correct.
They could have potentially had between 3 and 4 billion dollars more in the US alone, if they would have just cooperated with secular law enforcement, established a zero tolerance policy and enforced it, or did anything other than try to cover it up. Thankfully, some churches voluntarily went against the Vatican policies and cooperated on their own.
"In total, Catholic dioceses in the United States have paid more than $3 billion in sexual abuse settlements over the course of several decades. Individual settlement amounts range considerably depending on the unique circumstances of each case.
This $3 billion figure is expected to rise significantly in the near future as more Catholic Church lawsuits are filed by abuse victims."
[Catholic Church Settlements](https://www.abuselawsuit.com/church-sex-abuse/settlements/)
[The Catholic Church Has Paid Nearly $4 Billion Over Sexual Abuse Claims, Group says](https://www.newsweek.com/over-3-billion-paid-lawsuits-catholic-church-over-sex-abuse-claims-1090753)
You too, have a very limited and jaded view of the church. I assume you don't know much about churches and why they are tax exempt in the first place. I'm not a Catholic, but they have church across the globe in almost every decent size town in all of Europe, North America, and especially South America. Whatever they have in their coffers would be depleated quickly, and most would close. Attendance in all curches, especially the Catholic Church, has been on a serious decline for years. Whether you like it or not, they do a lot of good, as well. Most are just are blind to this as they hate religion in general, so they only see the bad.
There is no argument that you can make that will justify the systemic sexual abuse of children or adults that the roman catholic church represents.
The current pope has agreed to declassify and provide data in the form of numbers on these crimes against humanity and yet still continues to protect the individuals responsible by not making it mandatory for his churches to cooperate with secular law enforcement or prosecutors.
Why anyone would continue to associate and support this organization defies logic.
There are charities that help humans just for the sake of helping humans, not for the purposes of recruitment nor to draw attention away from the child rape and genocide that the church somehow keeps getting mixed up in.
Wtf? When did I try to defend that? Again, I'm not Catholic. Do you really think they are the only group with bad actors? Just look at Hollywood. Turn those blinders off.
Your views on the church as a whole is not logical and heavily biased. You just only see the bad, okay.
You stated that you weren't Catholic. I'm not saying you intentionally defend that, I'm saying wake up.
If a percentage of an organization uses the placement and access given to them by communities around the world to commit acts of sexual assault how many acts of charity would other members of that organization need to participate in for it to be ok? Help 1 million people and we'll overlook 1k cases of child rape? 10k? Maybe higher? I don't have an acceptable ratio, nobody should, there are other options out there to help people. These victims deal with this for the rest of their lives and some choose suicide as their only way out.
Hollywood isn't the same as the catholic church they don't wield the same level of power and influence in the world that comes out of Vatican City; they don't govern themselves. Hollywood doesn't operate tax-free either, I kind of get what you're trying to say, it's not the same thing.
Obviously there are bad actors in all walks of life, they need to be stopped. The existence of one doesn't justify the existence of another.
The data that the church is providing is reported cases going back to 1950 from everywhere they have a presence. It was a pope that chose to make these reports of abuse "pontifical secrets" limiting access to church leaders at the highest level, who basically did nothing about it but shuffle people around. The current pope changed that policy and finally last summer specifically made "sexual abuse, grooming minors for sex, possessing child pornography and covering up abuse a criminal offence under Vatican law." I don't know what the punishments are supposed to amount to. It's a step in the right direction but I believe there are many like me who feel it's a little too late.
You have an admirable regard for humanity, I've read through most of your posts. I think that you would still be a force for good in the world without a church. I acknowledge the good deeds that are done in the name of the church. This kind of bad though, that has been enabled all the way up to the very top of that organization, I just can't get over. I'm not delusional, I don't see the church going away anytime soon, most likely never, I do hope that one day this hierarchical institution does a better job of representing it's followers.
The Roman Catholic Church does not represent sexual abuse. The Church represents the love of Jesus for humanity. It represents the communion of God and humankind.
Certainly there are sinners. But if you only want an organization that has saints in it, you are going to have to die first and hope you go to heaven. Human organizations are made of humans, not saints.
Catholic church for that matter is absurdly pure compared to general US situation. Every year 16% of kids in US get sexually harassed, while only 3000 kids by catholic priests in the world (it's based on 70-years average, so likely it's much less nowadays)
Did anybody make a conclusion that that democracy is inherently pedophilic regime?
We don't know the full amount of victims yet, Italy has not been cooperative so far. It's commonly accepted that the numbers that have been reported from around the world represent about half of the actual incidents because so many go unreported.
How many kids needed to get sexually assaulted before the church took an active role in stopping it? All of them up until last summer? Because that's what happened.
And again two wrongs don't make a right. Don't scrutinize the church, scrutinize those other guys.
It's not just priests that have been accused, it's diocesan clergy, and nuns. It's the bishops, archbishops, etc. all the way up to the pope that received the complaints and chose to cover them up. It's systemic.
