Question: Should churches remain tax-exempt?

Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. 1. Tax exemptions for religious institutions are a deep-rooted historical practice. In Coler v. Corn Exchange Bank, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it requires an extremely strong case to overturn a rooted historical practice. Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to make such a case. 2. The bulk of my opponent's argument focuses on the first amendment, which forbids any law "respecting an establishment of religion." This prohibits direct state aid to religious institutions, but it does not prevent "incidental" aid which is neutral among sects. Thus, in Walz v. Tax Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned as follows: "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches but simply abstains from demanding the church support the state." If churches are taxed, it would actually create an impermissible entanglement between church and state, as it would DEMAND every religious SUPPORT the state. This would be unconstitutional, as it would create a law "respecting an establishment of religion." It would also violate the Free Exercise clause, as it would challenge the religious view that religious institutions have tax-exempt status. The purpose of the first amendment is to establish religious liberty and to maintain neutrality among different (often opposed) religious groups. It is therefore imperative that churches are given tax-exempt status, as a tax on churches would violate the fundamental premises of the first amendment.

There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. It seems that he decided to start arguing from round 1-really no problem- so I have to start with the rebuttals:"I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay" The main problem is that the money that all US citizens pay are not only used for building churches or keeping them clean. I hate to repeat the same things again and again so I advice you to read all the arguments (especially 7) and you'll relize why I support that. 1) Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions ofdollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economictimes:According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer,PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue. Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million. [6] 2) Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution:By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith…I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional. " [1]3)A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines: As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused. " [2]4) A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion:William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court,declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income. " [3]5) The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense:In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties. In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in Schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one person,nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars. "The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket," was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes. " 6) Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified:Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. [5] 7) American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year: US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. [7] 8) Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional: While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. [8] 9) The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates: As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place. " [9]10) The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense: The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000. In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA, and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment. Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. [10]11) A tax exemption is not a right: Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community. If a church or other religious group wanted to receive tax exemptions because of the charitable work they do, should they be required to make a case for that rather than benefit from the presumption that religion equals charity? It makes much more sense to see tax exemptions as a way to encourage organizations which work for the public benefit rather than personal profit and a means by which taxpayers put themselves at a relative tax disadvantage in exchange for the benefits the organizations provide. What this means, however, is that it is possible for the government to deny tax exemptions to those groups which are not benefitting the public and/or which are working against a compelling public policy — and that may include churches or other religious organizations. Tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege which the government bestows based upon the nature of what a group is doing. [11] Sources:[1]. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...[2] Mark Twain's Notebook,1935[3]. https://supreme.justia.com... [4]. http://abcnews.go.com...http://www.irs.gov...http://content.time.com...http://www.nytimes.com...[5]http://supreme.justia.com...[6]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://nypost.com...http://www.entrepreneur.com... [7]. http://www.npr.org... [8]. http://www.irs.gov... [9]. http://www.patheos.com...; [10]. http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... . http://www.nytimes.com... [11]. http://atheism.about.com...

Churches should be taxed. Background informationIn order to understand why churches should be tax exempt, we must first outline which taxes that churches already pay, and which taxes they do not.In what way are churches tax exempt?1) Federal income taxAccording to the IRS, [1] "Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions."For this to occur, the church must meet ALL of the following criteria:■ the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, ■ net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, ■ no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, ■ the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy2) Property taxChurches do not pay property tax under the legal precedent of Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). The court upheld the tax exemption status for churches on a 8-1 decision. In defense of his decision, Justice Douglas quoted: "We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. State aid to places of worship, whether in the form of direct grants or tax exemption, takes us back to the Assessment Bill and the Remonstrance. The church qua church would not be entitled to that support from believers and from nonbelievers alike."[2]The court gave the following four reasons for their decision [3]:1. The First Amendment tolerates neither governmentally established religion nor governmental interference with religion.2. The legislative purpose of tax exemptions is not aimed at establishing, sponsoring, or supporting religion, and New York's legislation simply spares the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions.3. The tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.4. Freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.3) Other taxesChurches are also exempt from other minor state taxes, but seeing as this is on a state level, it would be too difficult to outline each and every one.Should churches be tax exempt?In short, yes. As you can see from what I have outlined above, churches and non-profit organizations pay the same taxes. This is because the same reasons that apply to non-profits also apply to churches as well.Churches are vastly known as a positive thing in the United States. An article in America Magazine defends this stance by saying: "At least where most Catholic nonprofit organizations are concerned, I would say there should be hope: Catholic nonprofit organizations are second to none when it comes to predictably and reliably producing benefits for nonmembers, wider communities and the public at large."[4] Even as an atheist myself, I acknowledge that churches bring together a community of generally good people who want to do the right thing to please whatever God they worship. Although they are doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, it is still the right thing nonetheless. Putting a tax burden on these churches would be completely redundant because it would discourage future good work done by the churches, and diminish the amount and the quality of good work that a church community could accomplish, leaving that extra slack to be picked up by the government or not picked up at all.I acknowledge that there are negatives to allowing churches to be tax-exempt. If I had to, I would argue a more progressive approach by saying that churches should pay a little more than what they do now, but applying an extreme solution (such as abolishing the tax-exemption status entirely) to a minor problem (possible abuse of the system) will be both counter-productive and redundant.Thus, I negate.Citations:1. http://www.irs.gov...2. http://ffrf.org...3. http://supreme.justia.com...4. http://www.americamagazine.org...

Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Why churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government. I. The Constitution The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (http://www.law.cornell.edu...) Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. First and foremost, the establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. The implications of such a law to protect the interests of a country that is known for mixing cultures, traditions, and beliefs are more important than ever. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. How is this related to taxation? A local pastor in the Western Appalachian Mountains builds a one-room log cabin near his small mountain community made up of local miners and traders. He is a man of God and desires to share his faith with his small community, a congregation of roughly 15-20 people. Knowing he doesn’t collect much from those who can barely afford to pay he opens his mail to find that the State and Federal government are now taxing him for his one-room church. The price is simply too high to afford and thus he is forced to close the doors or suffer the wrath of the IRS. In this instance, not only did the government shut-down his freedom to express his religion, but it crushed the possibility of giving this small community a safe place where they might hear words of inspiration. Without the Constitution, where would we be as a Nation? Would we truly have come to take these freedoms we have now for granted? Let us not forget that we fought against the Monarchy to set ourselves free from oppression from governmental entities who abused their power. We have fought for the right to build our temples for worship, we fought for the right to stand on our church stages and preach our beliefs to the masses without the government standing over our shoulder telling us what or what-not to say. If we truly relinquish the power back to the governments by allowing taxation, what more does that accomplish other than handing over one of the last safe-zones we truly have in this Nation of ours? Freedom from Governmental control and impressions. II. Safe-Zones As an American who is now living in a society engulfed in Post-9/11 paranoia, I’ve always taken comfort in one thing: The fact that if another great world war consumed our planet, that there will always be one building left standing- The Church. It is now a well-known fact that no matter how great the tensions or however great the animosity was between warring nations, the unspoken agreement to avoid churches during bombing raids was carried out and practiced. No matter how differing these nations were in terms of cultural traditions and beliefs, we were able to find a common ground upon which everyone could agree that in the game of war, churches were not to be touched. But why weren’t the churches bombed? For some reason, the most untouched buildings in every country throughout the time of WW2 was that of religious organizations. Firstly, unlike political ideologies or cultural traditions, churches and religions transcend beyond the scope of political influence. Secondly, I believe the morality in soldiers during a time when churches meant more to them than the enemy should not be ruled out – even soldiers feel empathy or a personal respect garnered within them since childhood if they themselves grew up with the tradition of attending church. III. Most churches are used as places of worship for religions that predate modern government. Respect your elders. While one can argue that most churches were built after the American government was formed, the fact remains that the church buildings built represent something far older than any form of our federal government. If we look at all the main religions practiced in America today we have: Christianity – A tradition continually practiced for about 2,000 years. Judaism – A tradition continually practiced for about 5,700 years. Buddhism – A tradition continually practiced for about 2,500 years. Islam – A tradition continually practiced for about 1,400 years. Hinduism – A tradition continually practiced for about 7,000 years. American Federal Government – 227 years old… The fact remains that a majority of church buildings we see today are built upon the foundation created by these age-old religions. In medieval Europe we see the destruction brought about by letting the church gain so much influence that it, in theory, was able to control the direction of the society at that time. With that being said, the balance that has seemed to work in our own modern society is one of equality and separation. By remaining free from governmental influence, the majority of world religions have been able to spread to provide a safety net for those fearful of the unknown. To provide individuals with the freedom to continue on their journeys throughout life knowing that they have a safe place to return if the pressure of life ever overwhelms them. This goes both ways, by remaining separate – the government has been able to remain in power over the influence of the people in terms of shaping the direction we head as a Nation. History has proven that in order for a balance of harmony to be achieved between the church and state, in terms of dominating society’s direction of progress, a separation is necessary. The issue we face now is being able to learn from the mistakes we made as a collective throughout history. We have broken the cycle of war for influence between the two and in doing so, we have been able to achieve more technologically, scientifically, and emotionally than ever before in history. To repeat the mistakes would make us no better than those who have come before us, in the name of progress we have finally found a synthesis between the two that actually works, and I will forever stand by my position that we should continue on this path of separation if we are to continue on our path of forward progress. IV. Desperate times call for desperate measures? I like to call it how I see it: The American Government spends more funding on War-time efforts than the next 10 most powerful nations combined. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... With that said, what good does handing more money over to the government really achieve? Do you honestly believe that money will be used for rebuilding our infrastructure? Do you really believe that money will be used by the government to feed the homeless or help the poor? On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld came out to a press conference and made a startling, if not, horrifying revelation: The Pentagon had lost 2.3 Trillion dollars. That’s right, not billion – but TRILLION. This isn’t “lost” as in, profits lost, but rather “lost” as in *poof* it disappeared with no apparent traces to follow. I will provide the link so you might hear it from the horse’s mouth directly: (Please see Youtube video). http://www.youtube.com... It is not uncommon for a church to host community events – for instance, as a young child growing up in a Baptist church one of my fondest memories was heading to the local housing projects with my fellow church members and giving the families there free Thanksgiving turkeys so that they would be able to enjoy a meal for the holiday. The money used for such a charity event came from nowhere but the weekly contributions we made to the church. We cannot deny the fact that a majority of churches use their profits for good rather than selfish reasons. A majority of the time, these profits are spent on either people of the congregation in need or the church itself if repairs to the building or renovations are necessary. We musn't forget that churches are business’s as well, if they can’t receive funding from the government, why on earth should they be left with nearly nothing after the proposed taxes? I do not believe the corruption of the majority of churches outweigh the corruption of the federal government. The profits the federal government would make with the taxes would be better spent by the churches who would truly be able to help their local communities with the additional funds. Ultimately, It will be up to the audience to determine whether our nation has stooped so low in its economic woes that we must now tax the only organizations left in our world that truly supersede that of our own government in terms of personal guidance and safe haven. By opening the door to government oversight, we are allowing our houses to be raided by a foreign entity. The moment our churches are taxed, we forfeit our right to use them as neutral zones if there was ever another great war to break out. We forfeit our right to speak our minds and practice our faith in the security of closed doors. We cannot allow our only common ground with the nations of the world to be raped of its dignity by allowing government influence to enter its realm of authority. Remember, it is our freedoms that we fought for that allows us to develop thoughts freely without governmental control. We won our right to remain separated from government influence- at the cost of countless human lives, all of whom we are descendants from. To allow the taxation of church would mean that all their lives lost would have been in vain. Taxation is nothing more than a quick fix to a problem that requires a much greater, long-term solution. We must stop being enablers with these quickfix tax solutions and fix the issue at the root cause - responsible spending.

Churches should be taxed. Even though my opponent forfeited, I'll still see what I can pick apart from her arguments.Notice that not once throughout my opponent's main arguments did she ever distinguish between a church and a non-profit organization. In that light, she also failed to provide you a single reason to vote Pro.As I said in my opening argument, churches are like non-profit organizations, which provide benefits to the community as a whole without being taxed for it. My opponent didn't even try to argue against this in her opening argument, possibly because she, as well as I, acknowledge all of the good that can come out of a local church.The problem with my opponent's case is that she doesn't realize that taxing a church will simply discourage it from providing these benefits to the community. People who work at churches or even people who volunteer are already taxed at an individual level. This poses a problem for taxing the churches, as Professor Dean Kelly writes in his book "To tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be ‘double taxation’ indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the upbuilding of the fabric of democracy."[1] And what does this mean? If churches spend less time helping the community, who picks up the slack? Either the government does so, which ultimately means more taxes for all of us, or nobody picks it up at all. Both situations are undesirable and completely avoidable by not taxing churches in the first place.Looking at my opponent's arguments, all I can really see are complaints about what the churches have. So what if churches own land? So what if they have facilities on this land? Pro hasn't given you a single reason as to why these are even bad things, except for that some people feel like they can't use those facilities.The last sentence the Pro says is the most fallacious of all: "Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate." Looking at my opening argument, you can see this is blatantly false. The IRS outlines specific guidelines that the church must follow in order for it to remain tax exempt. Believe it or not, there ARE churches that are not tax-exempt, because they choose not to follow those guidelines. But what my opponent said about churches "making millions" was REALLY true (and we have no reason to believe this without a proper citation), they wouldn't qualify for tax-exemption in the first place.Thus, this resolution has been negated.Citations(s):1. http://www.opposingviews.com...

There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. I believe that there sould not be a tax exemption for Churches. Con must argue the opposite, of course:) Definitions:Tax exempt: To be free from, or not subject to, taxation by regulators or government entities.*Some information about the topic: US churches received an official federal income tax exemption in 1894, and they have been unofficially tax-exempt since the country's founding**. All 50 US states and the District of Columbia exempt churches from paying property tax. Donations to churches are tax-deductible. The debate continues over whether or not these tax benefits should be retained. Acceptance first.Sources: *http://www.investopedia.com... **Edwin S. Gaustad, Church and State in America, 2nd edition

There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. I think they should because it takes money to build the churches and it is important to keep it clean with the taxes you pay

Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. In this debate resolved, I affirm and stand with the PRO. I ask the CON to please refrain from providing any rebuttals in the second round as it is for the formulation of case statements. I have no parameters for this debate, so I move on toward the iteration of my case: [Thesis]The exemption of churches in the case of taxation violates the First Amendment, contradicts the word of US law considering the nature of churches, and economically comprimises the US defecit. Henceforth, American churches should be taxed. [Contentions]Contention 1: Subsidizing religion violates the First Amendment.Subsidizing churches constitutes the establishment of a religion with consideration that American government is providing special protection and privilages to groups solely intended toward the practice of faith [1]. This action and the practice of it violates the Establishment clause, as shown below. Sub-point 1a: Purpose of the subsidization of churches includes the advancement of religion. The Internal Revenue Service explains the purposes of exemption of taxes in its Code Section 501(c)(3): "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency." [2]Sub-point 1b: American governments are favoritist toward churches. The following presents an analysis on the guidelines from the Internal Revenue Service: "Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. " [3]Contention 2: Tax exemption of churches is economically compromising.Constitutional arguments aside, tax exemption of churches is also economically compromising with consideration that the property taxes of such institutions can greatly reduce deficits. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property. [4]Contention 3: The nature of churches warrants removal of tax exemptions according to American law. The removal of tax exemptions can be argued legally as well as constitutionally. Sub-point 3a: Many churches are political machines. The United States passed a law in 1954 explaining that institutions that are tax-exempted in no circumstances can support political candidates. "Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status." [5] [1] Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court dissenting opinion, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, supreme.justia.com, Feb. 10, 1947[2] http://www.irs.gov...;[3] US Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (5.1 MB) (publication 1828 (11-2009) Catalog Number 21096G), www.irs.gov, 2009[4] Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, "The Church of America," www.huffingtonpost.com, Oct. 11, 2011[5] Andy Birkey, "Few Consequences Currently Faced by Pastors Who Endorse from Pulpit,” iowaindependent.com, Oct. 6, 2011

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Argument 1: Tax exemption constitutes an endorsement of religion. Tax exemptions give these institutions more money. This is a simple fact. Regan v. Taxation with Representation (US Supreme Court) decided that a tax exemption has the same effect as a cash grant. This is unconstitutional. Argument 2: Tax exemption favors larger churches, which are often predatory. This credit varies from church to church. Your average church may pull in a good amount, but definitely not as much as Kenneth Copeland's church worth hundreds of millions of dollars. A larger amount of money would be taken from his church if it was taxed than your average church. This means the bigger churches (which don't need help) are helped more. Sadly, these big churches are often the predatory ones, taking money from sick people in exchange for a promise of healing that never comes. Argument 3: We need the money Source 1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Source 2: http://bigthink.com... According to source 1, churches have $300-500,000,000,000 in untaxed property. According to source 2, this could make us $71 billion per year. This could have paid for the war in Vietnam. This can pay for free college tuition (estimated cost $60 billion per year). This could be channeled into social security to increase benefits or to be saved for the future. It could be used to help the drastically underfunded VA. This money could be used for so many things that are a good for all of society.

Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. It seems my opponent has failed to provide any form of rebuttal against my arguments. Very well, I will proceed. I. Property TaxThe Walz decision The U.S. Supreme Court, by a vote of 8-1, upheld the tax exemption of churches in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970). Walz, a self-described Christian who did not belong to any church and owned real estate in Richmond County, N.Y., sued the tax committee over property tax exemption for churches. Walz claimed he and other taxpayers were forced to indirectly subsidize churches.The majority decision, written by Chief Justice Burger, held that the tax exempt status granted to all houses of worship is the same privilege given to other nonprofits organizations:"The legislative purpose of a property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion; it is neither sponsorship nor hostility. New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for non payment of taxes. It [397 U.S. 664 , 673] has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. Source: http://ffrf.org...Importantly, my opponent failed to inform the audience that the so-called luxury home was built using the pastors personal money that he earned from book sales and paid personal appearances around the world. The pastor himself is known as a "rock star" of the community with a congregation of roughly 14,000 every week. Furthermore, even though his private home has absolutely nothing to do with the property tax exemption argument my opponent is trying to make, his church has contributed over ten million dollars to the community. This is all within the last eight years. Not only does the amount of ten million dollars in eight years dwarf the amount my opponent is trying to use as an argument, but it also is far more than that community would have received via government spending going-back-to-the-community.Source: http://www.wcnc.com...II. Sales TaxA sales tax is something that can be avoided by most non-profit organizations, not just churches. So to claim "avoiding" a sales tax as necessarily a bad thing, perhaps we should also be targeting the boy/girl scouts, or the local gardening club or even our local charity fundraisers. Furthermore, sales tax exemption is a very fine line usually defined on the State level of politics. This implies that your math is incorrect in the sense that not only is your portrayal of an 8.25% sale tax something that isn't verifiable without sources but also that not every state permits every church sales tax exemption. Furthermore, while churches might be exempt from sales taxes in certain states - depending on their legal status, they might be subject to paying a "franchise" tax. Thus, in reality, churches aren't always as 'tax-free' as my opponent is implying.III. Capital Gains Tax Once again, my opponent made the mistake of attempting to claim that when churches sell 'stuff' they don't pay capital gains tax. This tax law has several exceptions that even require churches to pay taxes in certain situation. For clarification on those situations I have provided some information: Property used for exempt purposes. Any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of property used for the exempt purposes of the foundation is not included in figuring the tax on net investment income. If the foundation uses property for its exempt purposes, but also inci­dentally receives income from the property that is subject to the net investment income tax, any gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property would not be subject to the tax. For example, if a tax-exempt private foundation maintains historic buildings that are open for public inspection, but it requires a number of employees to live in these buildings and charges rent, the rent is subject to the tax on net invest­ment income, but any gain or loss resulting from the sale of these buildings is not subject to the tax. However, if a private foundation uses prop­erty both for exempt purposes and (other than incidentally) for investment purposes, (for exam­ple, a building in which the foundation’s charita­ble and investment activities are carried on) that part of the gain or loss from the sale or other disposition of the property that is allocable to the investment use of the property must be taken into account in figuring the tax on net investment income. Source: http://www.irs.gov...Considering that the mall leases space to for-profit companies such as Forever 21, they will not be exempt from capital gains tax. The only real point my opponent can make in the case of the mall is that it was built property tax free, but as with the previous example - the money returned to the local community by the church itself has far outweighed the money 'lost' by tax exemptions. IV. Absolute claims made by OpponentIn closing, my opponent made the bold statement: Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered.This is far from accurate. As I have shown above, it is not just churches that do not have to account for where their money is spent - but rather, most non-profit organizations enjoy the same benefits of tax-exempt status as churches. The claim made by my opponent is baseless and completely false. While I can agree with my opponent that separation of church and state does not mean churches should go unchecked, it most certainly means that church and state are to remain separated. By allowing the taxation of churches we are doing nothing more than removing that degree of separation that has been necessary to maintain the balance between the two dominating forces. What history has proven, if anything, is that cycles of the past are unknowingly repeated - we must not allow that to happen once more. My only hope is that, once again, I have not failed in reflecting the importance of keeping churches tax free, and ultimately - free from external influence or governance.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Synopsis: The Resolution is interpreted to suggest that religious communities (the definition of “Church/Mosque/Synagogue” being used) should pay Taxes, and not have tax exempt status. The word “Church” will be used in substitution to all forms of related Religious Communities. Proposition I: Definitions Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. {1} Exempt: Free from an obligation or liability imposed on others {2} Endorsement: An act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something. {3} Sources: 1} . http://bit.ly... 2} . http://bit.ly... 3} . http://bit.ly... Proposition II: BOP will be on my Opponent, as he desires a change from the Status Quo, is Pro, and the instigator of the debate. Additionally, I claim that all money, being properly acquired, is exempt from tax until otherwise made compulsory. In this way, not being required to pay tax is the natural system, and therefore, Pro must show that there is a proper justification to extend taxation over a currently untaxed organization. Counter-Case I: Endorsement of Religion / Favouring Large Churches Counter: This is purely non sequitur. Allowing people to keep more of what is already theirs does not count as endorsing them. Rather, giving them money would count as Endorsement. They aren’t being given money, they are keeping the money that was already theirs. It would be endorsement to give a different status to other religious communities. Which means all Religious communities would either need taxed, or exempt. My opponent referenced a SCOTUS decision, however it isn’t sourced, so it can be disregarded, since no details are linked. Regardless, I will go ahead and point out that it is still an appeal to authority, and doesn’t matter in a discussion on what we believe should/n’t be done. Regardless of their decision, being allowed to keep more of your money is not the same as being given money. SCOTUS seems to speak from the position that our money is the government's money until we are told we can keep it. But that isn’t how it works. The issue with Pros second claim is that it assumes removing tax exemption will somehow be more fair than allowing both Large and Small Churches to keep all their income. In truth, Larger churches are more easily capable of paying taxes, while Smaller Churches risk falling under and failing, in the same way that small business’ are hurt more than large business’. Whereas a similar tax rate will still allow large organizations enough income to accomplish their goals and obligations, it would leave smaller organizations a smaller income to do so, preventing growth. With that said, I will further point out that there is a break in the logic that says allowing two people to keep all their money benefits the richer more because he has more money to keep. Saying a wealthier organization makes more money, so we should take it, doesn’t work. In actuality, giving a different tax liability to different Religious Organizations risk creating “endorsement” by forcing larger ones to pay more. Giving the same Liability endorses the larger ones by hurting smaller “competitors”. Conclusion:I have shown here that there is no endorsement or unfairness in giving the same tax exemption to all organizations of the same type. Rather the only way to avoid the government influencing religion is to keep Government out of Church coffers. Counter-Case II: Use of Tax Revenue. Counter: So? Firstly, I’ll let Pro know that Blogs, which do not have links to direct sources, are not themselves sources. So Pro’s first source is not valid. Regardless, it doesn’t matter. We cannot simply justify increased taxation by the amount it will provide. Instead of sustaining increased spending with increased taxation, we must first work to decrease spending. Funneling the money into systems like the VA is a waste, as it is not an issue of money, but of structure and efficiency, like many other budgets. Other budgets are similarly well funded, but suffer from inefficiency and wasteful bureaucracy (Such as education, where we have one of the highest spending per students in the world {4/5/6}), or otherwise has dedicated revenue (SS is supported by largely by Pay Roll Tax {7/8}). And to say we could fund the Vietnam war is also a terrible thought. Taxing Charities to fund unpopular wars? Pro is listing how we can use the money, but I argue we should try to fix the problems that lead to the failure of these programs. Taxation from Churches look like a lot, but will not fix our problems. So we should try something that can. Streamline bureaucracy, modernize systems, and try to fix our financial problems by decreasing financial needs. If the systems are not able to be fixed without constantly increased taxation, then the system is broken and should be replaced. Pro sets a dangerous precedent of fixing problems by taking more money. I will lastly point out that Religious organizations are highly charitable (sourced in Case I below). Pro is wanting to take this charitable money, lose half of it in Bureaucracy, and use the rest for welfare. It will not help, but rather it will decrease national social assistance. Of course, this doesn’t really matter, as the Churches will not pay taxes regardless of their religious status, as I will point out in my Case below. . Conclusion:Here it is shown that the notion that our budget should be fixed by increasing taxes is flawed and dangerous, and that the problem should be fixed from the expenditure end. If Pro had his way, our government could spend as much as they want, and simply charge us more for the right to exist, rather than taking responsibility for our money which they have forced us to hand over. Why should we be forced to give more and more to an irresponsible Robber Baron that won’t at least try to minimize the costs? No, be accountable to our money, then we can talk about taking our holy dollars. Sources: 4} CBS: . http://cbsn.ws... 5} OECD: . http://bit.ly... 6} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... 7} . http://bit.ly... 8} Heritage: . http://bit.ly... Case: Churches are Non-For-Profit / Funded by Donation. Thesis: I will prove here that removing the tax exempt status will not change anything, as Churches are inherently tax exempt through being Charitable organizations. Rationalization: Churches are non-for-profit. They are highly charitable {9, yes the source says the catholic church doesn’t provide half of SA, but it does show they alone still provide a great portion}. The church's income largely goes to paying workers (like most Charities, which is subject to income tax), debt {like most Charities}, mortgage/rent {like most Charities}, maintenance {like most Charities}, and Bills {like most Charities}. The remainder is largely charitable or related to religious programs {10}. Like all Charities, they are inherently Tax-Exempt. I will point out that Churches must meet certain 501c3 requirements, such as not attempting to intervene in political campaigns. They may, under certain instances, be subject to UBIT Tax. {11} Churches are Charitable, and therefore tax exempt, even without their status as churches, as their non-administrative expenses deal with social aid, and religious expansion, rather than commercial or financial profit. {12} So even with removing the religious exemption, Churches will not be paying taxes anyhow. Pro would have to also support altering the 501c3 requirements, which risk forcing other non-religious charities to pay taxes, or otherwise to add in a clause preventing non-religious organizations from being class as Charities, which would be worse as that would become religious discrimination. Conclusion:Here I have successfully shown that Churches, being charitable organizations, would be tax exempt even barring religious exemptions. The impact of this coincides with Counter-Case II. Pro spoke of all the ways we can use Religious Taxes, but since these Churches, as charitable groups, will pay no tax anyhow, there will be no extra income for the inefficient social programs that Pro wants to support. All the effort of forcing through a controversial law to get the Churches taxed, and absolutely no increase in revenue. Sources: 9} Politifact: . http://bit.ly... 10} . http://bit.ly... 11} Score: . http://bit.ly... 12} Investopedia: . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: My opponents arguments are basically that we should fix our fiscal problems by increasing taxes, rather than fixing the problems inherent in the current system. I rather suggest we fix the problems so that we need not increase taxes. Beyond this, Pro gives no other real argument because the non-sequitur that letting Groups keep their own money is the same as giving them money, when it is different on principle, and that tax exemptions benefit richer churches more, when in reality, taxation would hurt smaller churches more. Regardless of religious status, the sheer majority of these organizations are Charitable, and would not be taxable regardless. Any money taxed would be used less efficiently with the added layers of bureaucracy. I’ll point out that there are major moral problems if money taxed from Church went to things (or freed other money to go to things) which are fundamentally against the Church’s views. Lastly, I repeat myself, not for the last time this debate: The Budget should be fixed streamlining, removing redundant or aged programs/departments/regulations, and fighting wasteful/corrupt spending. Not by following the never ending policy of increased taxation, which will only reward their fiscal incompetence rather than force fiscal reform. {13/14} Sources: 13} Heritage:. http://bit.ly... 14} The Hill:. http://bit.ly... ==Unitomic==

Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status In the past, if a king needed money he would assemble a fleet of frigates and galleons that would be bristling with guns and canons. He would load these ships with cargos of soldiers and send them across the Atlantic to the New World to rape and pillage newfound civilisations, and plunder their gold and have it repatriated back to Europe. Unfortunately though, these days the United Nations take a dim view of such activities and it is, therefore, necessary for the government to collect money from the general populace instead. This inevitably leads to the double-taxation my opponent referred to. You pay tax on the money you earn and when you buy something with the money left over the recipient pays tax on the profit from the sale. But my opponent suggests that churches shouldn't pay tax because they "help others" in places like Haiti. I looked into this and discovered that a Baptist group from Idaho did indeed travel to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake to "help others" - they were arrested and accused of attempting to traffic 33 children out of the country. [1] Presumably their intention was to sell the youngsters on to paedophiles rings in America and if they had not been caught they would have succeeded in their mission – their mission being to "help others" sexually molest vulnerable children. Meanwhile the Jewish Orthodox Union uses their tax-free donations to fund the Institute for Public Affairs [2] which is an American lobby group that opposes humanitarian aid being sent to victims of military aggression in Palestine, rejects the United Nations and international law and supports the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem and the illegal Jewish land grabs in the West Bank. At the same time, there are widespread concerns that tax-free donations made to mosques may be channelled into the hands of Islamic terrorist groups. [3] With regard to countries such as Ireland where church attendances are higher, the income from tax paid by the churches would be very helpful in reducing their budget deficits and allow them to spend more money on schools and hospitals. In conclusion, the activities of religious organisations may seem worthy and noble by some: Christian paedophiles; racist Jews; Islamic terrorists and others; but not everybody welcomes having to pay more tax to make up for the shortfall in receipts from tax-exempt churches, temples, mosques and synagogues. Thank you. [1] . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] . http://www.ou.org... [3] . http://www.foxnews.com...

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Preface: I would ask Pro if the next round, or perhaps the round after, be made the concluding round. This debate will devolve into repetition and nonsense if we go all 5 rounds. Proposition: My Opponent challenged my view that Tax Exemption is natural. However, he does not elaborate further. Therefore, he has effectively left the matter in my favour. What we earn is naturally ours, ergo, to have what is ours taken is not natural, even if necessary. I will follow up later. Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: My opponent claims that we will simply label churches as Corporations. Counter: Churches are not Corporations. This is simple, objective fact. Pro can no more relabel them then he could relabel me rich. Pro claims that Churches seek to make money. This means nothing. All charities seek to acquire revenue. What matters is the use of this money. A Corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit. A church seeks to gain revenue in order to benefit everyone else, through charitable means. Ergo, the Churches are in fact Charities, and cannot be labeled as anything else, any more then he can relabel the Salvation Army. To do so in order to expand tax revenue would be a grievous abuse of power, and a sign of a Government that is falling beyond the threshold. No, Churches will be labeled as what they are, Charitable organizations. Pro says Tithes are mandatory, I ask for sources. Social Pressures are also given when charities stand outside walmart, or when we are asked to donate at the register. But this doesn’t change the nature of the charities responsible. No, Pro may be too weak to resist social pressure, but he cannot redefine “Voluntary”. No matter how much pressure is applied, the fact that you can say no (Often times without people knowing) means it is completely voluntary. I, for example, did not give tithe in church today. Conclusion: Pro failed to prove that Churches are Corporations, and merely declared them to be so. Or rather, declared that he would label them Corporations, regardless of what they actually are. Counter-Case II: “Counter-Cases” / “Cases” Summarization: Pro has attempted to attack my Counters, while presented a new case that Churches aren’t Charities. Counter: “When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. ” This is one of the most philosophically bankrupt views I have seen in awhile. Again, to keep what we earn is the natural way, and to be taxed is unnatural, if necessary. To act as though taxation is inherent until otherwise said shows a lack of understanding of the nature of taxation. Saying that government withholding tax is a sign of support further shows his flawed philosophy toward taxation. The inability to distinguish between not having our income stolen, and being money suggests he views our money as Government Property, with the money we have left being our allowance. I will allow the Voters to make of this philosophy what they will. Once the smaller Churches begin going under, Pro will then give them a stimulus. This means taking money from wealthier churches, and giving it to smaller churches, to make up for the tax that is now implemented. This is the endorsement of religion the First Amendment is against. This means benefiting the smaller churches at the expense of the large ones (ironically, more so than Pro’s claim that exemption benefits larger churches more). Or perhaps we not tax them at all, and not need to give taxpayer money to Churches. Or they collapse. Then tax revenue is lost. Now no one gets Social Aid. My opponent declares SCOTUS to be the final authority, yet again committing the Appeal to Authority, without giving evidence that they are right. SCOTUS has been wrong before. They are largely an opinion with authority, whereas my sources are academic. I have shown the flaw in their reasoning, Pro has not shown flaw in my sources. Pro says that our education system is underfunded, without source. I have sourced that it is among the most well-funded in the world. All other problems are in administration, and therefore extra funding won’t help. Our SS problems are derived from a broken system. Money will be wasted without change. Pro fails to express how taking the money from a charity, and wasting half of it will benefit us more than just letting the Charity use the money. Paying the debt is no better than war. It is taking more money to pay for the government's own inefficiencies, rather than trying to fix it from the government’s (expenditure) end. Pro fails to show how these churches are not charitable. Rather, he makes the unsubstantiated claim that they “keep a cut for themselves”. What he is referring to is unknown, and thus irrelevant. Any administrative/maintenance/debt costs are normal for charities. They are still Charities. Scientology has a controversial tax status. It has even been revoked because it didn’t meet the requirements to be a non-for-profit Church. {1} Thus Churches can lose status. Pro also mentions that bureaucracy won’t waste the money. I sourced that there was waste. Here is another {2} Conclusion: Pro’s Counters fail to dispel my arguments, and he fails to revive his own. As it stands, his logic is shown to be faulty. Pro says my argument relies on Churches being Charity, but as this is the established fact about Churches, it is actually Pro’s job to show they are not Charities. He has failed in this endeavor, as his statements, when looked at carefully, can be seen to apply to any Charity. His failure to show that churches can even be taxes further defies his claim that taxing them will benefit social programs. He further continues making unsubstantiated claims that adding money to these programs will help, when I have shown the problems are often not financial. Sources: 1} Wikipedia: . http://bit.ly... 2} Slate: . http://slate.me... Case: Long-Term Loss Thesis: I will show here that increasing taxation will only lead to a less successful future, with a dangerous precedent in place, and decreased taxation is prefered. Rationalization: A fact that many people seem not to realize is that taxation harms long term economic growth {3}. With less capital, business/people have less spare income for expansion. This will not change for churches. Their decreased growth will lead to the revenue from them dropping overtime relative to inflation and government spending. Eventually, the Social assistance gained from this tax (which is already less than lost by taxing charities) will further decline relative to had the Churches been able to simply invest the money into expension (something Charities are allowed to do). But worse, is the precedence. After taxing the Churches, the Government will find that it is not enough. Because 71 Billion won’t fix the anything. Instead of fixing their fiscal incompetence, they simply added a tax, on a 501c3 eligible group with strong legal defenses. The precedence is almost certainly set. If it has already been set (very likely given increasing tax/GDP ratio {4}), it will be further enforced. New taxes, expanded taxes. This will lead to slowed economic growth, and cause long-term harm to revenue. If taxes are lowered instead, the economy will grow from increased investment/ease-of-business. The increase in economy will eventually reach a point will more revenue can be brought in with lower and less taxes. A long-term solution, along with fixing the bureaucratic mess, and destroying waste. Far better and more efficient than the short-term solution of taxing more, which will only necessitate (and precedate) further taxation increases. Conclusion: Pro’s economic policies would see decreased economic/church growth, leading to a situation where tax revenues will be lower (relative to inflation) in spite of higher tax rates. Lower taxes and smaller/efficient government is best. Sources: 3} TPC: . http://tpc.io... 4} . http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro fails to resuscitate his arguments, often merely repeating them without further elaboration. He fails to realize that simply referring to SCOTUS’ position doesn’t justify their claims. Pro doesn’t really make any headway against my claims, beyond relying on the notion that he can tax them as something they aren’t (Corporations). And if they don’t fit the classification, he’ll tax them as such anyhow. This doesn’t work, and Pro failed to show Churches to be anything but Charities, as his descriptions of the churches are little different than other Charities once analyzed. Perhaps most crippling is Pro revealing his faulty philosophy toward taxation, implying that theft of our earned money is natural, and to be allowed to keep all of our earned income is a gift from government. This is a dangerous notion. Pro may not have stated this philosophy word-for-word, but the implication is there. Especially, when he says not having our money taken is the same as being given money. This is a stockholmesque view. Taxation is Theft. Taxation is necessary, but it is theft. It must be done carefully, and every single effort must be made to keep it as low as possible. If government fails in this endeavour, and choses to keep raising tax, then it must be seen as an aggressive parasite to our economic system, taking more, and giving less. Pro would prefer this parasite, because his disdain for religion justifies expanded taxation on charities simply due to their religious nature. {5/6} Sources: 5} . http://bit.ly... 6} Mises: . http://bit.ly...

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes The resolution of this debate can only be fulfilled by the government passing legislation. This is because taxation is inherently governmental. Governments, societies, individuals, and all other forms of entities, act (or ought to act) on a utilitarian basis: things that have more benefits than harms ought to be retained, whilst those that have more harms than benefits ought to be abolished. Goodness is determined by the ratio of desirability to undesirability. This is because every entity or being intrinsically seeks to maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.) Things that overall prevent suffering while promoting pleasure are thus good for that being. Because we know that other sentient beings undergo this as well, we can *empathize* with them and thus seek to extend the same principle (preventing suffering and promoting pleasure) to them. Without empathy morality cannot exist, it is contingent. Given that morality in and of itself is a system used to determine whether entities should or should not do something, morality can be used to determine whether a government should or should not make churches pay taxes. I find that the benefits of taxing churches outweigh the costs associated with it, and thus I affirm the resolution. The first way in which church tax exemption brings a societal cost is through the US government being forced to defend itself in lawsuits over tax exemption status to certain institutions (such as Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and other controversial faiths.) Lawsuits against government entities require that the government spend money in order to defend themselves against the lawsuit. The amount of money required to do this is enormous. For example, Texas has spent $3.5 million defending themselves against voter ID lawsuits [1]. This same issue happens over interpretation of tax exemption laws for churches. This can be seen in the Church of Scientology’s numerous and year long lawsuits against the government wherein they can harness millions of dollars in funds; which the government then has to match. In the end, tax exemption law results in millions of dollars in lost money for the US government. My second argument is thus: churches are not like other (secular) not-for-profit charitable organizations. Churches’ primary goal is in the practice and spread of their religion, rather than charity like other non-religious tax exempt charitable organizations. Research has found that around 29% of the average church’s income is for charitable purposes, the rest is used for internal costs such as wages [2]. Other, secular charities though are able to do *more* good with their funds. For example, the Red Cross uses 92.1% of its income for helping people. A property tax on churches would raise around $71 billion dollars per year [3], while the commercial income tax would raise around $6.75 billion. (This is because the median congregation income is $60,000 [6], and thus the income tax bracket becomes $7,500 + 25% [8], meaning $22,500 payed in taxes per congregation. Given there are 300,000 congregations in America, that ends up being 6,750,000,000.) Reallocating money from churches, where only 29% of it would go to help people to secular charities where 92% of it will be used to help people, would be a massive impact on the effectiveness of charity. Significantly more people will be helped through charity. It is important to note the amount of money that $71 billion dollars is, as it is easy to just put it away as another number. $71 billion dollars is more than the top two wealthiest charities in the world combined [4]. Using all of this money for charity work rather than a fraction of it, as would happen without taxes, is a huge impact. Taxes on churches will also give more funds to local governments, and given that local governance is the most important government, the impact of this on people is substantial. Plus, George Washington said that, “I agree with...Ha...yd’s...argument that...churches…should pay taxes.” (1782) [10] Peace and Love [1] https://www.texastribune.org... [2] http://www.newsweek.com... [3] http://bigthink.com...\ [4] https://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [6] http://www.ssc.wisc.edu... [7] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... [8] https://en.wikipedia.org... [9] http://www.hup.harvard.edu... [10] https://www.amazon.com...;*Version*=1&*entries*=0&linkCode=sl1&tag=worst-products-ever-20&linkId=d6148e5e63820f864ff4057c05fc18e1

Churches should be taxed. Assuming Churches count as NPO(non-profit organisations) they should be taxed in the same ways. All other organizations (like corporations, including non-profits) pay taxes on everything, profits, franchise tax, business license tax, property tax, payroll tax. Churches are often a big part of communities in America, they typically use a lot of the communities resources, occupying large areas of land and real estate that they do not have to pay tax on. The amount of property owned by churches is vast compare to any other single co-operation, if the churches were to pay only this tax alone the personal property taxes you and I pay would go down considerably, many tons and cities property tax rates would drop and lets be honest, the government would have a LOT more income. Not only are churches using vast amounts of land they are not paying tax for, they also use the services paid for by tax payers, why is it fair churches get the same treatment by police, fire departments and schools that us ta payers do, when they provide nothing towards it? However you may claim churches to be non-profit, they still collect money and revenue in many forms, donations, events, fund-raisers, trips, selling merchandise (whether they pay sales tax on this I am not sure, I think it may vary church-to-church and depending on the merchandise) at the end of the day, successful churches such as those run by the Baptists and Catholics make millions, many churches in my area have their own gyms, libraries, day cares and swimming pools, they also seem to afford excessive trips and camps. Where does all this money come from and why is none of it going back into the economy? You may claim that it is being put to good use for the churchgoers to use these facilities, but what about atheists like me, or people from non-Christian organisations? Religious affiliations only remain tax-exempt if the government sees the religion as legitimate. At the end of the day everyone would benefit from Churches paying tax; they are such a huge part of the American society and the gain a lot of revenue (whether they are meant to or not! ) Every other organisation has to claim their earnings, there is no reason churches should be exempt.

