Financing of Confessions from Ukrainian Taxpayers' Money: What Are the Prospects?
A People's Deputy proposes introducing a church tax in Ukraine. How does this work in Europe and what could it lead to in our country? Let's figure it out.
People's Deputy of Ukraine Nikita Poturaev, known for his antipathy toward the UOC, proposed financing religious organizations through tax mechanisms. "We are talking about giving Ukrainian citizens the opportunity to support those religious organizations they consider necessary from their taxes. This is a model widely spread in Europe," Poturaev stated.
The idea may seem attractive at first glance, but in Ukrainian realities it carries very great risks.
European models of church financing
These models generally come down to four types:
- Church tax for members of specific religious communities.
- The taxpayer chooses a recipient from a state-approved list.
- Direct budget support for clergy.
- Absence of tax mechanism financing.
1. Church tax or contribution for members of specific religious communities
The most famous example is Germany. There, the church tax, Kirchensteuer, is paid not by all citizens, but only by members of officially recognized religious organizations. In most federal states the rate is 9% of the assessed income tax amount.
With an average annual salary of about 53.8 thousand euros gross, this amounts to approximately 640-900 euros per year.
The financing scheme looks like this: a person officially declares to their employer and state authorities their belonging to a certain denomination. The employer withholds the church tax from them along with income tax. Tax authorities collect these funds and transfer them to the corresponding religious organization, retaining an administrative fee.
It is important to understand that the taxpayer cannot specify a particular parish or monastery. The money is received by the religious organization as a whole, which distributes it according to its internal rules.
Interestingly, Local Orthodox Churches registered in Germany typically live on donations rather than collecting church tax from their believers, although they have the right to do so.
The main reason for this is the absence of a tradition of strict fixed membership and the associated financial and other formal obligations.
A similar system exists in Austria, Denmark, Sweden and other countries.
Finland also belongs to this group, but this country has one peculiarity: a believer registers not as a member of a denomination, but as a member of a specific parish, to which their church tax is transferred.
2. The taxpayer chooses a recipient from a state-approved list
Here the church tax is not an addition to income tax, but a percentage of the income tax itself that a person can direct to a religious organization.
For example, Italy operates the otto per mille system - "eight per thousand," that is, 0.8% of income tax. In absolute figures, this is only a few dozen euros per person, but in total it amounts to multi-million funds, which are mainly received by the Catholic Church.
If the taxpayer indicated which religious organization to direct the money to, it receives it. If they didn't indicate, the funds are distributed proportionally to the choice of those who made such a choice.
Spain operates a similar model, but with its own peculiarities. The taxpayer can direct 0.7% of their income tax either to the Catholic Church or to social purposes. They can choose both options or choose neither. At the same time, they do not influence the specific distribution of these funds. This is handled either by the Catholic Church or by the state. Similar distribution models operate in Hungary and Romania.
3. Direct budget support for clergy
The most striking example is Greece. The state directly finances the Greek Orthodox Church from the state budget, including paying salaries to clergy. For example, in 2023 approximately 200 million euros were spent on this.
In this case, the taxpayer cannot influence the distribution of their taxes in any way. They simply pay mandatory taxes to the budget.
A similar model exists in Belgium, where the state finances officially recognized religions, as well as in Norway, where the main financing goes to the Lutheran Church of Norway, and registered religious and worldview communities can apply for state grants.
4. Absence of tax mechanism financing
In France, the Netherlands and a number of other countries, there is no church tax or other mechanism for regular tax financing of religious organizations. Religious organizations are mainly supported through donations, use of their own property, internal collections and so on. At the same time, the state or municipalities may allocate funds for social projects, repair of historic buildings and similar activities.
None of these models is perfect. The European countries themselves acknowledge their significant shortcomings.
Disadvantages of budget financing of religious organizations
Formalization of church affiliation
Faith becomes a tax status. A person cannot remain a believer and not pay church tax. For example, the Catholic Church in Germany directly states that one cannot leave only the "church corporation" while maintaining full membership in the "spiritual community of the Church". It turns out to be something like: either pay, or you're not Catholic.
This may be one of the reasons why in Germany annually more than three hundred thousand Catholics officially leave the church.
The reverse side of this phenomenon is that often a person who has paid church tax considers participation in worship and community life to be already unnecessary.
Dependence on state structures
"He who pays the piper calls the tune." This applies to a certain extent in church-state relations as well. Churches receiving money from the state often cannot afford to contradict generally accepted state ideology. In Europe, this is support for LGBT and other phenomena that churches consider incompatible with Christian doctrine. Churches are forced to either remain silent or acknowledge Scripture as outdated and correct its norms.
Discrimination against unregistered religious organizations
In many European countries, procedures for registering religious organizations are too cumbersome and bureaucratized. Often religious organizations are denied registration for unclear reasons. In some countries, to receive financing, one needs to conclude separate agreements with the state in addition to registration. As a result, only a few churches receive financing, which carries risks of violating the principle of non-discrimination. Even the European Court of Human Rights has pointed to this circumstance.
Non-transparent distribution of funds
Since churches distribute money received from the state budget at their discretion, there is a risk of non-transparency or some distortions. Within churches, dependence arises of those clerics who receive money on those who influence their distribution. All this can negatively affect both the atmosphere within the church and its external image.
What this would mean for Ukraine
Now let's return to Poturaev's proposal. In Ukrainian realities, such a model would inevitably become a field for abuse. And here's why.
First, it will not be believers but the state who decides which religious organization is "worthy" of taxpayer money and which is not. And the selection criterion will not be historicity, canonicity, numerousness and other such aspects at all. Such a criterion will be loyalty to the state. Actually, N. Poturaev said so directly: financing will be received by "necessary" churches, which he classified as OCU and UGCC.
Second, Ukraine's most numerous denomination, the UOC, will almost certainly be left without financing. The State Service for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience recognized it as affiliated with the ROC and filed a lawsuit to ban its activities.
Third,
the tax mechanism will be used to stimulate transitions to the OCU. Financial pressure will be added to fake assemblies, illegal re-registrations and forcible seizures.
Fourth, any church tax model presupposes a person's declaration of which denomination they belong to. And if a person chose the "wrong" Church, the state will know about it and draw conclusions.
Fifth, such a system is a wide field for corruption. The fact that money will be distributed according to internal decisions of the churches themselves, in Ukrainian conditions will very likely mean kickbacks, abuse and other forms of "budget development."
Sixth, churches will fall into strict dependence on the state. And considering that our state does not shy away from interfering in the internal affairs of churches, this will mean that authorities will demand they fulfill their wishes. For example, V. Elensky has already expressed confidence that the All-Ukrainian Council of Churches will treat with understanding the need to introduce LGBT agenda in Ukraine.
Conclusion
In Europe, the model of financing religious organizations through tax mechanisms was formed as a result of a long history of church-state relations. It exists under conditions of democracy, rule of law, independence of the judicial system. In Ukraine, however, such a model is proposed to be established against the backdrop of church confrontation, legislative, media and forceful pressure on one of the denominations, disregard for rights and freedoms, supremacy not of law but of political expediency.
Therefore, in our country such a model will serve not so much to support religious organizations as for corruption and financing church conflict.
