bet you haven't had a volcano eruption nearby in a while, have you?

well have you?

structures that would allow them to occur. So there!

and mosquitoes the size of crows. These things must also be considered.

clearly prayer doesn't work on those, either.

Which god were you praying to and asking that there wouldn't be any lutherans or catholics in Minnesota?

in allowing exemptions (property taxes) as cities struggle to find funding for more police officers and the like. I agree w/ you, that this is offensive to me as a property tax payer (which keep going up and up) and I see (quite literally) churches on every block...and this angers me even more so, that when they flee the city to move elsewhere (usually into the county), they leave the properties behind, empty, and not taken care of (broken windows and the like, a mess).

The rest of us have to chip in and take care of these eyesores w/ our tax dollars. In effect, we're subsidizing these churches...

residential neighborhoods. I don't mind that they're there, nor do I want to see them gone. However, I want them to pay their way for the services they receive at taxpayer expense. I do not agree to pay their way through taxes on myself. I am not religious. Let the congregations contribute to a tax fund at the churches they attend.

If there are property taxes, all property owners should pay them. Period. I see no reasons to exempt churches from that. None whatsoever.

I feel the same way, especially now that the current regime in Washington encourages religious leaders to sway their congregations politically.

should they pay taxes or be exempt?

Let's assume you in no way benefit from that charity.

Let's also assume that you in no way benefit from that church.

Let's further assume both entities aren't molesting anyone, aren't sowing dissent (it's an inclusive, liberal church), and provide some benefit to the community generally via youth leagues or food banks or other aid to the disadvantage.

If your answer is tax the church but not the charity, why?
If your answer is tax both, I would still disagree but that would be more consistent.

all non-profits where I am.

Now, your thought is?

501(c)(3) is the federal code under which churches receive special qualification simply for being a church. Other non-profits must qualify under other means. Churches inherit most state and local qualifications from their federal qualification.

that gets rid of tax exemptions for all churches.

Providing a church tax exemption to a non-church seems a bit more magical.

why does it have to be a "church" tax exemption?

Does that result in more money somehow??

You write, "Other non-profits must qualify under other means." That's not the case. For example, Planned Parenthood is a 501(c)(3). (There's also a Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is a 501(c)(4) organization. It still doesn't have to pay taxes on its income, but contributions to it are not deductible, and it can engage in types of advocacy that are prohibited to a 501(c)(3).)

I believe that, as a general rule, churches should be treated the same way as secular nonprofits, although there are some exceptions.

I wrote:

I am not into sports so it does not do any good for me. Even though they claim it is not taxed it is.

tobacco taxes. No smoking is allowed on the site of that stadium, even outdoors. Ironic, isn't it.

I think it is income tax that is used to fund here. I could be wrong but that is what I was told.

here. A city sales tax was proposed. That failed. The state legislature balked at funding, too. So, what did they do? They added a 50 cent per pack tax on cigarettes and taxes on other tobacco products. Since only about 20% of Minnesotans use those products, there weren't enough to block the tax. Problem solved.

Sin taxes. They also considered a tax on alcoholic beverages, but we have too many drinkers to get that through. So, the smokers pay. Oddly enough, you can buy alcohol freely at the stadium, but there's no smoking there.

I find it all amusing, since I couldn't afford a ticket to an NFL game anyhow.

Sport stadiums receive some (but not all) tax exemptions based on a public referendum or legislative body approval on a case-by-case basis. Churches receive exemptions for all taxes simply by virtue of being a church.

Do you also find this to be offensive?

property tax exemptions. Others do not. This varies from state to state. I have no idea in which state you live. See below:

http://www.minnesotanonprofits.org/nonprofit-resources/financial-management/nonprofit-guide-to-property-tax-exemption/property-tax-assessment-law

are you opposed in principle to any 501c(3) being the recipient of an exemption?

If so, you are making a consistent argument.

their expenditure budget. Frankly, I'm opposed to anyone getting a pass on local infrastructure & service taxes, which is what property taxes primarily fund. Include the cost in your budget, non-profit or not.

The majority of non-profit organizations do not own real property. They pay rent for the spaces they occupy. The owner of that property pays property taxes. Larger non-profits, of course, do own their premises. They should pay property taxes as part of their cost of operation.

