1 Valadez
Michael Valadez
Brandon Alva
ENGL 2010 SP13
Researched Argument
Why Everyone Should Pay Their Taxes, Including Jesus
I hate paying my taxes—trust me. So it should come to no surprise that when it comes
time to pay taxes, I sleep soundly knowing that my fellow man (so long as he lands in the same
income bracket) pays an amount ostensible to my own. After all, that’s only fair right? Of
course, there are individuals and groups out there that abuse systems and regulations in place, for
their own personal gains. Sadly, churches and synagogues aren’t exempt from this category. The
belief that churches shouldn’t be taxed because it says so in the constitution, or that because it’s
just outright wrong, is just that—wrong. In fact, the constitution never grants tax-exemption to
that religious groups at all. And it’s because of this that I call for a draw to attention on the
subject matter. If taxing non-profit churches and similar sectors would improve the welfare of
man, we should tax them. If the opposition states that it will cost us even more, we should be
looking at the possibility graphs that outline these situations as well as the marginal benefits that
could come at an agreed upon equilibrium. Many non-profit organizations hide behind a belief
that we don’t all share, while our government denies us a proper response. Rationality and
positive economics should be used to impose taxes on non-profit organizations that shield
2 Valadez
themselves from being equal to you and me. This is an ongoing argument in society that is
anything but new, yet sadly, we’ve failed to act logically and have allowed for millions to go
unchecked.
In 1966, a suit was filed that demanded Maryland officials to recognize that exemptions
on churches, raise tax for the surrounding population. Madalyn Murray O’Hair felt entitled to her
constitutional rights; she argued it violates the First Amendment because it amounts to taxation
in support of religion. The case was later denied and closed on the opposing opinion that society
would pay more if exemptions were not in effect. In addition, the state theorized that question of
unconstitutional discrimination would surface if it were to remove church-owned property tax
immunity. Despite this, what’s most interesting about the situation is the response given from the
state; it comes with seemingly no logic. On the opposite, the position being made by O’Hair has
credibility to it, as even the judge commends her in saying, “Logically, this argument is strong.”
He also follows, “But logic is a minion to the law, not its master.” It’s most likely that you
wouldn’t hear a retort such as this in today’s society. Even so, it shows our government from
years past, failing its people to have a logical, rational choice in their decision. Unfortunately, the
discussion has still yet to be given enough attention as well. Taxation is a burden (and necessity)
that should be held by all members in our nation.
In a more recent (and concerning) case over Maryland v. O’Hair, the case of Warren v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue details a more specific example of why we need to amend
our current laws, the Parsonage Exemption bill. Passed as a part of the Revenue Act of 1921, it
states that “ministers of the gospel” may deduct their living expenses through receiving tax-free
housing allowances. In Warren’s case, the family was claiming deductions and an allowance of
eighty-thousand dollars annually. When the IRS stepped forward to question how it’s acceptable
3 Valadez
or even necessary for the family to be exempt, the state of California rejected the case. They
insisted that the constitution granted the family tax immunity.
What about the members of society that don’t want to share that equality? It is estimated
that if the "parsonage exemption" on religious ministers' housing costs were revoked, American
clergy members would cumulatively lose an estimated $2.3 billion over five years
(Chemerinsky). The evidence provided outlines clear negligence from government concerning an
issue that affects the social welfare of all its citizens. Accountability must be demanded from
clergy members who wrongfully abuse this tax exemption and give themselves more than what
would be deemed necessary to the common tax payer. However, due to current government
regulations in place, demanding accountability is nearly impossible at this point.
As long as there is a separation between state and church, the government technically
cannot impose taxes on an individual, such as a priest, that works through a full-time non-profit
religiously affiliated church. The opposition argues that if the government could control the
prices or levels, including gains, that a church affiliated member receives, it would have control
within the church. This would mean that the government could penalize or shut down churches if
they defaulted on the law. Also, this would put government above religion in certain
perspectives. The issue I would stress is that this action clearly favors clergy members.
Personally I believe it almost seem as though there is no separation between government and
church. Our government willfully provides benefits to select members of society and alienates
the rest. How is rationality any better than imposing taxes or removing a handful of the wrongful
exemptions existent today.
4 Valadez
Karl Taro Greenfield, blogger and publicist of portfolio.com, highlights two different
families who have unarguably abused their status in society to earn excessive incomes and own
homes of considerable value. Greenfield explores the incomes and revenues of specific
organizations, such as Scientology. Greenfield has found inexcusable evidence of the lack of
enough transparency in our church groups. The opposition argues that a well-endowed lifestyle is
merely an act of god. It’s believed by Reverend Joel Osteen, one of the wealthy pastors
mentioned by Greenfield, that his life is of god’s favor. In his own words, his family is “victors,
not victims.” The truth is churches cause our government billions of dollars in lost revenue, and
individuals such as the ones highlighted by Greenfield live their daily life’s feeling justified.
Our government needs to at least consider taxing churches. It’s allowing the sectors to go
on without paying what many of them wrongfully have taken. Something it cannot afford given
our national debt. White House senior policy analysts have predicted that churches own $300$500 billion in untaxed property. Even if it were a gross exaggeration, the number would still be
great enough to inherit collection. And when specifically addressing Joel Osteen, who owns a
house costing more than $300,000, it’s clear that there’s an excessive amount of income. Osteen,
who is most notable for having a successful podcast and holds numerous church functions while
managing his own church; claims to donate over fifty percent of his gains back into the church,
charities and the local area. Fifty percent sounds generous, but loses its glamour quickly when
it’s shown that the church earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue. An example of this case
could be the Church of Scientology, whose annual income exceeds $500 million. All of which, is
tax free.