Should Churches Pay Taxes I thank Zwatt for the opportunity to debate this topic. Since my opponent has made opening round arguments, this gives me licence to open with arguments, too. I am going, at least initially, to use the United States as an example of why churches should not pay taxes. Negation Case A1: The First Amendment In the United States, “the First Amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances” [1]. It would violate the U.S constitution to infringe upon the free exercise of religion. It would also violate the right to freedom of expression (freedom of speech) in that the government could shut down or reprimand a church that defaults on their payments, which would not allow them freedom to expression. In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the US Supreme Court found this very conclusion to be the just one: “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” [3]. Violating the constitution strips humans of their basic human rights, which are natural and require good arguments to explain why they should be infringed upon. A2: Churches are not-for-profit Not-for-profit organisations are not taxed because they are not charging for a service. You can attend your local church, receive a service and not pay a dime. Yes, there are collection bowls, but you are not required to give anything, unlike a business wherein you will not be served if you do not pay. So, my opponent’s claims of “religion in general is a multi-billion dollar business” is incorrect, for religion does not register as a business. Religion meets the ‘tax-exemption’ requirements of 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and hence classifies as a not-for-profit organisation [2]. Therefore, taxing churches would violate this religious legislation which exists to protect not-for-profit organisations since not-for-profit organisations contribute to the public’s wellbeing without charging a price. What my opponent is suggesting is equivalent to taxing charities which also fall under the tax exemption of 501 (c)(3). A3: Disadvantaged and poor people rely on assistance from churches If churches were to be taxed, churches would suffer according to Vincent Becker (Monignor at the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, “[his church] base[s] all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings” [4]. In effect, what this will mean is that the once charitable services performed by the churches would now be eliminated or delegated to local governments. A4: Church members who donate will be taxed twice First, there will be an initial income taxing for the members, Then, the money that is donated will be taxed again the church is taxed. Why is it fair to tax these institutions twice? A5: Small churches will suffer greatly A survey, undertaken in 2010, found that “congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover” [5]. If churches were forced to pay taxes on top of that, a lot of church’s existences would be threatened [7]. Counter-Arguments “Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes” Here, my opponent has committed a Negative Proof Fallacy, in which he shifts the burden of proof onto the people who should be negating [6]. Seeing that he is to affirm, he is the one to give reasons why “churches should pay taxes” (i.e. the resolution). To put this into perspective, it would be like him asking me to disprove that pink unicorns exist (his effective words: show why churches should not be taxed), and if I cannot, then pink unicorns exist (his words: “there is no legitimate reason”). “…just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt.” As shown earlier, churches are exempt due to not-for-profit status, not due to “claim[ing] religious belief”. “Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.” As shown earlier, religions are not businesses. References [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.irs.gov... [3] John Marshall, US Supreme Court opinion, McCulloch v. Maryland, supreme.justia.com, 1819 [4] Brian Quinn, "Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?," www.wellsvilledaily.com, Mar. 1, 2011 [5] Nicole Neroulias, "Study: Churches Inching Back from Recession," www.usatoday.com, Apr. 20, 2011 [6] http://rationalwiki.org... [7] Scott Tibbs, "Should Churches Pay Taxes?" ConservaTibbs.com, June 24, 2009

Churches should be taxed! Religious organizations within our nation should be taxed just as any other businesses and individuals are taxed. The Us Constitution of the United States of America clearly was written to eliminate the granting and to eradicate any possibility of religious powerhouses, and any theocratic influences to be held over the interest and over the values of America and its people. The constitution was written as one nation, under god; so that the government would not grant religions extra privileges.

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Thanks, Hayd.Framework:I was extremely surprised to see Hayd go with a purely utilitarian framework and not make any arguments based on higher principles such as separation of church and state. This means that if I can prove that religion is on balance good, and that the resolution would harm religion in this country, I automatically win. Due to his framework, if religion is good than we should pursue policies that encourage religion. I. Religion is a social goodAccording to a Pew survey, Americans who attend religious services weekly are significantly more likely to maintain strong contacts with extended family, to report being "very happy" with their life, and to volunteer in their local community[1]. There is not a single metric rating positive life experience that Pew measured where the nonreligious came out on top. Religious people are 9% more likely to donate to charity than the nonreligious[2]. Religiosity is positively correlated with a number of positive health outcomes which is why a study from Duke Medical Center found that the religious had lower blood pressures[3]. A Harvard study recording the life outcomes of 75,000 women over a 20 year period found that religious women live longer lives than their nonreligious peers[4]. Remarkably, the effect was correlated with the degree of religiosity--the most religious women were 33% less likely to die than the nonreligious, but even those who infrequently attended services were 13% less likely to die than those who never attended. Even more remarkably, this conclusion was reached AFTER controlling for the observations that the more religious women were less likely to smoke or to be depressed. Again, because this warrants repeating, not only were the religious women less likely to report depression or to smoke, but they were STILL significantly less likely to die AFTER controlling for these facts (which alone would be impactful enough to win me the debate). Clearly religion is some powerful stuff. Why do these effects exist? The sense of community that a religious community offers is something that greatly benefits social animals like humans. Interestingly, the Duke study notes that while church attendance and active involvement in church activities was correlated with lower blood pressure, viewing religious media was NOT. It's the community. The dangers of social isolation are incredibly well studied--it's about as dangerous for your health as smoking, and twice as dangerous as obesity[5]. For many people, especially the elderly, going to church is the only time they get to socialize. This is the institution that Hayd wants to tax.It's not just beneficial to the individual. Houses of worship are often used as community gathering centers for secular or semi-secular organizations--think things like Preschools or your local Boy Scout troop. Under Hayd's plan, a LOT of these local churches are going to shut their doors.I contend that the government should let organic social goods flourish. Remember, since Hayd only cares about maximizing "desirable states", he should concede that the government shouldn't harm religion since religious people are happier, healthier, and less likely to die. At this point, he can only win the debate if he proves that taxing religious institutions will somehow strengthen them. II. Economic effectsBefore I get started, let's clear something up. Hayd claims that taxing churches would bring in $71 billion a year, citing an article from the Council of Secular Humanism. An analysis by DJ Clayworth tears this article to absolute *shreds*[6]. The most absurd part of the fact that the article itself estimates that churches take in about $100 billion in revenues each year, then claims taxing churches like "everyone else" would bring in $71 billion. Except nobody else pays 70% of their *gross revenue* in taxes. Clayworth notes that the biased authors of Hayd's article know nothing about taxation law and get their estimate through tricks like denying churches the ability to deduct expenses from their taxable income, wildly overestimating the value of church property, and by counting government subsidies to religiously affiliated homeless shelters or hospitals as grants that provide no value to society. Until he amends his estimate, Hayd is advocating for an economic formula that would utterly bankrupt every religious institution in the nation. In fact, Hayds OWN ARTICLE chastizes religious congregations for donating only an average of 29% of their revenues to charitable causes. Except it notes literally right afterward that 71% of Church revenues are used for legitimate operating expenses that would be written off when paying taxes. The church spends 71% of its income on operating expenses and then donates everything that would be considered taxable income in a corporation to charity. In the status qou, congregations donate everything beyond operating expenses to charity because they are legally prohibited from an income or else they'll lose their non-profit status. Using any reasonable tax code, Hayd only gets the government a chunk of the 29% that already goes to charity. Is it Hayds position that the government would allocate this money better than the charitatable organizations already receiving it?Lets talk some real numbers from unbiased sources. The Washington Post notes that the Catholic Church is the second largest employer in the US, employing some 1,000,000 people[7]. The Church spends about $170 billion in the United States a year. Its primary expenses? Running hospitals that save thousands of lives and schools that educate thousands of children. This is the institution that Hayd wants to tax out of existence. Right now, the business model of the Catholic Church assumes that it is not subject to taxes. Finding what the profit margin of the church would be if it were treated as a corporation is difficult, but we know from estimates from The Economist[7] that Health Care, Schools, and Parish operations constitute 93% of the Church budget. Hayd wants to throw the business model of the second largest employer in America into a tailspin for virtually no reason. It's tough to estimate just how hard taxation would hit the Church because Hayd's plan is utterly absurd and I'm being charitable to him, but considering that the Catholic Church owns over 26,000 properties in America[8] a property tax alone would do significant damage. Hospitals would start cutting staff or closing down entirely. Schools would shut down, forcing the students itno public schools and further stretch municipal budgets. Tens of thousands of workers would be cut off and forced to compete for private jobs or take government welfare. All of this for nothing. Moreover it's certain that many local congregations would wither if they were subject to taxes. Small congregations (7-99 congregants), which represent 59% of American churches[9] would be some of the first to go. In fact, Megachurches that are already run like a business and embody the worst of religion would best weather the storm. III. Separation of Church and StateSeparation of Church and State is a principle that is often misunderstood by secularists. The idea is not merely that the church ought to have no influence on the state--it's that the state also ought to leave the church alone. The spiritual and the temporal are separate spheres. This is so important because a healthy relationship between Church and State has a sense of "mutually assured destruction." Both the Church and the State recognize that open competition for power and dominance would benefit no one, so they leave each other alone to the best of their ability. Hayd wants the government to violate this unspoken truce. Does he really not expect religion to hit back? Right now, religious organizations are prohibited from endorsing political candidates due to a law called the Johnson Amendment. If they do so, they will lose their tax-exempt status. If the government removes this penalty, there is nothing stopping churches from directly influencing government policy or endorsing candidates. The Catholic vote was almost evenly split in 2012[10]. An endorsement from the Catholic Church would swing any US presidential election and any congressional race in an area with a lot of Catholic voters. In fact, they would probably just endorse whichever candidates vow to return their tax-exempt status, negating all of Hayds impacts. Oh, and while it power they would probably repeal the Johnson Amendment.This is not the path to secularism. This is the path to dominionism.Hayds plan also opens up a HUGE religious discrimination can of worms. He complains about the lawsuits religious institutions bring to defend their tax-exempt status, but this cost is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of defending against litigation from religious organizations that feel discriminated against because they were audited or their property taxes went up. The resolution is unworkable. Vote Con.Sources:1. http://www.pewforum.org...2. https://www.philanthropy.com...3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://www.cnn.com...5. http://www.slate.com...6. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com...7. https://www.washingtonpost.com...8. https://www.bisnow.com...9. http://hirr.hartsem.edu...10. http://www.reuters.com...

Should Churches Pay Taxes Yes, of course all churches should pay taxes, there is no legitimate reason why churches should be exempt from taxes, just because you claim religious belief does not mean you are exempt from taxes so why should a church be exempt. Religion in general is a multi billion dollar business the only difference between a corporation and a church is we tax a church.

resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES Unfortunately the only argument that my opponent has offered the entire debate is that he thinks poor churches should get tax exemptions because they need the money. That argument is lacking in any substance or sources. The rest of the debate, my opponent has spent his time either agreeing with most of my points or playing a game of semantics. My argument still stands that ALL CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EXEMPTIONS REMOVED and I will clarify my argument one last time. I believe it is dangerous to link, in any way, a person's faith with government. If governments are providing tax exemptions to churches, it leads to manipulation in various ways. For starters, if one political party is pushing to increase exemptions, it could (and does) lead to churches using their power to sway voters... and when a pastor/priest/minister tells someone that they had better vote a certain way, too many people will blindly follow. My opponent agrees with me that too many churches make far too much money. My thoughts are that rather than just draw a line in the sand and say if you make $_____ per year then you don't get tax exemptions, I would cut all tax exemptions and put it in the churches hands to help each other out. Instead of one baptist minister owning two million dollar mansions while another baptist church can barely maintain 10 parishioners, why not share that money amongst the churches? They all work for the same God, right? If we draw a line in the sand in order to determine who can and who can't get tax cuts then that will just promote loophole finding and ways of reallocating money so that they fall just under the line. It happens all the time in businesses across America and really, religions are just businesses. To recap this debate, I backed up my initial arguments with relevant sources while my opponent offered none. I debated my side of the debate at hand while my opponent tried to counter with semantics and spent most of his time agreeing with me, offering next to no actual argument to support his side of the debate, aside from "a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations". Please consider all of this when voting, and don't just vote based on whose side you agree with. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate.

Churches should be taxed. I define "tax", as "A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions" (Marriam-Webster)I will wait for the Pro to make their case before posting my own.

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes In this round, I will be providing rebuttal to Thett’s offensive arguments and defending my own arguments against Thett’s rebuttals. Framework Thett begins by expressing surprise at a purely utilitarian framework rather than higher principles such as separation of church and state. Separation of church and state is not a higher principle. Maybe the purpose of establishing a utilitarian framework was unclear: my framework establishes a system in which impacts are weighed; not a common ‘theme’ of arguments. My framework argued (and was never contested) that impacts ought to be weighed based on the goodness to badness ratio; goodness being the creation of more positive mental states than negative ones. Because Thett never contested my framework, separation of church and state only becomes a ‘higher’ principle in that its impact weighed in positive to negative mental states outweighs any other impacts; or, in the sense of a ‘principal’, categories of impact (such as economic growth, unemployment, crime, and such.) Thett’s claim at the end of this section that if religion is proved as an overall benefit and taxes would harm the prevalence of religion, he would automatically win, is simply untrue. By my established framework, as long as a higher impact is created by taxing churches (a higher impact than harm done to prevalence of religion), I win the debate. Religion is a social good I do not contest the health benefits of being religious. Thus, I concede all of what Thett says here; with the exception community gatherings since that can easily be done at public schools rather than churches. This entire contention only gains impact if Thett can show that taxing churches would result in less religious attendance through the inability of people attending church (because the local church closes down.) I find that this link is unwarranted, and extremely weak at best. If you go back and read through the debate, the only times Thett addresses churches shutting down is through unwarranted claims. There is the exception of bringing up 26,000 Catholic properties in America, of which I address and negate in my second to last paragraph of the next contention. Thus, the link between taxing churches and decrease in health is nonexistent as it is thrown away on the basis of a bare assertion fallacy. Regardless, even if a link did exist and this argument had any impact, the amount of good that could be done with $14.6 billion (see next contention) far outweighs the amount of good that attending church does. $14.6 billion could save millions of lives through preventing starvation and crime. These impacts outweigh decreased stress and lengthened lifetimes. This entire contention is negated on two layers. Economic effects The beginning of this contention is spent attacking my source for the statistic of $71 billion raised from taxing churches. The source can be seen here [1]. I will start at the beginning of the calculation and go step by step until I reach the conclusion. The average church property value is estimated at $1.7 million. This is reached from averaging the property values of 47 different churches in Tampa, Florida. I think this is a reasonable estimate given that the median household property value in the US is $189,400 [2]. The median household property value in Tampa is $165,200 [3]. Because churches are zoned for commercial properties and are only able to be built on residential properties after obtaining a variance, most churches lie on commercial property [4]. And since residential and commercial property values are proven to exhibit strong correlation [5], and commercial property values tend to be significantly higher in value than residential properties [6], the estimation would follow a national trend. As my source [6] explains, it is standard to have a residential property sell for $100,000 and a commercial property of the exact same size across the street sells for $1,000,000. As logic shows, the $1.7 million statistic is reliable. The average property tax on households is 1.29% [7] and commercial property taxes are 20% higher [8], which puts the tax at 1.55%. Thus the average church would thus pay $26,350 in taxes. Given there are 300,000 churches, that ends up being $7,905,000,000. That’s $7.9 billion. Since under the resolution I am only arguing for commercial income tax and property tax, I drop the prior $71 billion to $7.9 billion. Thus my overall money raised from church taxes is $14.6 billion. Thett’s next point is that a tax would shut down thousands of churches and thus lose many jobs. First of all the entire assertion that churches would close down or jobs would be lost is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. But regardless, even if jobs are lost, since the money is reallocated to secular organizations, the same number of new employees are hired at the organization than were lost at the church. This compensates for any lost jobs. Thett makes a sidepoint in the second paragraph noting that 71% of church expenses are on operation costs, which he argues would be tax deductible because internal operations are essential to spending on charity. Thus, the government would only get a portion of that already donated to charity. And since my plan would use the taxed money to donate to charity, my plan would seem pointless since I am taxing charity donations to spend on charity. This argument does not work for a few reasons. Firstly, it assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church’s. These internal operation expenses are for religious practice, such as worship, rather than operations relating to charity. Thus, these internal operations would not be tax deductible. The only exception for this is when the church files to be classed as a non profit, or a 501(c)(3) organization. When this happens no income can be used for “private purposes” [9]. This eliminates the ability of a church to function as a church, and thus no longer becomes a church since it provides no worship services, guidance, or whatever. All profit is donated to charity except for money spent to maintain the donation of money (operating expenses.) My plan would not tax these non profit organizations, only churches. And churches are inherently for profit, as my logic just showed. Thus, my tax would take away X amount of money, of which 29% would ordinarily be used for charity, and I would donate it to charity making 92% of it used for charity. Based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out here. The other option is that the church’s donations to charities are written off on their taxes, and thus I am only taxing the remaining taxable income: 71% of their income. The tax on that income would then further be spent on charity due to my plan, and again, based on my uncontested framework, my plan wins out. Thett goes on to cite the Catholic church in spending 93% of their $170 billion budget on charity. This is all true, and it is of course good. But the claim that church taxes would “tax them out of existence” is unwarranted, as I explained earlier. What will happen is a portion of their budget will be deducted in taxes, which then, according to my plan, will be reallocated to secular nonprofits, of which are just as or more utilitarian in spending their money. It's important to note that using the example of the Catholic Church is cherry-picking, and a more topical example would be the national average, which is 29% of the money going to charity. Taxing and reallocating it would make 92% go to charity. More lives are saved, diseases cured, and homes built through my plan. But even regardless of this, as I said earlier, any money that the Catholic church uses for charity is tax deductible. This means that only funds used for non charity related uses, such as worship, guidance, or whatever is actually taxed. Saying that hospitals would close, or any other negative affect to charity is simply untrue, a tax would only harm the worship part of church. Separation of Church and State Thett’s argument here is that the church and the state have a truce of mutually assured destruction. The problem with this is that is makes the unwarranted assumption that churches would retaliate, or that their retaliation is bad. Neither of these are true. First of all, the head of the largest religious institution in the world endorses church taxes for noncharitable churches [11]. Secondly, taxes won’t significantly harm religious organizations, and Thett has given no argument that it would, so significant retaliation is unlikely. Regardless, the only retaliation that Thett brings up is in endorsing candidates. I don’t see this as a bad thing, as religious institutions have every right to exercise their free speech and endorse candidates. There is no negative here, or at least no negative that Thett has argued for. So the idea that taxing churches is bad because it will result in churches retaliating by endorsing candidates has no impact for Thett since he failed to show why churches endorsing candidates is a bad thing. There is no arguable difference between the Catholic Church, Bernie Sanders, or the NAACP endorsing someone for president. None of these are bad things, this argument has no impact. Also, the claim that the tax exemption status would just be returned is outside the scope of the resolution since it is a should proposition, not a *would*. Suing the government because your taxes went up due to a newly passed law has no ground. The government does not have to spend any money defending that kind of lawsuit since there is nothing to sue over. There is room for debate in what's defined as a church though, and these are funded by wealthy organizations making the cost of these courses more expensive. Sources in comments

Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else. Religious institutions essentially evade 71 Billion dollars in tax revenue each year. The congregations of Christian religions tithe so why not pay some of that to the state and federal like everyone else. A church should not be considered special in comparison with other citizens of the United States.

