Connect with us

News

America Spends $71 Billion Annually Subsidizing Tax-Exempt Religion

Published

on

A new report by a research team at the University of Tampa finds that tax-exempt religious organizations are subsidized by the U.S. government — meaning, you and me — to the tune of $71 billion each year. As a rule, religious organizations and many of their their employees — such as ministers, priests, rabbis, etc. — can be exempt from paying local, state, and federal taxes, income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, investment taxes, etc.

“What we found suggests that religious institutions, if they were required to pay taxes the same as for-profit corporations do, would not have nearly as much money or influence as they enjoy in America today,” the report, published at the Council for Secular Humanism, states:

Do religions engage in charitable work that addresses the physical needs of the poor? Many do, but that is not their primary focus. Religions are quick to trumpet when they do charitable work—ironically for Christians, since the Bible explicitly says not to (Mathew 6:2). But they don’t do as much charitable work as a lot of people think, and they spend a relatively small percentage of their overall revenue on such work. For instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church), which regularly trumpets its charitable donations, gave about $1 billion to charitable causes between 1985 and 2008. That may seem like a lot until you divide it by the twenty-three-year time span and realize this church is donating only about 0.7 percent of its annual income. Other religions are more charitable. For instance, the United Methodist Church allocated about 29 percent of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010 (about $62 million of $214 million received). One calculation of the resources expended by 271 U.S. congregations found that, on average, “operating expenses” totaled 71 percent of all the expenditures of religions, much of that going to pay ministers’ salaries. Financial contributions addressing the physical needs of the poor fall within the remaining 29 percent of expenditures. While these numbers may be higher as a percentage of income than typical charitable giving by corporations, they are not hugely higher (depending on the religion) and are substantially lower in absolute terms. Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.

In other words, you are paying a lot more in taxes to subsidize the salaries of people whose work you may not agree with, and whose work, should it have to be done by the government, in many cases, wouldn’t need to be. How much is $71 billion dollars? A quick Google search returned these findings. The annual budget for the state of Florida. The entire budget — including all the food stamps issued — for the Agriculture Department in 1993. The entire amount the nation of Thailand will spend on infrastructure in the next ten years. Or, this:

The New Bottom Line coalition has estimated that the big banks could write down the principal of underwater mortgages at a one-year cost of $71 billion saving underwater families an average of $543 per month, pumping billions into the economy and creating one million jobs. The banks have the money – this year’s compensation pool is projected to be more than double that.

Considering the heightened political activity religion in America has taken in the past few years alone, including organized and intentional flouting of laws and IRS rules regulating their tax-exempt status, it’s time Americans come to the realization that there is no need for — nor are we in a position to continue to subsidize — tax exemption for religious organizations any longer. To the LGBT community, TaxTheChurches.org writes:

This issue should be a no-brainer for you. You know where all the prejudice, injustice, hatred and discrimination in our culture is rooted, don’t you? The Judeo-Christian bible teaches that you are an “abomination.” Who you love, and how you love, is therefore wrong, abnormal, amoral, unnatural and evil – as opposed to right, normal, natural or good – by virtue of your immoral “choice.” You are demonized by an increasingly intolerant “Christian” culture, and denied basic human rights by these fundamentalist zealots that YOU subsidize with YOUR taxes. Think about this the next time you take a good look at your pay stub or your tax return.

Hat-tip: Zack Ford at Think Progress

There's a reason 10,000 people subscribe to NCRM. You can get the news before it breaks just by subscribing, plus you can learn something new every day.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘This Isn’t a Close Call’: Dem Floats Shutdown After Trump’s Reporter Threat

Published

18 hours ago

on

September 16, 2025

By

A prominent Democratic Congressman is threatening to vote to shut down the federal government in response to President Donald Trump’s threat to target a journalist over a question about hate speech.

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked the President about Attorney General Pam Bondi’s claim that she will target those who engage in hate speech — which is largely constitutionally protected. Trump suggested the administration could go after the reporter.

“We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart,” the President told Karl.

The federal government is again is poised to shut down unless Speaker of the House Mike Johnson can pass legislation to fund the government. The bill, a 91-page continuing resolution, was published Tuesday afternoon. It pushes a shutdown deadline from October 1 to November 21.

READ MORE: ‘You Have a Lot of Hate’: Trump Threatens Reporter After Hate Speech Question

According to Politico, the bill would “provide $30 million for lawmaker security and a total of $58 million in security assistance the White House requested for the Supreme Court and executive branch.”

“While GOP leaders plan to call a floor vote later this week, it’s still unclear whether Democrats will vote in support of the bill, with President Donald Trump calling on congressional Republicans to stiff-arm the minority party in government funding negotiations.”

In response to Trump’s comment, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell asked, “How can we fund this? I am being asked this week to fund a government that locks up a reporter Trump doesn’t like. This isn’t a close call folks.”

The Trump administration has not yet actually locked up a reporter because the President does not like them, but critics, including California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, appeared to suggest that was the implied threat that Trump was making.

“Donald Trump says he will send the DOJ after the press if they say things he doesn’t like,” Newsom declared.

