User:Ztallen/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Ztallen. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

America

Attempts have been made to instate a church tax in America, all of which have proven to be unsuccessful. The majority of the debate regarding the legality of this law is centered around the wording of the First Amendment. These specific sections up for debate are the free exercise clause and establishment clause of the amendment. Due to the unclear wording, the laws around them remain heavily debated.

Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York

This case was brought before the Supreme Court on November 19, 1969. Richmond County property owner Frederick Walz was concerned the tax exemption for churches led to his indirect contribution the church. The case argued whether or not the property tax laws and religious exemption from it were in violation of the First Amendment. The verdict was decided on May 4, 1970. In a 7-1 verdict, the Supreme Court determined that the tax exemption provided only: "minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than the taxation of churches." This majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William O. Douglas. In his opinion, Justice Douglas states that: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional."

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v Comer

In 2017, this case was brought before the Supreme Court. The main issue at hand was whether excluding religious establishments from an “otherwise neutral and secular aid program” violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. The Trinity Lutheran Church sued the state of Missouri after they denied them a grant for materials to resurface their preschool playground. They were denied on the grounds of Missouri Constitution Article 1, Section 7. This states that: “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, section or denomination of religion.” In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusion of a religious group from a neutral and unbiased aid program violates the First Amendment.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Stephen G. Breyer all wrote separate opinions concurring in part. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion shared by herself and Justice Ginsburg. In her opinion, Sotomayor stated that funding a grant to a religious institution provides for the spread of religious ideas and messages, and as such is a violation of the First Amendment’s neutral treatment of all beliefs.

Add-On: Germany

In 2017, Germany’s catholic church recorded approximately 6 billion euros split across its 27 different dioceses, also known as church districts. This is in spite of the massive dip in attendance. According to the national German newspaper Handelsblatt, church attendance has dropped by more than 2.2 million attendees since the start millennium. Contrasted to 50 years prior, where attendance totaled over 11 million, the numbers are now a mere 2.5 million Catholics The German Church also has a total fortune of at least 20 billion euros. The three highest profiting dioceses are Paderborn, at 3.5 billion, Munich at 2.8 billion, and Cologne at 2.6 billion euros. Despite the extreme success of this bill on forcing tax payment, many citizens still find ways to stay away from paying for it. When moving to Germany, one must fill out a form declaring religious affiliation and denomination. One can also manage to opt out of the tax at a later date, if they are a non-practicing member of their faith. This, however, has led to a lot of cases of people lying about their faiths in order to avoid paying their taxes.

Ongoing Debate

The argument for the exemption or inclusion of tax for churches is still debated to this day, both in countries with and without its current implementation. Some have gone so far as to call it treason to allow the government to exempt churches simply due to their religious affiliation. Others, such as the Supreme Court majority during the Walz trial, noted that “benevolent neutrality” towards churches was “deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life.”

Citations

"Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York." Oyez, 18 Mar. 2018, www.oyez.org/cases/1969/135.

"Churches and Taxes." 12 May 2017, https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org

Staff Reporter. “German Church collected record €6 billion in taxes last year.” catholicherald. Jan 2018. Web. Mar 2018. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/german-church-collected-record-e6-billion-in-taxes-last-year/

James. “What Is German Church Tax and How Do I Avoid Paying It?” LiveWorkGermany. Nov 2017. Web. Mar 2018. https://liveworkgermany.com/2017/11/what-is-german-church-tax-and-how-do-i-avoid-paying-it/

Beres, Derek. “How To Make $71 Billion A Year: Tax the Churches.” BigThink. 2017. Web. Mar. 2018. http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/how-to-make-71-billion-a-year-tax-the-churches

“Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v Comer.” Oyez. 24 Apr 2018. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-577