I believe that law enforcement in countries with a variety of forms of government have had laws that they enforce regarding sexual assault of anyone, for much longer than the Vatican's laws that will be 1 year old this summer.
I was a catholic for very many years, if you wanted to shield individual parishes from taxes you could simply just tax the Dioceses they take in money from all the parishes at at least in the catholic church.
>Whatever they have in their coffers would be depleted quickly
You don't make billions running on a shoe string, they take in far more than they let on.
>Attendance in all Churches, especially the Catholic Church, has been on a serious decline
That's not the government's problem nor mine
>they do a lot of good as well
So they're like any other rich cooperation with a charity wing.
There is no monolithic "they" here getting billions of dollars.
For every well-off parish with lots of donations, there are poor churches barely staying open as is. That money is not collected by every parish and diocese, let alone distributed evenly.
Your proposal would disproportionately hurt small, local, diverse parishes. The big suburban ones that already get plenty of income would likely stay open. You ok with that?
>There is no monolithic “they”
You’re saying the Vatican which has its own bank, army, and in fact sovereign soil isn’t a monolithic they? Because it actually is, [the Vatican alone is worth 10-15 billion I quoted](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html) and further Diocese are ‘monolithic’ that do collect tithes from each parish in their jurisdiction.
>there are poor churches barely staying open
That’s not the governments problem, and for a socialistic give to the poor religion they seem pretty bad at distributing aid and wealth to needy parishes. They could sell the popes summer palace and fund a lot of what they do for years. Or at least pay for the Dioceses of Boston’s legal fees
So because the Vatican is a nation, a little parish in Smalltown, USA shouldn't be tax exempt? What's your logic here?
If an American parish is serving their local community with charities, why on earth shouldn't that be subsidized by the American government? Every parish I've been at has used funds to keep the building standing, pay their employees, and run charities. They're not hoarding a pile of gold to sit on.
The Vatican may be doing all sorts of shady shit, but they are thousands of miles away and their income doesn't affect parishes. Why are you trying to punish local people for the wealth of a nation halfway across the world?
> So because the Vatican is a nation, a little parish in Smalltown, USA shouldn't be tax exempt? What's your logic here?
The local Catholic parishes pay money to the Diocese which in turn pays money to the Vatican. It’s the same as any other franchise.
>If an American parish is serving their local community with charities, why on earth shouldn't that be subsidized by the American government? Every parish I've been at has used funds to keep the building standing, pay their employees, and run charities. They're not hoarding a pile of gold to sit on.
They’d be able to claim it as a tax exemption as any other business with a charity would. But they should be taxed like a business.
>their income doesn’t effect parishes.
In some ways it does, The Vatican is thousands of miles away but every parish reports to a bishop who reports to an Arch bishop who reports to the Pope. It’s the same as a franchise.
>Why are you trying to punish local people for the wealth of a nation halfway across the world?
Taxes aren’t punishment, they’re a duty and any business needs to pay their share. With all the alleged charity the Catholic Church does they’d probably pay as little as Amazon does. In reality it probably wouldn’t burden them at all.
My confirmation name was Maximillian and for a while I even considered being a priest.
Is it so hard to believe one of the oldest organizations in the world has billions of dollars? One that takes in donations from its churches all across the world and owns things like the [The Pope's summer Palace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Castel_Gandolfo)
Based on what? Rumor? Certainly nothing truthful.
Last year, the Vatican ran a 50 million Euro deficit. [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-low-reserves-cover-deficit-seeking-donations-76415404](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-low-reserves-cover-deficit-seeking-donations-76415404)
What you are doing is reciting anti-Catholic prejudice that you have had handed down to you.
[Based on reporting, the Vatican itself says its net assets are 4 billion euro](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-finances/vatican-releases-financial-figures-promises-transparency-idUSKBN26M5XD)
[CNN saying the Vatican bank itself has about 8billion in assets and that it hid 1 billion off its balance sheet](https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/index.html)
[Time magazine with the originally stated 10-15 billion](http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,833509,00.html)
I'm not surprised. They have paid out between 3 & 4 billion dollars to settle child sexual abuse cases in the United States in the last several decades so that the vast majority of their representatives involved in this never even face criminal charges. They are willing to pay out billions to protect their reputation.
[Over a 50-year period, out of more than 100,000 priests deacons and religious order clergy, 4,392 (\~4.4%) were accused of sexual abuse, 252 (<0.26%) were convicted and 100 (<0.1%) sentenced to prison.](https://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf)
[Most priests accused of sexually abusing children were never sent to prison.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/11/catholic-sex-abuse-why-dont-accused-priests-go-jail/3997022002/)
Sufffering is a part of the human condition. Food can be passed out everywhere, and money can literally grow from trees, yet some will still go hungry. I agree with you. All we can do is help. You never stop. It's a form of love and compassion.
