well, Christianity to start.....but I think the real money was in sects. Catholicism, surely...Protestants later.....

I'm out of my depth when it gets detailed though.

Most non-profits (tax exempt) do no charity work, or so little it doesn't amount to anything. That said, the tax code separates religious organizations into a separate category from charities and non-profits.
As a matter of fact, if you look at Tax code: TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter F > PART I > § 501, there are almost 30 different categories of tax exempt organizations. Things like Boy/girl Scouts, cemeteries, fraternities and the Rotary club are exempt, but I don't see them doing much charity work.

I forgot to add the local gun club with over 3,000 members. No charity there.

I can understand a non-profit organization that, for example, operates as a club. However what is the purpose of defining a non-profit that has no assets and no income? Do its members at least pay dues for the refreshments? Is it only a fixture to legally protect its members from what happens at the party? I don't understand the reason for a non-profit organization that has zero assets.

I don't think anyone has suggested the existence of such an organization... :confused:

I can only guess that most any group that falls in that category would handle at least some dues or donations to cover activities. This would shield them from accounting and tax liability for the treasury that's keep in an envelope in Mildred's underwear drawer.

See the web site posted by xoxoxoBruce. Maybe half of the non-profits are listed with zero assets and zero income. So the question is why would these organizations ever go throught the headaches of legal status and annual IRS filings when no money is even involved?

To put numbers to this. Americans donate about $100 billion per year to religious organizations. That amounts to 1 in every 3 dollars donated by private Americans to all charities.

Do those numbers come from claims on individual IRS returns, or from declarations of the recipients? I surprised it's only 1 in 3.

Maybe they need legal status to limit liability.

Jimbo, I thought you ignored rkz a hundred or so posts back?

I disagree with rkz on this point though. Churches in general provide a service to some people in the community who don't fit into the criteria social services require. Some people need the church and the leadership it forms. Some people are sheep and can't find their way by themselves. It costs money to help people. (not to mention buying candles)

As to profits...well, obviously with attendance at churches dwindling, the 'profits' are surely dwindling comparitively. Anyway, have you tried running a church lately? What with cakes being on the outer (cause everyone's on the atkins diet) and not too many putting into the plate (cause there's too many theives in church), it's pretty hard to put the body of christ and wine on the table!

i have weak ignore power. it lasted like 8 hours. meh.

Numbers from:
Giving USA Foundation at Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy
NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy
A book by an NYU author called "The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism"
An episode of Charlie Rose.

kept wonderin what they were sayin bout you huh?

Good point. IMHO, religion is about support, religious institutions are about power/wealth/control. I believe that each Catholic archdiocese in America is incorporated - to reduce liability, especially from pedophilia law suits.

Providing service is common, and the provider is almost always taxed. For instance, a doctor provides a service, and pays taxes. Why should a church be different?

Here we go...

The concept of separation of church and state, as outlined as a principle to hold by the penmen of the constitution (although, it still befuddles why they didn’t actually put it IN the constitution…), implies that the government should have NO control over any organization related to jebus, allah, Yahweh, FSM, or any religious figure whatsoever. As against the organized churches as I am, I’m going to have to say that taxation amounts to involvement.

Also, because they have no ‘product’ (other than than smug look on the face of clergy when I tell them of MY religious choice) per se, the logistics are near impossible whil maintaining that separation. Do we tax them like an individual or a business? How do we decide which of their income is deductible? What about tax write offs? Do we enforce minimum wage for the priests?

‘Hands off’ is the best way to look at it. Just as long as you’re absolutely hands off. That means no city, state, or federal gov’t can tax them… but can likewise not give them money, not built city improvements based on their needs, nothing. Or my personal favorite… NOT LEGISLATE GOD WHEN IT COMES TO MY DRINKING HABITS! No alcohol on Sundays = unconstitutional…. Just had to throw that last bit in.