Tax the church

[SEC=UGA]

I am currently trying to promote abortion for teenage, single, un-wed mothers.

[muck]

You audit them just like anyone else. Other non-profits need to prove that they're actually a non-profit and are scrutinzed, why not churches? Make them file some version of a tax return, just like my business has to. And if your church is some humble building and the pastor is a volunteer and you spend so much money on doing good that you have to pass the plate to fix the HVAC, then you may not have much of a tax bill, if any. Perhaps if your church is small and non-profitable enough, you qualify for a waiver. If, however, you're generating mad cash and flying your pastor around in a private jet and all that, well, you're going to have a tax bill. If the amount of money you put towards charity is dwarfted by the amount of money you spend on building castles on the hill, then you get a tax bill.

 

It goes back to my golf club example. I don't think that should be a church any more than the rest of you. It was just taking the example of what can masquerade as a church to the next step. I'm sure plenty of you see that as a mockery of the church. Well, I see some of these fanciful churches generating crazy dollars and befoming powerful political businesses as a mockery of the tax code.

 

But it comes down to this. Take Muck's example. Say you've got a simple little church. Chances are, the property tax would not be super high and, if your church really does spend so much of its money doing charitable work. Well, if that's the case, they're basically a charity and should be able to qualify just like other charitable groups. But, if all you do is worship there, then, as far as I'm concerned, you should pay for that out of your own pocket and not ask me to chip in. That's your choice to worship, not mine. Again, as long as a group like Planned Parenthood is going to be under attack from the right and they're going to try to take away tax dollars, even if those dollars are simply going to non-abortion services, because people have religious-based objections to other things they do, then I don't see why churches should also expect for secularists to pony up for their privilage of going to a house of worship.

 

Ice1, I understand that other charities get to avoid taxes. But Planned Parenthood builds buildings for a very specific purpose, to provide health services. I've made it rather clear how I feel about political contirbutions. So, if they're spending money on that sort of thing, then I'd feel the same way as I do about the church doing so. They don't preach ideology, they just provide health services. I know that many like to think that they're out there promoting abortions, but they're not. They'll do one if you want one, but I've known plenty who have worked in that group or for advocacy groups. Nobody is "pro-abortion" to the extent that they'd ever try and convince some stranger to get one. They just believe that you should be able to get one if you really want one. So, they'll sit down with you and explain your options.

 

So, there's no sizable chunk of the money they go through that is merely spent indoctrinating people into a belief system. To the extent that a church is actually providing help to the citizenry in a tangible way, then they should also be given tax relief.

 

 

I posit that there is a similar percentage of Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, etc. who believe Planned Parenthood promotes abortions and/or a worldview where having an abortion is a healthy decision as there are atheists and agnostics who believe that Synagogues, Churches and Mosques promote religion and/or a worldview where belief in a higher being is a healthy decision.

 

To claim that churches indoctrinate and planned parenthood does not is probably informed by ones personal beliefs.

 

***************************

 

PS -- Our church doesn't pass the plate for anything. If someone needs something, then someone else in the church helps them out. it's not about tax deductions. And, I am finding this who discussion of "institutionalized religion" and its need to pay taxes on non-charitable activities to be rather thought-provoking. Good topic, sir.

[detlef]

I posit that there is a similar percentage of Jews, Protestants, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, etc. who believe Planned Parenthood promotes abortions and/or a worldview where having an abortion is a healthy decision as there are atheists and agnostics who believe that Synagogues, Churches and Mosques promote religion and/or a worldview where belief in a higher being is a healthy decision.

 

To claim that churches indoctrinate and planned parenthood does not is probably informed by ones personal beliefs.

 

***************************

 

PS -- Our church doesn't pass the plate for anything. If someone needs something, then someone else in the church helps them out. it's not about tax deductions. And, I am finding this who discussion of "institutionalized religion" and its need to pay taxes on non-charitable activities to be rather thought-provoking. Good topic, sir.