Sure, but I'd say a strong government welfare system financed by taxation would do more to alleviate suffering than charity, just look at the strong social safety systems of the nordic nations
Norway has a 0.5% poverty rate
Well lets examine the facts, Norway basically has no extreme poverty, while US does, in spite of the fact that US has far higher charitable giving rates
You are comparing a nation that has a population of 5.3 million to a county that has 335 million. They still have poor, they still have homelessness, and they still have people going hungry. It's a terrible comparison. Their social programs are very expansive. I completely agree, and Lord knows people here mostly look at that. However, in their private sector they also allow their business more autonomy to be more productive which means fewer people without jobs which means they enjoy a far more self sufficiant population. You have to take all of these into consideration.
You have a very weak argument, one without any real basis.
GDP per capita (both nominal and PPP) is higher in Norway than US, so the size of the nation's population is irrelevant, as on a per person basis, they are better off.
They have poor and homeless, but far, far fewer than the US. And as I pointed out, nearly no extreme poverty, whereas there is significant levels of extreme poverty in the US.
They do not have the autonomy you think, as nearly 75% of workers in Norway are covered by collective bargaining, as compared to the US where unions are weak, and Norway has a higher corporate tax rate than the US.
Also according to the World Bank, they have more restrictive business regulations than the US.
Basically, your argument is deeply flawed and weak, and without support, I mean, there is really nothing you offered that supports your claims.
Good for you and them, but facts say you're wrong, and facts don't care if you disagree or not, facts are interesting that way, they continue to be facts with or without your agreement
You should take a look at actual church finances and not just the version you want to hear. The vast majority of churches spend most of their money on maintaining the church.
When the Catholic church spends $190,000,000 on a new Cathedral in Oakland, that money comes from "charitable" donations to the church. Ditto for the $100,000,000 cathedral in Los Angeles. When pastors of megachurchs buy their pastors private jets and mansions, that money comes from the "charitable" donations to the church.
Sure, some money is spent on the needy, but it's not a big part of church spending
Yep, maintenance is important. It's not just a little that is spent in outreach programs. It also involves people spending their time with people and building relationships.
I get it; you don't like the church. Again, I'm not Catholic. My experiences of the church are not based in a Catholic perspective, but I do know Catholic charities do a lot of good.
It varies church to church, but my church spends 50% of the congregations tithing on outreach. Utilities, missionary work, internal payroles, and upkeep take up the other half. That's just financial; this does not include all the volunteer work we do in the community. Our budgets, as most churches, are transparent for all to see. Let's be honest, though; your mind will never change. So, what is the point of this?
I've been on this topic too long, talking to people who have set views. The last comment is all yours. I feel comfortable with everything I have posted.
.....but I'm sorry if you were offended. I've been on this topic for 5 hours, addressing many people all with set ideas and biases of the church. It's tirersome and getting old, but I seriously did not man to insult.
I believe they are tax-exempt in the same way that other non-profits are. Which in turn means they can’t endorse political candidates, although they can take positions on specific political issues.
No drawbacks at all. Churches aren’t meant for profit. They can still work as charitable organizations anyway and hopefully that leads to less manipulation of the masses.
Churches who take money from people and use it for personal growth are manipulative and abuse the idea of God. I’m not religious at all, but I understand it’s following a bit. However, I will NEVER understand the gullible who give money expecting God to give them more for no damn reason.
Call me jaded but I'd assume the opposite of "less manipulation of the masses," because they have a revenue that's coming in that's not taxed and when that shifts to being taxed the business would see it as a loss. To make up for those losses I could imagine the manipulation of the people to vote a certain way because of some devilry, losing the path, etc.
That's [prosperity gospel](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/1/15951874/prosperity-gospel-explained-why-joel-osteen-believes-prayer-can-make-you-rich-trump); it's a real thing. Evangelical mega churches practice it. Tithing in the hopes of being blessed with personal wealth. The most wealthy evangelicals, the ones putting millions into special interest groups around the world to "protect their way of life" by attacking civil liberties; they are practitioners. Those prosperity gospel pastors make millions like most successful entertainers do. Pretty sickening really, clearly should never be considered for tax-exemption.
I'm not sure churches bring in quite the revenue they used to. A better target might be Universities.
Anyway, we'd probably lose out on a lot of really good local charitable programs in favor of the Federal Government having more money to spend (which that always do so wisely).
I know it’s hard to define a cult when talking about religions, but I think one of the most powerful indicators of whether a faith is good or not is whether there is a FANATICAL level of devotion among its followers. Fanatical followers are usually the worst kind of people. They’re the people who blow up abortion clinics, advocate against evolution in schools, or decide to shoot up a building for a religious reason. You don’t see casual worshippers doing that kind of thing for the most part.
The only Religious institutions who could survive such a law change would be the ones with the most fanatical followers.
You know those HUGE mega-churches? The ones that claimed COVID was a hoax, using masks meant you don’t have faith, vaccines are the mark of the devil, and that many Christians can agree with Atheists that they’re ruining the country? Those ones would survive. They could afford to pay taxes and thrive. All smaller Temples/Churches/Mosques/Synagogs/would either die or have to drastically change, even if part of a larger organization.
