Catholic Church to pay Taxes :O

[Warren Dew]

But Libernazis don't want to pay for those services, they just want to use them.

Actually Seth doesn't want to use them, either. And I'm happy to pay for them, I just want Churches to pay for them too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But Libernazis don't want to pay for those services, they just want to use them.

Actually Seth doesn't want to use them, either.

Bluster, pure and simple. He uses the roads.

And I'm happy to pay for them, I just want Churches to pay for them too.

Agreed. Unlike Libernazis, I'm not into freeloading.

[Seth]

Leaving aside the debate about whether any taxes are right or wrong, this case doesn't seem to actually be suggesting that churches proper will be taxed the same as commercial properties.

From the link in the OP:

Since 2005 church-run organisations have not been considered ordinary commercial structures and have been exempt. According to Corriere della Sera newspaper, tax authorities will judge how much of a property is used purely for religious purposes and tax it accordingly. Thus a church will remain exempt. But a hostel with a chapel would have to make contributions.

If a hostel is a commercial enterprise, it should be taxed the same as any other commercial enterprise. If a percentage of the property is deemed to be a charitable/religious organization, and if those organizations are exempt, it should only be taxed proportionately.

It should depend on what is done with any money collected from the hostel operations. If that money is used by the non-profit to fund other charitable activities, in other words the profits over expenses of operating the hostel are used to feed or shelter the homeless, then the commercial enterprise is still a non-profit charitable enterprise that's receiving donations (in effect) from hostel users towards other non-profit charitable efforts.

This is the difficulty with taxing non-profits and why they are traditionally exempt from income taxes. So long as the "profits" gained from one segment of the operation are used to fund other parts of the operation that qualify as charitable giving, it's not functionally different from taking donations without providing any service or product in return. Non-profits often create products or services they can offer to the public to induce them to buy and thereby transfer the profits (above costs) to the charitable and altruistic efforts of the non-profit.

If the hostel and chapel are both owned by the non-profit, and (for example) the hostel offers low-cost (lower than commercial competitors) lodging on the promise that all proceeds (or merely all profits over costs) will go to some specified charitable operation, such as feeding the poor or providing medical care, then there is no end "profit" or "income" to be taxed, and taxing the net revenues does NOTHING but reduce the amount of money available to those served by the charitable efforts of the non-profit. Yes, that tax money can be used to serve the same people by the government, but at much, much greater cost (due to the overhead of government in collecting the tax and administering it to the poor) than the non-profit organization can itself do without government interference.

This is the whole purpose and intent of such non-profit entities, which can have complex accounting (and "non-profit" never means that no one takes home any money...they do pay salaries (which are taxed as income to the employee) and expenses...it means they spend everything every year and do not distribute profits to investors) and complex business structures but which nevertheless use their revenues to offset costs and provide the charitable or non-profit services they are chartered for.

Taxing the revenues is robbing Peter to pay Paul, quite literally, and the only people who profit from doing so are the bureaucrats and employees of government hired to collect the tax and administer the programs that government then has to provide to the people previously served by the non-profit.

That's why government's don't ordinarily tax charitable institutions, even as they do require such institutions to prove that they are using their revenues for charitable purposes. In the US, such organizations still have to file an annual information return detailing how much was collected and how it was spent, and such returns are public record and may be inspected on-line by anyone, to keep the non-profits honest.

Advocating for taxing churches is simply a manifestation of hatred of religion and ill-tempered jealousy that the complainer has to pay income taxes and the church doesn't, but it's all without recognizing that the individual could avoid paying income tax just like the church if he donated all his income to charitable purposes instead of selfishly keeping that income for his own personal use and enjoyment, and it's without recognizing the charitable good that such organizations do more efficiently and better than government could possibly do so.

[Seth]

altruism and charity? Yep that is what it is all about. No pocket lining going on at all.

The average salary for a lead pastor in a megachurch is $147,000, according to a recent survey.

Salaries for lead pastors go as high as $400,000 to as low as $40,000, Leadership Network reported in its 2010 Large Church Salary and Benefits Report.

