Should Non-Profits pay Property Taxes?

Mr. LePage, a Republican, has called nonprofits “takers, not givers,” and argues that they need to contribute for services like the police, firefighters and snow removal. His proposal, which is part of his $6.3 billion budget plan, would require organizations to pay taxes to municipalities if their properties were worth more than $500,000. They would pay taxes only on the property value over that threshold and get a 50 percent discount on the rate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/us/nonprofits-protest-a-tax-on-property.html?_r=0

When I came across this article last week, I had a mixed reaction. Non-profits in the United States have historically been excluded from the tax rolls, for a variety of reasons. Chief among them, I think, was the belief that an organization doing non-profit work was fundamentally for the public good, and therefore, they paid their "community dues" as it were with their work, rather than their taxes. In the past several years, that mindset has shifted (or begun to shift) dramatically. Instead of viewing non-profits as inherently good for the community, the tendency is to see them as "takers, not givers". Inasmuch as I'd generally disagree with that assessment, I'd also suggest that there are plenty of good reasons to assume that some non-profits are in the business of being out for their own good rather than the good of the public at large. Extremely high salaries for executives (or in some cases, Pastors), a wide range of what constitutes a "non-profit", and so on. Inevitably this has led to calls for change in terms of how non-profits are handled in terms of their taxes.

This is not a new issue, either. I've come across it in a variety of ways in the past ten years, starting when I was in Seminary. At the time, the town in which the Seminary I attended was located held hearings or a public forum regarding the Seminary's contribution to the public services like education, police, and fire safety. The particular issue in that case (if memory serves me correctly) was that there were dormitories on the campus that were often filled with families, and those families sent their kids through the public school system, but neither the Seminary nor the parents of the families paid anything in property taxes to support their use of the services. The Seminary wrote an open letter to the community describing several different ways in which they voluntarily contributed to the public fund as well as the general community through voluntary payments towards the police and fire department, as well as encouraging a significant number of teachers aids and volunteerism in the school. The argument that the Seminary was trying to make was that they contributed in other ways to the community, so that overall, in their view, they were pulling more than their weight.

Another way this has come up is in relation to how the tax code treats clergy-owned or church-owned housing units. Without going into much detail, a clergy person essentially receives a double benefit when they own a home. Any money that a clergy person receives that goes to their housing is not taxable for Federal Income purposes. (A common misconception is that this is therefore totally untaxed, which is untrue. This "housing allowance" is still subject to the Self-Employment tax of 15%, which includes social security and medicaid. Although there is a tax loophole that allows clergy to opt out of Social Security, in my experience, most do not take that option.) Nevertheless, the "housing allowance" is not subject to FICA, which is the first benefit. The second benefit is that, just like every other tax-payer, the clergy person can deduct the tax and interest that they paid on their mortgage. Again, historically clergy-persons were considered "good for the community" but as time has progressed, that view has changed. (I'd also suggest that the church has probably too quickly expanded the definition of "clergy", which has led to more regular church employees receiving those tax breaks.)

The third way I'll mention that this property-tax conversation comes up is in relation to church-owned buildings. Our church is currently in the process of moving into a leased commercial space, and as we were planning I had an off-the-record conversation with a town official in which he told me that, as long as we were leasing it, we wouldn't have a problem. If we were to purchase it, however, the process might be dragged out. The reason? If we purchased it as a non-profit, it would be taken off the tax rolls, and the town wasn't willing to give up that extra income. Our story isn't unique, either. I've probably heard from at least ten different churches who all expressed a similar story: they wanted to purchase something, but the town wouldn't allow them to, because it would mean a loss in tax revenue.

My mixed feelings on this particular article come down to several factors.

First, I really have no idea how much revenue would be raised by this proposal. At what point does the revenue earned offset what will certainly be a net-loss for the non-profit community? The proposal in Maine doesn't tax all non-profits, just those who own property valued at over 500,000, and then only half of the normal rate at any valuation over that half-a-million mark. How many non-profits will be included in that? And what kind of non-profits? My guess is that most or at least many churches have a property value of 500,000 and higher. Educational institutions certainly would be included. There was a food pantry mentioned in the article, although I'd imagine that must be an outlier. So then I wonder, is it really just that we want to tax churches and educational institutions?

Second, as I mentioned, there is a part of me that understands the perception that the non-profit or church world is all about their own gain. Unfortunately, the non-profit/church world includes people who are going to abuse the system. My hope and experience is that those who would do that are a very small minority, but they do exist, and in the socially connected world, those minorities often end up being the loudest. The fringe ends up defining the rest of us. While I understand that dynamic, I don't think it defines the community as a whole and so I don't think that non-profits being "takers, not givers" is ultimately true, and therefore is not a good reason to justify a property tax. There might be a reason. It's just not that.

