MR

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... iders.html

Europe Considers Taxing Catholic Church to Raise Revenue

Catholic ChurchWashington Post, Financially Troubled Parts of Europe Consider Taxing Church Properties:

Cash-strapped officials in Europe are looking for a way to ease their financial burden by upending centuries of tradition and seeking to tap one of the last untouched sources of wealth: the Catholic Church.

Thousands of public officials who have seen the financial crisis hit their budgets are chipping away at the various tax breaks and privileges the church has enjoyed for centuries. ...

Once an untouchable institution in some parts of Europe, the Catholic Church has come under fire for its government subsidies at a time when the continent’s economies are faltering and the population is subject to painful cuts in jobs, benefits and pensions.

Political groups have seized on the crisis as an opportunity to open up a larger debate about whether it is time to unwind some of the deals struck generations ago between church and state in predominantly Catholic countries in Europe. ...

The issue of church tax payments has been simmering for several years. In 2010, European Union regulators launched an investigation into the Catholic Church and the taxes it pays in various countries. The E.U.’s competition czar, Joaquin Almunia, has said the tax breaks could be considered state aid and illegally distort competition in the market. But the issue wasn’t at the forefront of the debate until earlier this year when Monti, the Italian prime minister, called for assessing taxes on church properties.

I'm all in favor of it.

Rip Rokken wrote:I'm all in favor of it.

It wouldn't hurt them, but can you imagine the backlash?

They can afford it. And then some. More money than God!

They should put some of that tax into a pedophile liability fund.

If you want religion to stay out of government but then want government to tax religion and have influence in that way over it, then it sounds sort of hypocritical to me, at least with our current tax structure.

Otherwise, if we went the route of the Fair Tax, where EVERYONE pays the same tax on new goods and services, I'm all for it.

Religions want government to rule to their theological ideals, let them foot the damn bill for once!

jaxmanjoe wrote:Religions want government to rule to their theological ideals, let them foot the damn bill for once!

You bring up an excellent point - religion won't stay out of government, and want policies that affect everyone based on their views (and many of those views are good, granted, but not all of them). I strongly feel the tax-free status of religious organizations has been heavily abused - it's pretty obvious not all the mega money pouring into some of these places is being used to benefit the poor, etc.

I've never heard an argument against a fair tax that bothers me, but I don't know much about it. Sounds good to me - basically, everyone pay the same percentage, and hopefully not a crippling one.

I think once you open that can of worms, then you remove any argument about keeping church and state separate. As much as I believe there are false teachings and false churches who are established solely for the purpose of being tax exempt organizations, there are plenty of churches and religious organizations who are being sincere in their purpose. I mean, it's like this, it works both ways....anybody who says they're all for taxing the religious institutions should also be willing to allow those religious institutions a seat at the political/government table. And I think in the grand scheme of things, those who are against church, religion, so forth, would rather not see that happen than to tax them.

Yoda wrote:I think once you open that can of worms, then you remove any argument about keeping church and state separate. As much as I believe there are false teachings and false churches who are established solely for the purpose of being tax exempt organizations, there are plenty of churches and religious organizations who are being sincere in their purpose. I mean, it's like this, it works both ways....anybody who says they're all for taxing the religious institutions should also be willing to allow those religious institutions a seat at the political/government table. And I think in the grand scheme of things, those who are against church, religion, so forth, would rather not see that happen than to tax them.

Corporations pay taxes but they are separate from government. Being taxed does not allow you or me or any corporation the direct ability to dictate policy. Corporations don't havae a seat at the government table beyond lobbying and neither would the big business of church.

The only concern I'd have, though, is non-profits would be next and that wouldn't be good...

Taxing church is really a pipe dream of mine, not something I think would ever happen. A guy can dream, though, can't he?

While they are at it, I say increase the taxes that casino's have to pay. Tax them fuckers 75% of what they bring in. Afterall, how much does it cost them to deal cards and roll dice? Casino's don't really give you anything like a furniture or electronics store does, where you pay for something that you take home with you. And a Casino doesn't care where you get the money to blow at their facilities. Hell, you could steal it from a relative and blow it all there and they don't care, even when the relative finds out and tries to get it back, the casino keeps the loot and you have to go after the relative who stole it. Win the friggin Super Lottery and if your not careful you'll receive invite letters from casino's giving you millions in credit and a trip to their facility on a private jet, just as long as you gamble when you get there.

jaxmanjoe wrote:

Yoda wrote:I think once you open that can of worms, then you remove any argument about keeping church and state separate. As much as I believe there are false teachings and false churches who are established solely for the purpose of being tax exempt organizations, there are plenty of churches and religious organizations who are being sincere in their purpose. I mean, it's like this, it works both ways....anybody who says they're all for taxing the religious institutions should also be willing to allow those religious institutions a seat at the political/government table. And I think in the grand scheme of things, those who are against church, religion, so forth, would rather not see that happen than to tax them.

Corporations pay taxes but they are separate from government. Being taxed does not allow you or me or any corporation the direct ability to dictate policy. Corporations don't havae a seat at the government table beyond lobbying and neither would the big business of church.

The only concern I'd have, though, is non-profits would be next and that wouldn't be good...

Taxing church is really a pipe dream of mine, not something I think would ever happen. A guy can dream, though, can't he?

That's the thing, you can't pick and choose which non-profits to tax and which ones not to. If that did happen, could you imagine the uproar from the religious community? And, they would be justified in raising a big stink over it.

I've always been in favor of it. Hell, you could wipe out the national debt with the taxes on the real estate holdings alone As has already been said here, religion is ALWAYS trying to influence everything around us, so they should pay taxes just like the rest of us. Religion is WAY too profitable not to pay any taxes! Hell, some of these ministers at "super churches" are multi-millionaires! God hears and sees EVERYTHING, but he's just not good with money, so please send some. Getting out of paying taxes because you believe in an invisible man living in the sky is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on mankind!