 

Planned Parenthood does not advocate having sex, it deals with the reality that people are going to do so and counsels on how to stay out of trouble should you decide to have sex. There is no agenda per se other than that. If someone wants to deal with the potential problems that occur from being sexually active by simply not having sex, I'm rather certain they wouldn't get an argument from anyone at Planned Parenthood. By comparison, if they went to certain churches and told them they wanted to be sexually active and planned on dealing with through contraception or some such, depending on the church, they might get an argument.

 

As far as your other point, that seems like a rather silly comparison. Is there really any doubt that churches advocate their faith as a healthy mind-set for the world? That's not an accusation, that's just saying that Catholics think that their religion is a good way to go and so on. That is a far cry from claiming that Planned Parenthood is actually out there trying to tell women they should get abortions. That, again, is a strawman argument that so many make. The one that claims that people who are pro-choice are cavalier about abortions or actually push them on people.

Edited May 18, 2012 by detlef

[Avernus]

I guarantee you that if you tax the churches, they will disappear one by one...one of the biggest scams out there to loophole the system are places of worship....from my perspective anyways...

 

only a few will be found and they will make money because of the volume of customers followers who support their local place of worship...

[MikesVikes]

Ummm churches have to rely on congregation members for survival. They are not a business where they can charge a fee or raise their fees to stay afloat. Churches give back to the community in ways you can't imagine. People come off the streets and ask them for food so you could say that they "pay taxes" in different ways.

[detlef]

Ummm churches have to rely on congregation members for survival. They are not a business where they can charge a fee or raise their fees to stay afloat. Churches give back to the community in ways you can't imagine. People come off the streets and ask them for food so you could say that they "pay taxes" in different ways.

 

Businesses rely on customers for survival and if there aren't enough of them who like what they're selling, they go under. Just like a church. If there are enough congregation members who like what the church is selling, they can pony up enough money each to make the chruch survive. Either that or, like Muck's church, the pastor has a day job and preaches for free or something like that. And, like I've said above, if you're not flying your pastor around in a private jet and building crystal castles, then this likely won't result in a very big tax bill.

 

As far as giving back in "ways I can't imagine". No, I can imagine them. They do all sorts of things for the community. And, just like when any other business does so, they should get hooked up with a tax break for doing so. There are homeless guys who pop into one of my restaurants looking for some food and we often hook them up with some. Does that mean I get to avoid paying any taxes? No. If I wanted to, I suppose I could itemize every time I feed some homeless dude and write that part off. But that's it. Think about how many tax-paying businesses who do good stuff for the community. Hell, I've got a pretty long list of charities I've donated either food, money, services, or gift certificates to auction off to. But, because I sell food, not salvation, I pay taxes in general and just get to write off what I specficially do in terms of community support.

 

Sure, to someone who goes to church, that might seem like a callous comparison, but for someone who doesn't, it's not. Those of us who don't feel like church is offering them something they want are subsidizing their existence for those who do. Which is fine right up until those churches start offering financial support to causes that aim to legislate outside their walls or people start using their faith as rationale for eliminating public funding for things like Planned Parenthood. That's when I go from being somewhat annoyed at the notion of basically paying for your church to being downright pissed.

[stevegrab]

Detlef,

 

Just because a church doesn't fly their pastor around on a personal jet or have a crystal cathedral, doesn't mean their tax bill would be inconsequential if they had to pay property taxes. I've been involved with some churches and seen their budgets, the size of the property involved, the buildings on it etc. Property taxes on those would be a huge bill for them to pay, requiring a lot more donations and fund raising. Not saying it would bankrupt them and cause them to fold, just that it can be a significant additional expense.

 

While you continue to focus on churches you ignore all the other non profits who do not pay property tax. Aren't we all subsidizing them, even if we don't see value in them, believe in their princinples, benefit from them or belong to them? If we're going to tax churches then they're getting taxed too.

