Time to revoke the Church's Tax-Free Status

[Woodruff]

Perhaps it is time to start taxing churches:

http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702

and

http://www.kens5.com/home/Church-marquee-with-political-message-stirs-sentiment-in-Leakey-Texas-174869651.html

[Dukasaur]

I'm in agreement.

The purpose of the tax-exempt status for non-profits is that the non-profit entity "steps into the shoes" of the government and pays for property and services the government would normally provide. Considering that the government provides these properties and services anyway, I don't think it's necessary for non-profits to provide them. Thus, non-profits should lose their tax-exempt status and cease providing such property and services.

Churches and voluntary charities typically spend between 10 and 20 percent of their revenue on administration, with the result that 80% or better of the money directed to them actually gets to the beneficiaries.

Government welfare programs typically spend between 60 and 70 percent of their revenue on administration, with the result that 40% or less of the money spent on the welfare state gets to the intended beneficiaries.

You decide which one you'd rather shut down.

(Besides, as Player pointed out, the original rationale for not taxing churches had nothing to do with their charitable status, it had to do with a whole range of civil protections for the individual conscience and can be thought of in the same group as freedom of assembly and freedom of the press [but then why aren't newspapers tax-exempt?] but I didn't want to take all day wading into that side of it, so I just answered your charity point directly.)

[Timminz]

In Canada, all organizations that receive government funding (universities, for example) have to list publicly, the names and salaries of all employees earning more than $100,000/year. It would be interesting to see this requirement extended to tax-exempt organizations as well. Maybe it already is... I didn't actually look into it.

Is there anything like this in the US?

[Army of GOD]

So I was forced to go to church yesterday for the first time in a year and I realized how idiotic how much money people give to the church and how much of it they can retain.

Seriously, they have overly ridiculous robes and giant god damn statues of Jesus being dead and everyfuckingthing is gold and blah blah blah.

[2dimes]

So I was forced to go to church yesterday for the first time in a year

Details, who and how did they do such a thing?

[Night Strike]

Perhaps it is time to start taxing churches:

http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702

and

http://www.kens5.com/home/Church-marquee-with-political-message-stirs-sentiment-in-Leakey-Texas-174869651.html

So it only becomes an issue when any church tries to support conservative politicians? Because liberals have been preaching about politics for decades (just look at Black Liberation churches, etc.).

[Haggis_McMutton]

So I was forced to go to church yesterday for the first time in a year and I realized how idiotic how much money people give to the church and how much of it they can retain.

Seriously, they have overly ridiculous robes and giant god damn statues of Jesus being dead and everyfuckingthing is gold and blah blah blah.

Yeah, but Huxley says that the gold statues help churchgoers get high.
So it's all good.

[tzor]

Seriously, they have overly ridiculous robes and giant god damn statues of Jesus being dead and everyfuckingthing is gold and blah blah blah.

Seriously, nothing is gold in my church.

Sure, a good stole is more expensive than a good suit, but the material lasts for decades.

[Funkyterrance]

I am going to present the disclaimer before I start that this is certainly not my area of expertise and I am merely going thus far by the information gained in this thread.
So from what I understand these non-profits, including churches, are more efficient at helping the groups which they support than the government and one or the other is going to be used regardless. Seems like a no-brainer then?
Also, and correct me if I am wrong, in the case of churches, the benefactors(aside from administration) of the church funds are generally members of the church's community? That being said, at least the people who receive the help are contributing and partaking in a community in one way or another. Money from the government is more or less anonymous to any community and there's not necessarily any connection between the entity that gives the money and the receiver. For some reason I think that when someone receives funds from the government they can more easily consider the money manna from heaven or something. There seems there is less of a disconnection when help comes from a distinct group of people in that you can put a name to a face and more appreciate that the money actually comes from the pocket of someone else.

[Maugena]

If people are ignorant enough to believe that it is proper to give an entity money based on falsehoods, so be it.

inb4 BBS "So... you're referring to government?"