I'll do you one better ....there should be no tax exempt organizations...period.

Everyone but the poor should pay tax...

Well, I am a believer, but I agree w/JFB (although, LOL), and you ^^^^mmberry, but why aren't we taxing the poor?
Everyone who brings home an income should be taxed based on their income/tax bracket ...don't the
poor have tax breaks of some sort which usually allow for a substantial refund/more than paid in?
I'm all about helping those who help themselves ...the single hard working mother/father breaks, etc.

Michigan Girl wrote:Well, I am a believer, but I agree w/JFB (although, LOL), and you ^^^^mmberry, but why aren't we taxing the poor?
Everyone who brings home an income should be taxed based on their income/tax bracket ...don't the
poor have tax breaks of some sort which usually allow for a substantial refund/more than paid in?
I'm all about helping those who help themselves ...the single hard working mother/father breaks, etc.

I hear you, but one problem is how to differentiate between those who are trying to help themselves and those who aren't. The idea of somehow making a system where each case is looked at individually and judged to be either one or the other would be burdensome beyond belief. How about a hard working mother who had three kids she knew she couldn't afford? Which category does that go into?

Who decides? Does a baby factory who had 12 kids deserve more than the woman who just had one baby but is struggling, also? Does a disabled person not deserve benefits if he/she can't work? Where is the magical line drawn between those who deserve assistance and those who do not.

You either end up helping more than intended, or not enough. What side do we err on, because it's impossible to set up a system where we help only those who deserve it.

I tend to have a system where we, at a minimum, capture all those who deserve it even though there will always be some who take advantage of the situation. I don't want to see one hard working person suffer because there's someone out there who is milking the system. How do you tell that single, hard working mother she can't have the help because there might be a mother out there who isn't hard working and we're just playing it safe?

jaxmanjoe wrote:

Michigan Girl wrote:Well, I am a believer, but I agree w/JFB (although, LOL), and you ^^^^mmberry, but why aren't we taxing the poor?
Everyone who brings home an income should be taxed based on their income/tax bracket ...don't the
poor have tax breaks of some sort which usually allow for a substantial refund/more than paid in?
I'm all about helping those who help themselves ...the single hard working mother/father breaks, etc.

I hear you, but one problem is how to differentiate between those who are trying to help themselves and those who aren't. The idea of somehow making a system where each case is looked at individually and judged to be either one or the other would be burdensome beyond belief. How about a hard working mother who had three kids she knew she couldn't afford? Which category does that go into?

Who decides? Does a baby factory who had 12 kids deserve more than the woman who just had one baby but is struggling, also? Does a disabled person not deserve benefits if he/she can't work? Where is the magical line drawn between those who deserve assistance and those who do not.

You either end up helping more than intended, or not enough. What side do we err on, because it's impossible to set up a system where we help only those who deserve it.

I tend to have a system where we, at a minimum, capture all those who deserve it even though there will always be some who take advantage of the situation. I don't want to see one hard working person suffer because there's someone out there who is milking the system. How do you tell that single, hard working mother she can't have the help because there might be a mother out there who isn't hard working and we're just playing it safe?

I understand, but there must be an answer.
I'm sure this would be a time consuming ordeal which may require
more people hired/unemployment reduction, more paperwork ...if the public
school systems/teachers can do it, so can the federal/state government.
Sure it will be costly, but the money saved will be well worth the effort.

We need drug addicted mothers/fathers off the drugs and off of public assistance until they
can pass hair folicle drug tests on a regular basis. What about the children you ask?
They need to be removed from that environment anyway. I'm tired of paying
for crack and receiving none of the benefits ...instead of feeding hungry children, we are
buying illegal drugs and making illegal dealers across the nation rich ...they do not pay taxes on that income.
These people also have to prove they are actively looking for work and being denied ...and
not because they can't pass a drug test.

What about those folks who aren't even Americans?
Is it our job to continually pay for their pursuit of the "American Dream"? I say it is not, if
they are unable to learn the language and find employment within a certain period of time,
perhaps the "American Dream" is not their cup 'o tea?!? WE are making their dream a reality
by offering to be their crutch for rest of their days.

There are ways to take care of our disabled, our hungry and our poor without being
taken advantage of, we are just being lazy and are looking for ways to take the
easy cheap route, which ends up costing us more. The people who end up hurt
are the legitimate people in need ...it's the crazy scammers and manipulators who know
how to work the system and cheat Americans who end up with all of our $$$$$$$$$.

There are answers ...I just don't know all of them, YET!!!

Well, when you figure it out, let the government know!

I agree it's a mess in any case. I agree with you that it would be great to find a solution, but until then...

mmberry301 wrote:I'll do you one better ....there should be no tax exempt organizations...period.

Everyone but the poor should pay tax...

The deal is there is a growing number of "poor" who use that as a way of life. Fifteen years ago I knew a kid in the neighborhood, lets call him "Freddie" who was about 19 at the time. One day he was more happy then he normally is and after a few minutes he advised us as to why he was so happy, his 18 year old girlfriend was prego. We think she was only 15 though, but Freddie insists she was 18. After all the congratulations pass, Freddie explains that he's so happy cause having a baby and not working means that he'll be receiving "x" amount of government assist for years to come. He even explained that the more children you have, the more government assist you get. Lets just say that Freddie was as happy about the baby coming as a normal hard working individual is happy to get a new job.

So the bottom line here is, you can tax everyone but the poor but eventually the poor is going to outnumber the working, which means there will be more hands taking money out of the system then hands putting into the system. That's what we are seeing now. The current administrations temporary fix is to increase the taxes of the people putting into the system, or they like to say the "rich" for now.