Taxing churches would be no easy feat. We should begin by addressing the issue of
hypothetical taxation. It would include tax on all non-profit organizations and their income, this
5 Valadez
would include donations. There would be a double tax here that would deter people from
donating as openly as they currently can. This could potentially run outside the church and hurt
other markets as well as individuals become increasingly more frugal with possessions. Taxing
all non-profit organizations would be extremely detrimental to some efforts, as there is a vast
majority of those whom genuinely gain nothing from work input.
Of course, it should be taken into deep consideration that taxing churches could further
bring problems in local communities by reducing the amount of religiously funded charities.
Author Brian Quinn argues in his work Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?, that taxing
churches would “hit us in society with we haven’t had to handle in the past.” Poor and
disadvantaged people could suffer as churches would potentially have to close properties. These
properties include soup kitchens, medical clinics, and food banks. Quinn states that taxation
would lead to closure and ending said provided services.
These believes are admirable, yet mistaken however. The belief that taxation would close
these services is absurd, as it’s unlikely that the government would ever finalize on a decision
that would impact social welfare so devastatingly. And many of the services mentioned above
are provided through larger groups and well founded organizations. Your smaller churches, the
ones that manage already to stay afloat, would of course be hit the hardest. And that’s why it’s
more than likely that if an agreement were ever made it would be sure to grant immunity or
special reductions for those with less income or no income at all. Unfortunately Quinn shows
bias toward the belief that a tax would be universal and that the same amount would be
applicable to everyone. Quinn’s makes several good theories on the outcome of taxation;
however, he fails to address a pertinent issue occurring inside many church operations, and that’s
tax fraudulent behaviors (comparable to shams).
6 Valadez
Quinn fails to submit any real evidence to his claims in his hypothesis. Merely that he
believes that these exempt non-profit organizations in question would completely withdraw from
charitable aid. I would for one, question the motives of the organizations if and after they’ve
hypothetically withdrawn. If the blame game was played and our government was demanded to
be held accountable, would you in the hypothetical case of Government v. Catholic Church. One
has trillions in debt; the other owns trillions in assets, equity, and property. Theoretically with
this logic, the government could be just as likely to take a portion from each taxable church and
return it to public services. Quinn avoids this logical disagreement by steering right into the
protection blanket that is our constitution.
The opposing argument shouldn’t cite the constitution as the definitive answer to our
problems (even though both parties are guilty). It must be agreed upon that certain perspectives
and viewpoints have altered since the constitutions inception. And while amending the
constitution is a hot topic for most, it cannot be ignored by creating false problems. The
opposition also shouldn’t make claims such as, “It’s through god’s favor,” or similarly make
statements like “will any bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the
Living God?” Situations that contain less of a “grey area,” by providing argument for the
opposition not based entirely on beliefs. To avoid discrimination; the federal government would
be required to tax all non-profit organizations equally. This would be a problem largely for those
who generate almost no profit, while mostly just an inconvenient annoyance for larger well
established groups (Catholic Church). It would be a good idea to show one considerable
approach to how we could ever work together to reach a conclusion. Becoming educated on the
subject can show us the right places to start when the time comes to construct a plan for our
churches taxable future.
7 Valadez
The truth of the matter is that tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. If the government
wanted to have some level of oversight on groups it deemed tax-exempt. Then there should be no
discussion if this is acceptable or not. Religious organizations abuse their status by believing that
they are immune in addition. The constitution is consistently abused as a reference as it never
clearly states that religious entities cannot face taxes; only that there must be a separation of state
and church. it’s mundane to think of the constitution as an end all be all, because it never
specifically states that religious entities are free from tax. We need to agree upon the fact that
can’t let the constitution (Written in 1787, a time when minute men were needed and plumbing
didn’t exist yet) decide or rule us on an issue that has widely changed from then and now. Our
founding fathers wouldn’t agree with the freedom given to particular sections of non-profit
groups. This includes the business they conduct in, and their overall contribution to society. Tax
exemption was originally provided for churches after the revolution because there were no or
little funds. This was originally thought as a break, or a starting point for these groups. It’s
doubtful that these breaks would still be given had the groups had the wealth they do now.
Additionally, these breaks were provided in respect that these groups would continually perform
positive contributions to the public. What’s wrong here is that this is not included in the
constitution at all, so there’s actually no necessity of charitable output from these groups at all.
Jesus has been avoiding paying taxes for decades, and it’s clear as day that there was never
immunity granted for this.
8 Valadez
Works Cited
“Constitutional Law: Should Religion Be Taxed?” Time Magazine. 25 Feb. 1966. Print.
Erwin Chemerinsky, JD, "The Parsonage Exemption Violates the Establishment Clause and
Should Be Declared Unconstitutional," Whittier Law Review. Web. 2003.
Jeff Schweitzer, PhD. "The Church of America." www.huffingtonpost.com. Web. 11 Oct. 2011.
Greenfeld, Karl Taro. "God Wants Me to Be Rich.” www.portfolio.com. Web. 16 July. 2008.
Lynn, Barry W. JD, "Why Don't Churches Pay Taxes?: Counterpoint," www.latimes.com Web.
23 Sep. 2008.
Tibbs, Scott. "Should Churches Pay Taxes?” ConservaTibbs.com. Web. 24 June. 2009.
Quinn, Brian. "Should Churches Pay Property Taxes?" www.wellsvilledaily.com. Web. 1 Mar. 1
2011.