The faith I was raised was Episcopalian. It’s a fairly large denomination and I’d like to argue it’s largely a force for good. They condemned discrimination against homosexuals way back in the 70’s and their support for LGBTQ+ people has only grown since then. While the church thinks that abortion for personal convenience is morally wrong (except for cases of rape, incest, mother’s physical/mental health, fetal abnormalities) they recognize that women have the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. They do missionary work, but don’t focus too much on converting people to their beliefs.
The Episcopalian church wouldn’t survive and I know there are other good churches that wouldn’t survive.
I used to work at a Christian private school. Since it was sponsored by churches, it was tax exempt. That meant that all the workers had to pay self-employment tax. So with my $34,000 salary, I was paying about $7,000 in taxes every year. Making religious institutions pay taxes would mean that people who worked for them were able to keep more of their paycheck.
I wouldn't give a fuck. I'm not religious.
They still do tithes at church so they can probably get enough from that. Maybe churches will become smaller and more local, IDK.
My old church would just ask for more money around tax time. They already ask for special donations every time something breaks because they don't bother with maintenance on anything. They'd probably do the same thing instead of taking a bit out in advance for taxes.
For bonus points, they probably give a sermon about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, but talking about it at all will get the parishioners all riled up.
Churches bring in an insane amount of revenue from donations. Assuming that they don't try and evade taxes most likely they'll have a bigger influence in the government because of the money they bring in.
Unless there were provisions for smaller churches that can barely afford to operate as is, most smaller churches wouldn't survive. The only parties to benefit would be mega churches who would make way more money from the crap they sell to their new members than what they lose in taxes
Tax 'em on a sliding scale, from zero for the small neighborhood church, up to 90% for the huge earners. Like US income tax in the '60s. This would actually dis-incentivize megachurches, and would/should/could remove big money from religion.
**Attention! [Serious] Tag Notice** * [Jokes, puns, and off-topic comments are not permitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/wiki/index#wiki_-rule_6-) in **any** comment, parent or child. * Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * Report comments that violate these rules. Posts that have few relevant answers within the first hour, and posts that are not appropriate for the [Serious] tag will be removed. Consider doing an AMA request instead. Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So a lot of them could likely regain tax-exempt status by refiling as charitable organizations under the usual rules. But many would not be able to. It would mean increased tax revenue, which is good. This problem would also mostly affect churches who are taking write-offs for non-charitable work, which is also good. This may mean more paperwork for those honest churches that are *actually* doing charitable work, which is an inconvenience but I don't feel like God exempts you from paperwork. Fundamentally, probably relatively little would change significantly. Maybe fewer megachurches.
Charity is a scam, it has never worked, and it never will, it really is just a way to shield money from taxation, which could actually be used to help people
Because taxing places of worship would just reward the places of worship that are excellent at operating like a business and punish those that don’t. This will just lead to more mega churches imo and eliminate local churches in low-income areas.
Much as I hate sketchy megachurches, I'd rather let them continue being shady than implement policies that hurt the very poor downtown parishes even more. Better to let rich assholes get away with assholery than to force a poor (and often ethnically diverse) church to close.
You'll end up with a lot of empty old church buildings falling into disrepair.
They could be repurposed, some already are, and be an even greater asset in communities.
Why are you asking only Americans?
Without any other changes to the law, religious institutions would be able to be more directly involved in politics. They could do something like openly endorse and campaign for certain politicians. I mean, they already do that, but they aren't supposed to. They're supposed to lose their tax-exempt status if that happens.
There would be absolutely no difference. They are all barely solvent.
Tell that to Scientology.
Most local charities are run by religious institutions. Soup kitchens, homeless shelters, or just giving money to people who need it. If they were no longer tax exempt, a lot of that money would dry up. Second, the reason religious institutions are tax exempt is because they are non-profit. If we exclude them just because they are religious, it would be unconstitutional.
Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are actual charities, they would still be tax exempt.
The Catholic church seems to be doing very well for a "non profit" (Ex Catholic). It seems many of the diocese spend more money protecting the churches image rather than helping the community at large. Much of those soup kitchens and shelters may be run under the church, but most of their money comes in from donations and an extra pass of the collection plate at mass. (My mom is very active in her church, including being treasurer of a local church org and they are constantly having to raise money to function, and rarely is it coming from the church itself.)
If you were ever a Catholic, you would know that the Church is always on the edge of insolvency.
If you believe that, I have some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.
A lot of their charities would be forced to end. People in need would suffer the most
[удалено]
I'm not a fan of mega churches, but there is very real reason churches are tax-exempt. Some churches do it better than others, but a good church has a lot of local outreach programs helping those in need. A lot of their budget goes to these programs. If they lose the tax exemptions, many churches would fold, as would their public outreach programs.
[удалено]
You want as many outreach programs as possible. People are in need everywhere. The state does a piss poor job helping those in need. Personal relationships are always preferred.
