Talk:Church tax

Untitled

Woah, did not realise, that still in this century, the church did not have to fund itself through charitable donations. Did england or france ever have it?

In answer to your question during the early 19th century in Ireland it was compulsary to pay tithes to the anglican church (The cause of much resentent in many quarters -particularly Roman Catholics who constituted the majority of the population) as (all of) Ireland was part of the United Kingdom at the time presumamably the law also applied in England (and Scotland/Wales etc)213.40.117.87 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Austria section unclear

Church tax is compulsory in Austria is this correct and if so does the tax go to one church or is it distributed among several of them -if so how ? 213.40.117.87 (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the Curch-tax in austria is NOT "obligatory". it is, for people who are in a excepted religious group (like catholic, evangelic, budhistic,... ) and do have an regular income. maximum tax to pay is 200euros. -for references see the german (austria) article. --62.178.26.203 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a comprehensive list? Or at least comprehensive on European states with such law? Aryah (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has updated the Austria section to state that the Church tax is compulsory for Catholics. Does this mean that members of other religions dont pay anything ? And what of lapsed/non-practising/former Catholics. How easy is it for them to get out of paying ? 86.112.87.162 (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Church taxes

Apparently, there is a lot of critizism of Church taxes, from either liberal or left-wing parties, and also from within the Church (for example, it moves all the power to the main church administration). You can check this all on [[1]] but at the moment I don't see how to put this into the main entry in a nice way. -- Mipmip 11:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I was wondering whether the modern version of Church taxes were instituted by the Church itself, or whether it was a secular government tool created in order to discourage individual laypeople form remaining in the Church, given that paying taxes could be a factor in de-motivating individuals from participating in Church life. For instance, there was a comparable tax in Muslim countries called the Jizya that was historically used to forcefully compell local Christians to consider leaving Christianity and converting to Islam. ADM (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather odd that countries like Germany have a law effectively requiring citizens to declare and register their religious affiliation (or lack thereof) to the Government (AND their employer). Has it never occured to anyone there that there might be a few unfortunate historical events which suggest it mightnt really be such a good idea ?!?!? 86.112.93.230 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

@ADM: both. The Church tax was invented because the State expropriated (in 1801 and the following years) the Church, yet while this was frank law-breaking, he was in the meantime decent enough at least to take over Church suppliances as already the case in Protestantism (which the Catholic Church previously had provided for herself) - and when some time had gone into the land, he went to tax the Church membership (for reasons of confessional peace, religious liberalism and whatever else). We have to keep in mind that Catholics and Protestants together made out virtually the whole populace, and leaving the Church for tax reasons was somewhat unthought of (which it logically should be still for any believers). Under Republicanism, the Church got freedom of taxing or not taxing, and the tax percentage, so that, yes, the Church did not institute but kept on the tax for herself as she could change it - that the State contracts it is nothing but a win-win agreement for both sides (the State gets a percentage of the tax amount; this is something particularly ununderstandable for the liberal or left-wing parties mentioned above). In Austria where Emperor Joseph II (for all his arrogance) had provided a Religious Fond from the expropriations income, this was unthought of until Adolf Hitler interduced the tax expropriating the Religious Fond so that, yes, here there could be this compelling factor.

@86.112: Frankly, no... Now that you said so, we might think of some things. But frankly, I don't believe that any purposed way of forcing authorities to remain uninformed would really be of use in these modern times once the State would start a religious persecution. As long as there is no persecution, I am not enthousiastic about keeping one's most important characteristic a secret, especially to as important a person of your life as one's employer is. By law the financial office as well as the employer is supposed to keep this information secret, and since they may use it only on duty, they must not give you odd looks which are not part of their duty either.--93.134.224.58 (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"Community" not clear (Germany section)

on the basis of tax regulations passed by the communities

It's not clear what "community" means. In my experience, community usually means the city or town, or the people of the city or town. That's how I first understood it when I read it here. However, on re-reading, I think it may mean the church, or the church congregation (meaning the people who are members of the local church). "Community" could be used in this way if the meaning was clear, but in this case it's not. I suggest revising the wording to make it more explicit. If "community" means municipal government, say "municipal government". If it means the church, or the congregation of the local church, then say that. I'd fix the wording if I knew what it means, but since I don't I'll leave it for others to fix. Omc (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I just changed two instances to "religious communities" as that's indeed what is meant here, i.e. the churches on a national rather than congregational level. Mbethke (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Why no mention of church taxes in UK or England?

Why no mention of church taxes in UK or England? Could someone who knows this history, fill it in? I have searched the internet but cannot find anything on why England imposes no church tax, while so many other developed nations do. The USA and the UK seem to be rare exceptions. Further, I once read that Britain had a church tax that was abolished in 1927. Might it be cause and effect, or just coincidence, that the church tax was abolished a year after the 1926 United Kingdom general strike? I can find references that state that some prominent clergymen in the UK proclaimed that the 1926 general strike was sinful and therefore illegal, according to their religion. See the following

The article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13828537

Three minutes, 30 seconds into the video "British Empire 20th Century in Colour Geographical Height and End", which claims to play a genuine recording of BBC news.