As for TIFs, I oppose those unless there is a clear positive, compensating payback that can be demonstrated for them. Often, the payback that is named doesn't really exist.

we encourage investing by giving tax breaks for it.

we encourage home ownership that way.

we encourage charitable giving that way.

and yes we encourage non-profits and churches that way.

Are you opposed to all tax breaks or just the ones that involve property taxes?

My focus is on property taxes, because infrastructure and city or county services are available to all. Those property taxes are the primary funding for such infrastructure and services. If you own property in that jurisdictions, you receive such services and take advantage of the infrastructure. I do not wish to pay for someone else's share of the cost.

Local infrastructure and services are tangible and easily measured. The costs, also, are easy to measure. They should be divided up among all property owners if property taxes are the source of their funding. Period. No exemptions.

You don't know what I meant by "we?"

Come on.

So it's just about property taxes then and your desire not to pay for someone else's share?

"We" and please don't say who is "we" again, pay for other people's shares via taxation all of the time.
Do you also not want to pay for other kids schooling assuming you don't have kids in school?
That's another thing property taxes often fund, and folks without children get no direct benefit from paying them.

Just like with other things (charities, churches) the benefits are indirect (higher educated workforce is good for the economy, lower crime rates, etc.).

In fact, you can count on me to vote Yes on additional spending for them. We all benefit from educating children in our own area. Same with libraries, community centers, playgrounds and parks. Police, fire departments, courts, sewer services, snow removal, and much, much more are also funded by property taxes. I benefit in one way or another from all of them, even if the benefit is indirect.

I do not mind paying my share for all of those things that property taxes and sales taxes fund. I own a home, and pay my property taxes and sales taxes. I do mind paying taxes on other people's property, though.

Non-governmental facilities and services, however, I fund only after investigating them and ascertaining whether they deserve funding. I'm pretty picky about who gets my donations, frankly. I don't want to fund them involuntarily, which I do if they are property tax exempt. No, thanks.

but not if they are not for profit or religious run?

Esplain.

I get your personal preference (and given we all fund things we don't personally prefer, I don't find it a compelling point), I'm talking about your assertion about benefits to the community.

It is a business that takes money from its membership and provides them with a service.

claim.

Non-profits take money too. The question is, what do they do with the money.

If they funnel it back into social programs, aid, food banks, etc then it's not a for-profit "business" but a not for-profit "business."

Religious indoctrination as a goal. They're open to all.

First, no, they all don't.

Second, if they do good overall, so what?

Religious community centers generally exist as a means of recruiting for the religion. Whether that recruiting is blatant or subtle, it exists.

So what? Well, in a secular society, public community centers are not allowed to promote religion. What that means is that anyone can feel welcome there and there is no religious goal at all. That's what. Public community centers are for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. That's a big plus in societies like ours, which have people of all faiths and of no faith at all.

religious community centers that did not proselytize other than the mere fact that they were the ones running it. I have never been religious in my entire life, from pretty much the womb, and been open about it that entire time, and I felt more than comfortable in those places. And yes blatant versus subtle

I don't care if a religious entity is handing out food and shelter for the homeless "in the name of Jesus" (or Allah or whatever)...the net positive to the community is still a positive. I don't care if the midnight basketball league starts with a non-denominational prayer, it's still a net positive to keeping kids off the streets.

If it gets more overt or oppressive than that, sure, the net positive starts to come down. But you seem to be operating under the idea that the mere fact that religion is involved at all, wipes away all other positives and makes it not a benefit to the community and means folks aren't welcome.

You've not established why that's so other than, well, that it's so.

Such prayers are most commonly Christian prayers in this country. What of the Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Wiccans and atheists out there? Do you see the issue at all?

A civic or secular community center will not have any problem at all with that, because it will offer just the basketball, without any prayers at all. Do you not see how that is better for the "community?"

As for homeless centers, they are a different matter. Since the "community" doesn't see fit to meet those needs at all, in most cases, I donate to the Union Rescue Mission in St. Paul, where I live. Despite its religious sponsorship and the message it offers to all who use its services, it does the best job where I am in offering such services, so I support it financially.

I would prefer, however, that my "community" would offer similar services, funded by tax revenues. It does not, however, so I support the organization that offers the most comprehensive services to the homeless.

Nothing is all or nothing. It never has been. I'm not going to stand and protest the Catholic church community center in North Minneapolis that offers programs to help disadvantaged youths. They are not well-served by tax-funded programs here. I will, however, work to establish tax-funded programs, paid for by all and available to all without any religious message at all.

the first is used in the military quite frequently...no mention of Jesus or Christian-specific themes, just a general prayer for good fortune or luck or what have you.