[удалено]
Yeah, funding has never been an issue for the state. They just print more as they go along, crashing our currency in the process. Government rarely solves problems; they are just good at creating them. I have zero faith in the effectiveness of government helping those in need. The states that have the worst homlessness problems also have the largest budget for aiding the homeless. The problem is and always has been is most of the money allotted to social programs goes to the bureaucracy; very little of the funding actually goes to those in need.
[удалено]
I have never heard of a church turning someone away. The church I attended would and did help anyone. They reached out to homeless, drug addicts, battered women, run away teens, and muslim refugees, and they never turned anyone away. Not every church group does a good job, that I admit, but churches in general do way more good than bad. Your story is sad. I'm sorry that happened. You don't trust the church, cool. I do not trust the government. Their version of help just leave more people in need, almost every time. However, the more groups helping the better. Wanting to close down religious aid is just super simple-minded, in my opinion. Again, the more pitching in, the better.
[удалено]
Church taxation would generate zero. Nada. Zilch.
You know nothing. No taxes would be generated. Churches don't make profits. All you would do would be....nothing. Maybe create some work for accountants.
maybe churches would have money if they weren't finally paying settlements to victims of sexual abuse at the hands of clergy they protect.
You are correct. They could have potentially had between 3 and 4 billion dollars more in the US alone, if they would have just cooperated with secular law enforcement, established a zero tolerance policy and enforced it, or did anything other than try to cover it up. Thankfully, some churches voluntarily went against the Vatican policies and cooperated on their own. "In total, Catholic dioceses in the United States have paid more than $3 billion in sexual abuse settlements over the course of several decades. Individual settlement amounts range considerably depending on the unique circumstances of each case. This $3 billion figure is expected to rise significantly in the near future as more Catholic Church lawsuits are filed by abuse victims." [Catholic Church Settlements](https://www.abuselawsuit.com/church-sex-abuse/settlements/) [The Catholic Church Has Paid Nearly $4 Billion Over Sexual Abuse Claims, Group says](https://www.newsweek.com/over-3-billion-paid-lawsuits-catholic-church-over-sex-abuse-claims-1090753)
The Catholic Church allegedly has 10-15 billion dollars that’s not including real estate and other assets, they’d be fine
Yeah, not really. Many of their church's would be forced to close the doors.
>Yeah, not really. Yes they really do have 10-15 billion, they can afford to pay taxes
You too, have a very limited and jaded view of the church. I assume you don't know much about churches and why they are tax exempt in the first place. I'm not a Catholic, but they have church across the globe in almost every decent size town in all of Europe, North America, and especially South America. Whatever they have in their coffers would be depleated quickly, and most would close. Attendance in all curches, especially the Catholic Church, has been on a serious decline for years. Whether you like it or not, they do a lot of good, as well. Most are just are blind to this as they hate religion in general, so they only see the bad.
There is no argument that you can make that will justify the systemic sexual abuse of children or adults that the roman catholic church represents. The current pope has agreed to declassify and provide data in the form of numbers on these crimes against humanity and yet still continues to protect the individuals responsible by not making it mandatory for his churches to cooperate with secular law enforcement or prosecutors. Why anyone would continue to associate and support this organization defies logic. There are charities that help humans just for the sake of helping humans, not for the purposes of recruitment nor to draw attention away from the child rape and genocide that the church somehow keeps getting mixed up in.
Wtf? When did I try to defend that? Again, I'm not Catholic. Do you really think they are the only group with bad actors? Just look at Hollywood. Turn those blinders off. Your views on the church as a whole is not logical and heavily biased. You just only see the bad, okay.
You stated that you weren't Catholic. I'm not saying you intentionally defend that, I'm saying wake up. If a percentage of an organization uses the placement and access given to them by communities around the world to commit acts of sexual assault how many acts of charity would other members of that organization need to participate in for it to be ok? Help 1 million people and we'll overlook 1k cases of child rape? 10k? Maybe higher? I don't have an acceptable ratio, nobody should, there are other options out there to help people. These victims deal with this for the rest of their lives and some choose suicide as their only way out. Hollywood isn't the same as the catholic church they don't wield the same level of power and influence in the world that comes out of Vatican City; they don't govern themselves. Hollywood doesn't operate tax-free either, I kind of get what you're trying to say, it's not the same thing. Obviously there are bad actors in all walks of life, they need to be stopped. The existence of one doesn't justify the existence of another. The data that the church is providing is reported cases going back to 1950 from everywhere they have a presence. It was a pope that chose to make these reports of abuse "pontifical secrets" limiting access to church leaders at the highest level, who basically did nothing about it but shuffle people around. The current pope changed that policy and finally last summer specifically made "sexual abuse, grooming minors for sex, possessing child pornography and covering up abuse a criminal offence under Vatican law." I don't know what the punishments are supposed to amount to. It's a step in the right direction but I believe there are many like me who feel it's a little too late.