A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. cont 1:Huge churches don"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. "Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity "In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? cont 2: misuse of money/lies "Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your "faith". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. " Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim "god can pay our taxes" so if they believe in this they don"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the "voluntary" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar "church funded" homes, driving "church gifted" Jaguars, and wearing "church donated" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion " to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property.

Churches Paying Taxes I feel weird. I feel needed I feel interesting. What do these words describe? Well, Me! What am I? A person! What is plural person? People! What do people do? Go to church! "Take me to church I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife Offer me that deathless death Good God, Let me give you my life" What is this? Lyrics of Take Me To Church by Hozier. Churches need to be free and not pay taxes because so many people rely on them, And they'd be hurt to hear that the places they go to to worship the gods are paying taxes. PassiveSquirrel, Your debate is making it more likely to have churches taxed, Make people get hurt, All because of you. Don't hurt these people, Squirrel, These people need to live in peace, With freedom and rights. Let the religious thrive with their ways of living! No sources, This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres I would like to express my sincere thanks to frappe for accepting this challenge and for responding in such a eloquent and informed manner. I would also politely request the voters to acknowledge that my opponent extended me the courtesy of "home ground" in basing his rebuttals on the British, rather than the American, model of society: I certainly didn't anticipate this but I am very grateful. With regard to the role of churches in society, and the alleged benefits my opponent contends they provide, I would like to respond as follows: Con acknowledges that church attendance in Britain has decreased to a point whereby only a tiny fraction of citizens regularly attend church services, and those that do are mainly elderly which means that attendances is in terminal decline. Indeed, far more people obtain their spiritual sustenance from psychics, astrologers and fortune-tellers. These mystics and soothsayers provide spiritual comfort to their impressionable clients in exchange for money -they earn a living by giving their customers emotional support in exchange for cash, a bit like churches do, but unlike churches they pay tax on their income: when a punter crosses Rosie Lee's palm with silver, the crystal ball-gazing gypsy will dutifully record this financial transaction and scrupulously declare her full earnings when she diligently files her tax returns (gypsies are notoriously honest people) - and these taxes are used to benefit wider societies by paying for teachers, nurses, police officers and so on. Despite the lack of spiritual adherents though, the churches are making money hand over fist, mainly through their property investment portfolios: the Church of England alone netted a cool 19.1% on their ï¿½4.3 billion / $6.9 billion investments last year (1) - tax free, of course - but these windfalls do not benefit wider society at all because they either reinvest the money or spend it on providing themselves with munificent stipends and lavish, grace-in-favour accommodation. With reference to preserving historic buildings, the churches certainly have a moral responsibility to do this, but it is a responsibility they continually fail to discharge. The Church of England is one of the largest land-owners in Britain but if a parish church becomes uneconomic due to falling attendances, they will ruthlessly sell it off to the highest bidder. In rural areas, churches tend to be converted into luxury apartments (2) for affluent commuters while churches in urban areas are often converted into pubs: my old local pub in Muswell Hill, North London and also my old local pub when I lived in Aberdeen, Scotland were both formerly churches (3,4) - whereas in times gone by the vicar would have dispensed blessings the bartenders now dispense beers, wines and spirits from the same spot. Some parishioners may feel this is sacrilege, but the churches don't care about that: for them religion is all about one thing and one thing alone; cold, hard cash The poor and needy? Their welfare is the responsibility of the state and charities, not the churches, at least not as fare as they are concerned. Which brings me neatly to the issue of their charitable status. Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes: and these employees certainly do not live in grand houses and drive flash cars like so many vicars and priests do. Indeed, in America where televangelism is a $2-3 billion, unregulated, untaxed industry, pastors are even more extravagant. For example, preacher Kenneth Copeland "lives in an 18,000 square foot home outside Ft. Worth, Texas worth $6 million. It has beautiful water views that comes complete with a boat house. But that's not all. Copeland is an avid pilot, and his pride and joy is a $20 million Cessna Citation jet. It's the fastest private jet money can buy. He said he needed it to better serve the Lord, and proudly did a fly by for his followers after the church bought it." (5) If it was revealed that donations to a charity were being used to fund lavish lifestyles of charity workers rather than being spent on good causes, there would, quite rightly, be a public outcry and the organisation would, in all probability, loose it's charitable status. So what's so special about the church? Why are they allowed to use their income to feather their nests tax-free? The answer is undue reverence for an ancient institution that no longer has any relevance to the vast majority of people in 21st Century Britain. To conclude, I am not arguing that there is no place in society for religious organisations, merely that they should pay their way like any other for-profit organisation and that the should be subject to tax. Thank you. (1) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (2) http://www.locationworks.com... (3) http://www.oneills.co.uk... (4) http://www.pbdevco.com... (5) http://www.insideedition.com...

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Thanks, Hayd.I'm just going to respond to Hayd's attacks since I directly refuted his case in my own. There will be a lot of fresh attacks against his case wrapped up in my defenses.I. Religion is a social goodHayd concedes this point entirely, noting only that public events could be held at schools, crowding out after-school activities.You can vote Con. It is not remotely plausible that forcing Churches to hire armies of tax lawyers and pay taxes on their properties (many of which are priceless architectural marvels) will help religion in this country. Remember, active involvement in a religious community extends life, makes that life happier and more fulfilled, and increases that individuals positive impact on society. Does Hayd want to compare that record with the government? His only real response is that my claims that religion will be damaged if it's taxed is unwarranted. I didn't hit this very much because I assumed it was completely obvious, but I'll note that Hayd totally dropped my argument regarding the business model of churches assuming that they don't pay taxes. Adding a massive tax burden throws that model into flux and adds instability for no reason. I'm not sure what else I can be expected to do here. As the complete take down of the Council of Secular Humanism article shows, making accurate estimates about this kind of thing is incredibly difficult and often leaves you with your foot in your mouth. Instead you have to go with the logic that, yes, having to hire armies of tax lawyers, pay property and income taxes, and totally change your business model from the bottom to the top is going to cause damage on the margins. Corporations fight taxes tooth and nail for a reason, the extra expense harms the bottom line. Since Hayd has totally conceded that the bottom line of religion is a massive boon for society, it's difficult to see how Pro can win the debate. But the absurdity of this line of attack really comes through when you get into the specifics behind Hayd's case. Hayd later claims that the government will make tons of money because the average property tax burden on the 300,000 churches would be over $26,000. Doesn't sound so bad if you're thinking about Billy Graham sized crowds. Except the majority of congregations in this country consist of less than 100 people. $26,000 distributed over, say, 50 congregants is an incredible burden that would shut down almost any church. And that's just the property taxes.I'm also going to rebut Hayd's entire case by calling for him to morally justify taxation. The general argument for taxing corporations is that since society provides for them via the roads their goods travel on, the police force protecting them from robbery, and so on they owe something in return. If churches are as great as I claim they are, and Hayd has conceded to every single one of my claims, they are already fulfilling their debt to society. The moral justification for taxing churches is bunk. II. Economic effects Hayd writes: "[Thett] assumes that all churches, or even the majority of churches are non profit organizations. This is not true, just as the Ford Motor Company donates some of their income to charity does not make their internal operating expenses tax deductible, neither does a church’s." This is ***COMPLETELY*** false and not at all how corporate taxes work. If expenses weren't tax deductible, literally every business in the United States would go under. Corporations are taxed on their *income* which is the number you get after subtracting revenue (all of the money the organization takes in that year) from expenses (everything it spends). So for example in 2015 Ford earned some $149 million in revenue[1], but operating costs ate at that number until the taxable income was a mere $10 million. Legitimate operating expenses like building upkeep and employee payment are ALWAYS tax-deductible because they whittle away the corporations taxable income.Hayd says he is not allowing churches to deduct these legitimate expenses. He loses his previous argument that churches won't be hit very hard by his new taxes as he is subjecting religions to a completely unfair and unique tax burden by not allowing them to write off operating costs. If he chooses not to advocate for this exaggerated and unfair tax burden, I hereby turn his entire case: Hayd's impact relies upon more money going to charity if you tax churches. But the reality is that *LESS* money will be going to go to charity. Right now in order to maintain their non-profit status, churches are legally prohibited from having an income. As we've already discussed, on average 71% of their income goes to expenses and only 29% would be considered "income." Hayd gets the government some of that 29%. But the Church keeps the rest. And now that they're no longer obligated to maintain their non-profit status, with many strapped for cash due to the massive financial burden Hayd throws on them, can they really be expected to donate all of their remaining profits to charity? By legally turning churches into a business, Hayd is actually reducing the money that goes to charity and opening the door for unscrupulous religious leaders to enrich themselves from church revenue. Further, if you don't buy that turn for some reason, you still vote Con because Hayd can't just assume that all the money is going to be donated to charity. The resolution does not say "Churches ought to be taxed and the proceeds will go to charity"--we have NO REASON to assume that the government will give this money to charitable causes and Hayd has not articulated any.You can vote Con because Hayd literally has no impacts. His plan requires you to assume that no churches are hurt by a sudden tax burden, the church does not retaliate against the government in a negative way, that no churches keep rather than donate their profits now that they have the option, and that the government will donate the proceeds to charity. Give him all of these EXTREMELY GENEROUS assumptions and it is STILL a wash. Even if you don't buy any of my own points Hayd still loses because he adds instability to the status quo without producing any tangible improvement.III. Church and State Hayd fundamentally misunderstands why the sacred and the secular should be separate spheres. He says the argument that churches would retaliate to this violation of their sovereignty is unwarranted, but he is actively undermining their interests by imposing a massive financial burden. Hayd says he doesn't see a problem with the church influencing secular politics, but the vast majority of Americans do. When His Holiness the Pope himself criticized Trump he was roundly condemned and THE POPE apologized. I find it extremely doubtful that Hayd can't see the obvious problem with every election in the United States literally being decided by who the major religions endorse. All it takes is one instance of the church's political position contradicting the public good for there to be an impact when you're working with a government that is completely reliant on the church for its legitimacy. This is the road to dominionism. Remember that since Hayd has no impacts, even the tiniest risk of an undue religious influence on the government harming the public good is enough to win me the debate. Hayd bizarrely responds to my religious discrimination argument by claiming that lawsuits wouldn't cost the government anything because the law is the law, despite making an extremely similar point in his first round. Which is it? Hayd causes a lot of instability without anything to show for it. The resolution is completely negated. Sources:1. http://www.nasdaq.com...

Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. Churches should receive donations tax free. However, this should not exclude them from the various other forms of taxes.(Image via The Washington Post) I. Property TaxChurches are not required to pay property taxes on their land or buildings. A pastor in Weddington NC purchased a $1.4 million mansion in October of 2013. The mansion features 16,000 square feet with 7 ½ bathrooms, according to building permits. The land cost another $325,000, for a total cost of more than $1.7 million. In the year 2013, this luxury home managed to skip out on roughly $344,690.00 (Calculated via http://www.iras.gov.sg...) in property tax.(Picture of pastor's home in Weddington NC. Via WCNC News) II. Sales TaxWhen churches buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. From a $2 box of pencils to a $3,000 big screen television churches are not required to pay one cent. Lets take the television and do the math. At an 8.25% sales tax, the $3,000 television would equal to $247.50. Lets be realistic however, what church only has a television inside of it? Take this time to use your imagination. Think of the average American church, and ponder at how much money in sales tax is being avoided.(Picture of the inside of a church) III. Capital Gains TaxWhen they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. A Mormon mall named the City Creek Center, located in Salt Lake City (2 Billion Dollar Tax Free Project) is one such place that profits from a lack of capital gains tax. It does not take someone with a degree in finance to fathom how much money a super mall like this profits, again tax free. (Picture of City Creek Center) IV. Why these numbers matterThe substantial amount of money that churches across the country avoid via taxes, is mind blowing. A recent study conducted by the Council of Secular Humanism, compiled numbers into an easily readable chart. 72 Billion Dollars a Year in tax exemptions. You could feed 3,600,000,000 starving people a day, or 9,863,013 people for an entire year! Did I mention that is three square meals a day?V. Why churches should pay taxes?To simplify, churches are earning astonishing amounts of money through various flawed tax exemptions. Churches do not have to account for where their money is spent, unlike any other organization. Blatantly, churches are given extra brakes and exemptions that no other organization is offered. Separation of church and state does not mean that religious establishments should go unchecked. No, separation of church and state is to protect religious beliefs from governing our politics. Tax exemptions should only be applied to donations to the church.Thank you.

Churches Ought not be Taxed Assuming that it's true that Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare & classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not be Taxed, then it's true that Being a Church implies that Ought not be Taxed. Being a Church implies that classified as serving the General Welfare; Classified as serving the General Welfare implies that Ought not to be Taxed. Necessarily, Being a Church implies that Ought not to be Taxed. IRS lists Churches as serving the General Welfare. Either serving the General Welfare or Ought to be Taxed. If not serving General Welfare implies Ought to be Taxed. If Ought not to be Taxed implies serving the General Welfare. If Ought not to be Taxed implies Being a Church.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. I agree with my opponent"s definitions. I disagree with their proposition II which states that the natural state is not being taxed. Rather, churches are corporations, not charities, which are subject to tax. This is how I plan to implement the resolution, by changing churches" status to that of a corporation. First, let"s look at what a corporation is through looking at what it attempts to do. A corporation"s goal is to make money [1]. This is exactly what religion has done since the dawn of time. Since ancient Mesopotamia and before, religions have required sacrifices of property to be part of said religion, sometimes enforced at gunpoint. This isn"t the case now in most of the world, but let"s take churches in America as an example. The collection box, basket, etc. is passed around in front of sometimes the entire town. This incredible social pressure combined with the fact that many religions command a tithe make it so that "donation" is not truly voluntary. You pay for the service of religion. This is how religion has been viewed by the cynical upper class for millennia, and why the cynical upper class proselytizes. Thus, the burden of proof is on both of us. I must prove that churches are corporations (see above) and my opponent must either prove they are not or that churches must be an exception to other corporations. 1-http://www.investopedia.com... Counter-Case I My opponent makes the point that allowing groups to keep money doesn"t count as an endorsement. That is EXACTLY what it is. When these groups enter society, they give up the right to not be taxed. When the government chooses not to act on this, it shows the government is in support of the group. Thus, the government is neutral towards the private citizen and the corporation, but not to the charity. My opponent called my use of the SCOTUS an appeal to authority, but if that"s an appeal to authority, so is every source we both used. The SCOTUS decides what the Constitution means. They decided that the government giving money to a lobbying church is no different from tax exemption [2]. I take that line of reasoning to its inevitable conclusion and say that the government giving money to a church is no different than a tax exemption. My opponent claims that our money doesn"t start as the government"s to take. Rather, when a group such as a church enters a democratic government, they give the government permission to tax them, as I note above. My opponent also makes the claim that small churches could fall under and fail. So what? The government can then provide an economic stimulus as it would to any other business, or let it file for bankruptcy or die. The government is in no position to keep a failing business afloat. If so many would go under, though, churches can utilize tax credits given to small businesses once classified as them. My opponent then points out that we shouldn"t take money from the rich simply because they are rich. That"s not what I"m saying. I"m saying that 30% of a million is more than 30% of a thousand. We are allowing these large, predatory churches to grow exponentially, leaving the smaller churches (often the ones doing the charity work my opponent references) in the dust, thus incentivizing churches to adopt this model. 2-https://en.wikipedia.org... Counter-case II First, Con discounts my source because it"s a blog. Well, the Washington Post puts the number possibly higher while referencing the same study. [3] Con talks about bureaucratic waste and how funneling more money in to programs doesn"t solve that. First, our education system is worse than others not because of bureaucracy but because of a lack of funding for poor schools and because our focus on testing and curriculum sucks. However, college is a different sort of thing. Our universities are some of the best in the world. [4] More money helps more people access them. On social security, Con points out it is well funded by the payroll tax. I don"t dispute that. But Con"s source points out that some people may be entitled to as few as around 10,000 dollars per year. That"s less than the poverty line, which is already too low. This money could be used to increase their benefits. On the Vietnam War, that comes from the standpoint of the Ford or Carter administration which wants to offset the damage done. The examples Pro gives of bureaucracy gone awry aren"t where the money will go, and so the bureaucracy isn"t the problem here. Hell, the money could simply be used to pay off the debt! 3- https://www.washingtonpost.com... 4- https://www.timeshighereducation.com... Case The Con"s case rests on the church being a charity. A church"s motivation is not to be a charity, nor does being a church necessitate charitability. Take Scientology. Not exactly a charity. It exists to make money. Even the smaller churches which may be genuine in their efforts to be charitable take a cut for themselves, and the charity is merely an additional "product" they sell to their members who want to be charitable. Join the church, pay a tithe, and you can be charitable. When something exists to make money, and second help their consumers, it is no longer a charity; it is a corporation, and ought to be treated as such. Conclusion We need to implement this resolution through making churches considered corporations because that"s what they are, not charities. We can use this money to fund things listed above, or countless others.

resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES My opponent has just spent most of his last round argument agreeing with me and providing information to support my argument, with an end note that poor churches should still get exemptions because they need the money. I would argue that the church money should be spread out within each faith. If a baptist church in one region is struggling, why not get aid from the multimillion dollar baptist church across town? Why should it be up to the government to aid one failing church when others of the same group are doing far more than surviving? My opponent actually failed to address any of my arguments in the previous round, aside from the ones he supported, so my arguments still stand, awaiting rebuttals. I will clarify one argument that I made that I believe needs to be addressed. There is no one faith that accounts for the majority of the population. Christianity cannot be counted as a single faith, since groups like Catholics, Protestants and Mormons all fall under Christianity and they are all run by completely separate organizations. And even under Protestants, which is the largest group in America, there are so many divisions that disagree on so many fundamental issues. So why would the majority of non-believers of any specific faith want their tax dollars going towards funding a religion that they disagree with. Especially people who are directly impacted or even attacked by members of those churches, like homosexuals or women who get abortions. If the government funded a group, using your tax dollars, that stripped rights away from you, would you want to keep paying for that group? If church groups want to spread their word around, they need to do it with their own money that they collect. It should not be up to the government to ensure that churches have enough money to keep spreading the word. That money should go to more important things like scientific research on health and climate that offer evidence, proof and results rather than a promise of eternal salvation that can never actually be confirmed as a real service beyond helping some people feel less nervous about death, while terrifying many others with a threat of eternal damnation.

Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions. Round two argumentsOutlineI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.II. Religion tends to be partisanIII. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.IV. SourcesI. Everyone disagrees with at least one religion.If your a Christian, you probably disagree with Scientology, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and at least one branch of Christianity, Mormon, Catholic, and/or Protestant. The reverse is also true, if your a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jew you probably don't want Christians to get a tax break. "the Internal Revenue Service granted tax exemptions to Scientology organizations again in 1993." [0]We can't just give tax exempt status to the religion we see as the best religion. We must give the exemption to all or none. II. Religion tends to be partisanI will tell a brief personal testimony about going to church. I found the church to have overt conservative partisan bias. Misogynist remarks were made by the leader. "God loves woman, but he loves men more." source church leaderThe same goes with a strong stance against abortion and socialism. I've found that I am hardly alone. "Think about the sets of issues that are often at the core of the identity of the working-class folks who elected Trump: religion, personal liberty's relationship with government, gender, marriage, sexuality, prenatal life and gun rights." [1] A major part of Donald Trump victory in November 2016 was due to Christianity. More and more the conservative party has aligned itself with Christianity and Christianity with the conservative party. Note, other religions tend to sway towards conservative values by preaching traditional gender roles."They are conservative, believe in hard work, family, the military and cops, and they know that abortion and socialism are evil, that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that Donald J. Trump will be good for America.They are part of a growing movement in rural America that immerses many young people in a culture — not just conservative news outlets but also home and church environments — that emphasizes contemporary conservative values. It views liberals as loathsome, misinformed and weak, even dangerous." [2]Churches are effectively breeding grounds for conservative values. Since it is common knowledge that most of the USA is Christian it is time for liberals to take a stand. Time to demand an even playing field by removing religious institutions' tax exempt status. III. Tax exemptions take money from the poor.The basic theory of economics is that resources are finite. Religious institutions literally often take prime real estate. Prime real estate without paying the full price. This means the poor and middle class have to take up the slack. "The property taxes they aren’t paying have to be drawn from business owners and private citizens — in a real sense, you and I are subsidizing Mormon temples, Muslims mosques, Methodist churches." [3]IV. Sources0. http://www.snopes.com...1. https://www.adn.com...2. http://www.nytimes.com...3. http://time.com...

Churches Ought not be Taxed I had to put this into Google Translate. You are saying that assuming churches serve the general welfare of the population, and the IRS lists churches as serving the welfare of the population, then they should not be taxed. This is based on assumptions which I will now tackle. Churches claim to offer some benefit towards the welfare of the population, but most churches, specifically the Catholic Church, run like a business. They have outlets in every country, they provide advice, morality and salvation to their customers and even have competition from other religious businesses. These religions often require tithes from their members, which provides income for the church. Religions are business as much as any other corporation. Next up, there are clear benefits to taxing the church. If we were to tax the churches, we would make 71,000,000,000 Dollars annually, and that's only in America. http://taxthechurches.org... http://churchesandtaxes.procon.org... Churches make more than most businesses on the planet, and yet are able to use the claim that they benefit the welfare of the people to remain tax exempt. Saying "if the law says it's right, then it must be right, this is legal, so it too, must be right" doesn't cut it. Anything that claims to "benefit the welfare of the people should then be exempt;" doctors, civil servants, anyone who helps others. This only means that the laws need to be changed. Your move, Duncan.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Preface: I am OK if we make the 3rd round the final round. Proposition: My challenge is what Con referred to later, which is my statement that joining society necessitates being taxed (essentially). I will rebut their attack to that here. One thing Con notes is that my philosophy treats money as the government's. In a literal sense, yes it is. All currency is government property, and the government is the only thing giving the dollar, pound, yen, etc. any value. However, that's probably not what Con referred to (I make that argument in case it was). The government needs money to run. No dispute there by Con. That money must come in the form of taxes. Taxing certain arbitrary groups more or less than others is unnatural. Ergo, taxing churches removes the arbitrary distinction (I will show the arbitrary distinction later when I defend my point that churches are businesses, thus validating my point here). Corporate Tax To quote Con, "a corporation will make money to benefit its leaders/shareholders through financial profit." Well, most churches do this. The church leaders are paid a salary. This salary is generally proportional to the income of a church, just as with a business. In fact, the church leaders are the only group always benefited by a church. Con says a church seeks to benefit everyone else through charitable means. Nothing about being a church NECESSITATES this. None of the ones I went to growing up did such a thing. Let's remind ourselves that the purpose of a church is to be a place for worship or other religious activities, and that religion is not necessarily charitable. I had assumed that it was common knowledge that some churches require a tithe. This well off church [1] (I assume they're well off if they have a website) requires tithing. The social pressures go beyond merely standing outside of Walmart, but it often goes further in places like Utah. These ex-Mormons tell of how much one has to lose by leaving the church (and thus it loses financial support) [2]. 1-http://www.tfh.org... 2-http://exmormon.org... Counter-cases Con claims an economic stimulus constitutes an endorsement of religion. True, it creates an excessive entanglement, which is why it only should be given if the government can ensure it is solely used for secular purposes, and why I said it "could" be used. My preferred solution is simply allowing them to take advantage of small business tax credits. It shouldn't be any worse if a church goes under than if a bakery goes under. The so-called appeal to authority in this case is justified. Why? Because the argument the SCOTUS makes is justified by my earlier argument about taxation being the natural state. On the education system being underfunded, I meant that it is not evenly funded. It is often funded through property taxes (common knowledge), meaning that schools in poor areas are worse. Con claims the social security system is broken. Con doesn't show how, and SS is certainly working fine now. Con also says that paying the debt is no better than war. This is simply wrong. The problem exists. Reducing spending stops it, and begins to slowly chip away. More money helps solve it, or slows it down until Congress can get its act together. On the DoD waste, Con's source notes that the Pentagon is already working to get rid of the waste, and the money can still be used elsewhere. Economic growth Con's own source says that tax cuts harm the economy-essentially, a really low tax rate also harms the economy. This means there's a sweet spot-probably between 25 and 40 percent, which is where it's been for the Obama and Clinton administrations, which have had sustainable economic growth [common knowledge]. Thus, the current business tax rate is a lot closer to the sweet spot of economic growth than 0%. Conclusion Vote Pro to protect the separation of church and state, to give the government more money it can use, to call churches what they are (businesses), and because it will stimulate the economy, contrary to the Con's arguments.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Preface: Pro has agreed to make this the final round. Thus, no further Cases or Counter-Cases will be made (except in regard to new information he releases), instead currently standing Cases and Counter-Cases will be defended. In turn, both Debaters will merely Sign further Rounds, not Post Cases/Counter-Cases. Proposition: Nature of Taxation Pro admits straight out that he perceives all our money to be Government property. This is against the very nature of US governance philosophy. The Government does not own us or our property, we own the government. No, our property is our own, not leased to us by government. This includes our money. My hard work doesn’t give me revenue leased to me. It gives wealth which belongs to me, and me alone {1}. He suggests a defense is government minting. No, this is a service of government, owed to us, as we own the government. The government is not a this-for-that organization. It is here purely to protect, and provide certain things. We pay taxes out of necessity, not because the government is entitled to our wealth. Beyond this, no other substantiation is given to support this radical change is economic philosophy. It is for the Voter to decide from here if they buy my opponents view, and how it further affects their views. I will point out that highly Pro’s cases are dependent on his views of Money of property of Government. Sources: 1} FEE: http://bit.ly... Counter-Case I: Corporate Tax Summarization: Pro continues his claim that Churches are corporations, simply by saying that pay workers. Counter: Pro claims that Churches are corporations because they pay their workers. As I’ve said before, all charities pay their workers too {2}. He claims churches aren’t always charitable. As I’ve earlier said, Churches can lose their tax exemption, such as Scientology. I will further comment that these church workers do pay income tax. Pro sources that Tithes are sometimes required, however nowhere in his sources is this shown to be required. In fact, his Source 2 deals entirely with “Exit Costs”, and admits there are no financial exit costs. There are “social costs” as Mormonism is a sub-culture, and leaving the sub-culture means losing a lot of the friends and family in that culture. This tends to be the same in all cultures/sub-cultures. Pro’s sources don’t show that the actual religion forces any tithing. The Source makes this clear. Voters should go through those sources to confirm. Sources: 2} http://bit.ly... Counter-Case II: “Counter-Case” / “Cases” Summarization: Pro has made several claims, which I shall debunk here. Counter: Pro admits that economic stimulus is endorsement, and therefore is unconstitutional. He further moves to claim that SBTCs could be used. Is that not also endorsement, since they are being given advantage? To say a charity going under is as bad as a business going under in the name of increased revenue is a flawed notion. I will allow Voters to decide how their view these statements. Pro continues claiming that Scotus is right because they said so. Again, Appeal to Authority, as them merely saying something is so doesn’t make it so. If they say our money is government property and taxation is natural, but my statements show the flaws in their views, then that means SCOTUS is wrong, until proven correct subsequently by Pro. Pro failed to show them to be correct, because merely sighting their “authority”. Ergo, he is using an Appeal to Authority.Pro actually claims SS is working fine. By this reasoning, there is no need to further fund them. He says Education is unevenly funded. So instead of evening the funding, he will prefer to increase the budget unnecessarily. This is the very same inefficiency creating the fiscal issue of government. Pro ends his counter-case by saying that the DODs waste could be spent elsewhere. This is largely the point of my statements. Streamline, Restructure, and Show respect for the money the government takes from us. Don’t increase taxes.No, increasing taxation to pay for the debt, rather than simply decreasing expense, is a flawed and philosophically bankrupt notion. Additionally, the debt is not serviced in the way Pro seems to think. We pay interest for a set amount of time until a bond is repaid. Effectively, we need not increase the money going to this interest (in fact, doing so would hurt our credit rating, as people buy debt in order to make a profit. Paying too fast lowers the profit by lowering yearly interests, hurting incentive to purchase bonds). Yes, my source mentions that the deficit increase can hurt the economy. Not the Tax Cut. The Increased deficit. We need merely reduce the expenditure, as I’ve said several times, through increased efficiency and smaller government. Done right, this will lead to decreased or only slightly altered deficits. Thus the cause of economic slowdown will not be present, and lowered taxation will be able to increase GDP growth. As the economy grows, our revenue will ultimately grow, even with lowered taxation. Increased long-term revenue, with decreased expenditure, will eventually diminish the deficit to such as a point that the debt will shrink, perhaps not in absolute numbers, but as a percent of GDP (the current measurement for judging debt). Best Case Scenario, the deficit eventually vanishes as tax revenue increases (from economic growth, not tax rate increase) and expenditure decreases. Obama’s economy, according to Pro, was a success. In reality, his unsourced statement is wrong. Economic growth was less than exciting. Their GDP growth was 2.1% average, much less than the 2.8% average from the preceding 28 years. This is highlighted by the fact that the average for the 28 years included 2 major recessions, and some smaller recessions {3}. Additionally, workforce participation (better than simple “unemployment” charts, which include people who have stopped looking {4}) has decreased under Obama. {5 / 6} Relatively poor economic growth is a sign of issues with Obama’s economic policy. As Pro has failed to list charts or sources, I have nothing further to debunk on this count.As for Clinton, a lot of his success came from reduced expenditure growth, leading to a lower expenditure/gdp ratio {7}. Many point out that he also increased taxes, however as Forbes and Heritage points out, the economic growth actually increased after turning around and cutting taxes a few years in {8 / 9}. It was the growth after this point which was substantial enough to give Clinton his above-average growth. So while Pro says we saw economic growth under Clinton, the reality is that this growth came from decreased relative spending, and in the end, decreased taxes. As Pro failed to present either charts or sources, there is nothing further to say. Basically, as I’ve been saying, the answer is increased efficiency and smaller government, combined with lower taxes, not larger. His comment in the conclusion basically says we should designate Churches as something other than what they are for the Tax Revenue, actually saying it protects Separation of Church and State, when it actually compromises it by giving Government power over Church money, and creating “excessive entanglements” (to quote Pro). He says these entanglements can be avoided by requiring “secular” use of the money. The government created Secularization of Churches is a sign of compromising Separation of Church and State. No, Separation of Church and State is created by not taxing at all. He says it will give the Government more money to use, I say it gives them more money to waste. And eventually they will decide they need even more money to waste. What Charity will they reclassify next? Sources: 3} Realclear Markets: http://bit.ly... 4} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 5} BLS: http://bit.ly... 6} Politifact: http://bit.ly... 7} Tax Foundation: http://bit.ly... 8} Forbes: http://bit.ly... 9} Heritage: http://bit.ly... Closing Statement: Pro has failed to substantiate that Churches are corporations, or to defy my Cases that Churches are Charities. In fact, the subject of the Church makes up only a small part of his Round. Nothing else he mentions matters unless he can prove that Churches can be taxed. He hasn’t. He has failed to show that Churches could lose 501C3 status, or that there is any grounds to remove Religious Tax Exemption. In light of this failure, nothing further about the use of the money matters, and actually suggests a desire to compromise Separation of Church and State and a gross breach of government/taxpayer faith by fraudulently miscategorizing Organizations, for nothing other than increased revenue.The fact is, Pro’s views are founded in his Extreme Authoritarian notion that our Financial Property belong to the Government, which ultimately means our very lives are Government Property (without money, we have nothing). This is flawed and dangerous. It is against the very nature of a free nation, and is not compatible with any Western World. This is made worse if we support his idea that we can give false categorization to increase taxes, which gives further power to government to own us, as they need not even follow their own rules. If his views of our money are not adopted, his arguments entirely fall through. His cases rely on this Economic/Political Philosophy, and cannot survive without it (and barely survives with it).I remind Pro at this point that, per our agreement, he must not post any further arguments from here on. He can only sign the next two Rounds, as this is the final debate round. I have refrained from posting new Cases, and merely defended my already stated Cases/Counters, adding new Counters only in regard to his new statements. Any Cases/Counters/Defenses Pro attempts to post will be disregarded, per this agreement. Taxation is Theft. Vote Con. ==Unitomic==

Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Apologies accepted, but no, formal debates are hard for me, which is why I accept so few. We can continue in the forums if you wish. [some churches are not charitable, seems to be Pro's main argument] Not in the conventional sense, no. However, a social club "may not hold itself out as providing goods and services to the general public" (my first source), thus, it is not a charity, ever. Further, social clubs require membership, as opposed to churches which ask for donations. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? How can you expect an organization to pay property taxes if there is no revenue? It's not like they can increase tithing? Conversely, since social clubs "must be supported by membership fees, dues, and assessments", they can raise the necessary money, or go under. Lastly, churches have limits and restrictions on how they lobby, while social clubs do not. These differences categorically make the institutions unequal, and since they are unequal, similar tax treatment is not required. "Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status." I would argue the biggest difference between a church and a social club is that you have to pay to benefit from the club, where you are not assessed a fee to pray. Also, I am not sure what Pro is arguing about exemptions and what his source has to do with anything regarding tax treatment of these groups. Pro's source has to do with limitation to the amount given, not what is done with that money. In both cases, regardless of how the money is spent, the revenue is not taxed.

Churches Should be Taxed I understand your outrage at the violation of church and state that has occurred in schools across our nation. I agree that it is indeed a severe problem, especially as it pertains to the punishment of young and innocent children, still developing their ideas about the world and finding their spiritual and religious truth. However, I fail to see the relevance of these instances to our topic. Yes it is a violation of church and state but so is the taxation of churches. The severity of one does not negate the other, nor does it lessen the impact on our society. Let me give you an analogy to clarify my point. Let us say you are a kid at school and there is a bully in your class. His favorite color is red, and he picks on all the kids who don't wear red shirts. Sometimes he makes kids in class wear a red shirt even if they don't want to. You see this and know it is wrong. You should take action. But say you decide to take some of his lunch money every day. You are physically able to take this kid's money. But should you? No. Just because what he does is bad, doesn't make your bad actions good. It is against the rules. It is not right. Similarly, it is "against the rules" for the government to tax churches. They may have violated the separation of church and state themselves, but you would also be violating it. You wrote that "It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some." This is not justification either. You cannot take someone's money because they are not using it well. Even if it somehow was justification, which it is not, if you were to only tax those that do misuse money it would be discrimination. But to enact a widespread tax on all churches regardless of their abuse or not because some churches, which may not even be in the same city or state have misused money? If you are trying to reach fairness, this is not it. Another point, it seems as though you are focusing this primarily on Christian establishments, not synagogues or mosques or temples as well, but singling out Christian churches. If you tax only religious organizations of a certain religion, that is discrimination. May I remind you of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Throughout many decades and conflicts, this has been clarified and interpreted by the Supreme Court. In 1947, Justice Hugo Black said "The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another... No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa." Your proposition violates most of this. Should your proposition only affect Christian institutions, that would be classified as aiding or preferring one religion over another. He clearly states that "No tax in any amount...can be levied,". Your idea is a violation of church and state. Against the law. Any violation of the law, no matter how small or what other violations have occurred elsewhere, is in violation of the law.

Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. 1. By churches, I mean any religious building or organization. It can be a Christian church, but in the context of this debate, it shall apply to Mosques, Synagogues, or anything of like quality that is relevant. 2. The only difference between how non-profit clubs and churches is property taxes. Non-profit clubs pay these taxes, but churches do not. 3. This position would include tax deductions. If a church did enough charitable actions, they may end up paying no taxes at all. 4. I am not calling for the destruction of religion. I am an atheist, but whether or not any religion is true shall not be the topic being argued. For the sake of debate, we will assume that none of these religions or true, or that we cannot determine whether one is true. 5. This debate is not a debate about taxes in general. This is a debate over whether churches, which are largely exempt from taxes (some counties tax them and some don't., but most do not) should pay them. Namely the tax being discussed is property taxes, which most non-profit clubs (not charities. Charities are usually taxed the same as churches) must pay. (Again this differs as property taxes are handled at a more local level.)

resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES My opponent is obviously confused about the resolution so I will post it again. Resolved: remove tax exemptions from ALL religious institutions in the US so I will add a observation to clarify what this means Observation: Basically all the con has to do is to show why not ALL churches should have tax exemptions removed definition of all: the whole amount, quantity, or extent of Just incase my opponent is still confused. I set this resolution like this on purpose (its based off a congress bill) but anyway all con has to do is show why not ALL churches should lose tax exemptions. In other words I can just say only rich churches should have tax exemptions removed but not poor churches or vice-versa. So yeah I agree with pro that rich churches shouldn't have tax exemptions, but I believe poor churches should so they can become a bigger church. As I pointed out a lot of these poor churches are also in poor communities so cannot receive as much of a offering and not donations. As I pointed out I go to one of these churches and we survive due to tax exemptions which is why I believe on RICH CHURCHES SHOULD HAVE TAX EMPTIONS REMOVED. Rich churches only use 3% to 10% of tax exemptions for charity anyway and they use the rest to get things like pools and basketball goals that other business have to pay taxes for but poor churches don't so I belive they should be allowed to have tax exemptions.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Bla bla bla 3rd round is final bla bla bla

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. Bla bla bla 3rd round is final bla bla bla

Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Since my opponent forfeited, I"ll be brief. The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications. Whether you agree with the benefits derived from the charity the church makes (missions, absolution, peace of mind, counseling, soup kitchens, etc.), they still have a mission to improve the world, in their eyes. Social clubs do not have that pre-requisite, therefore, they are not the same, and should not be compelled to be treated equally. http://www.irs.gov... www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements-Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes I. Religion is a social goodThe conclusion to this point is short and sweet. Vote Con if you think there is even a slight chance of taxation harming religious life. Throughout the entire debate there has never been any attempt to refute the actual impacts that I brought up in this contention. Religious experience betters a persons quality and quantity of life as well as increasing the positive influence they have on their community. Don't let these impacts get lost in all of the numbers thrown around in this debate. It is not remotely conceivable that taxing religious institutions would do anything but harm them. On the margins, extra expense burdens *always* harm the bottom line. This is simply a fact of business, and Hayd pretending like a $26,000 cost spread out over 50 "customers" (congregants) is nothing or that massive organizations like the Catholic Church wouldn't spend a ton of money on tax lawyers doesn't make his case any more credible. It comes off more as grasping at straws--he would've been better off to concede some impact and try to outweigh it, because it's incredibly clear that extra expense harms institutions ON THE MARGINS. Small churches that are already struggling will close. Services that are attended by fewer congregants will stop. Struggling branches of large religions, especially in under populated areas, will shut down. And with them community and social capital that has been built up over years, often generations, will vanish overnight. And all of this for nothing. He mocks my argument about a changing business model as vague, but when you're dealing with thousands of diverse institutions making any concrete assumptions is dicey. The point is that churches don't currently account for the extra expense that taxation would impose upon them. The apparatus used for financial decision-making would be totally upended, throwing the system into a state of flux. Hayd doesn't take this point seriously, but all serious businesses take precaution to avoid unnecessary instability. We don't know for sure what taxing religions would look like, but we can ascertain that they would be harmed ON THE MARGINS. I encourage everyone to go back to my opening case and reread my impacts, which are quite substantial. Nothing Hayd has to offer comes even close to outweighing what I bring to the table. II. Economic Benefits The progression of this argument tells you all you really need to know about the resolution. Hayds $71 billion has slowly been whittled down to 10% of what it once was. This is a case study in how all of the supposed benefits of taxing religions fall apart when subjected to close scrutiny. The only impact Hayd has left is the $7 billion or so that he says he'll get from property taxes. Except he won't because like I already said, many institutions will close down rather than manage such a large tax burden. Hayd argues that this money will be used for charity. First, you're still getting less money for charity overall because when you remove the non-profit status of churches you cannot stop them from keeping their incomes rather than donating them. I'm sure that many would continue to donate, but there are enough unscrupulous people out there (and far more money contributed to charity from the "income" pool) to more than make up for any gains that Hayd gets. But the most important thing to realize about his argument about using this money for charity is that it will not be used for that purpose. He has offered literally no reason to believe that the government would earmark the money for this purpose, and considering how property taxes are collected by municipalities I'm not sure how it would even be possible for the government to do this. He says that he's allowed to make a "plan" to affirm the resolution, but that's absurd if the plan isn't feasible. His plan could just as easily claim that the government would invest the money into a portfolio that would return 100x the money invested. Such investments exist. Would it be fair to claim that the government would be able to do something like this? No. And similarly, you can't assume that the money goes to charity. In reality, the money would go to municipalities where it would be a small drop in their buckets. Refer back to the impacts stated in my original case. While the benefits of Hayd's plan are distributed over tens of thousands of municipalities and thus diminished, the negatives are all centralized. The Catholic Church is the second largest employer in the United States. Subjecting them to billions of dollars in taxes means that many of those jobs are going to vanish. III. Church and StateThis point alone wins me the debate. Under Hayds framework, there would only have to be one instance where a politician was unduly influenced by a religious donor or endorser for the public good to be harmed and for me to gain an impact. We cannot forget that an endorsement from the Catholic Church would swing literally any presidential election. The results for 2016 are in, and once again Catholics were a pretty closely divided group. Trump won 52% of them, and Hillary won 45%[1]. Catholics represented nearly a quarter of all voters in an election where the popular vote was virtually tied. Say an endorsement from the Catholic Church would flip 20% of these voters either way. That would be the equivalent of a 5 point swing, enough to change the result of all but one of the past five elections[2]. In reality, the impact would probably be far larger. This is the power that Hayd will give to the Catholic Church. Not to mention the numerous legislative seats that could be flipped even more easily. All it takes is ONE TIME for the political opinion of the Catholic Church (or whichever religious institution won the race for a politician) to conflict with the common good for their to be an impact. Except this will happen all the time. If you want a Christian dominionism vote Pro, otherwise preserve the integrity of the state by keeping it separate from the church. All hail President Trump. Vote Con.1. . http://www.nationalreview.com...2. . https://en.wikipedia.org...

Religious institutions should be taxed like everyone else. The reason why religious institutions should not be taxed is because of the first amendment. The first amendment states the following-"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. " The problem with taxes is that not every religion will be taxed the same. If a religion is taxed less than another than that could be viewed as respecting an religion over another, which is against the first amendment. Also churches use the tithes as ways to build churches, temples, and/or meeting houses to areas that don't have such buildings. With taxes that could be prohibiting someone from worshiping by taking the money that could go toward building a church house and giving it to the government. Also the separation of state and church which means that both are separate and taxes don't follow this rule. I pass it to my opponent. sources . http://www.law.cornell.edu...

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes This is my response for Round 4, the final round of the debate. I’d like to thank Thett for coming out of retirement to debate this with me. Since this is my final response for the debate, I will not be introducing any new arguments to the debate. I will be mostly responding to what Thett says in R3. Religion is a social good The first point of contention that Thett brings up here is in claiming that churches will have to hire armies of lawyers to pay their taxes. This isn’t true, as the only reasons for hiring a tax attorney is for if you are in debt with taxes, issues with tax returns, facing criminal investigation, or are going to US tax court [1]. None of these would likely happen under my plan, thus this argument doesn’t work. Next Thett argues for his notion that churches will have to “change their business model” and thus the bottom line of churches will have to shut down. That churches have operated under the model that they don’t have to pay taxes and thus altering the model to having to pay taxes will make churches shut down. I find this notion unwarranted because it assumes that churches or church leaders are extremely irresponsible with money. It assumes that church leaders will literally forget that their is a church tax, then spend the entirety of their budget, and then not be able to pay the taxes. The possibility of this happening, realistically, is extremely low. The amount of churches that will actually be affected by this mismanagement of money is so low that I find it silly to see this as a feasible impact for Con’s side. Regardless, dividing $26,000 among 50 congregants is $520 per congregant, or around 0.01% of the average income [2]. Given the average giving to church per congregant is $1,038 [3], paying all of the taxes will be no problem. The only impact left on Thett’s side for this is the implication of mismanagement of money, which is a slim impact at best.What does “changing their business model” even mean? And what makes having to change it bad? I don’t see any negative impact in changing a “model” that would cause churches to close. The link between taxing churches and churches closing doesn’t work, since it is unwarranted and proven to be sustainable by congregation members. The only way a church can close is if they cannot pay off expenses (since it isn’t for-profit, it's for-religion, profit of a location is irrelevant) and I have shown that congregations will be able to fairly easily. Lastly, Thett calls for me to justify church taxation. This seems strange to call out this late in the debate, but I justify taxing churches through my framework and every argument I have made. By my uncontested framework, if taxing churches is a greater societal good than a harm then taxing churches is justified. That is why taxing churches is justified. Even regardless of that, Thett’s quick argument about the government providing roads and police protection ignores the fact that churches also take advantage of police protection and road transportation. Thus, by Thett’s own argument churches ought to pay taxes. Economic Benefits Alright, here I messed up big. Thett is right, legitimate operating expenses are tax deductible, did not know that until now. This essentially destroys most of my case, since by my own argument, 71% of income goes to operating expenses while the rest, 29% goes to charity. It isn’t exactly realistic that a church would only spend money on two things, and the third thing they spend it on would be taxable. But I said what I said, and since this is the last round I cannot take that back. That means that based on an income tax, the government would be getting a portion of the 0% of taxable profits, or 0$. This means that my income tax part of my case is negated, making the amount of money the government gets through my plan is $7.9 billion through property taxes. The next point of relevance comes when Thett argues that I can’t just assume that the money collected in taxes from churches would be donated to charity. Thett argues that it is not realistic to believe that the government would spend the money on charity. Since I am the affirming side I am allowed to put forth a plan in which to affirm the resolution, as long as it affirms the resolution I am allowed to use that plan. My plan, as I stated earlier, is to donate the collected money to charity. This is allowed and will happen under my plan. Church and State Thett responds to my argument by saying that the majority of Americans believe that religion should not play a role in politics because the Pope had to apologize after criticizing Trump. This argument doesn’t work, it's an appeal to popularity. Just because the majority of people believe that religion should not play a role in politics doesn’t mean that religion shouldn’t play a role in politics. Thett further argues that all it takes is one religious endorsement contrary to public good to sway the election and produce a negative result, and thus negative impact. This doesn’t work since endorsements are a neutral value. A religious organization could just as easily endorse a candidate for the public good than a candidate against the public good, and thus there is no impact either way here. It is a neutral value. The notion that a government relies on the church for legitimacy makes no sense and is unwarranted. The only way that Thett has proposed that religious organizations retaliate against the government is through getting involved through politics through endorsements, which as I just showed has no case. Thett’s entire argument based on separation of church and state relied on the church getting involved in politics through endorsements, which I proved is neutral. Thus Thett’s argument here is negated. Conclusion Through my plan $7.9 billion is raised in taxes. Given that $28 billion is used to save 6 million lives, $7.9 billion will be used to save 1.7 million lives. Even if we accept Thett’s unwarranted link between churches closing and taxes, and then accept that the link is logically sound, the argument still doesn’t work because reduction in people attending church leading to an increase in stress and depression is outweighed by the 1.7 million lives that are saved. In order for Thett’s impacts to outweigh mine, about 6 people would have to die per congregation as a result of taxing churches (1.7m/300k.) This is not realistic given Thett’s argument, thus I win this debate. Peace and Love [1] https://www.supermoney.com... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://amiccs.com...

Churches Paying Taxes Hope you are having a good day! My opponent said, "Church should not pay taxes because they are the center for religions. " Sure churches are the center for religion, But they shouldn't be tax exempt. All places that make money pay taxes, Except churches. Churches make money, Lots of it, And they don't donate that much. Also, I just went to your source and found that it has nothing to do with the topic. Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches

resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES INTRO: Yes rich churches have overall a lot of money and are using it wrong I agree that is a problem that must be fixed but there is one thing this resolution forgets to back up and why judge it can"t be passed. The reason I am going neg today is because I believe the tax exemptions should only be removed from churches that are rich not the poor churches that actually need it. 1.Poor churches need the money "Not enough to pay off tax emptions "A lot of smaller churches start out in poorer areas 2.Huge churches don"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. "Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity "In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? "Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your "faith". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. " Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim "god can pay our taxes" so if they believe in this they don"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 3. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the "voluntary" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar "church funded" homes, driving "church gifted" Jaguars, and wearing "church donated" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion " to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. So yes I agree that rich churches shouldn't have this money but what you have to understand is their are poor churches that doe. I personaly go to one that has about 10 members without tax emptions we wouldn't survive. NOt all churches are good big buildings in fact a lot of Baptist or apostolic or those religions have buildings in poorer areas.

There should not be tax exemptions for Curches. OK..

Churches Should be Taxed Wow. I believe I have lost this debate. I am going to forfeit; there is no way I can beat you, stubborn as I am. I believe the evidence you have put forth has put me in a position that I can only help but see that your point is stronger than mine. Congratulations.

End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations P1: According to the the first amendment of the United States Constitution, the congress further states the protection of right to peaceably assemble, that is an individual right to come together and collectively express,promote,pursue, and defend common interests,including the freedom of expression. In which Churches are a group of people that assembles through the given rights to gather for their common belief(interest) and is also given the rights to share their expression of belief as well.For this reason,by law,churches are considered as non-profit organizations that have no direct interference with the government,therefore has the rights of tax-exemptions. P2: The congress is not discriminating by giving tax breaks to churches but rather because of tax-exemptions on religious organizations,the congress is executing the established constitution of rights to individuals fairly, allowing the freedom of assembly. C: Tax breaks should not end for religious organizations. Source: http://aclj.org...

Churches Should be Taxed To me, the separation of church and state is one of the most important principles of our nation. In such a diverse country, secularity is crucial. Should the government decide to tax churches, or any other spiritual or religious organization as I assume you do not mean particularly Christianity and its denominations, the separation of church and state would be violated. One of the fundamental doctrines of the state. While an economically intriguing idea, this is not a good idea. I apologize for taking so long on my response.

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. ==Unitomic==

Churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. ought not be exempt from federal taxation. ==Unitomic==

resoloved: REMOVE TAX EXEMPTIONS FROM ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES I accept this debate, and as per the rules put forth by Con, I will begin by arguing that the United States should remove tax exemptions from religious institutions. In America, approximately $71 billion worth of tax exemptions are provided to religious institutions each year [1]. Basically, the government is subsidizing religions, making everyone pay for them to continue to run. There are multiple reasons why this is problematic. In America, there is supposed to be a separation between church and state. With the government subsidizing churches, the line between church and state starts looking skewed. For example, with all of the push from the right wing against Obama, churches were actually telling their constituents that God wants them to vote a certain way, or more specifically for a certain candidate [2]. The institution that claims to hold the answer and the key to everyone"s afterlife should never begin to tell people that God wants them to vote a certain way. More specifically, threatening eternal hellfire if you vote for a specific person is wrong on almost every level. When you start to look at the exemptions, it very much resembles what is going on with tax loop holes with large corporations. These large companies (and religions) will benefit by a certain party in power, because that party pushes to maintain or increase the exemptions, therefore increasing the wealth of the organizations. In return, the organizations give back to the party. In the case of corporations, they provide political "donations" to the parties. Once again, in return, they get a party who is willing to push for legislation to make them more money. In the case of religions, they make money from the exemptions and in return, they push specific political ideologies. It is a constant circle in which both sides benefit (one gets more votes and the other gets more money). It is also problematic because in providing all of these exemptions, it is costing more tax dollars to the majority of the population. It would be one thing if only people of a certain faith were paying for their church to grow in terms of both wealth and power, but when everyone has to pay money, regardless of religious beliefs (or a lack of such beliefs) then there is a serious problem. Consider that certain religious organizations are very vocal against certain other groups. Why should a homosexual atheist have to pay money to subsidize the building of a church that preaches to disallow gay marriage or even to criminalize homosexuality? To liken religious institutions to corporations even more, let"s look at a list of the ten wealthiest religious leaders in America [3]. Why does any man, preaching the teachings of Jesus Christ need be worth $18 million and have two mansions, or have a $1 million annual salary and own a $1.4 million mansion? Isn"t Jesus the one who said "Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God"? It almost seems humorous, how hypocritical the extreme right wing has become in America. They are so against paying taxes or have the government be in control of anything, unless the tax money they pay goes towards religion (not just our own religions, but everyone"s) or military. The people who are the most anti-tax and anti-government are the most willing to have government funding religion, and the people who should be most against fighting and killing (war) and against government growing in strength and power, are the ones most willing to put trillions of dollars into the building of massive, deadly weapons to go kill countless numbers of others. There should not be tax exemptions for religious institutions because it goes against the idea that the church and state are two separate entities in the sense that they both become politically motivated to work together in order to benefit each side. Religions should get their money from the people who are willing (or threatened, by threat of eternal damnation) to donate to the church to which they belong. [1] http://www.patheos.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://rollingout.com...

remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Case 1.Huge churches don"t need/ the money use it wrong etc. "Only 3% to 10% of tax emptions used for charity "In addition to the lack of transparency, it is vital to consider whether any multi-billion dollar operation, religious or otherwise, should enjoy sweeping tax exemptions on their assets or actually needs it. What exactly does the tax exemption promote if an organization already has more than enough money to run its activities from individual contributions? "Religious organizations with large entertainment venues. There are churches with pools, skating rinks, bowling alleys, huge gyms, etc. Such things are not required in order to practice your "faith". It gives religious groups a very unfair advantage over businesses offering the same services, but which have to pay taxes. " Also just a little joke thing some of these same tax exempt huge churches claim "god can pay our taxes" so if they believe in this they don"t need these tax exemptions in the first place not to mention they have millions or billions of dollars and they seem to maintain their buildings rather well. 2. Tax exemptions are not justified and poorly monitored There are millions of dollars of undocumented, unclaimed, untaxed church income each year. The figures cannot be accurately calculated by the IRS since most churches do not file the "voluntary" paperwork. Preachers are living in million dollar "church funded" homes, driving "church gifted" Jaguars, and wearing "church donated" Rolexes. Whilst enjoying a lavish lifestyle, many are not paying the myriad of taxes that the rest of US citizens are required to pay because church-based money is virtually untouchable, untraceable, and unaccountable. What becomes of the rest of the unaccounted cash millions that filter through the tithing trays? A local church, said to be the largest growing church in America, recently spent $1.2M on Harley Davidson motorcycles as gifts to the top 11 leaders. It is also claimed that they have used over $1M bailing out church members from jail. We are helping to pay for them! You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion " to the tune of about $71 billion every year. The current laws allow for open money-laundering and tax evasion without the likelihood for consequence or penalty.They have no safeguards to determine how many untaxed dollars are passing though the church doors and officials hands. Once a group claims to be a church, the IRS has no enforcement to determine if any illegal activity occurs unless the evidence is gathered and handed to them first. Although it states that all non-profits must not benefit any individuals, and must not spend a significant amount of time or money lobbying lawmakers, there is currently NO WAY TO DETERMINE, REGULATE, OR PUNISH these illegal behaviors. Major example: Some church leaders have even managed to use the church to hide their assets. For instance, Rev. John Hagee reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San AntonioExpress-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In other words, Hagee hides his millions in assets in his church and escapes taxation on his own personal wealth and property. Response to what opponent said: This will not be directed at Catholic churches is his main argument and I agree with that so we agree on one thing. Also I personally go to a poor church with like 18 members and it is Apostolic so yeah I know where you are coming from. My solution to what your suggesting would to be just to remove tax exemptions from of course churches with a decent income but with poorer churches give them maybe 5-10 years before removal and time can be extended a bit if church is starting from scratch. It still would be removing their tax exemptions but after a period of time.

That we should tax religions. When we look at the religions of today, we see increasingly grand and decadent churches, mosques and synagogues, while at the same time we see secularism rising exponentially [1,2], and all of this begs the question: why should a purportedly secular government not be treating religions like the rest of us? Why are religions considered tax-exempt while businesses and individuals are taxed? But firstly, what is our tax system and why are some organizations not taxed? A tax system in a Western Democracy is a simple on a principled level. The purpose of taxation is so that public services can be made available to all. But in our tax system we allow certain organizations to be let off the hook when it comes to taxation because we believe that these organizations operate to benefit the community as a whole. We can see this particularly clearly when we consider that the organizations that are tax-exempt are predominately charities, trade unions and art organizations [3]. The standard for tax-exemption is clearly the overall public benefit to everyone of the society. In the instance of religions, given that recent surveys suggested there were as many as 45 million people in the United States who were not religious, we think that religious organizations don't help the wider population, and for this reason they should be taxed. Secondly, we believe in the separation of church and state and that allowing religions to be tax-exempt effectively violates this separation for two main reasons. Firstly, we think that not taxing religions gives them in-principle support, which a secular government should not do. Secondly, on a practical level, in the current situation we see a government that is forced to decide which religions are valid and which are not. Currently, our government must decide whether it should tax religions such as scientology [4] (which is currently untaxed by the United States but is by major nations such as France), which many consider to be criminal. Scientology has allegedly abused its members [5] and been involved in other criminal activity. I would ask my opponent: under his model, would religions like this be taxed, or would the government continue to allow a seemingly immoral organization off the hook? Thirdly, we see that religions often have a negative effect on their community. I have already discussed scientology, which is an important example. But even more mainstream religions have a negative impact. Consider America's most widespread religion, Christianity [1]. We think it has a negative impact in twomain ways. Firstly, we say that the church has been accused of worldwide instances of abuse, and that it has even been threatened by legal action in a trial of war crimes in regard to this abuse [6]. Allegations of abuse of children to the highest levels, and the admission by the Pope that he personally has covered up these scandals [6] show the widespread nature of these practices. The government should not be treating these organizations as charitable, or as benefiting the whole community. Secondly, many Christian doctrines take part in inherently prejudiced practices; in some doctrines women are not allowed to become priests, and moreover the religion as a whole has moved against gay marriage [7]. Because religions have a net negative impact on society as a whole, we should tax them, as we do ordinary members of society. I wish my opponent luck for the next round. https://www.cia.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.nytimes.com... Robertson, Geoffrey, The Case of the Pope; Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. Okay, I'm really really sorry. I had a big English project, then I got a little sick. and I lost the charging cable for my laptop...... let's just say that it has been an interesting week. If my opponent would like to continue after we run out of rounds, maybe in the comments section, or in a new debate, then I would be willing to do so. I would just like to restate that this is only over property taxes and tax deductions. These are the only major tax differences between churches in non-profit clubs that is worth discussing. "The reason they should be taxed differently is because, unlike social clubs, churches are charitable. This is evident in the requirements for their respective classifications." I think we have to examine what counts as charitable. As a charitable organization or a government agency/public service (like a library or county courthouse or a soup kitchen) money given to them is tax deductible. Similarly, a religious organization is also on this list of tax deductible organizations. Also on this list is 2 types of private organizations. Domestic Fraternal Societies and non-profit cemetery companies. However, restrictions are placed on even these. For the fraternal society, the entire amount you are claiming as a donation must be used for a charitable action, and for the cemetery company it cannot be used for a specific lot or mausoleum. *1 Now, I agree that a church may engage in charitable actions. This is clear to anyone. I was part of a synagogue for most of my life, and I remember every once in a while them passing around a collection plate or asking for canned food. I also remember them using that money to build a new Synagogue, because they didn't have one (they had services in other locations that they rented out or borrowed). Most religious organizations do not use enough money towards charitable actions to be considered a charity. The purpose of declaring something a charity, and refraining from taxing it at all, and then giving deductions for donations is thus. 1. To convince people to use their own money to fund relief and support programs that the community as a whole supports more. 2. To not have to provide services being rendered by that organization. Does a church do either of these? While the community as a whole might more support the church, is it really providing a relief to the community? Is giving my ten dollars to that church really going to do more, or even a comparable amount then if I had given it to a real charity? Should I get the same tax deduction from donating to a soup kitchen that I get from donating to a church? Now I would like to separate religious organizations into 3 categories, to which I will argue separately. The first will be charities that may affiliate with a religion, but function as charities. I have volunteered with the Jewish Relief Agency, which unless you live in the greater Philadelphia area and are Jewish, probably don't know about. It's a warehouse that packages boxes filled with square meals for the week and delivers it to mostly, but not exclusively, needy Jewish people (mostly recent Russian immigrants). They give the majority of their funds to the charity itself, and give a negligible amount (less then 10%) to religious practices. This is a charity and should be treated as such. There are other examples of things that are clearly more charities then religious organizations, though they may affiliate with some religious organizations. Now there are standard churches that participate in large, or exemplary charitable actions. (as in, 30-70% of their income). These are not charities. Though they may partake in many charitable actions, they should be taxed. However, they can receive large deductions from their charitable actions, and may end up paying no taxes at all, or very little. This is great. They should be able to do this, and I, and most people, should applaud them for doing so. But, they are still a religious organization. My donation will do less then donating to a real charity. It should not be tax deducted equally, or at all like it would if I donated it to a charity. The last is a standard church that participates in little to no charity (0 - 20% of income). They may receive a small amount of deduction, or perhaps none at all. Ultimately though, these are religious organizations. They cannot be considered charities. Their money only goes to benefit those who give the money, and do not give any benefit to the outside community (for religious people; remember point number 4 in round 1). I personally would argue that it gives no benefit to those inside the religion, but whatever. It is a social club that prays. That is all that a non-donating religious organization is. We have separated these with private organizations. We have made it so that we do not tax charities affiliated with private clubs, and give deductions to the non-profit clubs so that if they are charitable, they may not have to pay taxes at all. Why can we not do the same with religious organizations? Maybe we shouldn't tax non-profit clubs. I see rife abuse with that potential path, but maybe there is some merit that me, with my limited mortality and comprehension, cannot see. My arguments are based off of equality. The only difference between a church and a non-profit club is that one prays and the other might pray. And yet one gets massive exemptions, while the other must struggle to do massive charity projects if they wish to pay no taxes, or do rigorous hoop jumping to get qualified under tax-exempt status. 1. http://www.irs.gov...

Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status At a time when ordinary people are being told to tighten their belts and to expect massive reductions in public spending in order to repay the huge government debt incurred as the result of the financial crisis, there are two groups of people who continue to live it up: 1 - The greedy and incompetent investment bankers who caused the financial crisis in the first place and who, nevertheless, continue to use the governments' recapitalisation handouts to pay themselves obscene bonuses. 2 – Religious organisations. While the United States and the European Union are responding to the bankers' abject failure to show self-restraint by imposing restrictions on their bonus payments, they have done nothing to redress the fact that religious organisations are ripping the rest of us off by not paying any tax. [1] So while decent, hard-working families struggle to make ends meet, televangelists such as Creflo Dollar continue to swan about in their brand new Rolls-Royces [2] and Catholic priests carry on living the life of Reilly in their tax-free, all-expenses-paid parochial houses. [The YouTube clips are humorous, of course, but there is many a true word said in jest.] And how many hard-working, God-fearing family men can afford to hire young sex-workers to accompany them on luxury, ten-day tours of Europe? Not many, but Baptist Minister George Alan Rekers can. [3] That's partly because he doesn't pay any tax. (In the interests of full disclosure here, by the way, I should point out that Rekers denied knowing that his companion was a male prostitute, even though he hired him from rentboy.com). To put this matter into perspective, The Church of England (CofE) rakes in ï¿½1 billion ($1.52 billion) every year tax-free and yet its own website states that even though "over ï¿½200 million is given tax-efficiently each year through Gift Aid" and "a further ï¿½60 million is recovered from the Inland Revenue in tax." [4] In other words, the CofE not only avoids contributing to the public purse, it is actually jewing ï¿½60 million pounds a year out of it! And things are even worse in Germany where citizens are subject to the ‘Kirchensteuer' (Church Tax) which nets protestant priests over EUR8 billion (ï¿½7 billion / $10 billion) every year. [5] A similar situation exists in Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Finland and Iceland where citizens are also forced by law to give a percentage of their income to the church. It seems to me that, with religious observance on the decline to a point where, according to the CofE's own figures only one million people – just 1.6% of the British population - go to church on Sundays [5], the church is becoming increasingly irrelevant in today's more enlightened society. And yet the churches are still growing fat at the expense of ordinary, hard-working citizens who have to make up the shortfall in tax receipts. This is a scandalous and outdated state of affairs and I believe it is high time that churches paid their way and, therefore, I duly affirm that religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status. Thank you. [1] http://www.irs.gov... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk... [4] http://www.cofe.anglican.org... [5] http://www.kirchensteuer.de... (in German) [6] http://www.cofe.anglican.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...

Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status Agreed, a country must raise taxes to run a government though I question my opponents comment on the fact that pillaging is now illegal is a bad thing. I, personally, enjoy the fact that people can't run around burning and stealing. I also concede that there was a, emphasis on a, single group of Baptists who were trying to use the situation in Haiti to there advantage. However, the information that did not get to the media were all the other parishes that collected and sent money for actual aid to refugees. As far as the Jewish Orthodox Union using money for illegal activities is something that ought to be fixed, but you'll note that the Catholic Church does not use their tax free status for illegal activities. If you suggest that one example of someone(s) doing something bad ought to influence laws for everyone, then we ought to all be in single cells. there are people who use the ability walk outside so that they might steal from others which is certainly illegal. Your logic dictates that we should not be allowed outside. Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, if a mosque is truly Islamic, donations will not be used aid terrorists. If it is a mosque of radical Islam, then the UN ought to be acting in order to shut down a terrorist cell. Additionally, I would like to point out that single examples should not influence all other examples. Furthermore, laws for taxation differ from country to country. I would like to point out that there are countries where a Church Tax[1] is imposed. So in certain countries, such as Denmark[1], you would first be speaking out cutting government support to the church. Also, I would like to point out that corporations such as Wal-mart con the government out of millions[2]. Isn't that a slightly bigger problem ( Wal-mart is also guilty of sexual discrimination, employment of illegals, and many other crimes[3][4]. I am much more fine with the church getting free money then with Wal-mart getting free money.) In conclusion, there are many counter-examples to the ones referring to the usage that my opponent has provided as to the activities of religious organizations, I have provided examples of other organizations that steal more money from the government than the church does and conduct other illegal activities, and I have pointed out that many governments grant financial support from the treasury to churches. Again, I apologize for any mistakes, and thank you. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org... [3]http://www.reuters.com... [4]http://www.foxnews.com...

Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify An example might be an emerging group that informally meets at someone's home. They do not have the tax benefits that official churches have because they do not have the lobbying power or the time to negotiate a charitable status from the gatekeepers in government. Removing the tax favoritism that most churches enjoy would simply level the playing field and make sure new religious philosophies that are beneficial do not get squished because of political favoritism. Many of the early religious reformers had to flee persecution because they did not have the political mojo of the larger denominations. Removing the larger groups' tax-exempt status would force them to stay relevant and profitable to the community.

Religious organisations should no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status Religious organizations, in my opinion, should not pay taxes from church collections and other donations. Money gotten through collections and donations has already been taxed (it comes from a group of people who have already have been taxed). Additionally, the majority of the money gained through collections and donations is used in the purpose of helping others (examples include Haiti, earthquakes, money used to organize soup kitchens, and so on). Additionally, you will note that in certain countries, such as Ireland, 85%[1] of the population attends church. That would mean the Church in Ireland does have significant impact on the population. Religious individuals, on the other hand, should be taxed. I don't believe that it is fair reverends who earn proceeds through televised programs ought to be allowed to keep any of it, or if they would be allowed, then that income ought to be taxed. Any actual business (such as mass selling, investments, and so on, also ought to be taxed as it is a method of earning). Collections and donations should not be taxed as they are gifts. I apologize in advance for any spelling and/or grammar mistakes and for unclear sentences. Additionally, I apologize for having such a short counter-argument, however, I am short on time. I beg your understanding. [1]http://www.nationmaster.com...

Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. My opponent has once again forfeited a round. No clear rebuttal was made by my opponent. No closing argument was made by my opponent. This is unfortunate as I believe this was an interesting and thought-provoking topic. With that said, I would like to thank my opponent for the initial argument and look forward to any and all challenges on the topic in the future. In closing, I have provided my audience with what I believe to be a convincing argument for the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the Government. Furthermore, I aimed to provide a convincing rebuttal against my opponents initial claims. In doing so, it is my hope that I have provided a convincing argument for my audience to ponder when personally deliberating this topic. I ask humbly that you please consider my opponents forfeits when casting your vote.

Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. I accept the challenge. I will pursue the position that Churches of all religions should not be taxed by the government.

Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. Accepted.

Churches should be taxed the same as private non-profit clubs. So, I will let Pro start. I am offering the following definitions: "Private non-profit clubs" - will be known as social clubs, and subject to 501 (c) (7) categorization. Churches will be categorized as a 501 (c) (3). Con stipulates that laws vary from state to state, which means that in some states, a church may or may not be treated differently. For the purposes of this debate, we shall assume there is indeed different tax implications for each category. As such, we will focus on the federal (IRS) definitions of these non-profits for this debate, since if the IRS says they are tax-exempt, they are for state purposes as well (whatever that entails). The debate is over whether social clubs ought to be treated equally to churches for ALL tax purposes. Good luck to Pro. If Pro does not agree to these terms, say so in the next round, and we will quickly end the debate in a tie, thus allowing Pro to issue a new challenge without revealing his hand.

Churches Should be Taxed Thank you so much! You were a good opponent and had a good idea. Just happens to be against the law. whoops. Thank you again!

Should Churches Pay Taxes Extend my counter-arguments.

Should Churches Pay Taxes Extend.

Should Churches Pay Taxes Extend.

Churches Ought not be Taxed Oh well.

The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Originally Con's retort was a dense, tightly worded rebuttal to Pro's contention that the centers he proposes be women only, but after obliterating the 8,000 character limit, a different tack was required. Despite the obvious levity of the debate, a meaty issue exists, one which becomes heartier as one travels eastward over the Atlantic. While Con is a lot more familiar with the issue of the church and taxation in America, the question was poised in merry England, and home field advantage is acceded to Pro. The debate shall be limited to the taxing of religious institutions in England, as England's maintenance of an established church, her lack of a separation between church and state, and the differing legal and tax systems between England and America would make any attempt to discuss both devolve into two debates. However perfectly luscious Pro's suggestion of the destination of the earmarked funds may be, to what purpose the ring fenced funds are destined is relatively immaterial to the primary issue and will not be directly addressed by Con. Religious entities are one of the thirteen classes of charitable bodies recognized in the Charity Law which are exempt from most taxes in England[1]. Such entities are considered to provide a public benefit. The failure of Pro to mention taxing not-for-profit institutions other than religious ones allows us to deduce that Pro does not advocate the doing away with the Charity Law , or amending it in a manner other than removing religious entities from the Charity Law's recognized list. To do so, it is incumbent on Pro to prove that religious institutions do not provide public benefits in a manner which is inconsistent with the public benefits provided by other, non-religious not for profits. Pro will be hampered in proving this. Pro must not only discard the tangible social services which religious institutions dispense, the maintenance of historical buildings and the providing of a center for a community, but also contend with the spiritual services they provide. Psychologists generally regard spiritual wants as a human need[2]. A certain percentage of the population fulfills this need religiously. Even if one can personally write off religion as needless hocus pocus as easily as Mr. Bradlaugh could and instead fulfills his or her spiritual needs via a lager and the bi-curiosity of an assertive vegan Asian girl, one cannot be so contemptuous as to think that they know the best manner in which others ought satiate their spiritual needs. Just as some citizens of AR 72046 [3] find benefits from the not-for-profit services of The American Legion Post 168, The England Youth Athletic Association or the Sunny Day School Inc. (Childcare), some also find benefits from the one of the seven not-for-profit religious entities there. Con can state, from at least personal experience, the benefits provided by an American Legion Post are as much spiritual as they are anything else. Pro maintains that religion uses fear mongering tactics to cull money from their congregations. Fear mongering, naturally, cannot be construed as a public benefit. It is granted that the church makes itself feel needed, but hardly is such unique to the world of charity. Making one feel needed is not the same as fear mongering. Breast Cancer awareness has scared so many athletic teams so quickly into wearing so much pink that only Palermo's Rosanero can be assured of being ahead of the curve. But making one feel needed is different than fear mongering and with semantics aside, are religious institutions particularly more proficient in this area when it comes to squeezing pennies out of pensioners? Certainly a plausible case could be made for a good deal of its history. From its apogee of fear when Pope Innocent mildly humiliated poor King John (perhaps thereafter being humiliated in quick succession by the French and then his own drinking buddies was the harsher medicine), the Church has admittedly made good use of scaring the hell out of (or into) its flock and its less than enthusiastic followers. This fear, however, has been on the wane for quite sometime. Earthly fears started replacing heavenly fears as Henry, Mary, Elizabeth and Cromwell ran amok. The Age of Reason laid out the framework for removing these fears from aristocrats and the industrial revolution democratized them, enough so by the 1880's, even the Conservatives had to finally concede Charles Bradlaugh his duly elected seat in Parliament[4]. People questioned religion through science. In the generation between Lyell and Lord Kelvin the earth aged ten-fold. Darwin made folks question the literal handiwork of the creator and from that people questioned the bible. Science unfolded the mysteries of the universe. Church attendance went into a long decline as it fought a rearguard action against secularism. By 2010, only about a million souls still shuffled into the Church of England houses of worship on a weekly basis, representing just 2% of England and 4% of Anglicans[5]. These people, well worn end-notes of a 1,500 year old rolling saga, will weather no opprobrium should they not attend nor tithe. Failing to do either so earns no serious threats of eternal damnation from the pastor nor social stigma from society as a whole. In fact, in some urban areas, the stigma may go in the opposite direction. They attend because they genuinely want to and give donations because it serves their interests, and gives them greater benefits, than other alternatives (it is granted, however, that a good many pew occupants may be henpecked husbands intent on avoiding the wraith of their better halves, but that's hardly the church's fault, unless of course the church married them in the first place, which incidentally, is also becoming a rarer and rarer thing [6]). If the Church is reduced to making a few fence sitters pony up some spare bucks on Pascal's Wager, then so be it, but that's far from fear mongering. And even should an unlikely case be made that the church scares its followers into donating by fear mongering, the collection plate isn't the church's primary source of income. About 20% of its income is made this way, with a similar block made by Gift Aid[7]. The remainder comes from investments, rents and fee based services. In England, the Church and other non-profits are not taxed on these sorts incomes, while in America they are in certain degrees[8]. Even Italy is considering it[9]. Taxing such is a potential source of income for Pro's ideas, but that's a different discussion, as well as Disestablishment. I will be looking forward to an intelligent and entertaining continuation of this matter in round 2. [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk... [2] http://www.max-neef.cl..., pg. 32 [3] http://www.taxexemptworld.com... [4] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... [5] http://www.churchofengland.org... [6] http://www.guardian.co.uk... [7] http://www.churchofengland.org... [8] http://www.irs.gov... [9] http://www.nytimes.com...

Churches of all religions should be taxed by the government. In this debate, both individuals will argue that churches should or should not be taxed like other organizations. The debate is to be determined by whichever person has outlined better points for their case. Round 1: Acceptance (Only type that you accept the challenge) Round 2: Argument (State your point / No referencing or rebutting Pro's Argument) Round 3: Rebuttal (Rebut each others Round 2: Arguments) Round 4: Conclusion (Conclude your argument) I wish my opponent the best of luck.

Churches Should be Taxed The separation of church and state would not be as severly violated as it has been in the past. Kentucky has given out Bibles in public schools, a family of Jewish children was repeatedly harassed after complaining about the promotion of Christian beliefs in their school. One of the students was forced to write an essay on "Why Jesus Loves Me." The taxation of churches and other religious institutions would not be as severe as forcing the beliefs of Christianity onto Jews or Muslims. As I said, it would only be .5% taxation. Then they could go on their merry way and do whatever they want with the rest. It's no secret churches have abusing extra money and such. I'm not saying all churches are, just some. Also, the government is not intruding on the ceremonies of the religious, just collecting money. We're not shutting the churches down, we're just taxing them very little.Source: http://archive.adl.org...

The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Pro posited that the status quo be changed, and that religious entities should be, in essence, removed from the list of not-for-profits (NFPs) recognized by the Charity Law. To do so, Pro would have to either prove that religious entities fail to provide public benefits or prove that they operate in the manner similar to a for-profit institution. It is Con's contention that Pro failed to provide cited arguments proving such. Pro began with the Church of England's suffering attendance levels. Con previously noted such to demonstrate that England is largely a secular society and that Pro's assertion that the Church gets by on fear mongering was an unrealistic one (indeed, when Durham Cathedral asked its visitors for ï¿½5 donations to cover the building's ï¿½60,000 weekly maintenance bill, patrons responded with an average donative of 32p[1], which mathematically works out to a one way ticket to hell for 94% of the visitors). Pro did not attempt to counter this, but instead pointed to the declining attendance as an indicator of the Church's declining relevance and that greying of remaining worshipers only serves to show that this trend will continue. Con counters that firstly, such an argument in no way demonstrates that a public benefit is not being derived by those who still attend church every week. Secondly, those deriving spiritual sustenance is not limited to those who fill the pews every week. While only 4% of Anglicans attend on a weekly basis, nearly twice as many visit at least once per month and on the holidays the benches do fill, with Easter and Christmas seeing 1.2 million and 2.3 million respectively[2]. Pro then states that more people fulfill their spiritual needs via mystics and fortune tellers than by the Church. A dubious claim which Con would contest should it make a difference, but Con only seeks to amend it by remarking that in our creature comfort society, capitalist services such as soothsayers, reality television and shoe shopping (i.e. Mrs. Frappe) provide more spiritual sustenance than the representatives of Yahweh, Shiva, Athena and Woden combined. The rub is that such are provided by for-profits entities and the recipients of these incomes can freely use profits for personal gain (and therefore taxed). If Pro wishes to lump the church into that little tangle, then Pro must prove that the Church operates like a for-profit entity, if not in letter, at least in spirit. Unfortunately Pro does not expand on this any further than to mention vicars riding around in nice cars, bishops living high on the hog and Kevin Copeland flying about in planes. With the exception of the latter, no hard data is cited. Mr. Copeland belongs more on Jersey Shore than he does anywhere near a non-profit. He is an example of excess and no one disagrees that excesses occur. And Copeland is not alone. Charity Navigator's 2010 CEO compensation study (Copeland is American, so forgive the American data) noted that the Educational Media Foundation won the "most generously compensated CEO of a religious non-profit in America" award, by giving their CEO $648,537 worth of benefits in 2008. That pales, however, next to the New York Philharmonic, which doled out $2,649,540 to its CEO, even though both organizations had similar levels of total expenses [3]. And in weeding out the outliers, median CEO pay paints a more striking picture. Out of the nine types of charitable institutions, CEOs of religious institutions averaged $90,000 per year, trailing far behind charities of Public Benefit ($168,490), Arts, Cultures & Humanities ($190,550) and Education ($272,645) [4]. With the Archbishop of Canterbury's salary at ï¿½55,660 (plus benefits) [5] a case for religious institutions being any more profligate than other non-profits with its compensation seems untenable. Pro then notes the muscular income the Church makes off its investments. The church makes a pretty penny from its investments, no doubt spurred on by its tax free status. To be sure, a wonderfully pregnant trove for a modern King Henry to do a little church sacking to fill the coffers, but it is relatively immaterial to this debate, for this debate concerns itself with the tax exempt status of religious institutions, not the nuancing of England's Charity Law regarding NFP investment incomes. All NFP's take advantage of this, so what is so egregious about a religious entity doing the same? Pro then notes that it is a moral obligation for the Church to maintain historic buildings, a moral obligation that in no doubt is a public service (though some of that lavish living money is going to have to make up the ï¿½4.68 per visitor shortfall Durham Cathedral has got going on). Pro then insinuates that the church is derelict in this duty because it has decommissioned some churches into condos and pubs. Does Pro suggest that such parishes be kept open, when it is obvious to even the Church that the declining attendance levels no longer warrant the maintenance of the buildings or staff? Any NFP has the right to focus its resources in a manner which best allows it to provide services. Pro's last argument maintains that "Charities are typically run by volunteers, with a small number of paid staff on modest incomes" and then implies that the church does not do so. Again, unfortunately, Pro does not cite any data about how non-religious charities conform to this or how religious charities fail to do so. Many charities which do fit the bill Pro has suggested derive income by hiring outside for-profit consultants to fundraise. The Cancer Survivor Fund received $1,107,250 in contributions in 2010, but had $1,005,072 in fund raising expenses [6]. That's a lot of lawyers, accountants and executives getting well on donations. Even Andre Agassi's Foundation for Education (with celebrity do-whop Sir Elton John) paid for-profit fundraisers $2,014,469 to raise $7,536,463 in contributions [7]. Lucky for the Rocketman the foundation also made about $13 million in tax free investments. Perhaps, more interesting are the NFP's that don't fit Pro's vision of a typical charity [8]. Con concludes by begging the same question that Pro did. "What's so special about the church?" What evidence has Pro provided that demonstrates that the Church does not operate like an NFP, or that it fails to provide a public benefit? As Con has shown, Pro has made no systemic argument to support such. Con would also like to point out that most of the discussion has centered the Church of England and has ignored the smaller religious institutions of England. Are they to be taxed as well? Con is sympathetic to Pro's argument of declining relevance, but that points better to Disestablishment than it does to declaring religious institutions for-profit entities. Thank you. Despite Con's arguments, Con still hopes that Pro is successful with his centers. [1] http://www.anglican-mainstream.net... [2] http://www.churchofengland.org... [3] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [4] Ibid [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk... [6] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [7] http://www.charitynavigator.org... [8]http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...