The second is more focused on Christianity sure, but plenty of folks are just fine with it. I'm agnostic, and I'm just fine with it. There's substantial and then there is de minimis.

See, the difference here is we are talking about and have been talking about whether something provides a benefit to the community, not whether it would provide MORE of a benefit if it were x. You think it would be "better" if they were all not religious. That's fine, but that's different from your overarching claim (barring this post where you come across much more reasonable IMO) that because it's religious there is no overall benefit.

Cherry Coke is better than regular Coke. I'm being facetious obviously, although I'll fight anyone who proclaims otherwise. But that doesn't mean regular Coke has no value.

At the end of the day, it's about actions/acts. Net positive, utilitarianism to some degree. A community center brings value, religious or not. Now, the more that religious community center makes it about religion, and the less they make it about community, then the narrower that value becomes (including up to valuable just to the members of said religion). But even then, it has value to at least part of the community.

The vast majority of those thing I am just fine with providing a tax free approach. Because they aren't operating like a for-profit business. Not for-profit entity X wants you care about this thing they think is valuable to society, not for-profit entity Y wants you to care about another thing they think is valuable to society (and they can even be in conflict with each other). I'm fine with encouraging such organizations through tax policy.

I'm also fine with doing that for religious entities (and also recognizing the need to balance BOTH clauses of Article I).

How much should be supported with yours and my tax dollars? Here's what I think: None.

I choose to support some religious organizations, like the Union Gospel Mission. I choose not to support the Salvation Army, due to its historic anti-LGBTQ bias. Both offer assistance to the homeless. Neither should receive a penny of tax-sourced funds. I can choose to support the ones I like, but nobody should be forced to do so.

When I was in the USAF, the commander of one base where I was stationed decided that he would have 100% participation from everyone in a United Way campaign. I refused, because some things funded by that organization did not meet my criteria. Now, I don't know if I was the only holdout, but I found myself, one day, standing at attention in a General's office.

I still refused, and when that General threatened me, I explained that the Senator from my state was an acquaintance of my family's and that my next step would be a telephone cal to him. I was summarily dismissed.

A month later, the USAF decided that I qualified for an early release from my enlistment, which pleased me a great deal at the time. So, I got my Honorable Discharge a few months early, and the asshole General got his 100% participation.

Screw tax dollars going to religious organizations! I choose the organizations to which I contribute, thank you very much. I don't allow others to choose for me.

second religion is not in and of itself evil. It's a concept, an idea, those are rarely evil. It's use by men that makes something evil or good.

Third, someone is going to consider something "evil" that others think neutral or good.

And IMO, most human things have an element of harm or evil attached to them. Finding a good company is hard. Finding a good person who's done no evil is even harder. Everything we do has some evil attached to it if you go looking hard enough.

Should I support NIKE because of the ad just out, or hate them because of sweatshops?

As far as the military goes, there's a mixed bag. Every unit I've been in, in the Army, the commanders wouldn't have remotely considered any of that stuff. Yet, I'm sure there are some who would love it. The Air Force seems particularly overwhelmed by religious nutjobs at high levels relative to the Army certainly. But your experiences are not the sum total of reality anymore than mine are. The fact that I haven't seen anything like that in my decades of military service doesn't mean others haven't, like clearly you have.

The argument, nobody should be forced to support with tax money something they don't like? Conservatives don't like social welfare programs. They think it's immoral, unconstitutional. Should we allow them to opt out of paying taxes for them? Do we let pacifists opt out of paying for the military?

Social programs are not. Nor is the military. Religion is.

What you think of Nike is up to you.

then you can't tax them. That's the point of the free exercise clause. Taxation is control.

Taxes should apply to all, especially property taxes, which is what I'm talking about.

You are just going to ignore the point about taxation and government control then?

If you tax someone, you force them to pay for services whether they want the services or not. If you don't tax someone, you subsidize their activities by offering them the services but making other people pay for them.

if you don't tax then it's not government control at all. They aren't subsidized because they are not taxed. Now if they receive tax credits that you can argue is a subsidy.

If I go to Texas, and I rent, I don't pay property taxes. Yet I still get fire and police protection, and I still get the benefit of the educational system in lowered crime and a better educated populace. Am I "subsidized" because of that? Nope.