 

Sorry, but this debate from the beginning seems to simply be an attack on the church, because you're upset with

- their fight against gay marriage and the gay lifestyle

- a handful of the mega churches and those with outrageous spending (pastor traveling on personal jet)

 

I found this to be an interesting article with some information on what kind of money is lost because of the property tax exemption for non-profits. In it all non-profits are discussed equally, churches are not singled out, nor do I suspec they are truly at the top of the non-profit group when it comes to money we don't collect.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412460-Property-Tax-Exemption-Nonprofits.pdf

[detlef]

Detlef,

 

Just because a church doesn't fly their pastor around on a personal jet or have a crystal cathedral, doesn't mean their tax bill would be inconsequential if they had to pay property taxes. I've been involved with some churches and seen their budgets, the size of the property involved, the buildings on it etc. Property taxes on those would be a huge bill for them to pay, requiring a lot more donations and fund raising. Not saying it would bankrupt them and cause them to fold, just that it can be a significant additional expense.

 

While you continue to focus on churches you ignore all the other non profits who do not pay property tax. Aren't we all subsidizing them, even if we don't see value in them, believe in their princinples, benefit from them or belong to them? If we're going to tax churches then they're getting taxed too.

 

Sorry, but this debate from the beginning seems to simply be an attack on the church, because you're upset with

- their fight against gay marriage and the gay lifestyle

- a handful of the mega churches and those with outrageous spending (pastor traveling on personal jet)

 

I found this to be an interesting article with some information on what kind of money is lost because of the property tax exemption for non-profits. In it all non-profits are discussed equally, churches are not singled out, nor do I suspec they are truly at the top of the non-profit group when it comes to money we don't collect.

http://www.urban.org...-Nonprofits.pdf

 

You keep ignoring what I'm trying to say. It's not really that complicated. To the extent that churches can show their public support, they should be treated like non-profits. To be honest, I would imagine that wiggle room could be created to allow that if churches who keep their church-oriented costs in line compared to their charitable expenses, they could avoid taxes altogether. The same way other non-profits should be scrutinzed.

 

I've been to seminars on starting non-profits and there's plenty of talk about the degree to which you can pay key members without risking your non-profit status. Operational costs fall under the same category. Further, non-profits are scrutinized by 3rd party agencies that champion the ones that keep their costs in line and do tons of good and the ones that essentially masquerade. I follow that and only give to non-profits who are rated well bey these agancies. I wouldn't propose that we let them off the hook either. If some sort of tax reform that scrutinzed churches was put into place, then I'd fully agree that there be federal standards for all non-profits as well. That minimum standards absolutely be in place (or are ramped up) so that your non-profit or church is providing the public who is subsidizing it with some general good.

 

But here's the thing, at least we know the extent to which less efficient non-profits are masquerading as do-gooders because they have to file papers. With the church, all they have to say, "We're a church." and that is that. They could be some shoe-string operation that financially limps along on the backs of volunteers and spends nearly all of their money puting shoes on the feet of homeless kids or they could be buying their pastor a stretch limo for all we know. And the only thing those two have in common is that prayer goes on at each place.

 

One of those deserves to be subsidized by all of us because they're out there doing goof for the community. One of those doesn't because they're selling salvation and making a tidy living doing so.

[stevegrab]

You keep ignoring what I'm trying to say. It's not really that complicated. To the extent that churches can show their public support, they should be treated like non-profits. To be honest, I would imagine that wiggle room could be created to allow that if churches who keep their church-oriented costs in line compared to their charitable expenses, they could avoid taxes altogether. The same way other non-profits should be scrutinzed.

 

I've been to seminars on starting non-profits and there's plenty of talk about the degree to which you can pay key members without risking your non-profit status. Operational costs fall under the same category. Further, non-profits are scrutinized by 3rd party agencies that champion the ones that keep their costs in line and do tons of good and the ones that essentially masquerade. I follow that and only give to non-profits who are rated well bey these agancies. I wouldn't propose that we let them off the hook either. If some sort of tax reform that scrutinzed churches was put into place, then I'd fully agree that there be federal standards for all non-profits as well. That minimum standards absolutely be in place (or are ramped up) so that your non-profit or church is providing the public who is subsidizing it with some general good.