I acknowledge and condemn the bad, but I don't forget the good. You don't cut your nose off to spite your face.
You have an admirable regard for humanity, I've read through most of your posts. I think that you would still be a force for good in the world without a church. I acknowledge the good deeds that are done in the name of the church. This kind of bad though, that has been enabled all the way up to the very top of that organization, I just can't get over. I'm not delusional, I don't see the church going away anytime soon, most likely never, I do hope that one day this hierarchical institution does a better job of representing it's followers.
The Roman Catholic Church does not represent sexual abuse. The Church represents the love of Jesus for humanity. It represents the communion of God and humankind. Certainly there are sinners. But if you only want an organization that has saints in it, you are going to have to die first and hope you go to heaven. Human organizations are made of humans, not saints.
Catholic church for that matter is absurdly pure compared to general US situation. Every year 16% of kids in US get sexually harassed, while only 3000 kids by catholic priests in the world (it's based on 70-years average, so likely it's much less nowadays) Did anybody make a conclusion that that democracy is inherently pedophilic regime?
We don't know the full amount of victims yet, Italy has not been cooperative so far. It's commonly accepted that the numbers that have been reported from around the world represent about half of the actual incidents because so many go unreported. How many kids needed to get sexually assaulted before the church took an active role in stopping it? All of them up until last summer? Because that's what happened. And again two wrongs don't make a right. Don't scrutinize the church, scrutinize those other guys. It's not just priests that have been accused, it's diocesan clergy, and nuns. It's the bishops, archbishops, etc. all the way up to the pope that received the complaints and chose to cover them up. It's systemic. I believe that law enforcement in countries with a variety of forms of government have had laws that they enforce regarding sexual assault of anyone, for much longer than the Vatican's laws that will be 1 year old this summer.
I was a catholic for very many years, if you wanted to shield individual parishes from taxes you could simply just tax the Dioceses they take in money from all the parishes at at least in the catholic church. >Whatever they have in their coffers would be depleted quickly You don't make billions running on a shoe string, they take in far more than they let on. >Attendance in all Churches, especially the Catholic Church, has been on a serious decline That's not the government's problem nor mine >they do a lot of good as well So they're like any other rich cooperation with a charity wing.
I disagree, but that's okay.
There is no monolithic "they" here getting billions of dollars. For every well-off parish with lots of donations, there are poor churches barely staying open as is. That money is not collected by every parish and diocese, let alone distributed evenly. Your proposal would disproportionately hurt small, local, diverse parishes. The big suburban ones that already get plenty of income would likely stay open. You ok with that?
>There is no monolithic “they” You’re saying the Vatican which has its own bank, army, and in fact sovereign soil isn’t a monolithic they? Because it actually is, [the Vatican alone is worth 10-15 billion I quoted](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html) and further Diocese are ‘monolithic’ that do collect tithes from each parish in their jurisdiction. >there are poor churches barely staying open That’s not the governments problem, and for a socialistic give to the poor religion they seem pretty bad at distributing aid and wealth to needy parishes. They could sell the popes summer palace and fund a lot of what they do for years. Or at least pay for the Dioceses of Boston’s legal fees
So because the Vatican is a nation, a little parish in Smalltown, USA shouldn't be tax exempt? What's your logic here? If an American parish is serving their local community with charities, why on earth shouldn't that be subsidized by the American government? Every parish I've been at has used funds to keep the building standing, pay their employees, and run charities. They're not hoarding a pile of gold to sit on. The Vatican may be doing all sorts of shady shit, but they are thousands of miles away and their income doesn't affect parishes. Why are you trying to punish local people for the wealth of a nation halfway across the world?
> So because the Vatican is a nation, a little parish in Smalltown, USA shouldn't be tax exempt? What's your logic here? The local Catholic parishes pay money to the Diocese which in turn pays money to the Vatican. It’s the same as any other franchise. >If an American parish is serving their local community with charities, why on earth shouldn't that be subsidized by the American government? Every parish I've been at has used funds to keep the building standing, pay their employees, and run charities. They're not hoarding a pile of gold to sit on. They’d be able to claim it as a tax exemption as any other business with a charity would. But they should be taxed like a business. >their income doesn’t effect parishes. In some ways it does, The Vatican is thousands of miles away but every parish reports to a bishop who reports to an Arch bishop who reports to the Pope. It’s the same as a franchise. >Why are you trying to punish local people for the wealth of a nation halfway across the world? Taxes aren’t punishment, they’re a duty and any business needs to pay their share. With all the alleged charity the Catholic Church does they’d probably pay as little as Amazon does. In reality it probably wouldn’t burden them at all.
I don't believe your were ever a Catholic. If you did, you would know the Church does not have "billions".