The subsidy comes to the church in the form of police, fire protection, roads etc. which service their location but they don't pay for.

It's a really, really weak argument, but fine, let's go with it.

Taxing someone is at LEAST MORE control than not taxing them yes?

The whole point of the Free Exercise Clause is limiting government control over religion as much as possible, if not eliminating it.

You all seem to be arguing that's impossible when it comes to taxation because it's all "control."

Like I said, sorry but that's a really bad argument, but even if I were to buy that not taxing is still control (it isn't), taxing is absolutely control.

People get the benefits of things they don't necessarily pay for in multiple ways.

even if you don't pay your property taxes, the police and fire departments generally still respond. Getting a benefit of something is not control, and it is not "subsidizing" religion for the purposes of the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Taxation absolutely is control, and it absolutely interferes or has the great potential to interfere with Free Exercise.

I am having a hard time figuring out where that even come from. I don't think taxes are "control." Reading back through this thread, it looks like you are the first to bring it up, but maybe I missed something.

Taxes are what we use to pay for government services. Everybody pays unless you get either an exemption or you are destitute. The government gives exemptions to certain people or entities. Tax exemptions serve some social purpose. They don't charge non-profits tax because it's assumed the social benefit of the non-profit activity is worth the subsidy. And yes, it is a subsidy. Google "Tax subsidy" and read the first definition, from Investopedia. It's a subsidy because, if we did tax non-profits, either the government would collect more taxes to provide more services, or everyone else would pay lower taxes to provide the same services. Meanwhile the subsidized entity gets to keep more money that hopefully provides some social good.

The government doesn't tax houses of worship because it has decided that worship itself is a social good. They get the break whether they do anything for the wider community or not. It's not really about the 1st Amendment. The tradition goes back to the Emperor Constantine who gave the Church a tax break in exchange for their support and helping to run the Empire.

I am not against providing a tax break to religious organizations. I am just not under the illusion that it isn't, in fact, a subsidy.

it's the whole focus of the free exercise clause. It's the other side of the coin from the establishment clause.
It's the entire reason why we don't tax churches for doing church things.

We don't not tax churches to "subsidize" them. We don't tax churches because taxation means control. I can tax one church more than the other. Or I can tax churches more than non-churches, and I can take church property if they don't pay their taxes (and I can be selective in how I do it).

It's not because churches are a social good, it's because of the 1st Amendment.

McCullogh v. Maryland (1816), “The power to tax implies the power to destroy.” “All subjects over which the sovereign power of a State extends are objects of taxation, but those over which it does not extend are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.”

It wasn't a case about religion, but it was a case about the power to tax equaling government control, and being exempt from taxation being free of said control. That's a long-standing principle. You can disagree with it, but it's not new.

A much more recent, direct case: Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

I'm not just making stuff up. This is basic con law. Now one can argue that the establishment clause is more important than the free expression clause, thus one should err on the side of not doing the former (thus control is less important and it's more important that churches get zero special treatment at all). But most of our history has been trying to balance the two clauses. Thus, why a church could lose it's tax exempt status if it starts being political. I am not sure I agree with that to be honest. If an African-American church wants to preach liberal politics in Georgia, why can't it? But that's a different discussion.

Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2018, 06:51 PM - Edit history (1)

But I'll try to keep it simple. We are talking about we think the law should be, not what it actually is. So it's nice that you agree with the Supreme Court and didn't make up your own opinion, but your opinion would be perfectly fine even if you did make it up.

The Walz case was about whether the state could exempt religious institutions from tax. The court said yes for two reasons:
1) The exemption was granted to a broad class of other entities like nonprofits, schools etc., so it wasn't establishing a religion or favoring any one religion.
And
2) Not taxing churches maintains the wall of separation.

They could have stopped at point 1. Point 2 appears be a dicta that answers a different question - could the state tax a church if it wanted to? Apparently not according to Walz, but since that wasn't question, that's really up to a future court.

What Walz doesn't tell us is why the exemption exists in the first place. The exemptions go back to Colonial times. In some colonies, people had to pay a tax to the church. This was the case in Massachusetts until 1824. A 1799 law in New York exempted churches, any public place of worship, houses owned by ministers, schools, court houses, alms houses, jails, and libraries. Even back then, the religious exemption was just one of many that had some public benefit. But the religious exemption wasn't a separate case regarding the Federal First Amendment. We know this because the Federal constitution didn't apply to states back then, and the 1777 New York Constitution then in effect, although it provided for free exercise of religion, had no establishment clause (New York did not establish an official religion, but South Carolina did, and Massachusetts required each town to establish a religion).