 

But here's the thing, at least we know the extent to which less efficient non-profits are masquerading as do-gooders because they have to file papers. With the church, all they have to say, "We're a church." and that is that. They could be some shoe-string operation that financially limps along on the backs of volunteers and spends nearly all of their money puting shoes on the feet of homeless kids or they could be buying their pastor a stretch limo for all we know. And the only thing those two have in common is that prayer goes on at each place.

 

One of those deserves to be subsidized by all of us because they're out there doing goof for the community. One of those doesn't because they're selling salvation and making a tidy living doing so.

 

 

Ok I think I'm seeing where you're coming from now. Non profits (except churches) deserve to be subsidized by all of us becaue they're doing good for the community (based on the financial filings they make). While churches are not because they don't provide that same evidence. As somebody who has been involved with my own church and several others in the same larger body, I've seen enough financial info to know that this isn't the case. So I trust these churches and give willing, and support their tax exempt status. All of these churces and their governing bodies provide financial reporting to their members, which shows where money comes from and where it goes. No private jets, palacial multi-million dollar mansions, none of that.

 

I still think both of us have our own personal biases that are influencing our views.

[detlef]

Ok I think I'm seeing where you're coming from now. Non profits (except churches) deserve to be subsidized by all of us becaue they're doing good for the community (based on the financial filings they make). While churches are not because they don't provide that same evidence. As somebody who has been involved with my own church and several others in the same larger body, I've seen enough financial info to know that this isn't the case. So I trust these churches and give willing, and support their tax exempt status. All of these churces and their governing bodies provide financial reporting to their members, which shows where money comes from and where it goes. No private jets, palacial multi-million dollar mansions, none of that.

 

I still think both of us have our own personal biases that are influencing our views.

 

If that's where you think I'm coming from, then you apparently don't know where I'm coming from. I'm not saying churches aren't providing good because I don't see the evidence. I'm saying they may or may not be providing good and I'd like to see the evidence before we assume they are and let them get off scott-free.

 

Ultimately, regardless of how well they do their job, non-church non-profits supposedly exist to do one thing. Disaster relief, feed the poor, offer free or cheap health care, something like that. And, if they can't show that they're not getting rich while doing it, then I think they should have their non-profit status revoked.

 

Churches, however, by design, don't even pretend to purely exist to cloth and feed the poor and all that. They also exist to offer you a place to go and worship. Now, if they can show that the degree to which they focus on the worship part, the part that doesn't make the world better for anyone other than those who choose to go there, does not dwarf the undeniable public good they do in the name of their lord or what have you, then good for them. Like I said, I can't help but think some arrangement could be made to allow churches who can show in their budget, not just to its flock, but to the rest of us, that they're not spending a ton of money on a TV network or a fancy temple or what have you, that they can enjoy the same sort of tax-free status that worthy non-profits should deserve.

 

So, in other words, assuming your church is as you describe. Assuming Muck's church is as he describes, then they likely have little if anything to worry about. But what you need to understand is, from a secularist standpoint, I have to respect your right to worship how you please. I just don't understand why I have to pay for it as well.

 

What you're doing, and it puzzles me, is insisting that highly profitable mega-churches be seen in the same light as yours.

[stevegrab]

Ok det, but that's splitting hairs. You said before

"One of those deserves to be subsidized by all of us because they're out there doing goof for the community. One of those doesn't because they're selling salvation and making a tidy living doing so."

 

The one you believe deserves the subsidizes are all but the churches, because they file financial information that proves how much charitable work they do. (However even thouse just posing as do-gooders still get the same tax breaks.) The churches who do not provide financial proof of their charitable work do not deserve the subsidies, because we cannot see if they are truly charitable.

 

So I guess if churchs provided some basic financial information (even if it showed they really don't do any/much charity, just provide a place of worship) it would be ok to subsidize them as well.

 

It just seems to me that you have a skewed view of the churches. You either think they're these mega churches with private jets, or some little building whose taxes wouldn't amount to much if we charged them. I know from personal experience that isn't true, there are many churches with large pieces of property and large facilities (church building, class rooms, social hall, clergy residence, schools, etc.) who would suddenly have a very substantial tax bill if they were paying property taxes.

 

I don't think mega churches deserve the non profit tax breaks any more than some of the very large institutions which do as well. Some that pose as do gooders and others are are seemingly more for profit based than a church (hospitals and universities).

 

Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree again. Because from the beginning this has been an issue of you wanting to tax the church, because you don't like their involvement in politics and think they don't do much charitable work (or don't prove that), so therefore we should remove their tax exempt status. Only when other non profits are brought into the discussion do we discuss addressing their non profit status.

[tonorator]

wow, if ever there was a non-issue to argue, this is one ... our tax code protects places of worship. goes right along with the 1st amendment. to qualify for tax exempt status, the church has to comply with the relevant requirements, submit required documentation, be subject to audit in the event of believed status abuse, etc. part of this abuse is having the funds for the church go to profit of any individuals, which would be reported quickly and is already under incredible scrutiny.

 

if you do good, charitable things, you can also document and deduct this.

 

so what are we discussing again? you don't like the freedom of worship to be protected by our government and preserved with a tax favorable status? really? i think it's pretty cool as a country if you ask me.

[bpwallace49]

All I know is that private parochial school costs an arm and a leg to send your kids to.

 

And this was a great thread to read. Great job det!!

[bushwacked]

“I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers,” he says in his sermon, delivered on May 13. “Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there, [drop some food down] … Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can’t get out… And you know what, in a few years, they’ll die out.”

 

Amen and tax free!

[detlef]

wow, if ever there was a non-issue to argue, this is one ... our tax code protects places of worship. goes right along with the 1st amendment. to qualify for tax exempt status, the church has to comply with the relevant requirements, submit required documentation, be subject to audit in the event of believed status abuse, etc. part of this abuse is having the funds for the church go to profit of any individuals, which would be reported quickly and is already under incredible scrutiny.

 

if you do good, charitable things, you can also document and deduct this.

 

so what are we discussing again? you don't like the freedom of worship to be protected by our government and preserved with a tax favorable status? really? i think it's pretty cool as a country if you ask me.

 

The part in bold does not jibe with a link that Caveman Nick provided earlier showing the pros and cons of giving churches tax free status. And, given the primary argument that gets used as to why the churches need to be tax-free, that being that, if they're taxed, they're not truly free of government oversight, how does this fit with the fact that the same government gets to decide whether or not they're playing by the rules of being a church in terms of getting tax-free status? If the specter of taxation is going to be equated to government control, then it needs to be completely hands off and any jerk-off who wants to call his group a church needs to be able to do so. Otherwise, the government is basically saying what is and what is a church. How is that truly freedom from religion?

 

Of course, if you remove the notion that groups approved as churches get no taxation and simply treat them like any other non-profit. Giving them tax breaks to the extent that they're providing public good but not to the extent that they're conducting the business of furthering their religion, then it's actually a true non-involvement on the part of the government. Sure, thier place of business is subject to being closed down if they can't pay their tax bill, but how does that infringe on their right to practice their religion? If you can't find enough customers to pay for you to have your church in a building, then exercise your right to assembly and meet at the park or something.

 

As for your last "point"? Just stay the hell out of the conversation if you're just going to try and put words into my mouth. Name one time when I said that anyone should not be allowed to worship a god of their choosing.

Edited May 21, 2012 by detlef

[stevegrab]

The part in bold does not jibe with a link that Caveman Nick provided earlier showing the pros and cons of giving churches tax free status. And, given the primary argument that gets used as to why the churches need to be tax-free, that being that, if they're taxed, they're not truly free of government oversight, how does this fit with the fact that the same government gets to decide whether or not they're playing by the rules of being a church in terms of getting tax-free status? If the specter of taxation is going to be equated to government control, then it needs to be completely hands off and any jerk-off who wants to call his group a church needs to be able to do so. Otherwise, the government is basically saying what is and what is a church. How is that truly freedom from religion?

