• 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I will consider this for v4, although I’m still torn on whether that’s a good idea. It would give religious entities a direct reason to influence politics even more. Any good reasons to the benefit other than more tax revenue?

    • bigoljim@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Then better enforce the separation of church and state, to ensure they dont influence politics. I thought the reason they were not taxed was to ensure they didnt influence politics.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      It would give religious entities a direct reason to influence politics even more.

      They’re already influencing politics, and there’s nothing being done to stop them. There’s no reason to believe that they will stop or slow down.

      • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yea after more research this is the conclusion I’ve come to. I think ending the tax-exempt status of religious entities is the best solution to stop the problem.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          i think there is potential to do one better and find a more productive solution. start a crackdown, investigate religious entities that are clearly making a profit from rental land. threaten them with removal of tax exemption. investigate institutions that participate in political activity. threaten them with taxes.

          if the IRS would start doing this for all the ultra wealthy, this will be a natural antecedent to that process.

          i don’t see why it has to be an all or nothing deal, unless i am missing something huge.

          • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Nope, that would be definitely seen as religious persecution. Only way is to equally end all religious tax exemptions simultaneously.

            • spujb@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              oh sorry there’s another key fact to this, religious institutions are tax exempt under 501©(3) in the same way as all other charitable organizations.

              so going after “religious organizations” already means you are going to have to define which 501c3s are “allowed” or not—and unfortunately there’s a lot of crossover of semi-but-not-really religious groups. so any attempt at un-tax-exempting churches is going to look like persecution to some because the line is going be drawn somewhere. think of yoga or mindfulness studios, plenty of which are 501c3. are they religious? well, yeah, often. all of them? certainly not. so how do you choose? in any raw “tax the church” scenario you end up litigating what consitutes “religious” or not—which looks like ( and arguably might be) proto-persecution.

              so, investigate the profit. publish the documents showing a church breaking its 501c3 requirements. give them 180 days to knock it off or something, then tax them like the rest of us. you’ll probably also catch some non-religious 501c3s doing shady stuff as well—and all the better.

              hope this makes sense.

              edit: i guess the other assumption i made is that we don’t want to just… tax all non profits. i hope we both can agree that would be shitty lol.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      The sheer amount of land they would have to sell off to be able to pay their taxes would drive prices down for houses and farms. The LDS own something like 850,000 acres or something of just farm land. People could build affordable housing or just housing in places increasing supply.