New York did provide for free exercise of religion though. But they thought religion was so important that clergy were prohibited from holding public office so they could attend to their "great duties" of serving God. There's a wall for you! But not one we would recognize today. This constitution further exempted Quakers from the militia but required them to pay a tax instead. Depending on how you read it, they are either giving a special favor to one religion, or imposing a special tax on it, or both. But regardless, it would violate the 1st Amendment today.

Most states got rid of all these special dispensions or restrictions in the 19th Century and for those that didn't, the 14th Amendment forced the issue. But the religious tax exemption remained. Some people in the 19th century, including Ulysses Grant, wanted to get rid of the religious exemption for the same reasons MM provides in his OP, but the idea went nowhere.

So to sum up, the religious exemption, was always understood to be a subsidy for a benefit that may or may not be worth it. That the Walz court said it didn't count legally as a subsidy is no more to the point than Justice Robert's declaration that the Obamacare individual mandate penalty is actually a tax. Even though Obama himself said it wasn't.

they even CITE McCullough for the idea that taxation equals control, and control violates free expression clause.

Citing the states is kinda pointless considering selective incorporation took a wee bit of time to apply any of the BOR to the states.
So looking to what happened in NY in 1777 or Mass in 1824, the first amendment wasn't applicable to either.

You can pretend this isn't clearly settled constitutional law, but it is, and it has been for a long time.

then you have not understood it at all. It's an historical analysis and a moral opinion. Think about that. Churches have gotten tax break since the 4th century. There are reasons churches have gotten a free ride in one form or another for 1700 years. Whether those reasons SHOULD still apply is a moral question, not just a legal one.

Settled law is settled until it's not. If you think differently, Associate Justice Kavanaugh will soon set you straight.

your rent? Nope. You're the one paying them, through your landlord.

That's a really really specious argument.

at a level that also pays the property taxes on that unit? Really? That's a really naive argument. The minimum rent for any rental property covers the mortgage payment, property taxes and expenses to maintain the property. Typically, other costs are also rolled into the rental amount, along with any profit the landlord expects. Even if the property is held in anticipation of a future appreciation in value, no landlord wants to spend any money beyond the revenue the property generates.

Just think about it, and you'll understand how all that works. If you're paying rent, you're paying the landlord's property taxes on the place you're living, I guarantee.

one assumes a whole host of factors go into it.

It probably depends on how much property taxes are, vice how much their overhead is, vice what the going rate is for that kind of property in that area. I'm pretty sure it's not a direct one for one, and I'm pretty sure in some cases, the property taxes are low compared to other costs and may not be a huge consideration for a landlord. I also know that often the landlord isn't even local for rental properties so all they care about is some level of profit per unit. I also know that in some cases, the property taxes could easily be low enough that for having 100 units, the rent from just a small number of units might be enough to "pay for the property taxes" and each other unit is simply excess. Or I could sign a short-term six month lease where my rent isn't needed to cover property taxes but covers some other expense. They don't calculate down to the person some "percentage" of each expense, because they don't know how many people will necessarily rent in any given year. So there's no "guarantee" that my specific rent is contributing to paying for that, vice contributing to paying for some other cost. I could also be paying a promotional rate. My first year in my apartment I got two months free rent to start. I ain't contributing a dime to property taxes those two months, and my reup had a free month's rent, so I ain't contributing a dime that month either.

Or I could be "renting for free or a significantly reduced rate" from a friend or relative. I could be subletting for a small cost. Regardless of my situation, I get police and fire protection, they ain't ordinarily checking to see if I've contributed to the owners portion of their property taxes or not. I've seen a couple of examples of that going on with privatized fire/police, where if you haven't paid, they may not respond, but not with government services. And if you want to go all the way, the homeless are due police protection, and people in homeless shelters are too.

But to argue that I "pay property taxes" because I rent thus I am not getting some benefits for free is again specious to this particular argument. Because the argument here is, if you don't pay taxes, you shouldn't get any benefits. There are literally a half dozen examples of that blatantly not being true...whether you are talking renters, or if you want to argue indirectly, then people staying with friends, or family, homeless shelters, or paying promotional or reduced of "friend/family" rates that don't cover the cost of property taxes for at least that month or even for the entire rental period.