Third, there is also a part of me that feels like there are certain cases where the church would have more credibility in the public square if they were financially invested into it. One of the reasons that I prefer to purchase my own home, rather than live in a church-owned parsonage, is because then I pay property taxes just like my neighbor. That gives me a voice in the community that would otherwise be disingenuous, like when I'm at a barbecue with my neighbor and we're all complaining about how high our taxes are. I can only commiserate in theory, unless I'm on the hook for the same bill he is.

The bottom line is that this isn't a cut and dried issue, as most people probably assume. We need to think through the issues. Are non-profits good for the community? If so, does that mean they should be exempt from property taxes? I don't know if I agree with the Maine proposal, but I'm certainly not afraid of the discussion.

Cheat Sheet on Financial Giving

The topic of "how much am I supposed to give" has come up on more than one occasion in the past week. It got me thinking about how I respond in a variety of situations. The bottom line is that there is a lot of confusion out there around the type of generosity a Christian is called to. Some of it stems from poor theology, some of it stems from a bad experience with a church, some of it stems from hard hearts that want to believe that our money is our money and you better keep your hands off of it.

I'm not sure what it was for the guy sitting behind my wife while she waited for jury duty. "The church is just a business!" he expressed, apparently to whoever was listening. "They said that I had to give 10% of my gross income! All they wanted was my money." There wasn't any arguing with him, so Christi didn't intervene. Unfortunately, he's not alone in his confusion. Even seasoned Christians argue about whether we're supposed to give 10% of our gross or our net income. The problem is, we're arguing about the wrong thing.

What I'm going to do in this post is highlight some New Testament principles on giving. It's not a theological treatise (which you wouldn't read) or a proof-text of why I'm right and you're wrong (which would be ridiculous). It's just principles that can help us understand what God calls us to give, how he calls us to give it, and perhaps most important of all, the context in which we are called to give.

First, 10% is not mentioned as a giving standard in the New Testament.

On top of that, it's a bit of a misleading statement to say that 10% was the Old Testament norm. But before you start putting down your checkbooks and unregistering for your online giving in your unbridled enthusiasm, let me explain. A "tithe" means "10%", but in the Old Testament, but God's people were required to give two tithes and a third one every third year. So yes, 10% chunks. For a total of about 23% a year averaged over three years. In the New Testament, the old manner of supporting the temple and governance structure of the Kingdom-Temple paradigm was done away with, and giving in the New Testament was replaced with the language of "generosity". The principle all along, Old Testament included, was one of generosity. The law of 10% revealed that even God's people were incredibly stingy, and not very generous at all. The good news of Jesus, in which God himself leaves all the wealth of heaven to become a pauper and ultimately to die a cursed death on a cross for the gain of his people, should, in the end, break down our stinginess and burst forth into generosity.

Fast forward a few thousand years to the man's comment about "the church wanting 10% of my gross salary!" Why are we asking about whether or not God wants 10% of the net or the gross? It's rarely because we want to give away more. Usually it's because we want to make sure that we're meeting the bare minimum requirement, and how foolish would we be if we found out that we'd been giving based on our gross income when all God really required was 10% of our net. All that money, wasted!

(For the record, if you are GOING to use a percentage based giving system, you would use your gross salary, especially if you are going on an Old Testament-like principle. Your salary is what you earn pre-tax. The government bases your tax percentage on that salary. If you are basing your giving off some number, it's that one. Not after the government gets theres.)

Second, all that God's people have is given for the good of the kingdom of God. 

Period. This is true in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. God always operates through individuals for the good of communities. If you have been blessed with wealth, God did not bless you so that you alone would be blessed. He blessed you so that you would be a blessing to his community of people. Put another way, if God allows you to make one million dollars next year, the proper perspective is that God has given his church and his community of people one million dollars, and he has made you the steward.

Now plug in your salary.

Next year you are going to earn 65,000. The proper perspective, biblically speaking, is that God, through you, has given his community of people (his church) 65,000, and he has called you to manage that 65,000 dollars well.

Third, you give what you have, not what you do not have. 

When Paul appeals for money in the New Testament, he doesn't use percentages and he doesn't use dollar figures. He uses capacity as the measurement of generosity. What is your capacity for giving? Or, to ask it another way, how much has God given you to manage? All other things being equal, if you have a family of five and you make 65,000 a year, your capacity for giving is probably going to be significantly less than a family of five who makes 250,000.

