Ending God's Tax Exempt Status

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

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?

Maybe they need legal status to limit liability.

[Aliantha]

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!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

your local catholic church collects a tithing, i presume? I expect that they send at least some portion of that up the ladder toward Rome? (maybe I'm wrong about that) .....

ah, I'm being cute here....my real point was that IMO, religious orginizations (religions) exist in the first place because they are profitable. if there was no money/power/security in them, they would be practiced privately in peoples homes only.

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.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

..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.

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?

[Aliantha]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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?

I would think that the main reason is most of the money donated to charities which include churches, comes from people who've already been taxed on their income, therefor, to tax it again would simply be wrong.

I guess when you get right down to it, if I give money to a church, I would then expect it to be used for the benefit of my community not the government, because I already give the government money in the form of taxes.

On top of that, churches are supposed to be non-profit organizations and if you don't make a profit as a business you don't pay tax anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point in my opinion.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I would think that the main reason is most of the money donated to charities which include churches, comes from people who've already been taxed on their income, therefor, to tax it again would simply be wrong.

Ain't that the truth. And doesn't that make sales tax/property tax also double taxation as we already pay income tax albeit low... just a thought.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I guess when you get right down to it, if I give money to a church, I would then expect it to be used for the benefit of my community not the government, because I already give the government money in the form of taxes.

Why do you differentiate between the community and the government? I think if you sit down and think about everything our government does with our money you'll see that line blur a lot. Roads, hospitals, community centers, schools, police force, libraries, emergency services, public transit, a military to protect it all, and countless other things I can't think of right now.

All these are things that we couldn't possibly have created as a people had we had a much smaller government that was less localized. Concentration of the money that people contribute to the community (if you think about taxes, church donations, and other things of that nature, they're all personal contributions to a greater organization, willing or not) makes these large scale public works possible. If you ask me, all these services are far more important to my community than any church potlucks that might come out of the collection dish.

[xoxoxoBruce]

queequeger, those things you named are funded by money from different governments, federal, state and local.

[lumberjim]

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

[yesman065]

kept wonderin what they were sayin bout you huh?

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by yesman065

kept wonderin what they were sayin bout you huh?

no...if you browse while not logged in, you still see them, and also when people quote. It's a useless feature. I was just pissed .....and pissed at that time. I shouldn't have called him a coffin dodger. that was not cool.

[queequeger]

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by queequeger

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?

A business, of course. Why would you treat a church as an individual? xoxoxoBruce made the same weird connection.

How do we decide which of their income is deductible? What about tax write offs? Do we enforce minimum wage for the priests?

As with any other organization. We already have ways to determine all that stuff.

[queequeger]

... I realize that saying it's 'unconstitutional' right after saying that the principle was never placed in the constitution makes me look like a tool...

/me looks for that damned edit button.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by queequeger

... I realize that saying it's 'unconstitutional' right after saying that the principle was never placed in the constitution makes me look like a tool...

/me looks for that damned edit button.

Unconstitutional refers to amendments as well. When the "penmen" wrote the constitution, they were figuring out a way to construct a better form of government. Once written, they had to sell it to the people. As written, the people couldn't see any advantage for themselves, that they would be better off or not be persecuted for various and sundry reasons as they had under other governments. The Bill of Rights was written as part of the Constitution, to assuage those fears, a primary one separation of church and state, before the people accepted it.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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?

Because the doctor takes home your required money and buys a new Rolex for himself. The church legally can only take your voluntarily given money and do more church-y things with it. You don't want churches to be encouraged to run as for-profit businesses; it would make things so much worse.