Executive pastors at churches that have a weekend attendance of 2,000 or more persons earn, on average, $99,000 a year and worship pastors get paid $75,000.

Meanwhile, high school pastors earn $54,000 and the church technology director earns $58,000. The salary figures do not include the value of benefits.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/repor ... ors-46779/

Goalpost shifting going on here. You are fallaciously and mendaciously trying to conflate Catholics with evangelical mega-churches. Go look up how much your average Catholic parish priest gets paid why don't you?

Catholics are even worse. Heard of the vatican bank?

edit: around $40000 on average with a free house, all expenses paid and as many altar boys as you can bugger. On top of that they get paid directly for every baptism/wedding/funeral they do. Not on the breadline are they?

So? It's their job and they have every right to get paid to do it, and you're lying about the altar boys and you know it. Even priests have to eat, buy clothes and pay for other ordinary expenses. Forty thousand a year puts them solidly in the lower middle class, so what's your beef?

[Seth]

In all the cities I've lived in, the water and sewer infrastructure, local roads, and local police are paid for through property taxes. The water itself is billed, but that cost does not cover the cost of installing and maintaining the pipes to the buildings.

But Libernazis don't want to pay for those services, they just want to use them.

You lie.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In all the cities I've lived in, the water and sewer infrastructure, local roads, and local police are paid for through property taxes. The water itself is billed, but that cost does not cover the cost of installing and maintaining the pipes to the buildings.

But Libernazis don't want to pay for those services, they just want to use them.

You lie.

Robust proof required.

[Seth]

But Libernazis don't want to pay for those services, they just want to use them.

Actually Seth doesn't want to use them, either. And I'm happy to pay for them, I just want Churches to pay for them too.

Um, they do. And you're wrong, the cost of water and sewer fees is calculated to both pay for debt service on past and future infrastructure as well as operating costs everywhere I know of.

Property taxes may be allocated to such things where you live, but I'm betting that utility rates are lowered to reflect the income from the property taxes, so in effect you're paying the same.

The idea of user fees is that growth should pay its own way, but only if it imposes costs on public infrastructure, and only to the extent that it does so. If I own a vacant lot that uses no water or sewer service, why should I have to pay property taxes for that service? If, when I decide to develop the land, I require such services, then a development fee will pay for the connection to the existing infrastructure and a portion of the expense of providing that infrastructure, and a user fee will pay for my regular use of the service, all without having to oblige me to pay for something I don't make use of if I don't develop the lot.

And guess what? Churches pay utility fees. And development fees. And sewer and water tap fees. And sidewalk and roadway improvement fees occasioned by their development. And every other ordinary fee that anyone else pays for services rendered. They are just exempt from INCOME TAXES and PROPERTY TAXES.

[Seth]

In all the cities I've lived in, the water and sewer infrastructure, local roads, and local police are paid for through property taxes. The water itself is billed, but that cost does not cover the cost of installing and maintaining the pipes to the buildings.

But Libernazis don't want to pay for those services, they just want to use them.

You lie.

Robust proof required.

Okay, you don't lie because there is no such thing as a "Libernazi" except in your fevered imagination.

Libertarians, on the other hand, absolutely believe in paying for services rendered by the government or anyone else.They just don't believe in paying for things they don't get to enjoy the use of, like the crack habits of the dependent-class.

[Hermit]

O Gawdzilla, look what you've done! You've set it off again. My scroll wheel is rapidly approaching the 10,000 turn service.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

O Gawdzilla, look what you've done! You've set it off again. My scroll wheel is rapidly approaching the 10,000 turn service.

He avoids answering my posts.

[Hermit]

O Gawdzilla, look what you've done! You've set it off again. My scroll wheel is rapidly approaching the 10,000 turn service.

He avoids answering my posts.

That's because is too busy shifting goal posts.

Are you surprised?