To a certain extent, sure. But I'm technically referring to church.

[Funkyterrance]

If people are ignorant enough to believe that it is proper to give an entity money based on falsehoods, so be it... I'm technically referring to church.

I'm not siding with anyone but I don't know how much the perceived falsehoods enter into it. Churches tend to be charitable. If the church itself needs a new roof, sure, they replace it but they also tend to be pretty generous towards their communities when they are in need. The superstructure seems more or less irrelevant.

[Woodruff]

Perhaps it is time to start taxing churches:

http://www.speakupmovement.org/church/LearnMore/details/4702

and

http://www.kens5.com/home/Church-marquee-with-political-message-stirs-sentiment-in-Leakey-Texas-174869651.html

So it only becomes an issue when any church tries to support conservative politicians? Because liberals have been preaching about politics for decades (just look at Black Liberation churches, etc.).

I know you like to pretend that everyone in the world is as biased and full of partisan bullshit as you are, Night Strike, but the real world just doesn't work that way.

First of all, if you look at just this thread and never mind the others where this subject has come up, you can clearly see that I'm not leaving anyone out as far as churches losing their tax-exempt status. Secondly, you're going to have to show where they are supporting specific politicians, which is where the law comes into play.

Now did you have something relevant to add to that, or did you just want to continue to pretend that conservatives Christians in the United States are being persecuted?

[Woodruff]

If people are ignorant enough to believe that it is proper to give an entity money based on falsehoods, so be it... I'm technically referring to church.

I'm not siding with anyone but I don't know how much the perceived falsehoods enter into it. Churches tend to be charitable. If the church itself needs a new roof, sure, they replace it but they also tend to be pretty generous towards their communities when they are in need. The superstructure seems more or less irrelevant.

Some are absolutely great in this manner. Probably most, I would think (and hope). But there are absolutely some SERIOUS profit-making churches out there.

[Funkyterrance]

If people are ignorant enough to believe that it is proper to give an entity money based on falsehoods, so be it... I'm technically referring to church.

I'm not siding with anyone but I don't know how much the perceived falsehoods enter into it. Churches tend to be charitable. If the church itself needs a new roof, sure, they replace it but they also tend to be pretty generous towards their communities when they are in need. The superstructure seems more or less irrelevant.

Some are absolutely great in this manner. Probably most, I would think (and hope). But there are absolutely some SERIOUS profit-making churches out there.

Yeah I wasn't referring to the exceptions like Jim Baker, etc..

[Woodruff]

If people are ignorant enough to believe that it is proper to give an entity money based on falsehoods, so be it... I'm technically referring to church.

I'm not siding with anyone but I don't know how much the perceived falsehoods enter into it. Churches tend to be charitable. If the church itself needs a new roof, sure, they replace it but they also tend to be pretty generous towards their communities when they are in need. The superstructure seems more or less irrelevant.

Some are absolutely great in this manner. Probably most, I would think (and hope). But there are absolutely some SERIOUS profit-making churches out there.

Yeah I wasn't referring to the exceptions like Jim Baker, etc..

Most aren't that well-known outside of their local areas. We have one right here in little ol' Lincoln, Nebraska.

[Funkyterrance]

Most aren't that well-known outside of their local areas. We have one right here in little ol' Lincoln, Nebraska.

I'm very sorry to hear that.
What is preventing them from being investigated/busted?

[Woodruff]

Most aren't that well-known outside of their local areas. We have one right here in little ol' Lincoln, Nebraska.

I'm very sorry to hear that.
What is preventing them from being investigated/busted?

To my knowledge, the IRS has not pursued any case against a church regarding their tax-exempt status. I could be wrong about that, but I suspect it's just seen as a political nightmare.

[Funkyterrance]

Most aren't that well-known outside of their local areas. We have one right here in little ol' Lincoln, Nebraska.