Churches Paying Taxes Churches should pay taxes because they are just like other companies that pay taxes. Churches make money, And all companies who make money get taxed. By taxing churches their would be an estimated $71 billion worth of taxes. $71 billion is a lot of money that could be spent to benefit the world. Yes, Churches do donate money, But the Mormon church spends only. 7% of their annual income on charity. The American Red Cross spends 92. 1% of their income to assist people. "Wal-Mart, For instance, Gives about $1. 75 billion in food aid to charities each year, Or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years. (Derek Beres, 2012)" Source: https://bigthink. Com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches

Churches Should be Taxed thanks for debating with me :)

Churches Paying Taxes I don"t understand how your debate relates to the topic. Did you accidentally put this on the wrong debate? If so fell free to tell me in the comments of this debate. Anyways, Churches make money, And don"t donate that much away. The should be taxed for what they make. That is all I have to say.

Some Emerging Religious Groups do Not Have the Political Connections to Qualify Many people trust the tax-exempt status of their religion to mean that it has gone through the discipline of financial accountability to earn the government's approval. Removing that status would leave many people clueless about who to trust as official and wise religious leaders. The official and wise religious leaders deserve to have tax exempt status, goes this thinking, because they worked hard to earn it. They must continue to maintain it by adhering to the government's criteria for financial stewardship. The riches go to the winner, and this must hold true for religion as well.

Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. My opponent forfeited yet another round. Extend my arguments further.

Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. My opponent has fully forfeited this debate. Vote Con. Thanks.

This House Would deny tax-exempt status to religios-institutions failing to appoint women equally. In this argument I am simply saying "Church" in reference to any religious institution. If we are to work from the idea of separation of church and state, this includes that the states should stay out of the churches business. The church is not held to discrimination charges for this reason, regardless of why someone is discriminated against. It is good and dandy if a church chooses to hire women, but being forced to comply with hiring women is the government over-stepping. In Christianity at least, the church does not see women as inferior. Rather, their role is different in the church, and because of the curse mentioned in genesis, "Then he said to the woman, "I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you."" This means that many women have a desire to control male peers, rather than build them up in faith. Now, how far this should go is debatable, personally I think it is possible that in later verses talking about this though Paul, some of his own bias may of came through. Though even then, he speaks of many women in good. For example, I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church at Cenchreae, that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well." I believe this to be possible, of his bias to be infused, because Corinthians was a letter. His worldly faults could seep in. But that is up to an individual to decide and to what extent. Deborah was a prophetess and women given much authority in the bible, before him. Regardless some better thoughts on this can be seen here, and you can see why many denominations do not allow women in positions of authority: http://findingyourwayinchrist.blogspot.com... The most important idea to this is though, that if you tax churches because they refuse to put women in charge, you are trying to allow the state to control the church which gives much to much power to the state and sacrifices religious freedom.

Churches Should be Taxed If I were President, I would tax churches only .5%. Think about it. If a church makes $100, we (the government) are only taking fifty cents of that. If five churches make $100, the government will only get $2.50. "What does the government get out of this?" you may ask. Well, where I live, in Ohio, there's at least ten churches in about 10 square miles. And they make (most likely) more than $100 dollars. Churches can go on their missions that don't really help, and the government gets more money to pay off China. Everybody wins.

The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings Rules: Round 1: Proposition of Argument Round 2: Elaborate Argument Round 3: Rebuttals/Revisions Round 4: Conclusion I would like to state the opinion that the real estate assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church, those which are not houses of worship directly open to the public, should be taxed as that they serve no real purpose and take up valuable real estate from the Nation. There are two reasons for this: The Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a foreign State: The Vatican. https://en.wikipedia.org... These institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population. Whereas a church may provide a place of solace, the monasteries and convents merely take up space and act as production factories for the Catholic Church's Money Machine (i.e. they produce wine, craft rosaries, and other such things). Look forward to debate.

The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings I am very willing to concede that other religious institutions, whether Christian or otherwise, should pay taxes on their real estate holding as well (for example, a Muslim "youth center" will still have to pay a property tax just like a Catholic monastery). However, I singled out the Catholic Church as that it is an institution completely within the grasp of a foreign sovereign power. The Pope is very much considered a head of state, although the boundaries of his rule are quite small and limited only to Vatican City. This is a problem as that he often uses his position of religious influence to attempt and influence the political affairs of other sovereign and secular nations. Yes, churches provide those places of solace I mentioned, but monasteries do not. Many Protestant churches sustain themselves solely through the tithes and efforts of its respective congregation, they need no monasteries or convents or schools or support them: However, the Catholic institutions such as monasteries, convents, schools, as well as all other real estate holdings of theirs (not to mention the income of the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops) depend very much upon the tithes generated by parishioners. This means that hoped for improvements to a church (anything from basic repairs to a new organ) are put on the back burner so that the church's parochial school can be supported....even though many parents in that church may not be able to send their children to said school! This is a small issue, but when one considers that those real estate holdings are taking up a great deal of tithes collected. Money given for repairs at a local church instead are distributed and thinly spread across various schools, convents, and monasteries. This means that the people are essentially being scammed. This, of course, should be applied to all religious sects in a nation. However, as I stated in the first paragraph, the Catholic Church is an entity controlled by a sovereign state. These monasteries and convents, and especially these schools, should be considered institutions where a foreign head of state tries to meddle in the affairs of a sovereign nation-state. Indeed, the Catholic Church is the largest health care system in the world. However, in the largeness comes the threat of corruption. One need only look at the splendor of Vatican City and St. Peter's Basilica to see that much of the income of the Catholic church is spent on the comfort and luxurious lifestyles of the Church's higher echelons of leadership (a scam that has been running since Sixtus V). However, there those missionaries, are there not, who are truly givers, like the recently canonized Mother Theresa? Indeed, but the brilliant journalist Christopher Hitchens investigated into her quite a bit. http://www.nybooks.com... The popularity of her and the recent canonization are merely propaganda efforts by the Catholic Church to further push its political agenda into the secular republics which overthrew its Papal Authority in the various revolutions of the 18th and 19th Centuries. So, if the real estate holdings of the Catholic Church (and of course of all religions), which are not houses of worship open to the public, this scam is weakened and so is the political power machine of the Catholic Church itself.

The government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres Fiirstly, please be advised that I am an equal opportunities debater and this challenge may be accepted by any member regardless of their age, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or gender although contributions from young Asian bi-curious women are particularly welcome as they are under-represented on this site. Now, here is my opening argument: Churches make money by cynically exploiting the fears, prejudices and insecurities of their congregations: but there's nothing illegal about that; that's capitalism. However, unlike most other organisations, churches do not pay tax on their profits. If they did, though, the income raised could, and should, be ring-fenced by the government and used to fund women-only, lesbian-friendly drop-in centres that could provide free or subsidised: * Feminist-orientated assertiveness training courses * On-site cafï¿½s serving vegan wholefood dishes, Free Trade herbal teas and sustainably-sourced organic wines * Multi-ethnic women's rights awareness meetings * In-house spas providing holistic therapy treatments using only cruelty-free, carbon-neutral cosmetic products * Lesbian and bi-sexual bonding sessions * Clinics providing free contraception and abortions-on-demand for victims of male sexual oppression These drop-in centres would give women much-needed non-judgemental, eco-friendly, multicultural, ethically-aware refuges where they could find sanctuary from the conservative and regressive social doctrines that dominate mainstream society and perpetuate the exploitation of women by men. Furthermore, this scheme would be wholly in keeping with the Christian ethos of giving alms to strangers and would, therefore, command the full support of the preachers, pastors, vicars and priests who represent the various churches and who, in the true spirit of Christianity, would be delighted to forgo such worldly decadences as luxury cars and houses in order to support women in need. That's why the government should tax churches to fund ethically-aware, women-only drop-in centres. Thank you.

Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe Unlike some countries, where church and state are one and the same, in the United States, there is a long tradition of separating the two. This is to avoid public officials telling us what to believe. Lately, this separation has become less clear, as government officials have sometimes leaned into religious issues like abortion and marriage. Nonetheless, having the government controlling religion with taxation may hinder freedom of belief. If the current government has a different philosophy than yours, you may be subject to religious persecution if under performing religious groups could not pay the newly instituted tax burden.

Debate: Churches ought to pay taxes Full resolution: Churches ought to pay taxesThe debate is impossible to accept, apply in the comments if you are interested and I will send the challenge to the applicant of my choosing. First round is acceptance only. No new arguments in the final round. Kritiks aren't allowed. Taxes on churches would mean regular property taxes and commercial income taxes. Basically they lose their tax exempt status.

Churches should be taxed. 'It is said that death and tax are the only two certainties in life, it's ironic the church dodge both these, the latter quite literally.R John'The anti-theist group I am part of on facebook posted this quote and it really made me want to find out your views on the fact churches are not taxed! I would like to make it clear that I am refering to American churches when I say this. I shall be Pro; Chruches should be taxed. Please no trolling, thank you.

Resolved: In the United States, churches should be taxed. My opponent forfeited the previous round. Extend arguments.

End tax breaks for religious organizations You are right to say that Churches save money by having tax exceptions. But any money they do make is going right back into the community. These organizations are responsible for soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and after-school programs for poor families. Religious leaders do not get to pocket the money for themselves. Religious organizations are among some of the top non profit organizations in the US ( YMCA, Campus Crusade for Christ, Catholic Charities USA, etc. ). Think about the consequences of taxing these organizations. All that money that would be going to the needy, would instead, be going to the IRS.

religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief religious charities serve the purpose to provide charity to the needy within their own religious communities. we live in a secular society in which we strive to ensure that all citizens possess the same rights and obligations as each other, irrelevant of religion race standing etc our government has a duty to uphold this secularism in the interest of maintaining a fair society. our govt can certainly not support organisations such as religions whose interests serve only divided segments of our citizens. if a religious organisation wants to organise charitable collections, then they must be audited to ensure that the benefit of the charity goes to a wide spectrum of a nations/communities' people and certainly not distributed as loyalty/reward points to a private members' club.

A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. opponent please respond I promise you these arguments aren't that big.

End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations P1: It is made clear in the American Bill of Rights Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words, churches and other religious establishments should not have benefit over its people nor should Congress discriminate when it comes to tax breaks. P2: By allowing churches and other religious establishments to not pay their taxes, the burden is then shifted to us as regular citizens to have to pay those taxes for them. That means an extra percentage taken out of our hard earned paychecks to cover the loss of taxes not paid by these religious establishments. The money has to come from somewhere and if its not equally being attributed then someone else has to pay for. C: Tax breaks should end for religious organizations. 1) taxthechurches.org 2)taxthechurches,org

End tax breaks for religious organizations Churches need to be taxed. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches"was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about"five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S.""All tax free. There are many other organizations the needy can turn to.

The Roman Catholic Church Should Pay Taxes on Its Real Estate Holdings What troubles me right away is that you are saying that only "assets belonging to Roman Catholic Church" should be taxed, Yet why only the Catholic Church? This you are singling one group at, yet letting it be fine for any other religious group to so and not be taxed. Now when you say that "these institutions provide no benefit for the surrounding population" are you saying that monks, nuns, and the priests provide no benefit for the surrounding population, yet they are the ones that run the churches that "provide a place of solace" that i'm guessing you were meaning as something that did provide to the surrounding population. Also are these not the people supporting every community they can, whether they are in the streets of Calcutta to the wealthier countries such as America, Britain, Norway,Canada,etc. Now when you tax them you are taking money away from a charity, and THE LARGEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD. Now you may say that they keep a lot of the money and spend on themselves, but i believe those times are changing! With Pope Francis taking the city bus to get around instead of the popemoblie, and many other actions against the luxury of the pope, and his subjects.

End Tax Breaks for Religious Organizations P1) Religion may give people peace of mind knowing then can "peaceably" assemble, but what peace has religion ever brought into the world? Religion has everything to do with government. Every religion is at war with another religion trying to conquer each other causing armies to spend more money than they have on weapons of mass destruction and the ones who are creating this mess are the ones NOT being taxed? All religion does is brainwash people into believing their way is the right way and those who don't follow are against them. P2) If the government is distributing rights fairly to all individuals then why are the middle class workers paying the most taxes? Since religious organizations don't pay taxes someone has to and its coming right out of the working mans pocket. Do you really want to cover the costs these organizations are exempt from paying? If religion is a practice that does so by teaching, then teaching in a school is considered practice as well and if schools are being taxed for their practice of teaching, then religious organizations should be taxed for their practice to teach. C) Religious organizations should not receive tax breaks.

religious and ethnic charities should be discouraged and not be eligible for tax relief Rebuttals"Minority groups indeed should have the freedoms to exist. But this freedom does not include the state"s support of any of their beliefs or activities which directly conflict with that state"s own fundamental principles."Pro admits that minority groups, or at least groups representing minorities should have the freedom to exist but then claims that this should not include the state's support as the beliefs and activities of that group/organization somehow conflict with the principles of the state. As highlighted in round one, all charities are legally entitled to tax relief providing that money is spent on the charity, there is no valid reason why religious or ethnic charities should be exempt from this. If a law preventing such charities from tax relief eligibility was to be put in place, naturally it would be the "rights" of the organization that are violated. I'd also like to inquire how religious charities "directly conflict" with the democratic principles and values of a state/country. The purpose of these charities is not impose religious belief but, as with any charity, to assist those in need. "We have chosen secularism in modern society over religious governance, because modern society has accepted the reality that religion conflicts with our education system, and it interferes with equality, and it reinforces segregation within larger society, and ultimately stands in the way of social integration.Again, the standing of religious and ethnic charities does not violate secularism. You claim religious charities interfere with equality and reinforce segregation within a larger society, yet no evidence in support. As previously stated, the aim of religious charities is not to undermine equality or reinforce segregation but quite simply to offer charitable help. I also pointed in round two that this help does not exclusively go on those within the religion or ethnic group but in many cases go towards numerous national groups and minorities. The emphasis is not necessarily placed on who is part of that religion but who is most in need. "Any charity that seeks to promote a viewpoint that conflicts with the state"s own aims and responsibilities is using up resources that could be utilised by charities that actively promote the goals of the state."My second answer pretty much applies to this one. Using the example of prominent charity "Christian Aid", one of which that operates all around the world assisting those in impoverished areas. Is this charity somehow conflicting with the states aims and responsibilities? The fact is that this charity and others do not actively seek to promote a viewpoint--rather the prioritization is the "charity". Christian Aid is currently asking providing help for those in Iraq, Syria, South Sudan, India, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, etc. The goal of the state is to ensure that every person has a community of friends and social circles that educate them to see beyond the illogical and divisive proponents that religious organisations reinforce.Technically,the goal of a state is to ensure that it is well-governed. Rather it seems that you think this should be a paramount goal. It is also your own assertion that religious groups reinforce illogical and divisive proponents--again, this is not an aim. Likewise religious charities do not prevent people from involving themselves in the wider community, particularly if the said religious charity specializes is different areas of charitable assistance. "If a tax relief is to be given then it should be given to community integration organisations."Every charity is entitled to tax relief. "If such tax relief capital is withheld from religious charities, then this would send the right message out to its citizens in making it clear that it is wrong to differentiate between a fellow human/citizen on the basis of their religion/colour/creed etc.."If tax relief was withheld from religious charities (as demonstrated) it would be a violation of law. I have also fully emphasised that religious charities do not differentiate or separate fellow human beings on the basis of their religion/color/creed.A charity that supports a specific cause such as disability or lifeboats etc do not have the hugely detrimental societal mistrust that religious education and religious segregation does. How exactly does one distinguish here? If a charity supporting a specific cause such as disability is entitled to tax relief then a religious charity that also has specific causes should also be eligible. Likewise, religious charities are not based on religious education or religious segregation. "If this organisation benefits financially from the state, and then builds exclusive prayerhouses, schools, sports centres, scholarships etc that exclusively benefits members of that particular faith.Surely the state"s primary duty is to provide improvements that benefit society indiscriminately, and not to benefit communities who arrogantly and harmfully remain detached from wider society." As long as donations and financial contribution is spent on charitable causes--religious charities are absolutely entitled to establish their own sports centres, schools, etc. Legally these are considered "good works" as they are of benefit to people. On the contrary to "arrogantly" and "harmfully" detaching themselves from wider society, these charities are bringing people together. Pro misunderstands again that not all donations exclusively go on people in that religion, even smaller religious charities contribute to other causes. "The state unequivocally should not provide financial assistance to religious charities who would refuse to allow for eg transgendered, Eskimo, mentally retarded, aids sufferers etc people to benefit from their resources whereas all of the above are supposed to have equality of resources/opportunities according to our states" core belief irrelevant of whether or not they won the lottery of being born into a "truegod"ism" community."This is Pros own assertion (from his false religion example). Taking the example of a "trans gendered" charity, would they allow for donations to go towards religious charities? Would an anti-abuse charity wish for its funds to be spent on religious/ethnic charities? The answer is most likely no--and naturally, they wouldn't be obliged to. Your point about AIDS is undermined by the fact that religious charities do give assistance to those suffering from it. The Catholic Church for example, assists millions of people suffering from AIDS around the world each year. The World Jewish relief charity is also currently providing support those in Ebola infected countries, Rwanda, Ukraine, Poland, Moldova and places such as India and the Philippines. [4.] http://www.crs.org...[5.] http://www.catholicnewsagency.com...[6.] http://www.sharefaith.com...[7.] http://www.worldvision.org...[8.] https://www.wjr.org.uk...

A resolution to remove tax exemptions from religious institutions in the U.S. Con will post argument first I am just listing clarification statements 1. Go by the resolution don't go off topic 2. Try not to be to mean on this debate their will be clash but yeah 3. good luck

Religions Should Not Qualify as Charities Forces Clergy to the Same Standard as Average Joe

Churches should be taxed! no