You are trying to create this category where churches are a grand (and in your opinion) toxic exception to tax exemptions, and the evidence simply does not bear that out.

Last edited Wed Sep 12, 2018, 02:28 AM - Edit history (1)

Your apartment costs your landlord money to provide. The cost includes mostly mortgage, maintenance and taxes. If he owns 100 apartments, he has 100 different costs, based on size, repairs needed etc. And even though he doesn't know exactly how many will be rented ,or how many repairs he will need to make, he probably knows that in an average year he will have, say, 90% occupancy and spend $1,000 per apartment in repairs. Meanwhile his mortgage stays the same and he can estimate his taxes based on last year's taxes. So he adds up all those costs and estimates including taxes, divides it by 90 occupied apartments, adds a little for profit and sets the rent for the year. All the other things you mentioned - promotional rate, a short term rental, etc. are all part of the cost of doing business. If he offers a promotional rate, he loses a month's rent from that one apartment, but he's already figured that into his rent calculation based on the 90% occupancy he needs to keep.

On the government side, it's even easier. They figure out what services they need to provide - police, fire, schools, road maintenance and that comes out to a number. These are PUBLIC services, that is, you can't say, "If you don't pay tax, you don't get the benefit." Since the services can't be witheld, the cost is based on the total population. But the tax revenue can only be collected from those who pay tax, which is property owners. If you rent, your landlord is paying taxes out of your rent money, and the government knows he is doing that. In fact, if you live in an apartment building, the government assesses the value of the property based on the rental income it can produce.

All other persons and entities - the homeless, visitors, children, nonprofits and churches are, in essence, freeloaders. But that's okay, the government knows there are freeloaders and already accounted for them. But the problem is that the cost still has to borne by the taxpayer. Some freeloaders are unavoidable - we can't stop people from visiting the community, so we just deal with it. Others are optional, like giving tax breaks to nonprofits and churches. For the optional freeloaders, the question is "are they worth the cost?" The government says yes, some people say no.

recovering those, along with a profit, if possible.

Let's say he or she owns a 16-unit apartment building with uniform apartment size. One factor is the property taxes on that building. Typically, the tax will be divided by 16, and the result becomes part of the rent calculation. Servicing any mortgage on the building is handled the same way. Estimates are also made about cost of maintenance, HVAC maintenance and potential replacement needs. Other building maintenance, like roofing replacement, appliance replacement, and other work is estimated and prorated out over time and divided among the units as part of the rent calculation. Insurance costs are also passed along in the rent.

That's just part of it. A successful rental property owner considers every potential cost and does calculations.

Prevailing rental rates for similar properties is also part of the calculation. An empty apartment generates no revenues, so being competitive in pricing is crucial.

Some investment property owners will forgo some immediate profits if appreciation in value is likely and average rents are too low to take a profit at a given time.

But, if you rent a place to live, you're going to be paying the costs of ownership of your place, wether it is a single family home or a studio apartment. Property owners and landlords hate to lose money on their buildings. Your rent is how they avoid doing that.

The property taxes on my modest 3-bedroom single family home are about $2400 per year. If I were going to rent the place out, My calculations on what it would rent for would include $200 per month to cover that cost. the mortgage payment on that property is $600/month. I'd certainly add that, so the base rent would be $800 per month. Annual maintenance costs on the house are also known to me, and they'd be divided by 12 to come up with a monthly figure. Any other costs that are predictable also would be added.

So, guess what the average rents for houses like mine are in neighborhoods like mine. $1400-1600. All of the costs are in there.

you would never assume all 12 units are going to sell annually and those divide your costs equally among those 12 units.
Odds are you are going to plan for some of the units going unrented and adjust your prices so that some lower number of units will meet all of your costs and part of your profits.

The point being that not every single tenant's dollars physically go towards paying property taxes. A person could have a short term lease towards the end of the year that all goes to profit. The greater point being plenty of folks at any singular point in time are not "directly contributing towards property taxes" for all sorts of reason and yet they still get police and fire protection. No one asks, did you pay your property taxes or contribute to your landlords property taxes.

The actual point is, you two are sidetracking the conversation. There are two issues being addressed here...

