Should Televangelists And Mega Churches Have Their Tax Exempt Taken Away From Them

Why are the churches that receive tax exemptions such a bad thing to atheists?

As a counterpoint to those who are saying that the tax-exempt status of churches represents a breakdown of the barrier between church and state, there does exist a compelling argument to the contrary.The power of a government to tax something is meaningless without the power to enforce those taxes.  For example, if you, as an individual, don't pay your income taxes, you can be imprisoned.Similarly, if the government were empowered to tax churches, they would also have to be empowered to take some kind of punitive action against churches that failed to pay.  This might take the form of forceful seizures of property or imprisonment of church officials.Even if we assume that the IRS is perfect, and were to apply its enforcement fairly and equally toward all religions, there's still a serious image problem with having the government seize churches (or synagogues or mosques) and imprison religious leaders.  Especially when seen in a historical context.  America, after all, was at least partially founded as a religious refuge, and there are very ugly historical associations with governments imprisoning Jews and destroying Jewish places of worship.  (And not just Quakers and Jews, almost every religion has, historically, experienced persecution in one form or another.)But that's just assuming that the IRS is perfectly fair, and while it might try to be, and while every individual working there might be a selfless public servant, ultimately it has all the flaws of every human bureaucracy.  And eventually decisions will have to be made about which cases to pursue and which to drop, and in those decisions the line between perceived persecution and actual persecution will be blurry at best.  (Wikipedia: List of allegations of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service)I, myself, am an atheist.  And purely from the standpoint of tax policy, I agree that a tax break for churches is probably not the best way to distribute U.S. taxpayer dollars.  However, from the standpoint of history, and the United States' commitment to a separation between state and religion, I think the taxation of churches is an extremely dangerous and morally dubious prospect.

Does the US government indirectly subsidize televangelists through Social Security?

No. Many clergy opt out of Social Security, meaning they will get NO benefits upon reaching age 65, nor will they get Medicare unless they pay for it. They do indirectly subsidize televangelists the same way they do churches, by permitting their ministry tax exempt status. The tax exemption only applies to their ministry, not to ancillary property not affiliated with their ministries. (Real estate investments that generate income for the church). The clergy still must pay individual income tax, just like everyone else.Historically, clergy were not paid well, but according to the most recent dictionary of occupational titles published by the US Labor Dept, The profession of Social Work actually is paid less than clergy (that is your trivia for the week) To offset the low pay, many churches owned a house for their clergy - Protestant churches refer to it as a Parsonage, Catholics call it a Rectory, and it was considered an “in kind” of support. This trend is falling by the wayside in most churches since the cost of housing has risen and many clergy families have different housing preferences/needs.In my opinion, television ministry has evolved into a large scale scam perpetrated on the faithful. On my DirecTV channel guide, out of 100 or so available channels on my basic TV package, 20% are devoted to full time religious broadcasting and at least 10 more channels carry part time religious broadcasts. That should tell you there is a LOT of money tied up in the business of religion. It is a long way from the Sunday morning service for shut ins to running mega million dollar TV channels that ask for donations daily! Makes you think twice about taxing churches…

Do evangelical pastors ever have to pay any taxes?

Of course they do. Churches are exempt, not the pastors. They are responsible for any and all taxes every citizen is responsible for. They are required to pay income taxes, personal property taxes, sales taxes, sicial security and medicare and everything anyone else is required to pay.

Should churches (defined as churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc.) remain tax-exempt?

In the United States, churches (as well as other nonprofit organizations) do not need to pay property tax on their building or land, although there are some exceptions to this. The exceptions are primarily if the church uses some property for a non church purpose. For instance, if someone died and left a rental property to the church, the church would almost certainly need to pay property tax on that (unless it decided to make it the minister’s housing or something).Usually, churches can rent out their property a few times a year without incurring a penalty. However, if a corporation or other for-profit company wanted to rent space in the church, that would lead to property tax issues.There have been some attempts to stop tax exemption for churches, and Mark Oppenheimer of the NY Times proposed to do this a few years ago.Filler: End the tax exemptions for religionsWhy a former minister is challenging churches' tax privileges in USMany times, local governments take action to prevent the building of new churches, citing lack of tax revenue as the problem.In Cypress, California, in 2002, a new church was in the process of being built. The church spent $13 million to acquire four separate properties. However, before they could break ground, the town of Cypress used eminent domain to seize the property from the church. However, this was not a seizure to build an electrical line or sewer line or highway or school. The town wanted to seize the land and then sell it to Costco, because the town felt that the Costco would serve the “common good” while a church would not. The town council also argued that the Costco would be better to have than a church because Costco would pay more in property taxes. See This Land Is Costco’s Land | National ReviewIn Litchfield, Connecticut in 2007, a synagogue wanted to purchase a house on the historic green. The town did everything it could to prevent the synagogue from going in, including declaring that the synagogue would not be allowed to have a Star of David because such a symbol would not be compatible with the historic district.In 2000, Congress passed a law (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) that prevents zoning boards from denying churches and other religious institutions zoning regulations (by not allowing a “substantial burden”).The Quiet Religious-Freedom Fight That Is Remaking America