I can't find reference sources for my other recollections. Can anyone else find these events in trusted sources? Was there a cause and effect link between the 1926 United Kingdom general strike, and the 1927 abolishment of church taxes in England 71.207.222.246 (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like it would be useful. Many United States founders believed in secularism, which would explain no church tax. Maybe they paid church tax before independence? Anyhow, I xagree this article could be expanded with more clarity over which countries still pay church and which used to. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In the past, there were church taxes in the US, but these were generally abolished after the American Revolution as part of instituting separation of church and state. I've added some examples to the article. Ltwin (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

During the 19th century there were mandatory tithes in Ireland (which was part of the UK at the time) which caused considerable resentment given that the majority of the population didn't belong to the Anglican church (the sole beneficiaries) 2A00:23C7:70C:EF00:F13D:6F03:5B28:A267 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The current England section is a wholesale quote from an old book with no modern context. This filler should be completely removed and replaced with something that actually relates to the current situation. A missing section would probably be better than what is there now.--Aamackie (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with Aamackie. Replaced section with "There has long been no church tax in the United Kingdom. Tithing was obligatory in England centuries ago.[7]" Pol098 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Islam

Are there analogs in Islam and other religions?--Kaiyr (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Church tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== Start class because needs references otherwise good coverage of many countries.EECavazos 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== High priority because a tax imposed in many countries.EECavazos 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 06:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Controversy over law

What controversies over this law exist in countries where this law is in effect?Ztallen 09:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Scope of article

There seems to be confusion within the article over the topic. Most of the article deals with European countries that have laws that allow the government to collect taxes on behalf of churches from within a church's membership that would provide financial support to the said church. Then, at the bottom, is a section on court cases in the United States dealing with whether church's should have tax exemption and whether allowing church's to apply for government programs would be a violation of church/state separation. These are two separate topics. The section on the US is completely unsourced, so I will be removing it and replacing it with information states that imposed church taxes in the past. Ltwin (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove Iceland from this article - Not a church tax in Iceland

Iceland should not be in here. Church tax is defined in the opening paragraph as: "A church tax is a tax imposed by the state on members of some religious congregations to provide financial support of churches,..."

This is not the case in Iceland. There is no tax imposed specifically on the members of religious groups. "Sóknargjöld" are a state subsidy that's not collected from the members of the churches specifically. The finance ministry explains it here:

Í fyrstu skal bent á að engin sóknargjöld hafa í raun verið innheimt í ríkissjóð frá því þau voru felld inn í staðgreiðslu á tekjuskatti fyrir liðlega þrjátíu árum, árið 1988, heldur er um að ræða framlög sem eru greidd úr ríkissjóði til skráðra trúfélaga og lífsskoðunarfélaga. Í lögum nr. 91/1987, um sóknargjöld o.fl., segir þó að trúfélög og lífsskoðunarfélög skuli eiga ákveðna hlutdeild í tekjuskatti. Í reynd hefur sú framsetning þó ekki haft sérstaka þýðingu fyrir fyrirkomulag þessara mála þar sem engin sérgreind sóknargjöld eru innheimt af ríkinu, hvorki af þeim sem greiða tekjuskatt né þeim sem eru undir skattleysismörkum, heldur eru framlög vegna sóknargjalda greidd úr ríkissjóði af almennu skattfé og öðrum tekjum ríkisins óháð innheimtu tekjuskatts. Þetta kemur m.a. fram í því að framlögin eru greidd úr ríkissjóði þrátt fyrir að um fjórðungur framteljenda greiði engan tekjuskatt til ríkisins og burtséð frá því að aðrir greiða mishátt hlutfall af tekjum sínum. Sóknargjöldin eru þannig eins konar lögboðin framlög ríkisins til umræddra félaga þar sem löggjafinn hefur ákveðið að gengið skuli út frá tilteknum reikniforsendum, þ.e. margfeldi ákveðinnar krónutölu á mánuði og fjölda einstaklinga 16 ára og eldri sem eru skráðir í félögin.

And the Alþingi ombudsman has stated the same in 8118/2014: "Af ákvæðum þeirra laga leiddi að í reynd innheimti ríkið engin sóknargjöld heldur væru um að ræða að framlagið væri reiknað samkvæmt lögum á grundvelli tiltekinna viðmiða, þ.e. „hlutdeild í tekjuskatti“."

The source cited in the article, an US state report, basically confirms this:

The law provides state subsidies to registered religious groups and secular humanist organizations. For each individual 16 years of age and older who belongs to any one of the officially registered and recognized religious groups and secular humanist organizations, the government currently allocates an annual payment of 9,000 kroner (ISK) ($71) out of income taxes, called the “church tax”, to the individual’s respective organization.

Note that it isn't taken out of the income tax of the members, but it's the income tax from all taxpayers, just like any other state subsidy, and distinct from a church tax.

--Herro56 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Church tax in Croatia

I have removed the section[2] because church tax, defined by the article itself as "a tax imposed by the state on members of some religious congregations to provide financial support of churches" does not exist in Croatia. Instead, religious communities are financed directly from the government budget. GregorB (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all countries have such a tax

"A church tax is a tax collected by the state from members of some religious denominations to provide financial support of churches, such as the salaries of its clergy and to pay the operating cost of the church. Not all countries have such a tax."

I'd like to edit this. As it stands it reads as if 'church tax' is the normal, but not all countries do this. There's nine countries listed in the article, with an on-going discussion as to whether Iceland should be included. There's 193 UN member sovereign states, 2 UN General Assembly non-member observer states, and 10 other states.

Instead of 'Not all countries have such a tax', can we please 'Less than 5% of sovereign state have a church tax.' It makes it clear 'church tax' exists, but it is not at all common. 92.39.204.3 (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose one could write more clearly in the first sentence that the tax exists in "some countries" or similar to avoid giving an unsourced impression that it is very widespread, but a more definite statement as to the frequency requires a reliable source. There is no reason to think that the countries mentioned excplicitly in the current article version are the only ones levying such a tax. Økonom (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)