 

Of course, if you remove the notion that groups approved as churches get no taxation and simply treat them like any other non-profit. Giving them tax breaks to the extent that they're providing public good but not to the extent that they're conducting the business of furthering their religion, then it's actually a true non-involvement on the part of the government. Sure, they're subject to being closed down if they can't pay their tax bill, but how does that infringe on their right to practice their religion? If you can't find enough customers to pay for you to have your church in a building, then exercise your right to assembly and meet at the park or something.

 

As for your last "point"? Just stay the hell out of the conversation if you're just going to try and put words into my mouth. Name one time when I said that anyone should not be allowed to worship a god of their choosing.

 

 

Can you provide any examples of this? Or do you just believe that's how it works. How are these non profits given tax breaks based on the extent to which they provide public good? Does somebody analyze their finances and say "ok, you do 70% good work, so we'll reduce your property tax by 70%"? My understanding was, you file for non profit status (even churches need to do this) and once you get it you don't pay taxes. Who is deciding how charitable all these non profits are then deciding how much of a tax break they get.

[detlef]

Can you provide any examples of this? Or do you just believe that's how it works. How are these non profits given tax breaks based on the extent to which they provide public good? Does somebody analyze their finances and say "ok, you do 70% good work, so we'll reduce your property tax by 70%"? My understanding was, you file for non profit status (even churches need to do this) and once you get it you don't pay taxes. Who is deciding how charitable all these non profits are then deciding how much of a tax break they get.

 

That's my point. I think there should be some standard in place. For churches, and therefor, in all fairness, for all non-profits. As it stands, we have 3rd party agencies that rate non-profits, so the metric is there. These agencies look at enough to grade them so we have a mean. We know that places can get stuff done by spending x% on facilities and x% on management and such. But, instead of that just being used as a tool for people to find out who deserves their money, we could use it as a tool to decide who deserves to operate as a non-profit. If you stay above a certain line, you qualify. If you don't, you don't.

 

Another way of looking at it is to, again, treat them like the businesses that many of us feel they are. I get tax breaks for public good, but not for money I spend trying to further my brand. That is, unless I'm furthering my brand by donating food to a charity event and getting positive public exposure for it. Just like a church would.

 

Now, maybe it works like this. Provided the church meets a minimum standard of public beneift, they get to operate as a tax-free entitiy to the extent that donations to that church are not taxed to the donor. However, the church has to treat that as income and is taxed on it minus whatever they can show was spent on public good. So, provided you qualify, you get out of the double taxation that I face in my business (neither customers nor I get out of paying taxes), but you don't get out of it entirely.

 

And, again, I'm also all for exploring the notion of removing tax-free status for money used in politics. I've covered this above. The financial escalation of politics should not get a helping hand by being subsidized by every citizen in this country.

Edited May 21, 2012 by detlef

[muck]

This is one reason that "non-denominational" churches tend to be the 'mega-church' type --- less scrutiny over financial management.

 

That's not to say that all non-denominational churches are unscrupulous, but it is to say that the unscrupulous ones tend to be non-denominational.

[stevegrab]

That's my point. I think there should be some standard in place. For churches, and therefor, in all fairness, for all non-profits. As it stands, we have 3rd party agencies that rate non-profits, so the metric is there. These agencies look at enough to grade them so we have a mean. We know that places can get stuff done by spending x% on facilities and x% on management and such. But, instead of that just being used as a tool for people to find out who deserves their money, we could use it as a tool to decide who deserves to operate as a non-profit. If you stay above a certain line, you qualify. If you don't, you don't.

 

Another way of looking at it is to, again, treat them like the businesses that many of us feel they are. I get tax breaks for public good, but not for money I spend trying to further my brand. That is, unless I'm furthering my brand by donating food to a charity event and getting positive public exposure for it. Just like a church would.

