Private Property?

by Yan Bibiyan 10 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  In various posts, shared experiences, and recently in the YouTube videos of one of our own JWN members, the Kingdom Hall is classified as “private property” and this was used for grounds to have the authorities called to remove unwanted attendees.

  Protection of private property has to be one of the most precious rights western societies have established. On the other hand, this right comes with certain obligations. The very authorities, such as police and firefighters, are largely able to perform their duties by being funded through taxation of the owners of such “private property”. Religion, as well as other non-profit structures, have managed to avoid such taxation under the agreement that their existence is for the benefit of society, which in turn picks up the tab for the portion of taxes not paid by religious organizations.

  This is obviously an oversimplification, but you get the idea.

  When I checked the property tax files in my County, Kingdom Halls were listed as exempt property and as such, have paid ZERO property taxes for as far back as the online record goes. Commercial properties of similar building and lot sizes are putting close to $10,000 in taxes in the County’s budget each year.

  Here comes the question:

  If the very existence of such establishments is partially funded by the County’s residents and such establishments are there for the benefit of society (read: ALL), how can the Authorities be called to DENY access to such services to one or more of the very people who partially fund the operation and for whose benefit the operation supposedly exists?

  I hope someone with legal background or better understanding reads this and offers some explanation.

  Boils my blood to see some self-righteous Elder calling the cops to remove a participant who is not quite to their liking.

  How about you pony up your fair share of taxes, hot shot, and then call it “Private Property”
• 

  Ding

  The fact that they are exempt from property taxes doesn't mean that it isn't private property. You might not like that, but that's the way it is. The WTS isn't required to allow the public in. If they want to restrict access to JWs in good standing, they could do that. If the elders decide to set a time when only elders are allowed to be present (like during a JC deliberation, for example), they can do that too.

  This doesn't just apply to the Watchtower Society, of course. It applies to any tax exempt organization.
• 

  wannabefree

  The sign outside of my Kingdom Hall that displays the meeting times also says "Public Welcome" ... I believe this is also printed on the meeting handbills ... unless this has been changed recently.

  If a person was not making a scene, wouldn't this declaration of "Public Welcome" or "Open to the Public" imply anyone who wished to attend?

  Perhaps they should state that meetings are by invitation only.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I am a lawyer who spends a considerable portion of my time on First Amendment issues. The primary justification for tax exempt status is to the remove the government from entanglement with religion. Based on heavy religious persecution in Europe, especially English experience during the reign of the Tudors, dissident groups crossed the Atlantic for freedom here. It is not seem fair to accept the benefits of taxation without payment. The English experience was that the king/queen was head of the Church of England. James Madison wrote his famous Remonstrance against tax dollars aiding religion.

  This isn't an ordinary legal value. It is paramount. The ratification debates in the states showed that the document was doomed without an express Bill of Rights. People were particularly suspicious of the American branch of the Church of England. Many founders were Episcoplian. Different areas had strongholds for particular denomination. The states had their own establishments. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal govt. The Civil War extended it to the states. No state could impose its own local religion on the other states. The compromise was that government would stand apart. Auditing religion, determining what is mission and profit would insert the government into religion on a massive scale.

  I can see it changing very gradually. Catholics comprise a majority of the Supreme Court. While I don't see it as definitive, it certainly colors their rulings. President Bush's faith-based iniatiives, continued and expanded by Obama, have upset the Warren Court lines. They will bend over backwards to accomodate religion. Accomodation rules today with a strong, vocal minority favoring separatism. It is such a strong American value.

  I believe it is better to have religion walks away with more rights than a normal person than to have the government involved.
• 

  leavingwt

  The only type of speech that needs protection is controversial and unpopular speech.

  Any church should be able to boot a member for whatever reason they see fit. Nor should a church be forced to accept a member that they do not want.
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Ding, I understand. My question has more to do with what gives the tax-exempt status? I has to be a trade-off. Tax-exempt for service to society.

  You shouldn't be able to take the full benefit (tax-exempt), while at the same time selectively denying the obligation (service to society).

  I may be wrong, although seems unfair, ain't it?

  EDIT: I see BoR's post...guess things are not as simple...
• 

  Ding

  "Open to the public" is a general invitation, but that is a revocable license, not a lease. Permission can be revoked at any time, just as you are entitled to ask an invited guest to leave your home or place of business at any time.

  In practice, if the police are called and the people in charge (the elders at a KH) tell them that an individual has been asked to leave but refuses, the police most likely will see if they can work out a truce on the spot. If both sides remain adamant, the police will side with the people in charge of the building on the grounds that permission to attend can be revoked at any time.
• 

  Ding

  Of course, the government isn't required to give tax exempt status to anyone. However, as Band on the Run said, in the area of religion, if the government tried to regulate who can and can't attend the meetings based on tax exempt status, they would run into First Amendment problems. They can't use tax exempt classifications as a way to control religious groups.

  Beyond the First Amendment issues, there are practical considerations. Let's say police get called to a building owned by a tax exempt, non-religious charity. The person in charge of the building says that a person there has been asked to leave but refuses. The police will side with the person in charge of the building. To do otherwise would give anyone unlimited freedom to occupy the building as long as they wanted for whatever reason.

  Do you really believe tax exempt groups should have NO private property rights? Should it be okay for people to walk off with their equipment and supplies, for example? Property rights involve personal property as well as real estate.

  Sounds to me like what you're really saying isn't that private property rights should be denied. It's that no one should be exempt from real estate taxes. You're certainly entitled to that opinion and to lobby for that change in the law. That would treat everyone equally, but it might put a number of charities out of business or hinder their charitable work. That's why the difference in treatment exists.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Caveat: as much as I know that NO AMOUNT of taxes will satisfy any govenmental authority,............in this day of deficits, it's time to start taxing ALL of those (formerly) "tax exempt" entitities.

  Presently, some municipalities are asking these "non-profits" to make "voluntary" payments. Most are agreeing to do so, as they well know that legislation could easily REMOVE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS COMPLETELY. I say REMOVE IT!

  Why should "non-profits" such as hospitals get an unfair advantage over "for-profit" businesses? (Are they REALLY non-profit? Do they run their business ANY different? Everyone is still paid 6-figure incomes, they still charge patients the same fees, etc)

  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12nonprofits.html

  Time to charge religions their "fair share" too.

  A recent post here showed the 50% "profits" earned by JW Assembly Halls. Since this "profit" is never put to the benefit of the community, but rather loaned or gifted to WTS for their growth efforts, why shouldn't that money that is being syphoned out of the local community be taxed. At least taxed enough to pay for their Police, Fire, Emergency Services, Road Maintenance, ETC cost to the community?

  DOC
• 

  Yan Bibiyan

  Ding,

  You are way off in left field with your analysis.

  No, I am not suggesting that people walk in and occupy buildings indefinitely, nor do I say that they can walk off with equipment...I didn't say that real estate taxes should be enforced to all either.

  Watch the video, this girl didn't show up in off hours demanding she stayed indefinitely, didn't walk out with an amp and didn't cause any disturbance - the elders simply didn't like her because of her, shall we say, apostacy. Yet, I am sure she didn't have the choice to NOT pay the fraction of taxes that represented her household's share of making up the KH's property taxes, if she'd be denied the supposed SERVICE.

  My assumption was that the exempt status is based on a SERVICE provided to the community. Seemed to me that the WT (and any non-profit by extension) has it both ways: gets the benefit for providing the service and simultaneously decides IF it will provide the service.

  In the subsequent Band on the Run's post (thank you BoR), I see that the issue goes beyond simple taxation and is rooted way back into times when religion was much more influential on society...