Opinion by Peter Aitken PhD

Home Page

Property taxes are an essential source of revenue for cities and counties all across the country, funding essential services such as education, police and fire protection, libraries, road construction and maintenance, and so on. Yet, a major group of property owners is exempt from this civic duty, owning and using their property tax-free while still receiving many of the benefits that property taxes pay for.

I am, of course, talking about churches (of all faiths), who own some $600 billion worth of property in the US and receive a public subsidy estimated at $26 billion per year due to the property tax break. This tax break is long-standing, but is it right? Is it in accord with American principles of fairness, individual responsibility, and our First Amendment? Perhaps not. I think this should be changed.

Make no mistake, it the property tax exemption is a public subsidy of churches. As Chief Justice William Renquist wrote for the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Regan vs. Taxation With Representation (1983), “Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay.” Who pays for this subsidy? You and me—home owners, renters, and businesses—because our are must be higher to make up for what the churches don’t contribute. And worse, we have no say in the matter. Money is taken from your pocket and, in effect, given to churches with no regard as to whether you support them, their beliefs, or their activities. Gay citizens are forced to support churches that have fought tooth and nail against gay rights. Women are forced to support denominations that refuse to give females an equal role in church life. Educated people are forced to support the teaching of creationism and biblical inerrancy. Conservatives are forced to support liberal churches that advocate for social justice causes that the right wing does not agree with.

The unfairness of this exemption is amplified because it favors established churches with large, valuable properties. Can you imagine the size of the tax break given to churches that own prime real estate with imposing buildings in downtown New York City, San Francisco, or Chicago? Contrast this with the tiny or nonexistent tax break for churches who own small properties in poor and rural areas or who own no property at all. And, given that established churches with valuable real estate are almost all Christian, the property tax exemption amounts to government favoritism toward this one religion over all others. This seems to be a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Some people claim that the property tax exemption for churches helps to keep religion independent of government, but the reverse is true. How can churches be considered independent when they depend on public subsidies to help pay their bills? They aren’t independent any more than a young adult who needs a monthly check from Mom and Dad.  When the churches support themselves without this subsidy, then they will be truly independent of government—as they should be.

It is a bedrock principle of American constitutional law that people must be free to practice their religion when, where, and how they see fit. But, “free” in this context does not mean “free of cost.” If your congregation wants to buy a piece of land and put up a building for your worship activities, you are free to do so. You should not, however, expect others to help pay for it. It’s your religion and it should be your responsibility.

But, why tax churches exempting other nonprofits from property taxes? Many churches provide invaluable services to the community, such as food pantries, soup kitchens, and clothing drives. Some also own and operate universities and hospitals. This charitable work must continue, and to the extent that a church’s facilities are used for legitimate nonprofit and non-religious activates they should remain untaxed. The property tax would apply only to the extent that the facilities are used for religious activities, such as worship and Sunday school.

Churches in the U.S. have been free of property and many other taxes for ages, and the idea of taxing them will seem shocking to many. Yet there is a good argument to be made for such taxation. It would be good for society and good for the churches. Let’s think about it.

To be suddenly liable for their full property tax bill would be a burden few churches could meet. For this reason, I suggest implementing the tax gradually, perhaps 10% the first year, 20% the second, and so on. This would allow them to adjust priorities and fundraising in order to be able to meet their community obligations.