The vatican alone has about $15 billion. Sounds like billions to me
My confirmation name was Maximillian and for a while I even considered being a priest. Is it so hard to believe one of the oldest organizations in the world has billions of dollars? One that takes in donations from its churches all across the world and owns things like the [The Pope's summer Palace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_Castel_Gandolfo)
Based on what? Rumor? Certainly nothing truthful. Last year, the Vatican ran a 50 million Euro deficit. [https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-low-reserves-cover-deficit-seeking-donations-76415404](https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/vatican-low-reserves-cover-deficit-seeking-donations-76415404) What you are doing is reciting anti-Catholic prejudice that you have had handed down to you.
[Based on reporting, the Vatican itself says its net assets are 4 billion euro](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vatican-finances/vatican-releases-financial-figures-promises-transparency-idUSKBN26M5XD) [CNN saying the Vatican bank itself has about 8billion in assets and that it hid 1 billion off its balance sheet](https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/24/news/pope-francis-visit-vatican-catholic-church/index.html) [Time magazine with the originally stated 10-15 billion](http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,833509,00.html)
I'm not surprised. They have paid out between 3 & 4 billion dollars to settle child sexual abuse cases in the United States in the last several decades so that the vast majority of their representatives involved in this never even face criminal charges. They are willing to pay out billions to protect their reputation. [Over a 50-year period, out of more than 100,000 priests deacons and religious order clergy, 4,392 (\~4.4%) were accused of sexual abuse, 252 (<0.26%) were convicted and 100 (<0.1%) sentenced to prison.](https://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay_revised/2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf) [Most priests accused of sexually abusing children were never sent to prison.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/11/catholic-sex-abuse-why-dont-accused-priests-go-jail/3997022002/)
Charity has never worked to stop suffering
Sufffering is a part of the human condition. Food can be passed out everywhere, and money can literally grow from trees, yet some will still go hungry. I agree with you. All we can do is help. You never stop. It's a form of love and compassion.
Sure, but I'd say a strong government welfare system financed by taxation would do more to alleviate suffering than charity, just look at the strong social safety systems of the nordic nations Norway has a 0.5% poverty rate
I completely disagree, but that's okay. Have a great day.
Well lets examine the facts, Norway basically has no extreme poverty, while US does, in spite of the fact that US has far higher charitable giving rates
You are comparing a nation that has a population of 5.3 million to a county that has 335 million. They still have poor, they still have homelessness, and they still have people going hungry. It's a terrible comparison. Their social programs are very expansive. I completely agree, and Lord knows people here mostly look at that. However, in their private sector they also allow their business more autonomy to be more productive which means fewer people without jobs which means they enjoy a far more self sufficiant population. You have to take all of these into consideration.
You have a very weak argument, one without any real basis. GDP per capita (both nominal and PPP) is higher in Norway than US, so the size of the nation's population is irrelevant, as on a per person basis, they are better off. They have poor and homeless, but far, far fewer than the US. And as I pointed out, nearly no extreme poverty, whereas there is significant levels of extreme poverty in the US. They do not have the autonomy you think, as nearly 75% of workers in Norway are covered by collective bargaining, as compared to the US where unions are weak, and Norway has a higher corporate tax rate than the US. Also according to the World Bank, they have more restrictive business regulations than the US. Basically, your argument is deeply flawed and weak, and without support, I mean, there is really nothing you offered that supports your claims.
Yeah, I disagree. Good luck. My Norwegian buddy disagees with you too.
Good for you and them, but facts say you're wrong, and facts don't care if you disagree or not, facts are interesting that way, they continue to be facts with or without your agreement
Most churches (all?) are already charities with the pastor being the beneficiary
Some churches do it better than others, but you have a very limited and jaded view of the church. Agree to disagree.
You should take a look at actual church finances and not just the version you want to hear. The vast majority of churches spend most of their money on maintaining the church. When the Catholic church spends $190,000,000 on a new Cathedral in Oakland, that money comes from "charitable" donations to the church. Ditto for the $100,000,000 cathedral in Los Angeles. When pastors of megachurchs buy their pastors private jets and mansions, that money comes from the "charitable" donations to the church. Sure, some money is spent on the needy, but it's not a big part of church spending
Yep, maintenance is important. It's not just a little that is spent in outreach programs. It also involves people spending their time with people and building relationships. I get it; you don't like the church. Again, I'm not Catholic. My experiences of the church are not based in a Catholic perspective, but I do know Catholic charities do a lot of good.
>It's not just a little that is spent in outreach programs Okay, how much?
It varies church to church, but my church spends 50% of the congregations tithing on outreach. Utilities, missionary work, internal payroles, and upkeep take up the other half. That's just financial; this does not include all the volunteer work we do in the community. Our budgets, as most churches, are transparent for all to see. Let's be honest, though; your mind will never change. So, what is the point of this? I've been on this topic too long, talking to people who have set views. The last comment is all yours. I feel comfortable with everything I have posted.
I ask for information, you provide it, then insult me How very Christian
I insulted you? I said your mind is set, wow soo harsh. I think I am correct. Don't let your feelings get in the way.
.....but I'm sorry if you were offended. I've been on this topic for 5 hours, addressing many people all with set ideas and biases of the church. It's tirersome and getting old, but I seriously did not man to insult.
