State lawmakers are pandering pondering amending the Constitution for no good reason:
State lawmakers learned Wednesday there isn’t really a problem with churches being taxed illegally.
But they considered amending the constitution to prohibit the practice anyway.
“We do not have a crisis today of taxing religious property,†said Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, the author of Senate Joint Resolution 2. “My concern is for the future.â€
$24 billion of assessed value, or 6.3% of the state’s total is exempted. Of this, religious property is a subset. The property tax burden is, of course, shifted from that property to the rest of our property. I don’t have a problem exempting non-profits that provide a benefit to the community — personally, I don’t think the religiosity of the organization should count for or against the exemption.
Sen. Ford asked why the amendment was being considered if there was no problem. I know! Pandering to the religious base of legislators like Sen. Miller. This has been simple answers to simple questions. If my law firm decides to buy its offices, I think we’ll have to set up the First Church of Providing Legal Services at a Profit. “Of course we engage in for-profit activities. It’s dogma!”
Actually, since they have been all hot on turning the Constitution into the same thing as the Indiana code (rules on property tax being proposed amendments), this does follow the pattern.
I think it is the state government doing its part to reduce waste. Why do we need two documents? Just combine the Indiana Code and the Consitituion and call it a day…/sarcasm
And they’re not really laws, more like guidelines. See, for example, Governor Daniels unilaterally extending various tax deadlines and then having the General Assembly come in to retroactively legalize his actions.
I’m one of those folks that do think that all church owned property should pay property tax. Two fundamental reasons: churches access and receive taxpayer services – fire, police, courts, infrastructure etc. and they are not known to be significantly greater contributors in assisting the poor than are taxpayer dollars pooled from individual citizens.
Besides, it’s a true karmatic (hmm…is that a word) joy to witness the wingnuts playing defense for a change!
Yeah, let’m spin their webs..
By the way, did you know that Indiana (behind DC) is a leading home to many non-profits because we don’t make them pay property taxes. My understanding is that we have national headquarters for like 30+ fraternities and sororities.. not to mention the National FFA, NCAA and so forth.. due to that fact. A few jobs and $$ spent there.
I understand the concern of some over the possibility of non-profits might all of a sudden be charged taxes on all of their property. However, what is the problem assessing a service fee?
My question is not so much about the proper policy toward non-profits. They do a lot of the stuff nobody else wants to deal with and I think generally speaking our communities are better for their presence. I don’t think us paying for their share of fire or police protection is too much of a burden. What I do question, however, is the preferential treatment Sen. Miller seems to be suggesting for those organizations who provide these philanthropic services because of religious motivations rather than because of some other motivation.
I agree that churches should not get preferential treatment over other non-profits.
I can tell you that if non-profits were to be taxed, communities would lose many churches, YMCA’s United Ways, etc. My church, for one, would not survive such a burden.
But to change the law…that’s plain wrong!
We could even debate if they should or shouldn’t change the law…it is the screwing around with the Constitution that I think shouldn’t even be debated.
What, exactly, do you expect from Senator Miller?
If she was concerned for the future, she should quit and let someone better represent her citizens.
Um, I’m confused. So you amend the Indiana Constitution to give religious organizations preferential treatment…don’t you still have a slight U.S. Constitution problem, namely the 1st Amendment? I’m probably completely missing something…maybe not.