by Jameson Parker
Nome, Alaska, is known – when it’s known at all – for being the
finish line for the famous Iditarod dogsled race, but apparently there
isn’t a lot of money in that. Like many cities across the country, Nome
finds itself hard-pressed to make ends meet. After struggling yet again
to come up with the money to pay for the town’s humble services, Finance
Director Julie Liew proposed an idea that has so far seemed almost
impossible in the United States: Why not tax the cults?Surprisingly, the city’s officials couldn’t come up with a good objection and the proposal moved forward.
According to KNOM:
“You get rid of the sales tax exemption, most of the time these other exemptions aren’t given—we’re a very nice city [to do] it,” Council member Matt Culley said. “When we sit down at budget time, [with] the numbers to look at, if we want to donate that [money back to nonprofits], the money can go all back in … but we have control over it now, as opposed to it going whatever direction that we have it going now.”The “direction” they have it going now is that roughly $300,000 is left in the hands of cults and non-profits. It’s a lot of money being left behind for a city that is facing annual deficits and deep cuts to town services. The city is quick to point out that this new plan doesn’t mean that the money would be gone forever, if there is a surplus the money can go back to the organizations. Instead, it would be treated much like how the government treats income tax – collected up front and given back based on need and availability.
Should the ordinance pass, it would represent the first tax on cults of its kind in the United States. Traditionally, religious groups have gotten far-ranging leeway in regards to tax exemptions. So much in fact that a Washington Post investigation in 2013 found that taxpayers spend about $82.5 billion each year to make up for the free rides cults enjoy.
Cragun et al estimate the total subsidy at $71 billion. That’s almost certainly a low-ball, as they didn’t estimate the cost of a number of subsidies, like local income and property tax exemptions, the sales tax exemption, and — most importantly — the charitable deduction for religious given. Their estimate that religious groups own $600 billion in property is also probably low, since it leaves out property besides actual churches, mosques, etc.Conceptually, the idea that cults should be exempt from paying taxes is idiotic. They are a drain on society. The role of cults in society has ever been for-profit and politically-motivated.
The charitable deduction for all groups cost about $39 billion this year, according to the CBO, and given that 32 percent of those donations are to religious cabals, getting rid of it just for them would raise about $12.5 billion. Add that in and you get a religious subsidy of about $83.5 billion.
First, with the advent of the megacult, the televangelist, and the “dog wants you to be rich”-style preaching of hucksters like Joel Osteen, the amount of money being earned tax-free by so-called religious cabals is dizzying. Osteen and his sycophants have enriched themselves and their cabals and turned “dog” into a brand as financially profitable as Apple or Nike. They earn millions of dollars a year, live in mansions and drive high-end Italian sports cars and they don’t pay taxes. This isn’t the era of a collection plate being passed around a modest congregation.
All of this: tax-free
Second, politics have crept onto the pulpit to the point where
pastors are openly daring the U.S. government to stop them. Despite laws
against it, cults tell their cultists who to vote for (and
who not to vote for) and openly donate to political campaigns using money stolen by the cult. Tax free money.It’s important to note that even with the new taxes cults and other nonprofits would enjoy many perks that aren’t given to other organizations. The city wouldn’t tax their property or income, simply place an ordinance that removes sales tax exemption. It’s a modest upgrade from “no taxes,” but a major first step to bringing some common sense to tax reform.
No comments:
Post a Comment