I think we really should be looking at the tax-exempt status of religious organizations have that subsidiaries that are doing their taxes and setting up shell companies to hide where money is coming/going.
When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?
Right. Religious groups in the US get tax exemptions that non-religious 501(c)(3)s don't get. Churches can exempt themselves from FICA taxes. Churches are not required to withhold income taxes on wages paid to ministers. Churches can provide a housing allowance as compensation to ministers which is exempt from taxation
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
> When people advocate ending religious tax-exemptions, do they mean to end tax-exemptions specific to religious groups – but not available to charities in general, or non-profits in general? Or do they also mean to deny religious groups their status as charities? Or even their status as non-profits?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think churches should not get special treatment relative to other charitable organizations.
Churches don’t pay FICA on clergy, but the clergy are supposed to pay SECA instead. This is because the IRS doesn’t consider the church-clergy relationship to be an employer-employee. It is possible to be exempt from SECA too, but only if one asserts a religious objection to Social Security and Medicare - which I understand is rather rare. Furthermore it is only available to religious groups that existed in 1950, so if you start a new religion tomorrow you aren’t eligible, no matter how successful it might become.
Its pretty clear that OP just wants them to register as 501c3's or similar not force them to pay taxes in general
It is true that religious groups get their 501(c)(3) status automatically without having to apply for it to the IRS - but changing that rule wouldn’t lead to them paying any more tax, since if they do apply the IRS almost always just grants it anyway.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-integrate...
2. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
If you want to amend the Constitution that’s another matter.
The problem is that it doesn't do $32B worth of charitable work. Or anything close to it. And that, I think, is the problem.
So we have, or have had, tax policies in the US that encourage home ownership, marriage, donations to charity, long-term investment, purchasing electric vehicles or electrifying your house, and more. The results of each of these is mixed, and sometimes contentious, but they're all there because congress decided at one point or another that a thing was worth encouraging or discouraging.
I can easily argue that citizenry being directly involved in directing their funds to causes that matter is more democratic than the government doing that on their behalf.
https://www.propublica.org/article/family-research-council-i...
If you're asking how they do political activities when that's still (on paper) illegal for churches -- they have a separate organization with the same employees, board, leadership, and address called FRC Action that handles their political activity with "different" dollars.
I haven't been able to find where tax exempt status for churches is established, and I've looked, but not my area of expertise at all.
What if the goverment were to just stop giving churches tax exempt status?
(edit: clearer)
I personally think the incestuous menage-a-trois between corporate interests, the Republican party and Conservative Christianity is a bigger threat to liberty, but whatever.
It's a very large interconnected system.
The main effect of eliminating the tax free status for religious institutions would be a push toward charity involvement where instead of the charity work being part of the church, the church would be a part of the charity (think basement soup kitchens and the like). Instead of having "St Mary's church and Soup Kitchen" you'd have a big legal shuffle that accomplishes nothing resulting in org titles like "St Mary's Soup Kitchen and Related Worship Services"
Unless they're proposing complete elimination of all tax-exempt status for all orgs including charities and similar orgs. Which would be interesting to think about but probably impractical?
Which in a way makes them more sincere than the Democrats, whose embrace of secularism and leftism so often seems like half-measures compared to what the other party is willing to commit to.
Another thing to note is that religious orgs, by-in-large, run off donations through tithes and offerings. I know we're all thinking of the O'Steens, TD Jakes and the other charlatans on TBN. The types that charter private planes, and have subsidiaries.
Truthfully, they're really the minority when we consider that they fall under the same umbrella as the countless sub-100 person congregations like 1st Baptist on MLK Jr Blvd in lower San Fransisco or Iglesia de Christo on San Mateo Blvd in Albuquerque.