Church taxes

[-TSS-]

I would like to know what is the situation regarding this issue over there in Canada and the USA. Namely, we in the Scandinavian countries traditionally belong to the Evangeligal-Lutheran church which levies taxes or we can opt out of it, which I have done as I turned 18, but the taxes amount to 1,00-1,70% of the annual income and amazingly over 80% of the population still pay that price.

I know that a lot of Scandinavians have settled in Canada and northern United States and they are traditioanlly Lutherans. Do their churches have this tax-collection system or do the churches have to find their finances elsewhere?

TBH, I can't really fathom out how can churches which don't levy taxes finance themselves. I know that the Catholic Church is a huge worldwide institution with a lot of wealth and it can finance its sub-branches elsewhere in the world but how do other churches finance themselves if they don't collect taxes?

Here in Finland the church-taxes are anywhere between 1-1.7% of your annual income depending on the congregation. I just can't believe that the majority of the population readily pay such an amount of money just to throw it away to things like paying the bishops' wages.

[msj]

This is interesting as I understand that German churches are getting more aggressive at taxing their followers and I expect to see a significant decline in Catholics because of this (as people decide to not officially designate themselves to, therefore, not pay the tax).

In Canada we have none of this.

If you want to belong to a church you show up whenever appropriate and you donate however much you can afford.

Churches may or may not put pressure on people (I really have no idea as I don't attend) but I imagine they find a variety of ways to solicit donations - passing the hat around, "tithing," etc...

I have many clients who give me big tax receipts at the end of the year to claim donations on their tax returns. A $1,000 donation will reduce one's taxes about $390 so the net cost is $610.

Other than that, churches operate as charities so they do not pay any income taxes (so the tax donation income they receive leads to a tax break for the giver and is not taxable by the church as the recipient).

They also usually get property tax breaks from municipalities.

And, finally, there is a special tax break to the priest/pastor where a church may house that person (and family) and this is effectively a tax free break for them (where as if I paid my staff's rent or mortgage it would be included in their taxable income).

[bush_cheney2004]

Churches have no legal taxing authority or taxing districts in the United States. Members may comply with voluntary tithings or offerings to their church, some or all of which may be tax deductible up to certain limits if the church has tax exempt status.

[-TSS-]

What I find truly amazing, or perhaps worrying is a more fitting word, is that 80% of the population here in Finland pay 1% or even more of their annual income just to support the so-called established church. I find it truly amazing, I really do, don't you too?

[Guest American Woman]

What I find truly amazing, or perhaps worrying is a more fitting word, is that 80% of the population here in Finland pay 1% or even more of their annual income just to support the so-called established church. I find it truly amazing, I really do, don't you too?

I would have to know more about it. A lot of churches do a lot of charitable things for a lot of people. Is that true of the established church in Finland? If so, perhaps that is what they are "supporting."

[bush_cheney2004]

What I find truly amazing, or perhaps worrying is a more fitting word, is that 80% of the population here in Finland pay 1% or even more of their annual income just to support the so-called established church. I find it truly amazing, I really do, don't you too?

No, as Norway actually has a state church (Church of Norway). That other Scandinavian nations would follow such sanctioned behaviour is not surprising. The comical part is that they would point at the US or Canada for having too much religious influence.

[kimmy]

The Church of Norway is no longer the official state church-- that was changed just this year.

-k

[Mighty AC]

I would have to know more about it. A lot of churches do a lot of charitable things for a lot of people. Is that true of the established church in Finland? If so, perhaps that is what they are "supporting."

Still...charitable or not I'd rather cut out the religion and fund the charity.

[Guest American Woman]

Still...charitable or not I'd rather cut out the religion and fund the charity.

Sometimes the charity would not exist but for the religion church. Church groups do a lot of charitable work at home and throughout the world, and if by contributing a mere 1% of their salary people feel as if they are helping contribute towards it, I guess I don't find that so difficult to understand. I'd rather fund individual charities/events, too, but I'm guessing a lot of people feel as if this is one way of contributing without having to put much thought and/or effort into it. Just a thought. I'm guessing, too, that there is a certain percentage of people who do not consider themselves religious, but don't really consider themselves atheists, either. Perhaps they feel as if the church is a positive thing for a lot of people, and therefore support it. Again. Just a thought.

[Wilber]

Still...charitable or not I'd rather cut out the religion and fund the charity.

You would abolish the Salvation Army? More than most, they go where others won't.

[Mighty AC]

You would abolish the Salvation Army? More than most, they go where others won't.

Nope. For the most part I don't like to ban or abolish. In general, I would choose to support work done by a secular charity as opposed to a church that also engages in charitable activities. If the justification for a 1% church tax is they also do charity work, then I'd rather cut out the mythology and directly fund charity.