 

Now, maybe it works like this. Provided the church meets a minimum standard of public beneift, they get to operate as a tax-free entitiy to the extent that donations to that church are not taxed to the donor. However, the church has to treat that as income and is taxed on it minus whatever they can show was spent on public good. So, provided you qualify, you get out of the double taxation that I face in my business (neither customers nor I get out of paying taxes), but you don't get out of it entirely.

 

And, again, I'm also all for exploring the notion of removing tax-free status for money used in politics. I've covered this above. The financial escalation of politics should not get a helping hand by being subsidized by every citizen in this country.

 

 

While that may sound like a good idea, it is completely unworkable. How much money (our tax money) is going to be spent on the agencies that over see this? They'll need to decide how much a church (or any organization) spends counts towards "public good" and how much is just regular administrative expenses. Then decide what kind of tax break they get for that and redo it annually. We cannot just rely on the current 3rd parties agencies that rate non profits to do this, we need actual government control to do it for tax purposes.

[SEC=UGA]

While that may sound like a good idea, it is completely unworkable. How much money (our tax money) is going to be spent on the agencies that over see this? They'll need to decide how much a church (or any organization) spends counts towards "public good" and how much is just regular administrative expenses. Then decide what kind of tax break they get for that and redo it annually. We cannot just rely on the current 3rd parties agencies that rate non profits to do this, we need actual government control to do it for tax purposes.

 

 

They do this to me already...

[detlef]

While that may sound like a good idea, it is completely unworkable. How much money (our tax money) is going to be spent on the agencies that over see this? They'll need to decide how much a church (or any organization) spends counts towards "public good" and how much is just regular administrative expenses. Then decide what kind of tax break they get for that and redo it annually. We cannot just rely on the current 3rd parties agencies that rate non profits to do this, we need actual government control to do it for tax purposes.

 

They do this to me already...

 

Exactly.

 

Steve, it goes like this. The churches file taxes and declare what they declare. if things look fishy or if their number happens to come up, they get audited. Just like each and everyone else. The only difference is what they do with the info. With my business, there's no carrot of proving I'm a non-profit so they just look at the bottom line and that's that. Again, unless my number comes up or something looks fishy. With a church or non-profit, there'd just be the valuation of whether their non-profit status was to be preserved.

 

The only reason why I brought up the 3rd party agencies was because they'd be an asset in terms of establishing what the ratio needed to be. Take what those agencies reccomend as worthy charities and set the bar right there.

[stevegrab]

Exactly.

 

Steve, it goes like this. The churches file taxes and declare what they declare. if things look fishy or if their number happens to come up, they get audited. Just like each and everyone else. The only difference is what they do with the info. With my business, there's no carrot of proving I'm a non-profit so they just look at the bottom line and that's that. Again, unless my number comes up or something looks fishy. With a church or non-profit, there'd just be the valuation of whether their non-profit status was to be preserved.

 

The only reason why I brought up the 3rd party agencies was because they'd be an asset in terms of establishing what the ratio needed to be. Take what those agencies reccomend as worthy charities and set the bar right there.

 

 

Ok, but that isn't what I was getting from your prior posts. It sounds as if there would be levels of tax breaks based on how charitable the non profit was. I guess I need to look more at these agencies that rate charities. A quick internet search shows me there are quite a few and I have no idea which are reputable (Charity Navigator looks interesting).

 

My guess would be that most individual churches would rate pretty low, because the bulk of what they collect in donations goes toward runnig their church (minister and other salary, mortgage, insurance, utilities, etc) and not to actual help other people. Maybe that is really your key point all along (and not the mega churches and pastors with personal jets). Another component of running their church is any money paid to a larger church body as some form of membership dues (having discussed this with people in other denominations it is at least somewhat common). And that is sticky issue, because it may then be the larger church body that is the one doing the actual charity.

