Yes! Tax The Churches!

by metatron 40 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rather be in hades

  Beware! In the USA, with taxation comes representation. Do you REALLY want all restraints to be lifted from churches getting involved in politics?

  at first, this scared the crap outta me.

  i had visions of living in the evangelical states of america, where the christians turned this country into the christian version of afghanistan.

  then i thought...they're ALREADY heavily involved in politics and public policy. cal prop 8? that god awful, horrific thanksgiving family forum republican debate? abortion? contraceptives for crying out loud. organized religion has it's fingers all over gov't right now as it is.

  so what difference does it make? other than the gov't stops letting churches stay on the take and make profits at the expense of parishoners and the gov't?

  the awesome thing is, we have a country in which we can challenge legally challenge the laws, so whatever crazy thing gets passed, can be taken all the way up to the supreme court to have it taken out.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Jeff said " All "charitable" organizations can recive tax status based on how much actually gets based on to those that need it (recruiting and religious education would not count toward this). So if a church runs a soup kitichen and 50% of its money goes there it gets a 50% tax break, and those making donations can deduct 50% of the donation. In the case of the WTBS, none of the money goes anywhere so the tax break would be zero. ".

  Thats a great idea. If you are not contributing to society by helping in a real world practical way then your oranization must die out. No bail outs, work and help or be dissolved. Just imagine if instead of mega-churches transversing land and sea for another member to make it money, we had many more small " churches " or " charitable organizations " really helping people actually helping others. It would not bother me giving tax breaks to someone who was really helping the community.

  With taxation comes representation, that doesn't bother me. Churches are already involved behind the scenes and in plain sight! Let them speak! It will hasten the end of the hypocrites! To quote Jackie Chan from Rush Hour, " I like to let people talk who like to talk. It lets me find out how full of sh** they are.". So let them keep talking, and tax them! Weed out the pretenders who help none but themselves!
• 

  Sulla

  DATA-DOG would tolerate churches that do social works, but not the reason why they do social works.

  KS has no idea what he is talking about. Still.
• 

  blondie

  Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

  The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

  http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes---Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3)

  Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

  To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

  Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

  The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

  Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

  http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements---Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

  Some of these organizations are taxed on certain areas.

  http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4220.pdf
• 

  rather be in hades

  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion;

  that is part of the problem. charitable is too loose a definition. most of that definition is fine but what business does the gov't have in helping "advance a religion"?

  that sounds very much like a obliteration of the seperation of church and state

  the other stuff is great stuff and it fills a hole that gov't can't fill at present and those expenses should be exempt

  this is a pretty big loophole imo:

  The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

  sounds to me like they'd take that tax out on the individual(s) and still treat the organization as a non-taxable entity.

  so if that's the case, it's sounding very much like a pastor, reverend, whatever, can pay himself a ton and depending on the circumstances, might not be penalized for it at all. what's 'reasonable' after all?

  looking at how ministerial pay is 'set' the more it seems that this is a very exploitable system which might explain why tvevangelists look so damn snazzy
• 

  rather be in hades

  DATA-DOG would tolerate churches that do social works, but not the reason why they do social works.

  is that really what he said? or an exaggeration?

  how about, churches that actually do something worthwhile in the form of social works should receive some tax protections.

  churches like the jehovah's witnesses that don't do anything but print rags should not be receiving tax protections as they are essentially...a publishing company and nothing else. especially given the behind the scenes assets and investments that they are involved with.

  why should jws, muslims, catholics, mormons, etc not have to pay taxes like any other corporation when they sometimes COMPETE with other corporations?
• 

  jwfacts

  People are missing the point when they think taxing Churches will bankrupt them. Tax is on profit, not revenue. After all expenses, a small portion of what is left goes to the government.

  I agreed with taxing Churches. Religion is a business, a very successful business to be in, and there is no reason for it not to be taxed.

  I personally do not even agree with the concept of not taxing non-profit organisations, as it is a loophole that encourages abuse. If a charity raises money for poor people, they should be taxed on profit. If they are making a profit, it means they are holding revenue for themselves, rather than passing it on to the people they claim to be collecting the money for.
• 

  talesin

  People are missing the point when they think taxing Churches will bankrupt them. Tax is on profit, not revenue. After all expenses, a small portion of what is left goes to the government.

  I agreed with taxing Churches. Religion is a business, a very successful business to be in, and there is no reason for it not to be taxed.

  A good point, but let's not forget property tax. A lot of religions own properties in areas that garners a high property tax. Hello? Brooklyn?

  It's not just profits that are taxable, it's real estate holdings.

  :)
• 

  DATA-DOG

  @ Sulla, I don't know exactly what your point is. I don't I have a problem with religion, just organized money making machines. I believe that those who are not truly sincere in thier beliefs would die out over time. If you are actually held to a standard in order to make some kind of living, like normal people ( who are required to produce something tangible in order to be paid ) it shows where your heart is. As far as the reasons they do social works, well I just assume that those who do good things because of love for their fellow man would stand out over time. So if you were in the 1st Baptist Church of the sacred bleeded hearted Jesus and you were feeding and clothing children and helping the homeless, I wouldn't mind you getting a tax break or refund of some sort. My problem with organized religion is their deplorable track record, especially those who expect undying loyalty to dogma. Unless religion is done away with you will always have those who take advantage of others. Why not let the Superior Authorities get involved? My core belief is that you recieved free so give free, if that was truly followed, especially by those who claim to be Christians, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
• 

  NewChapter

  Regarding taxation and representation: one person, one vote. That would not change. A corporation does not get a vote, neither will a church.

  Churches are money making endeavors. Some may go to charity, but what is charity? They can't be action groups? Did the Mormons use any church money to defeat prop 8? Did they use their network? Churches violate this rule all the time, and still get the tax exemption. They are very politically active, especially today. It is not just the individuals, it is the organizations.

  Why do we think that taxing these organizations will destroy them? Do they give out food? That would be tax exempt. Do they teach reading and such? That would be tax exempt. But why should they get special consideration to print their literature, distribute their message (often political and religious in nature) and run around recruiting? They already put a burden on tax payers with faith based initiatives. So it's perfectly fine for the government, through our tax dollars to go and support these institutions but it would be wrong for them to support the government?

  They want to meddle in politics, not follow the law, not pay taxes, --- I don't know why we think this is okay. It would only be on their profit that didn't go to charity. If they are profiting that much, and not using it for charity, then exactly what are they doing with it, and why shouldn't it be taxed?