Amendment for houses of worship

December 13, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
State Sen. Pat Miller says sheâ??s looking to the future by proposing a constitutional amendment that would protect churches and other houses of worship from someday being taxed.

Itâ??s not a â??crisis today,â?? but could become a problem in the future given the concern over rising property taxes, the Indianapolis Republican says.

Supporters of tax exemptions for houses of worship, or any not-for-profit for that matter, say the good the organizations do for society more than compensates for the loss of tax revenue. The more not-for-profits can be encouraged, the better, they say.

Others say the groups should pay their fair share regardless of what they accomplish. Not-for-profits require the same streets and fire protection as everyone else, so why shouldnâ??t they contribute? goes the argument.

Whatâ??s your take? Should not-for-profits be taxed?

Read the story.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • KirkDecember 13, 2007 2:28 PM
    Pat Miller. Worry about today's crisis. There's no danger of anyone passing a law that requires churches to pay property taxes in Indiana. This sort of reverse strategy, politically induced, pray upon the ignorant, simple minded, politician's days are numbered. This stuff got attention and votes a few years ago but not anymore. I hope it back-fires on her.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • KevinDecember 13, 2007 10:41 PM
    Considering the efforts of the religious sect in this country to infiltrate government, i feel churches should be taxed. I am all for churches remaining tax-exempt should the churches decide to once again recognize the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. By the way, don't churches receive tax-payer dollars via the Bush administration's faith-based initiative?

    On a final note - In my opinion, the movement to mix religion and politics has done nothing but cheapen and commercialize religion
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • KirkDecember 14, 2007 12:40 PM
    Bush's deal was just trying to secure Republican votes from religion. Their whole deal was trying to make it appear as if Democrats were anti-religion. When, in fact, the Bush guys are the least compasionate and most hypocritical. Here is Pat Miller's thinking...hmmm, if I can introduce legislation that would require a up or down vote on protection of Churches...and, the Democrats vote against it (obviously they would because there are already laws protecting Churches on the books and anyone with common sense would want to spend time on meaningful legislation instead of legislation that would simply be totally ineffective), then I would appear to be pro-church and get all the church vote. Ahhaa. I'm brilliant.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • sosDecember 14, 2007 8:45 PM
    All property except government property should be taxed or no property should be taxed.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT