Time to revoke the Church's Tax-Free Status

[Funkyterrance]

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.

What about those who aren't contributing members of society, they are just as qualified in this "non-biased" system. I don't think you are going to argue that everyone who receives help from the government necessarily contributes.

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.

Is this an emotional response or your honest opinion based on personal experience?

[thegreekdog]

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.)

Most of my posts in this thread were of the sarcastic-type variety. I think it's moronic to shut down tax-free status for churches for a variety of reasons: economically stupid, politically stupid, socially stupid.

[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.)

Most of my posts in this thread were of the sarcastic-type variety. I think it's moronic to shut down tax-free status for churches for a variety of reasons: economically stupid, politically stupid, socially stupid.

Oh, ok. I thought your post was uncharacteristic, but I didn't realize it was sarcasm.



<getting too serious in my dotage>

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

You just jealous of their Holy Chromes and Jesus Bling.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

If by 'falsehood' you mean 'god doesn't exist,' then does that matter?

If the organization is providing club goods and other useful services/goods to the community, then what's the problem?

(I guess none, but why make that post? What's on your mind?)

[BigBallinStalin]

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?

Yeah, but I forget the amount. IIRC, it's at least $100,000/year, and some special organizations maybe exempt from this rule because they're special.

[2dimes]

If the organization is providing club goods and other useful services/goods to the community, then what's the problem?

The problem is when someone skims money for themselves.
(I know, you know, but it had to be said.)



It's impossible to solve also because most of the other people involved, are trusting that not to happen. If not they will switch to another organisation. If a thief is found out and it's not the leader they are expelled.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the organization is providing club goods and other useful services/goods to the community, then what's the problem?

The problem is when someone skims money for themselves.
(I know, you know, but it had to be said.)



It's impossible to solve also because most of the other people involved, are trusting that not to happen. If not they will switch to another organisation. If a thief is found out and it's not the leader they are expelled.

In a competitive environment, that problem doesn't matter on the margin. If organization A sucks as handling your donations, but org. B is better, then you have an incentive to switch. Org A's loss of profit induce them to change accordingly.

This is the benefit of exchanges based on voluntary agreements.
(You don't get this mechanism of change with government--as an example to contrast with).

[Funkyterrance]

If the organization is providing club goods and other useful services/goods to the community, then what's the problem?

The problem is when someone skims money for themselves.
(I know, you know, but it had to be said.)



It's impossible to solve also because most of the other people involved, are trusting that not to happen. If not they will switch to another organisation. If a thief is found out and it's not the leader they are expelled.

In a competitive environment, that problem doesn't matter on the margin. If organization A sucks as handling your donations, but org. B is better, then you have an incentive to switch. Org A's loss of profit induce them to change accordingly.

This is the benefit of exchanges based on voluntary agreements.
(You don't get this mechanism of change with government--as an example to contrast with).

AKA free market?

[Woodruff]

If the organization is providing club goods and other useful services/goods to the community, then what's the problem?

The problem is when someone skims money for themselves.
(I know, you know, but it had to be said.)

It's impossible to solve also because most of the other people involved, are trusting that not to happen. If not they will switch to another organisation. If a thief is found out and it's not the leader they are expelled.

In a competitive environment, that problem doesn't matter on the margin. If organization A sucks as handling your donations, but org. B is better, then you have an incentive to switch. Org A's loss of profit induce them to change accordingly.

This is the benefit of exchanges based on voluntary agreements.
(You don't get this mechanism of change with government--as an example to contrast with).

AKA free market?

I cannot imagine that would apply to something along the lines of a church wherein the members feel beholden much more to the entity than they would to something of a more commercial enterprise. It seems like a terrible analogy.

[Woodruff]

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?

Of course not. Do I believe that MANY are? Yes. But not most. Or...maybe I should say I HOPE NOT for most.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the organization is providing club goods and other useful services/goods to the community, then what's the problem?

The problem is when someone skims money for themselves.
(I know, you know, but it had to be said.)



It's impossible to solve also because most of the other people involved, are trusting that not to happen. If not they will switch to another organisation. If a thief is found out and it's not the leader they are expelled.

In a competitive environment, that problem doesn't matter on the margin. If organization A sucks as handling your donations, but org. B is better, then you have an incentive to switch. Org A's loss of profit induce them to change accordingly.

This is the benefit of exchanges based on voluntary agreements.
(You don't get this mechanism of change with government--as an example to contrast with).

AKA free market?

As long as the exchanges are voluntary; there's free entry to these markets; etc., then sure.

(arguably, if eternal damnation and salvation are on the line, then maybe not, but it's not like the church or charity holds a gun to your head--unlike the state).

[BigBallinStalin]

I cannot imagine that would apply to something along the lines of a church wherein the members feel beholden much more to the entity than they would to something of a more commercial enterprise. It seems like a terrible analogy.

Markets are everywhere--even religion and religious clubs/organizations.

[Funkyterrance]

Do churches ever refuse donations? I don't think I've ever entertained this question before tbh.

[Woodruff]

Do churches ever refuse donations? I don't think I've ever entertained this question before tbh.

Why would they? I mean...I can't think of too many charities that would unless there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with the donater.

[Funkyterrance]

Hypothetically speaking, you could choose whatever church/charity you wanted to take part in depending on the way your donations were spent. It's just a matter of fitting in really, with a few exceptions. It doesn't seem like anyone would object to an absentee donator either, for obvious reasons. That being said, it appears to be a pretty good system.

[rdsrds2120]

I cannot imagine that would apply to something along the lines of a church wherein the members feel beholden much more to the entity than they would to something of a more commercial enterprise. It seems like a terrible analogy.

Markets are everywhere--even religion and religious clubs/organizations.

That's just what you'd like us to believe, EH WISE GUY?!?

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

I cannot imagine that would apply to something along the lines of a church wherein the members feel beholden much more to the entity than they would to something of a more commercial enterprise. It seems like a terrible analogy.

Markets are everywhere--even religion and religious clubs/organizations.

That's just what you'd like us to believe, EH WISE GUY?!?

BMO

[bedub1]

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?

I haven't read about lots of Canadian and US government officials raping little boys. So Yes, I believe the churches are WORSE than the federal government.

[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?

I haven't read about lots of Canadian and US government officials raping little boys. So Yes, I believe the churches are WORSE than the federal government.

I'm sure it has happened...
A little off the point though, isn't it?

[thegreekdog]

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?

I haven't read about lots of Canadian and US government officials raping little boys. So Yes, I believe the churches are WORSE than the federal government.

I'm sure it has happened...
A little off the point though, isn't it?

It depends on whether 2dimes just meant corrupt or if he meant financially corrupt.

[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?

I haven't read about lots of Canadian and US government officials raping little boys. So Yes, I believe the churches are WORSE than the federal government.

I'm sure it has happened...
A little off the point though, isn't it?

It depends on whether 2dimes just meant corrupt or if he meant financially corrupt.

He meant financially corrupt. I think the current North American federal governments are pretty clean with regards to child molestation.

[thegreekdog]

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?

I haven't read about lots of Canadian and US government officials raping little boys. So Yes, I believe the churches are WORSE than the federal government.

I'm sure it has happened...
A little off the point though, isn't it?

It depends on whether 2dimes just meant corrupt or if he meant financially corrupt.

He meant financially corrupt. I think the current North American federal governments are pretty clean with regards to child molestation.

Thanks. I knew that, I don't think bedub knew that.

[Phatscotty]

Separation of church and state comes to mind...

Either it's separate, or it's not

[Woodruff]

Separation of church and state comes to mind...
Either it's separate, or it's not

Which is pretty much the whole point of the discussion, yes.