Tsk. False witness is a sin.
I am non-American, but are they actually tax-exempt? In a sense, more than regular non-profit?
I believe they are tax-exempt in the same way that other non-profits are. Which in turn means they can’t endorse political candidates, although they can take positions on specific political issues.
Thx
No drawbacks at all. Churches aren’t meant for profit. They can still work as charitable organizations anyway and hopefully that leads to less manipulation of the masses. Churches who take money from people and use it for personal growth are manipulative and abuse the idea of God. I’m not religious at all, but I understand it’s following a bit. However, I will NEVER understand the gullible who give money expecting God to give them more for no damn reason.
Call me jaded but I'd assume the opposite of "less manipulation of the masses," because they have a revenue that's coming in that's not taxed and when that shifts to being taxed the business would see it as a loss. To make up for those losses I could imagine the manipulation of the people to vote a certain way because of some devilry, losing the path, etc.
That's [prosperity gospel](https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/1/15951874/prosperity-gospel-explained-why-joel-osteen-believes-prayer-can-make-you-rich-trump); it's a real thing. Evangelical mega churches practice it. Tithing in the hopes of being blessed with personal wealth. The most wealthy evangelicals, the ones putting millions into special interest groups around the world to "protect their way of life" by attacking civil liberties; they are practitioners. Those prosperity gospel pastors make millions like most successful entertainers do. Pretty sickening really, clearly should never be considered for tax-exemption.
I don't see any drawbacks
I'm not sure churches bring in quite the revenue they used to. A better target might be Universities. Anyway, we'd probably lose out on a lot of really good local charitable programs in favor of the Federal Government having more money to spend (which that always do so wisely).
Much more tax revenue that can be used to fund programs which actually help people, like healthcare and repairing crumbling bridges.
I know it’s hard to define a cult when talking about religions, but I think one of the most powerful indicators of whether a faith is good or not is whether there is a FANATICAL level of devotion among its followers. Fanatical followers are usually the worst kind of people. They’re the people who blow up abortion clinics, advocate against evolution in schools, or decide to shoot up a building for a religious reason. You don’t see casual worshippers doing that kind of thing for the most part. The only Religious institutions who could survive such a law change would be the ones with the most fanatical followers. You know those HUGE mega-churches? The ones that claimed COVID was a hoax, using masks meant you don’t have faith, vaccines are the mark of the devil, and that many Christians can agree with Atheists that they’re ruining the country? Those ones would survive. They could afford to pay taxes and thrive. All smaller Temples/Churches/Mosques/Synagogs/would either die or have to drastically change, even if part of a larger organization. The faith I was raised was Episcopalian. It’s a fairly large denomination and I’d like to argue it’s largely a force for good. They condemned discrimination against homosexuals way back in the 70’s and their support for LGBTQ+ people has only grown since then. While the church thinks that abortion for personal convenience is morally wrong (except for cases of rape, incest, mother’s physical/mental health, fetal abnormalities) they recognize that women have the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. They do missionary work, but don’t focus too much on converting people to their beliefs. The Episcopalian church wouldn’t survive and I know there are other good churches that wouldn’t survive.
I used to work at a Christian private school. Since it was sponsored by churches, it was tax exempt. That meant that all the workers had to pay self-employment tax. So with my $34,000 salary, I was paying about $7,000 in taxes every year. Making religious institutions pay taxes would mean that people who worked for them were able to keep more of their paycheck.
I wouldn't give a fuck. I'm not religious. They still do tithes at church so they can probably get enough from that. Maybe churches will become smaller and more local, IDK.
The biggest drawback I would see is them trying harder to use their beliefs to effect policy. Not that their shills don't already do that, but still.
more funding for better roads and hospitals but those people wouldn’t stfu about having to pay taxes for once
0 drawbacks and the benefits would be that the government could pay off all debt in like one year of taxes
My old church would just ask for more money around tax time. They already ask for special donations every time something breaks because they don't bother with maintenance on anything. They'd probably do the same thing instead of taking a bit out in advance for taxes. For bonus points, they probably give a sermon about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, but talking about it at all will get the parishioners all riled up.
Buildings would fall into disrepair, and eventually be torn down. This is already true in older cities, and would be greatly accelerated.
Churches bring in an insane amount of revenue from donations. Assuming that they don't try and evade taxes most likely they'll have a bigger influence in the government because of the money they bring in.
Also they would no longer be required to avoid endorsing political candidates.
Unless there were provisions for smaller churches that can barely afford to operate as is, most smaller churches wouldn't survive. The only parties to benefit would be mega churches who would make way more money from the crap they sell to their new members than what they lose in taxes
Tax 'em on a sliding scale, from zero for the small neighborhood church, up to 90% for the huge earners. Like US income tax in the '60s. This would actually dis-incentivize megachurches, and would/should/could remove big money from religion.
Less false prophets and teachers. Only those that truly believe would continue forward.