I'm very sorry to hear that.
What is preventing them from being investigated/busted?

To my knowledge, the IRS has not pursued any case against a church regarding their tax-exempt status. I could be wrong about that, but I suspect it's just seen as a political nightmare.

Yeah, I should have clarified...
I was suggesting it was an individual who could be investigated, not the church as a whole. It seems an individual could be pinpointed and busted without too much scrutiny.

[Juan_Bottom]

So from what I understand these non-profits, including churches, are more efficient at helping the groups which they support than the government and one or the other is going to be used regardless. Seems like a no-brainer then?

Our government gives out the dole fairly; it doesn't deny help based on sex, creed, or race or anything. That's the difference. To the government, all citizens are equal. A church may only donate to people who think like them, or have requirements. For example, those Texas Ministries who feed the homeless, but only if they come to their 4 hour church service.

For some reason I think that when someone receives funds from the government they can more easily consider the money manna from heaven or something

Why?

There seems there is less of a disconnection when help comes from a distinct group of people in that you can put a name to a face and more appreciate that the money actually comes from the pocket of someone else.

Or take this example. Do you know how much money the charitable group The Knights of Columbus spent to prevent Same-Sex Marriage?

$15 million.

I take exception when you say that you'd appreciate money better than came from a church than from a government. Don't perpetuate this kind of thinking. Our government doesn't judge it's citizens the way that a church can and will.
And taxing churches is all about how they are constantly butting into the election process. If you're going to use the pulpit for political speeches, or donate church money to campaigns, then you rightly deserve to be taxed.

[Funkyterrance]

I see the difference you are pointing out but those people who don't get money from charities will undoubtedly get it from the government so they are going to get it either way right? It's not like someone who doesn't get money from a church is going to starve.
My point was that there seems to be a disassociation between a government check and where it actually comes from whereas with money from charity it is harder to ignore the fact that someone gave you that money, it didn't just magically appear in your mailbox. With a non-profit or church a community generally gives to someone within the community that is in a spot(or towards a cause embraced by the community) whereas the government gives money to people who "qualify" for it. The latter example tends to lack a personal aspect and is therefore arguably easier for a person to take advantage of. If someone is qualified for something do they still consider it charity? Because it is.

[2dimes]

Ok question for a few of you guys. Do you honestly and completly believe that most churches are as corrupt as the federal governments of Canada or the Uniteds States of America?

[Funkyterrance]

Ok question for a few of you guys. Do you honestly and completly believe that most churches are as corrupt as the federal governments of Canada or the Uniteds States of America?

No friggin way. Oh you weren't asking me were you?

[Juan_Bottom]

If someone is qualified for something do they still consider it charity? Because it is.

I don't regard it as such. If you're a contributing member of society, then you're paying in already, so it's your money. You've invested in the government, as J.K. Rowling said, and the government is investing it back into you.

Ok question for a few of you guys. Do you honestly and completly believe that most churches are as corrupt as the federal governments of Canada or the Uniteds States of America?

Yes.
And they are less beholden to the people. They're rogue para-nations who are outside of all civilian oversight and authority. Our United States government has more control over many sovereign country's than it has over the American Catholic Church.

[2dimes]

Pfft!

It pains me to defend tzor's church but they only tend to own valuable properties because they used to build permanent structure on lots down town. Eventually that property increased in value and now it looks like they spent a fourtune on it because it's worth one.
At one time it made them the richest organization of their kind. I believe that title now belongs to the other "Priesthood" outfit. Both have some issues but money corruption oddly enough is not one of them

Well Terry, I'm curious about everyone's opinion on that but, I guess I had some idea from the last page what you are thinking.

[2dimes]

That's honestly tough because I'm really angry at the Catholic church for so many horrible things they have done but I can't be dishonest about them either.

It made me happy when then were having financial troubles and if you ask me it's good news whenever they lose a parish or whatever itis and have to sell off one of their properties. Doubly so if they lose money on it.