Taking Liberties: Taxing Church Attendance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1holycatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

1holycatholic

Guest
Taking Liberties: Taxing Church Attendance?
Erik Stanley walked up Woodson Road in Mission, Kansas, surveying the church parking lot at St. Pius X Catholic Church. He said the government can tax your life and can tax your death, but they’re not supposed to tax your church.

And that’s exactly what he said is happening in Mission.

“The city of Mission is taxing churches,” he said. “And that’s clearly unconstitutional.”

In August, the small town just north of Kansas City passed the so-called “driveway tax,” a controversial charge, in addition to property taxes, for residents and businesses based on the number of times their driveway is used.
…

Read more: foxnews.com/us/2011/02/10/taking-liberties-taxing-church-attendance/#ixzz1DcJSCuvi
 
“Sign of the Times.”

The Atheists will go for this one.

Little by little…

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn
 
Hold on a minute. I consider myself a conservative and I certainly don’t approve of “taxing” churches, but there IS a difference between a user fee and a tax.

Let’s face it, roadway systems aren’t free. It costs big bucks to build them, maintain them and police them. A large church parking lot creates a significant surge of turning movements on Sundays and other days when events occur. In my area, this is handled a little differently. ANY user requesting a new driveway construction permit is required to do a traffic study and if the traffic flow effects warrant it, the applicant is required to, at their own expense, widen the roadway system to allow for turning lanes and possibly even install a traffic signal if the impact would be significant without it.

If this municipality is simply taking a DIFFERENT approach and then funds widening and signals itself based on the needs of the system and the user fees assessed, that could actually be MORE fair than the system I described above that is used around here. It’s no fun to be the guy whose proposed signal breaks the threshold of service that means the difference between needing a $200,000 signal installation or not!

Most municipalities charge churches for their water and sewer service, is that an obnoxious “tax” to be decried too?
 
manualman said:
Hold on a minute. I consider myself a conservative and I certainly don’t approve of “taxing” churches, but there IS a difference between a user fee and a tax.
Click to expand...
The atheist bloggers are thrilled that churches are being taxed.
 
It’s just another example of government nickel-and-diming citizens to death - it doesn’t matter what they call it.

What do we pay property taxes for, anyway - shouldn’t property taxes cover these “driveway fees”? 🤷
 
I agree with the town. The town provides and maintain the roads, and charges fee for that.
 
manualman said:
If this municipality is simply taking a DIFFERENT approach and then funds widening and signals itself based on the needs of the system and the user fees assessed, that could actually be MORE fair than the system I described above that is used around here. It’s no fun to be the guy whose proposed signal breaks the threshold of service that means the difference between needing a $200,000 signal installation or not!
Click to expand...
Actually most public utilities are set up as a utility; you pay for your usage. The funds collected by the utility are restricted to the upkeep and continuation of the utility’s services. There may be others that don’t fit this criteria but that’s how most operate.

As you state the municipality is taking a different approach, one that will most certainly fail in a court of law. The problem is the there is not a “highway utility” set up in Mission. The driveway tax is billed on the property tax statement and funds go into a general fund with all the other property taxes collected. It’s billed on a property tax form, it’s paid like property tax and the money is used the same way as property tax - calling it a fee and not a tax doesn’t change what it is.
 
Pardon me, but what makes taxing churches unconstitutional? We, as a practice, do not tax churches or non-profits but I can find no law which says we cannot.
 
laszlo said:
I agree with the town. The town provides and maintain the roads, and charges fee for that.
Click to expand...
The pubic library is in for a whopper of tax bill - er use tax - er user fee. Police stations too, with all of the police cars coming and going. Same thing for City Hall… :coffeeread:

The church should block the driveway, reducing it’s tax bill - er use tax - er user fee to zero. The congregation can park wherever they like, just not on the church lot.

Or, alternatively, tax religious groups, and get the full impact of religious groups backing particular political candidates.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Pardon me, but what makes taxing churches unconstitutional? We, as a practice, do not tax churches or non-profits but I can find no law which says we cannot.
Click to expand...
Wow. A Roman Catholic.

I just wish you would bounce this off your Parish Priest. But then again, I have asked you to do that-before, regarding other issues, to no avail.

Wow.

And don’t go saying “Don’t make this personal” because your post is personal-definitely not what the Church would say, once again.

This is so far over the line, it’s not funny.

Doubt it? Ask you Priest.

God Bless you.
+Jesus, I Trust In You.
Love, Dawn
 
DawnInTexas said:
Wow. A Roman Catholic.

I just wish you would bounce this off your Parish Priest. But then again, I have asked you to do that-before, regarding other issues, to no avail.
Click to expand...
I’ll ask the bishop of the state capital. He’s a lawyer.

I don’t know why anyone would go to a parish priest with a legal issue. That’s not their bailiwick.
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
That looks like a Kansas statute to me, not even the state constitution. I was speaking of the US constitution.
Click to expand...
Actually you said constitution and then asked for what law:

Here’s the law at the federal level:

United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c))

Sections 503 through 505 set out the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many states refer to Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well.
 
SamH said:
Actually you said constitution and then asked for what law:

Here’s the law at the federal level:

United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c))

Sections 503 through 505 set out the requirements for attaining such exemptions. Many states refer to Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well.
Click to expand...
That’s not the constitution. That’s a law and in particular it is an exemption. There’s nothing in the constitution which makes taxing a church unconstitutional. Since they are not taxed due to an exemption in the law, surely there is an ability, but for the exemption, to subject non-profits and churches to taxation.

It is not against the law to tax a church. A church must seek exemption from the law to avoid being taxed. In the same manner, supplies for churches are often not subject to sales tax. But, the person claiming the exemption better make it known to the cashier! There is no requirement that the person claim the exemption each time, either.
 
Beau, I’m under the impression that if someone handed you a copy of the Constitution and marked with ahigh lighter you would say “it’s not valid because it’s not an original copy”.

They gave you local and federal proof, what more do you need?
 
Melchior said:
Beau, I’m under the impression that if someone handed you a copy of the Constitution and marked with ahigh lighter you would say “it’s not valid because it’s not an original copy”.

They gave you local and federal proof, what more do you need?
Click to expand...
Did you read the post? Someone said that taxing churches is unconstitutional. It is not.
Nothing posted has shown otherwise. the ‘local and federal proof’ you cite are exemptions from tax liability, not clauses in any constitution.

You can claim many exemptions on your tax return as to your income, but taxing your income is not unconstitutional.

So, smart remarks about copies of the constitution are fine, but if you want to make a statement about legalities, then taxing churches is not illegal.

“The city of Mission is taxing churches,” he said. “And that’s clearly unconstitutional.”
happens to be an erroneous statement.

**Now, I want someone to show me where in a state or federal constitution it says churches are not subject to tax. ** If cannot, please be quiet.
 
If I was that church I would close the parking lot and ask all the congregants to park as close to the church as possible. THe city would really have a problem aafter this.

Peace!👍
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Did you read the post? Someone said that taxing churches is unconstitutional. It is not.
Nothing posted has shown otherwise. the ‘local and federal proof’ you cite are exemptions from tax liability, not clauses in any constitution.
.
Click to expand...
Where’s that picture of the crying strawman?
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
**Now, I want someone to show me where in a state or federal constitution it says churches are not subject to tax. ** If cannot, please be quiet.
Click to expand...
It’s in the constitution right next to the line about the right to an abortion.

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)

First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles v. County of Los Angeles (1958)

United States v. Christian Echoes National Ministry (1972)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top