If you took that scenario and judged based on percentages, say, 10% of gross income, you end up with one family looking somewhat generous and the other not looking that generous. Family one, making 65,000 dollars a year, would "only" have given 6,500. Family two, making 250,000 a year, would have given 25,000! How generous! Except that it's really not very generous at all, since they still have significantly more money leftover to spend on themselves. Neither the dollar value nor the percentage are an accurate reflection of true generosity. (Remember Jesus story of the woman who gave her last two coins? That was more generous than someone who gave 100 coins our of their wealth.)

GENEROSITY

So let's assume that we understand the Gospel, that Jesus literally gives up everything for the sake of his people, the church. Jesus does what the law could never do. He actually frees us from condemnation so that, instead of attempting (and failing) to follow the law to the letter, we are free to live in the spirit of the law. It's not just that the Christian doesn't murder; in the kingdom of God we don't even have hate in our hearts. It's not just that the Christian doesn't commit adultery; in the Kingdom of God we don't even look at a woman lustfully. At least, this is the ideal. It's not the letter of the law, it's the spirit of the law that was the most important thing. What the law, in it's letter, revealed to us, was how far we fall short of the spirit of the law and how much we need Jesus. (We couldn't even give 10%, let alone actually have glad and generous hearts!) And now that Jesus has come, and has transformed our hearts, so our hearts, more and more, daily and progressively, are in tune with the spirit of the law which is the spirit of God.

So here's what generosity requires.

First, it requires that we understand the Gospel. You can't just ecide to be generous. Maybe by the world's standards you can, but not by God's. Generosity is a heart issue. It's giving with gladness. And that only happens when we understand the transforming power of the Gospel.

Second, it requires that we understand what God requires. Answer: everything. It's not yours to begin with. It's his. You are called to be a steward of it for the good of his Kingdom.

Third, it requires that we understand our capacity. Not everyone can give the same amount, but I know from experience that most people assume they are on the lower end of the scale rather than the higher end, and they are almost always wrong. My guess (and a fairly educated one) is that most of us could give substantially more than we are currently giving. The only way to know, however, is to have a realistic perspective on our capacity.

Here's the thing: it requires money to live. That's reality. We have a job and earn money for two reasons: first, to provide for ourselves and our family, and second, so that we can give money away. God ants you to provide for your family, and he does not want you to go into debt so you can give. You must take a realistic assessment of what it requires for you to provide for your family, and recognize that you will only have a certain capacity for giving. 

In the example above, one family of five found out that they could live on 57,500/year, because that's what they had after giving to the church. The other family was living on 225,000/year. Why the discrepancy?

Let me be clear: Jesus was not a socialist and the New Testament church was not a socialist utopia. Anyone who argues that has an agenda and they are being ridiculous. There were wealthy people in the church and poor people in the church and some of them owned mansions and others were servants in someone else's home. Yet each of them was called to give what they could, according to their capacity. The system worked because the Holy Spirit had moved in people's hearts to such a degree that everyone wanted to give whatever it was that they had to give. Some gave more and some gave less. But all gave according to the same spirit. That is generosity.

We don't all have to drive white Honda accords and wear one-piece silver v-neck jumpsuits. We don't all have to have the same size house on the same kind of street with the same length driveway. The lower-income person can rob themselves of their capacity for giving by buying the most expensive cell-phone, and the higher-income person can rob themselves of their capacity by buying the biggest house on the block. It's okay to have differing levels of income, it's not okay to fool yourselves into thinking that you don't have more capacity for giving.

(And for the record, lower income people in the American church give a substantially higher percentage of their income than higher income people. The statistics for actual dollar amount given per household look a little better, mostly because there are some people who give massive dollar amounts that bump up the average.)

Here is how you will know that you are striking the right balance between what you need and what you are giving: when you look at your bills, and think, "I genuinely wish I could give more", you've probably got a good balance, and quite frankly, it will motivate you towards good financial stewardship. If you think, "thank God I don't have to give more" or "there's no way I could give more" or "I'm giving plenty as it is", you've got some heart work to do.

None of us are perfect, and we're not going to get there tomorrow. I'm just saying that if we're more concerned about what we have to give away than we are with what we get to keep for ourselves, we've probably got the wrong perspective. Whatever you have is given to you to steward for the good of the community around you. It doesn't always feel good, but that's when we need the Holy Spirit to change our hearts. Overtime, slowly but surely, he'll turn us into a generous people after all.