CNN chief political analyst David Axelrod asked, “So is the AG going to go after journalists who displease the @POTUS?”

READ MORE: ‘Not a Monarchy’: Trump’s Lawsuit Against NYT Sparks Mockery — and Free Speech Warnings

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘You Have a Lot of Hate’: Trump Threatens Reporter After Hate Speech Question

Published

20 hours ago

on

September 16, 2025

By

President Donald Trump is facing a barrage of criticism after threatening a well-known veteran reporter who asked about his Attorney General saying that she would target people who engage in hate speech, which is largely seen by experts as a constitutionally-protected right.

“We’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart,” the President told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl.

Asked if that was “appropriate,” Trump replied, “Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech. So maybe they’ll have to go after you.”

READ MORE: ‘Not a Monarchy’: Trump’s Lawsuit Against NYT Sparks Mockery — and Free Speech Warnings

After claiming, “we want everything to be fair,” Trump went on to say that “the radical left has done tremendous damage to the country, but we’re fixing it.”

Critics blasted the President.

“Donald Trump says he will send the DOJ after the press if they say things he doesn’t like,” declared California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.

“Totally normal behavior from a president and not at all a sign of some kind of emotional issue,” charged The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and expert on Russia and national security.

“The logical and obvious companion to turning the government loose to harass and criminalize political opposition is doing the same thing to the free press,” warned Aaron Fritschner, Deputy Chief of Staff to U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). “People will doubt his intentions, as they somehow always do, but once again Trump is just coming out and saying it here.”

READ MORE: Greene Says Kirk Killing Sparked ‘Spiritual Revival’ for Christ — Urges ‘National Divorce’

“Trump is overtly saying that DOJ is going to use Charlie Kirk’s assassination to silence anyone he perceives as an enemy,” observed former Obama official Tommy Vietor.

“He isn’t even pretending not to play dictator. This is third world s– and I’m so tired of the MAGA excusing,” lamented “On Democracy” podcaster Fred Wellman.

“This First Amendment is under attack, and it has never been a scarier time,” warned attorney Aaron Parnas.

READ MORE: Vance Hosts Stephen Miller on Kirk’s Show to Preach ‘Real Unity’ — While Blaming the Left

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Not a Monarchy’: Trump’s Lawsuit Against NYT Sparks Mockery — and Free Speech Warnings

Published

22 hours ago

on

September 16, 2025

By

President Donald Trump has filed another lawsuit against The New York Times, drawing warnings from legal experts about free speech and First Amendment implications — even as they mock the filing itself.

Trump filed the $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against the paper of record, which he called “one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country, becoming a virtual ‘mouthpiece’ for the Radical Left Democrat Party.”

At issue, he said on his Truth Social website, is their endorsement of then-Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, which Trump called “the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER.”

READ MORE: Greene Says Kirk Killing Sparked ‘Spiritual Revival’ for Christ — Urges ‘National Divorce’

“The New York Times has been allowed to freely lie, smear, and defame me for far too long, and that stops, NOW!” he declared.

According to Politico, the lawsuit “alleges the reporting had harmed Trump’s ‘unique brand’ and business interests, including his media company’s stock value, causing ‘reputational injury’ worth ‘billions of dollars.'”

Bloomberg News reported that “The New York Times said in a statement that the lawsuit ‘has no merit’ and ‘is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting’.”

“It lacks any legitimate legal claims and instead is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting,” a Times spokesperson said on Tuesday. “The New York Times will not be deterred by intimidation tactics.”

Critics and legal experts have mocked the legal filing.

“Is it possible for a legal pleading to be psychotic?” asked attorney George Conway, a well-known Trump critic. “I think we have an answer.”

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, a professor of law and MSNBC/NBC News legal analyst, wrote: “I’d like to see the judge dismiss and grant rule 11 sanctions. That’s not a stretch here. We do, after all, have a 1st Amendment and a constitutional republic, not a monarchy/dictatorship.”

READ MORE: Vance Hosts Stephen Miller on Kirk’s Show to Preach ‘Real Unity’ — While Blaming the Left

Rule 11 sanctions refer to penalties a court may impose on attorneys for filing frivolous lawsuits.

“The 85-page lawsuit reads like a pro-Trump op-ed, with page after page of gushing praise for the president,” wrote CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter. “The suit demands $15 billion in damages, which exceeds the entire market cap of The New York Times Company.”

But Stelter also called Trump’s lawsuit “the latest example of what First Amendment experts have described as a presidential strategy to silence critical news coverage and curb free speech by filing legally dubious suits.”

Others also warned of the First Amendment implications.

Former Biden White House senior advisor Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, remarked, “So much for free speech.”

Attorney Ron Filipkowski, the editor-in-chief for MeidasTouch News, urged, “No Settlements! Needs to be the rally cry for every press outlet, university, business, law firm, nonprofit, and other entity that is targeted by the regime. Settlements sell us all out.”

READ MORE: Trump Teases Threat to Defund NYC After Governor’s Endorsement for Mayor

 

Image via Reuters

 

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.