 

Would every Roman Catholic church be granted non-profit based on the overall Catholic Church in America (and the same for every other organized religion with a hierarchical structure)? Or would each church be treated separately.

 

Its been an interesting discussion.

 

ETA Intersting, the Charity Navigator itself is a charity

Edited May 21, 2012 by stevegrab

[detlef]

Ok, but that isn't what I was getting from your prior posts. It sounds as if there would be levels of tax breaks based on how charitable the non profit was. I guess I need to look more at these agencies that rate charities. A quick internet search shows me there are quite a few and I have no idea which are reputable (Charity Navigator looks interesting).

 

My guess would be that most individual churches would rate pretty low, because the bulk of what they collect in donations goes toward runnig their church (minister and other salary, mortgage, insurance, utilities, etc) and not to actual help other people. Maybe that is really your key point all along (and not the mega churches and pastors with personal jets). Another component of running their church is any money paid to a larger church body as some form of membership dues (having discussed this with people in other denominations it is at least somewhat common). And that is sticky issue, because it may then be the larger church body that is the one doing the actual charity.

 

Would every Roman Catholic church be granted non-profit based on the overall Catholic Church in America (and the same for every other organized religion with a hierarchical structure)? Or would each church be treated separately.

 

Its been an interesting discussion.

 

Well, no true reform is going to be a single draft written by one dude on a FF message board, and liike I've said plenty of times, I recognize that there'd be plenty of cans of worms that would be opened.

 

However, I guess my point is that I'm not a fan of what can be a non-profit right now. That includes political groups, charities that are basically excuses for a bunch of socialites to have a good time and pretend that they're doing good, and yes, churches. At least to the degree that they're churches and not service groups. Because I don't see how you and your friends getting together and discussing the bible does any good for the rest of us. I would say it's likely a wash. Many of you come out of these meetings and go out and do great things in the name of the lord. Many of you decide a big electric fence should be built to put all the queers inside of. Others still, just find strength in your own lives, which is fine, but that's something you get out of it. I may pay a shrink for the same thing, but I don't get to write it off.

 

So, yes, I think if your church spends a bunch of money on things that don't provide a public good, they should be taxed. Again, because I see them as a club. When I brought up my golf course deal, it was laughed as an absurd hyperbole but that's sort of my point. To me, the church of the holy sandwedge is exactly as silly as many other official churches. And, when I see people who are involved with the church take offense to the notion that such a thing has as much right to be a church as whatever church they go to, it tells me that, to them, this is not about protecting churches from taxation, but protecting their church from taxation. And, when they want to stop a mosque from being built near ground zero, it's not about freedom of religion, but freedom for them to practice their religion.

 

And I think the notion that there is any oversight at all into what can and can't qualify as a church in terms of tax status does, in fact, totally undo the argument that the tax-free status that churches get is there to protect them from the tyranny of the state. Because it is that same tyranny of the state that determines whether or not they get to avoid taxation. Otherwise, nobody can really say boo about my country club church. If you can't say boo about my country club church, then the whole thing is BS. Because why stop at the country club? Dos Perros should be the church of tacos and so on. If the government steps in and says I'm not a church so I still have to pay tax, aren't they stepping on my right to prectice my religion?

 

Oh, wait, if the government does that, they're not restricting my right to practice my religion, they're just saying I don't get to do so tax free. In other words, my freedom of religion is not attacked in any way at all. Which, btw, is a fine argument for each and every other church out there. That just means I'd better have something enough people are willing to pay me for so I can afford my tax bill. Which, again, is a fine argument for each and every other church out there.

[tonorator]

why don't u actually read the tax code b4 criticizing it? the gov is not interested in controlling the churches, they just protect against the abuses. the country that enables u to publish yer newsletter protects our freedoms of speech, religion, etc. kinda the backbone for the whole thing. u think it is a racket bcuz in your warped mind, u think your restaurant is some kind of holy institution and u r jealous. sad.

[matt770]

Buggering altar boys is not very charitable IMO.