Do religious institutions get money from the government or just tax breaks?
Religious institutions often qualify for US federal government money when they provide the same services provided by secular organizations. Usually this means private parochial schools are able to apply for public education dollars.The so-called “Lemon Test” from Lemon v. Kurtzman provides a three-pronged test for determining whether a law passes First Amendment muster.The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion.The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.Vouchers, which often provide public education money to religious schools, have been found to pass constitutional muster (see Zelman v. Simmons-Harris). Additionally, Tilton v Richardson held that public college and university construction grants could be made available to those affiliated with religions.*A new case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc v Comer, concerns public money granted for school playgrounds. Missouri has a grant program for schools that wish to repave their playground. Such a program, if it provided funds to religious institutions, would easily past the Lemon Test. The primary purpose is to prevent skinned knees. It does not primarily advance or inhibit any religion and there is no excessive entanglement.However, a Missouri church/daycare and preschool applied for funds for their preschool’s playground but were denied based on the so-called Blaine Amendment to the Missouri State Constitution which prohibits public funds from being used to aid a church. The church sued on First Amendment grounds (claiming the state was infringing on their free exercise by denying them funds available to secular preschools). The 8th circuit ruled against the church in 2015 but the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal. The case will be argued on April 19, 2017. This will be an important decision, no matter how the Court rules.*- Further cases have found that publicly purchased textbooks, computers, etc. may be provided to private religious schools but those are items instead of funds so I don’t know if they directly relate to the question.
On city/state tax breaks for businesses...?
New businesses leads to increased employment. Increased employment means that expenses (welfare, etc.) may be lowered, while reducing the number of ratepayers moving away to find new work. As well, there are psychological factors at play: companies tend to exhibit pack behavior, so while one business might obtain a great deal to locate in a certain location, it's probably going to consider how many other companies it does (or could do) business with that might be in that area. Also, when a city has many more businesses in and around it, it's more attractive to people to move there. The idea is, essentially, to hopefully reduce costs (by cutting down on unemployment) and increase revenues from the workforce, rather than from the businesses.
Why aren't corporate tax breaks labeled "entitlements" the way subsidies to individuals for healthcare and retirement are?
So what is usually meant when someone talks about an entitlement? It is when someone (in this case the government) gives a person something with no phaseout or other strings attached, causing an "entitled" attitude toward what was given. It is the "I deserve this even though I did nothing to get it" feeling that is generally looked down upon.Most corporate tax breaks are reductions in how much a firm is taxed, so it is not a question of unearned benefit, but a reduction in taxation. As such, the two are semantically different, but I understand the link you are trying to make.But never fear- there is a term for what you are describing and it is corporate welfare. And a lot of people dislike it. Unfortunately, the benefits are dispersed among that group while the benefits are concentrated for the corporations, so their incentives are much stronger to lobby and get those benefits. For an illustration of how those forces work using the NRA as an example rather than a corporation, check out Applying the concepts from the video, those of us that would like to eliminate corporate welfare have a large group size, little in the way of individual benefits, and very little (if any) in the way of selective benefits. The corporation has small group size, large individual benefits, and can even arrange selective benefits that go to them specifically, not just their industry as a whole.So now we understand the incentives at work regarding organizing. Can we overcome the weakness in the incentives and organize against corporate welfare? Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party both stated reductions of ties between government and big business as goals. If they can hold their noses regarding other issues they disagree on and unite on that issue long enough to get something done, meaningful change may be possible, despite swimming upstream as far as incentives are concerned.
Is it time to remove the tax breaks given to churches?
The case for exempting non profit organizations from taxes is that they perform some vital public service more efficiently than the government. Thus the exemption is a way in which the government chips in to the cost of operating the qualified non-profit. So far, so good.As for churches, in particular, the exemption rests more on the “separation” of church and state. Although many religious organizations do provide some public service, many also do nothing more than provide a place for worship or socializing of the membership. Hard to find any material public benefit, in that.With respect to places of worship, while I have no quarrel with exemption from income taxes, I’m not convinced that the same should apply to local property taxes. It is a practice of long standing that any organization qualified as exempt from Federal income taxes is also exempt from property taxes. I understand the historical precedent; there was a time when land was in such abundance that the loss of revenue owing to church-owned property was trivial. But not any more, in many locations, especially urban areas whose cost of public service (such as police, fire and rescue, street lights and road maintenance) is escalating, and whose tax base may not be keeping pace.Consequently, I would accept as reasonable the assessment of property taxes on the land (but not the buildings) occupied by churches for purposes of worship and assembly. Perhaps this could include a grandfather clause, allowing the exemption to continue until the property changed hands. And perhaps the tax rate could be set to something low, such as “agricultural and farm use.” This would only apply to land occupied exclusively for worship and assembly purposes. Schools, shelters and similar operations with a clear public purpose would remain exempt.That brings us to sales tax, from which churches are NOT exempt; they pay the same on sales as everyone else.Bottom line: Income remains exempt, sales continue to be taxed, and property tax is phased in to cover the areas occupied for worship and assembly only, and only on the land.Take what you can use, and leave the rest behind.
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.
Should employers offer incentives to employees who commute by bicycle?
no i don't believe companies should have any sort of incentive, your health should be incentive enough, but i do believe maybe the government should some sort of tax break, but i bet it probably already exists
True or False American Government Question, please help!?
I have been here before but you better say false and fight with your teacher. All the government does is interfere: Approve or disapprove mergers and acquisitions, Bail out failing companies, Give large contracts to certain companies making winners and losers. Give tax breaks to some new industries making them competitive with established ones. How can anyone ever think they do not interrupt the economy and business.
Why do single people with no kids get screwed at tax time?
Singles , particularly single males between 25 to 45 are the most under represented people in government Tax breaks come as a result of intense lobbying from self interest groups, single mothers, pensioners, and married people with kids have got welfare groups, lobby groups, community groups etc all coming out and demanding things for them from the Government. Be in terms of education grants and subsidies , tax breaks, pensioner discounts etc , single people get the pleasure of knowing how there hard earned tax dollars are helping the rest of the community. People with kids dont feel guilty because they think that they are contributing by having children, this is good for the longer term interest of the country. Most of these families the parents work and both pay tax so they should be entitled to more. Single mothers who sit at home have been stopped in Australia and now as soon as the youngest child is full time at school they have to get a job. I know where you are coming from and I feel the same about our child support system here in Australia.
Do churches receive federal funding in the U.S.?
Depends how you mean, but essentially no. Churches in the US are privately funded, and separate from the government.That said, religious freedom also means that churches cannot be discriminated against, so like the other non-profits, they are entitled to tax exempt status.Additionally, like other non-profits, they cannot be discriminated against in government funding for specific charitable activities that they participate in.So, like their non-religous peers, churches get tax exemptions and can apply for funding for certain legitimate non-religous purposes, but the government does not and cannot fund them directly in their capacity as private religious organizations.