[Guest American Woman]

Nope. For the most part I don't like to ban or abolish. In general, I would choose to support work done by a secular charity as opposed to a church that also engages in charitable activities.

And that would be your choice, but I believe the question raised in the OP is why some would chose to do so.

[Mighty AC]

And that would be your choice, but I believe the question raised in the OP is why some would chose to do so.

I think the OP was highlighting what the author considers to be an incredulous situation. You mentioned the possibility that some may donate because of the possible charity work that a church may perform. I mentioned that in that case I'd rather fund actual charity directly and not through an organization whose primary purpose is to spread a belief system.

[Wilber]

Nope. For the most part I don't like to ban or abolish. In general, I would choose to support work done by a secular charity as opposed to a church that also engages in charitable activities. If the justification for a 1% church tax is they also do charity work, then I'd rather cut out the mythology and directly fund charity.

I have to look at what a charity does. Fact is, two of, if not the most effective organizations working in inner cities are the Salvation Army and the UGM, both religion based. They exist to help people and seem willing to do what many others aren't. Even though we are not at all religious, we support them for that reason.

I do agree that there should be no dedicated tax to support churches.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Wilber

[-TSS-]

In the Scandinavian countries it is easy to keep track of how many adherents the main religion has as the church is like a club where you either belong and pay the membership-fee or don't belong and don't have to pay anything.

In many other countries, in almost all other countries to be more precise, the church counts you as an adherent to their religion if you were born to parents who are adherents to the religion. It doesn't matter how religious or irreligios you are.

[Sleipnir]

Come to think of it, political parties are a lot like charities.

[-TSS-]

The idea of a state church is really an absurd one and most countries which have had such a system are moving away from it. Not least because it would be wrong towards citizens who want to have nothing to do with the religion of the so-called established church and would end up supporting it indirectly by their tax money.

[Mr.Canada]

Churches will remain to be protected by the Charter of Rights. Get used to it. The Charter works for the right wing sometimes too.

[Sleipnir]

Churches will remain to be protected by the Charter of Rights. Get used to it. The Charter works for the right wing sometimes too.

Not all 'churches' are protected by the Charter of Rights.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not all 'churches' are protected by the Charter of Rights.

But certain religious schools certainly are in several provinces, over any other religions.

[cybercoma]

At the end of the day, Churches do a lot of third-secctor work that helps support Canada's social safety net and they do it mostly, if not entirely, with privately raised donations, rather than government funding. The absolute least we can do is let them exist tax free.

[msj]

At the end of the day, Churches do a lot of third-secctor work that helps support Canada's social safety net and they do it mostly, if not entirely, with privately raised donations, rather than government funding. The absolute least we can do is let them exist tax free.

1) If you give $1,000 to a church you will get a tax break of ~$ 380 (depending on what province you leave in and assuming that $1,000 is the only donation you claim). So, that is hardly a "privately raised donation."

2) Priests/Pastors get a special tax break for church provided housing that other people do not get. Must be nice.

3) Churches could easily separate the charitable works they do from the proselytizing to separate what is actually charitable from what is BS (imo).

4) Even if we do continue with the status quo to keep all churches tax exempt then at the very least rules should be enforced to ensure that any limits for them accumulating assets are properly applied.

[cybercoma]

I don't understand your argument. I"m saying they save the taxpayers money by providing valuable social services to their congregation, so the least we can do is allow them to exist tax free. I'm not really sure what point you're making.

As for keeping charitable work from proselytizing, I'm not sure how you separate the two.

Take for example a minister, pastor, or priest who has a woman in his congregation come to him because she's being abused by her husband. Say he counsels her and refers her to a transition house, lawyer, or the police. On Sunday, during the mass or service, he then preaches opposition to violence against women to his congregation. Hopefully this sermon does greater good in the entire church community.

How do you distinguish the proselytizing from the charity work there? I'm going to say that the "social service" they provide for the community cannot be separated from their religious work.

Remember, I'm an atheist. However, there is social value to Churches and their work.

[msj]

CC, you are forgetting that the tax donation is costing the government millions of dollars each year in tax revenue.

Throw in property tax exemptions (granted municipalities are starting to end this practice) and we are talking real money.

To the extent that a church is profitable and no income taxes are paid on that profit is also further revenue not earned by the state.

But fair enough; in the end it's likely a wash in that the additional taxes may just go to providing social services no longer covered by churches.

[Bonam]

I don't understand your argument. I"m saying they save the taxpayers money by providing valuable social services to their congregation, so the least we can do is allow them to exist tax free.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Most every corporation provides valuable services or valuable products to the community. Think of the value of the contributions computer and internet companies have made to allow everyone to have a voice online, to talk to people from around the world, to always be in touch with their loved ones at the click of a button, to shed light on information that could once have been kept hidden. These services are of enormous value to society. Certainly the least we can do is allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc, to exist tax free?