[Warren Dew]

Advocating for taxing churches is simply a manifestation of hatred of religion and ill-tempered jealousy that the complainer has to pay income taxes and the church doesn't, but it's all without recognizing that the individual could avoid paying income tax just like the church if he donated all his income to charitable purposes instead of selfishly keeping that income for his own personal use and enjoyment, and it's without recognizing the charitable good that such organizations do more efficiently and better than government could possibly do so.

And that argument has nothing to do with property taxes.

I don't hate religion. I just don't want religion to have an unfair advantag

By the way, contrary to your earlier assertion, I support charity far more strongly than the average church goer, some statistics for which are here:

http://www.emptytomb.org/cathgiv.html

I wonder if your assumption that atheists are uncharitable are just a matter of projection.

[Warren Dew]

Um, they do. And you're wrong, the cost of water and sewer fees is calculated to both pay for debt service on past and future infrastructure as well as operating costs everywhere I know of.

Property taxes may be allocated to such things where you live, but I'm betting that utility rates are lowered to reflect the income from the property taxes, so in effect you're paying the same.

Of course they are. That means I'm paying the same overall - but the churches are paying less, since more of the cost is financed by property taxes not paid by churches.

The idea of user fees is that growth should pay its own way, but only if it imposes costs on public infrastructure, and only to the extent that it does so. If I own a vacant lot that uses no water or sewer service, why should I have to pay property taxes for that service? If, when I decide to develop the land, I require such services, then a development fee will pay for the connection to the existing infrastructure and a portion of the expense of providing that infrastructure, and a user fee will pay for my regular use of the service, all without having to oblige me to pay for something I don't make use of if I don't develop the lot.

And guess what? Churches pay utility fees. And development fees. And sewer and water tap fees. And sidewalk and roadway improvement fees occasioned by their development. And every other ordinary fee that anyone else pays for services rendered. They are just exempt from INCOME TAXES and PROPERTY TAXES.

It seems like your position is inconsistent. You want churches to pay if services are financed through "user fees". But if my city happens to bundle all user fees into one big user fee called a "property tax", you want churches not to pay. That makes no sense.

[Hermit]

By the way, contrary to your earlier assertion, I support charity far more strongly than the average church goer, some statistics for which are here:

http://www.emptytomb.org/cathgiv.html

I wonder if your assumption that atheists are uncharitable are just a matter of projection.

Although it does not cover atheists and is also confined to christian denominations in the USA, that is an interesting piece of research. Thanks for the link.

If you want a more substantial argument than the baseless assertions Seth excretes, have a look at this letter for a start. It appears that the biggest factor that distorts statistics is the inclusion of money going to activities that have nothing to do with charity. By far the largest slice of donations by theists in Canada goes to funding propaganda and evangelising. And here is a case study of the annual budget of one church by an author who is actually employed by that church. You can see that fuck-all actually finishes up under the classification of bona fide charitable work. Then there are so-called charitable organisations that actually reject donations on the grounds that the funds come from atheists.

[amok]

Seth wrote:
It should depend on what is done with any money collected from the hostel operations. If that money is used by the non-profit to fund other charitable activities, in other words the profits over expenses of operating the hostel are used to feed or shelter the homeless, then the commercial enterprise is still a non-profit charitable enterprise that's receiving donations (in effect) from hostel users towards other non-profit charitable efforts.

This is the difficulty with taxing non-profits and why they are traditionally exempt from income taxes. So long as the "profits" gained from one segment of the operation are used to fund other parts of the operation that qualify as charitable giving, it's not functionally different from taking donations without providing any service or product in return. Non-profits often create products or services they can offer to the public to induce them to buy and thereby transfer the profits (above costs) to the charitable and altruistic efforts of the non-profit.

That's good food for thought, to be honest.

I'm a "cultural Catholic" who is simultaneously appalled by the bling of the Vatican and some Catholic Dioceses, while knowing others are struggling to pay to heat their godboxes, much less being able to do charity work that they individually might want to do.

Still, wouldn't it just be better to make a societal decision to exempt all charitable organizations, using fair and logical standards, rather than giving religious organizations a presumptive pass? That way both secular or religious organizations doing real charitable works would be able to get on with it, and the fakers, both secular and religious, would be out of luck. No?