1. Do churches provide value to a community? Yes.
2. Why don't we tax churches? Because taxation is gov control.

I've listed multiple supreme court cases from the recent past and the distant past that both make that very point. They both make the very point that not paying taxes is minimal/de minimis "control" to no control.

You don't seem to know anything about them, yet you insist they work the way you say they do. If you don't have any experience in these areas, that's fine. But don't make it like government agencies set the tax rate or decide who gets services based on an 1816 case that was about whether the State of Maryland could tax the federal government.

"Taxation is control" is a fine legal principle for some cases, but you pay income tax right? Does the government then "control" you? Could you use "taxation is control" to avoid paying income tax because it means you are a government slave? Absurd right? But you can bet some sovereign citizen somewhere already tried it and got laughed out of court.

Anyway, the exemption long predates "taxation is control." In #81 I traced it to colonial times, but actual goes back much further. It goes back through medieval times and it was a point of contention then too. It was actually started by the Emperor Constantine who gave a tax exemption to the Church in exchange for their support and help running the Empire. He understood he was getting a benefit from the Church. But he also understood he was giving one. I am sure the pagans weren't thrilled about it, but Constantine didn't ask them.

I cited multiple cases and linked them, just like, ya know, the Supreme Court did.

Taxation is control is an overarching legal principle in the context of the reason why taxing churches violates the free expression clause. It's literally the only reason that taxation of churches would be unconstitutional. There is no other reason. Any other reason would be simply a policy choice. So talking about it as if "well it's fine for some cases" but not for others...lmao.

Yes, the government controls me when I pay taxes because if I don't pay taxes, I go to jail. I also am forced to give my money to all sorts of things, even things I don't like. Now, I am fine with that for the most part because that's how a society functions. We give money collectively, and then, ideally, good stuff happens...and if bad stuff happens, we vote folks out and put in folks who spend the money better. That's the theory anyways.

Exemptions can "long predate" (you cited 1777 as the earliest date so not sure it's all that "long&quot , and the fact that preemptions existed before may have informed what came later, although I'm fairly certain the Founders weren't thinking of Constantine. But that does not erase that the reason NOW since the first amendment was incorporated is that it's unconstitutional because it violates it. I didn't create that concept from wholecloth. I didn't make it up. It isn't some fringe con law theory developed in an evil lab. It's a very established, clear and pretty unchallenged principle. If you want to advocate for it to be changed, feel free to bring suit and make the argument. I'm pretty sure of the outcome though.

A whole host of concepts in the BOR came from something before. They didn't create anything new, they applied a lot of things in a new way for sure, but they built on what came before. But we don't then pretend that TODAY this means it's not really a constitutional issue when we examine one of those amendments because someone came up with some version of the idea beforehand and cite to that instead.

Last edited Thu Sep 13, 2018, 07:43 AM - Edit history (2)

You said other things that indicate you don't know how your landlord sets your rent or how government sets the tax rate. You also said a lot of things about constitutional law that appear to be correct, at least insofar as such related cases have come before the court at particular times. You even said a few things I agree with, but you haven't bothered to comment on those, so I'll just assume that points of agreement are of no interest to you.

But what you didn't say (at least I don't think you said), and what you seem to have a really hard time understanding, is that the religious tax exemption creates a cost burden to the community that is borne by other taxpayers. I promise you I did not make that up. Really I didn't. You can literally take that one to the bank.

You've obviously studied constitutional law, and that's commendable. But you really need to take some classes in finance and public policy. Because if you did those things, you might have a better argument for why Joel Osteen really SHOULD live in a tax free mansion even if it means the City of Houston has fewer homeless shelters. Alternatively, you might feel a little less comfortable about where your rent dollar actually goes.

On Edit: When I use the word "should" above I don't mean "what settled constitutional law says," I mean "what is best for the community." The two things may be, on occasion, different.

I suspected your introduction of the phrase “community center” with respect to churches was intended in order to equivocate over that term.

Churches are not “community centers”, they are “religious community centers”. It is incorrect to apply all attributes of a set to a distinct subset, it is a fallacy of division.

except lay out examples on which a religious entity can have a pretty objective positive impact on a community by providing services that benefit the community other than simply religious worship. Which the vast majority of churches do. The secular version of a church is absolute a community center. They both perform many of the same functions. Obviously, a church has a primary function of worship that a secular community center does not, but that is not their only function.

I said nowhere that "secular community centers" are exactly equivalent to churches in every manner thus nowhere have I applied "all attributes of a set to a distinct subset." I've analogized two things with several similarities in the context of level of benefit to a community.

You know the difference between you and Mineral Man?

We pretty clearly disagree strongly on this subject, but thus far, he seems pretty willing to take my arguments at face value, and respond to him with his own points, without asserting I've got some sort of ulterior motive or that I'm trying to do some logical sleight of hand.

Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2018, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

No tax dollars or the equivalent in tax exemptions should go to them. A. church tax exemption means higher taxes for me, so I am taxed to give money to a church. I won't pay.

Another thing that is not mentioned is this,this Church owns Thousands of Acres of Farm Land through out the State,which is cash rented to local farmers. They pay zero Real Estate Taxes to the local Taxing districts or Governmental Agencies and Local County and Township Roads are maintained so as to benefit the person renting said land.

And the Lutheran Church of MPLS operates in the same manner.

Again,what about those persons who don't subscribe to these so called organized religions.

Understand where you are coming from MM,we had a Lutheran Church at the end of our block in B.Park,all the home owners on our block had to absorb the special assessments when new water,sewer,and curbs and gutters as well as new blacktop and the Church not a cent.

Period. Let them fund themselves. No offsets to me on their cost of operation.

The church a block and a half from my house contributes to excess traffic, parking and other issues every week. People have parked blocking my driveway at times on busy Sundays like Easter. I went out once to confront a driver, who told me to perform an impossible sexual act on myself.

The local police department was kind enough to arrange having that car towed somewhere for me. It's against the law to park and block a private driveway, it seems. The man was not pleased when he returned. I referred him to the police department and called them for him. They explained how he could retrieve his vehicle from the impound lot and gave him directions to it. He caught a ride from a fellow churchgoer. I'm guessing it cost him close to $200 at the impound lot.

me of a similiar incident near the Fair Grounds were the Church was selling Parking with out a Permit,and a towing company was having a real Hay Day hauling away cars right and left. Someone who was associated with that Church was venting at the St Paul PD officers about we have a right. Yah right.

if he had not said what he said. I wasn't going anywhere, anyhow. But, since he displayed his "Christian" privilege so pointedly, I decided to be a stickler for details. I'm still trying to figure out how I could do what he told me to do, but without success. I had a chuckle at his dilemma.

I cannot imagine parking in a way that blocked someone's driveway. It takes a special kind of sense of privilege to do that. Education is appropriate in such cases.

as well as the Fee for parking. Well,that was no where to be seen when we walled by and the PD Lady was not taking any Christian Verbiage from the fellow who thought he was in
charge.

To say the least,smiles all around in our little group. Lots of All Right's.

with their parking, but they got greedy and thought they'd save a little. Dishonesty didn't work out for them, it seems.

Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2018, 07:39 PM - Edit history (1)

At least in Maryland they do.

https://www.fredericknewspost.com/archive/churches-and-property-taxes-not-an-automatic-exemption/article_d072ebee-5fc4

but not for the area I am fimiliar with. We can it dead Land because it does not produce one cent towards State,County or Local Taxes.

if you are a church that happens to own say a Church's Chicken (pun intended) one would not expect you to get that business/land/building tax free. There's no Free Exercise Clause issue there.

my point being I see no issues with Maryland law violating the free expression clause of the 1st Amendment with those exceptions.

things are not that way.

I am on the board of directors of our local Humane Society. We had several pieces of property that had been donated to us. (Largely because they were unsaleable.) We paid taxes on everything but the property our shelter is on, the reason being that those pieces of property were not being used for a "non-profit purpose."

Maybe things are different where you are.

If churches were required to pay taxes, 90% would go out of business. The atheist in me is cool with that, but the emphatic nice guy in me would feel sorry for all those believers who lost their crutches. Would you kick the cane of an old man?

Oh, wait...they do that already. So, churches can't generate enough donations to stay open.

Hard cheese, I say.

Let those who benefit pay. I have no interest in paying.

they'll find a way to raise the money they need to keep their churches open.

One of the churches in the center of my town has a large, old building that must cost a fortune to maintain. There's a similar large old church of the same denomination in center of the next town. They ought to combine their congregations, sell their buildings, and buy a smaller building somewhere near the town line. Maybe if they didn't get so many breaks and benefits, they would do that.