Skip to main content

But we HAVEN'T straightened our our welfare system. What I'm asking is, the way things stand NOW, if it could be proven that it would cost taxpayers more to take care of these people without churches, would you still think it was a fair trade-off? This is not so much a financial question as a philosophical one. Does the principle matter more to you than the practicality?

So are you alleging that without these tax privileges the churches would no longer help the needy? They would still be getting the same money as they do now, wouldn't they?

 

You question seems to be loaded. Nothing can change but the tax privileges and suddenly the churches would no longer be able to help the poor, and we would have a flood of people who would then need  welfare.

 

Ok, I will answer it (even though it is very unlikely events would unfold like that).

 

My principles mean more to me than money, yes. I would want them to pay anyway. I don't believe that things would be that extreme but in your scenario my feelings on the subject still don't change. If you believe that much money would come from the churches, so much that it would render them unable to help the poor then I would think that would be ample enough to s**** up any new welfare money that is needed.

 

I worked in a clinic years ago and I can only recall 3 people in 5 years that were receiving assistance with their medical bills from a church. I don't know of anyone that is receiving month to month help with food and housing paid for by a church. I am sure there might be some, but it is a small percentage. It seems that what the churches offer is emergency help the most. Not long term help. Those people are still going to be in the welfare system regardless of religious tax privileges or not.

I do not think that any church should receive tax exemptions.  The members of a particular church or anyone else are free to give at any time, and I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing beliefs systems, properties, and preachers that I don't happen to agree with.  I wouldn't expect anyone to subsidize my church and I disagree with it getting any tax breaks either.  

 

I drive by some of the churches in town and have in other places, and I see huge churches.  It doesn't even relate in those cases whether I agree with their teachings or not, but I don't feel taxpayers should be paying for religious staff, properties, or events. I agree that the money for those huge properties, buildings, and maintenance of staff aren't my choice for that money and should be paid for by those who do support whatever system they wish to follow.  Now if I'm not helping pay for it I don't care really as long as they stay legal, but no one asked me if I minded my money going to support excess and in some cases abuses.  

 

I see no reason to have everyone supporting particular belief systems just as I wouldn't expect one political party to donate to another, and I think religions and governments should do their jobs and leave each other alone.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I'm curious.  All you folks who want to tax churches - and understand that churches and pastors are two different entities - do you also want to tax other not-for-profit organizations such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Humane Society, etc, etc?

 

 

Good question Crusty. I feel there's a difference. Those orgs have a specific mission and service to help the needy. Churches primary mission and function is to grow their religious base and to teach a certain religious belief. That to me is not vital to human health and humanity. I know that they do help the needy too, it is just not their primary goal. If the church supports one of the charities you listed or any other that actually spends the money to help the less fortunate, then their contribution should be tax deductible like it is for the rest of us.

 

I have heard it argued that if they were no longer under the restriction of tax exemption to not endorse a political candidate or legislature, churches would blur the line even more in the religion/politics arena.  They do this all the time and no one calls them on it. Nothing is done to truly enforce this rule. I feel they have their cake and eat it too. Why should they continue to receive this privilege when they so blatantly break the rules? If they don't out right break them they sure do bend them. Just like the pastor in the story who bought the house on the lake and didn't pay taxes because he said it was housing related to his job......

 

Tax exempt status is a privilege not a right. I think that many that receive it are not worthy of such a privilege. I think most churches should not qualify.

Religious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status. Many amass great wealth and vast media empires - all of it off the tax rolls. The point is that religious organizations can and do espouse doctrines of intolerance and hatred, filter funds to foreign enemies, and cause far more harm than good in their communities. They are nevertheless entirely tax-exempt, their finances never scrutinized, because they qualify as "religious organizations."

WHY YOU CARE:

Because it is easily and routinely abused.

Because it costs you and me billions.

Because the founders got it right.

Because it is fundamentally unjust

Because our country is not supposed to be a theocracy.

Because it makes no sense.

 Because religious organizations are not accountable to the citizens who subsidize them.

Because it's unconstitutional.

http://taxthechurches.org/

My Church (LDS) is a charitable organization. We give food, housing, utilities payments, clothing, job training/ jobs, emergency housing, emergency food and relief of all kinds to not just members of the Church but anyone in need. There is no fraud or miss-use of funds in any way. If you have an example of any miss-use of LDS funds, please enlighten me.

  You refer to Romans 13:7. If the Bible is fictitious, this has no bearing on the argument. Something that does bear on this argument is the Founding Father’s intent on how this Country should be operated. So the Constitution that they created to guide this Country is the final word.

    In the Constitution/ Bill of Rights it reads;

    Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If there is a need for a change to the Constitution of the United States there is an Amendment process. If the Constitution of the United States is ever Amended to take away for whatever reasons all Charitable Donations including contributions to both political parties. The LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) would comply with the new rules. Unfortunately this would hinder greatly the ability to help as much as it has, but would continue as much as it could. This, if it ever happens (which would surprise me greatly) would hopefully be after a great purge of the Government fraud and waste.

Skippy

Skippy, the tax exemptions are not a right, they are a privilege.

 

As for the LDS I think I recall them getting into some hot water trying to get involved politically with the Prop 8 vote. Seems like I read that and I will see what I can find on the subject for you. They do take the tax exemptions and they are not supposed to use the church to endorse or oppose any candidate or legislature.

You refer to Romans 13:7. If the Bible is fictitious, this has no bearing on the argument. Something that does bear on this argument is the Founding Father’s intent on how this Country should be operated. So the Constitution that they created to guide this Country is the final word.

 

 

I only referred to it to show you only use it when it's to your (churches) advantage. The bible exists so how could it be fictitous? Perhaps you mean I think it's a work of fiction. I do, but that doesn't stop you from quoting it when you are telling people they should live by it, so naturally I'm going to ask why you don't adhere to all of it.

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I'm curious.  All you folks who want to tax churches - and understand that churches and pastors are two different entities - do you also want to tax other not-for-profit organizations such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Humane Society, etc, etc?

 

 

Good question Crusty. I feel there's a difference. Those orgs have a specific mission and service to help the needy. Churches primary mission and function is to grow their religious base and to teach a certain religious belief. That to me is not vital to human health and humanity. I know that they do help the needy too, it is just not their primary goal. If the church supports one of the charities you listed or any other that actually spends the money to help the less fortunate, then their contribution should be tax deductible like it is for the rest of us.

 

I have heard it argued that if they were no longer under the restriction of tax exemption to not endorse a political candidate or legislature, churches would blur the line even more in the religion/politics arena.  They do this all the time and no one calls them on it. Nothing is done to truly enforce this rule. I feel they have their cake and eat it too. Why should they continue to receive this privilege when they so blatantly break the rules? If they don't out right break them they sure do bend them. Just like the pastor in the story who bought the house on the lake and didn't pay taxes because he said it was housing related to his job......

 

Tax exempt status is a privilege not a right. I think that many that receive it are not worthy of such a privilege. I think most churches should not qualify.

_____________

Interesting.  Churches were the first organizations that had a "mission and service to help the needy".  Before them there were no organized charities.  Now you would exclude them, simply because they have a religion at their core?  Which entities will you exclude next, and based on what criteria?  

 

I have two problems with denying churches tax exempt status.  The first is that the tax we are talking about is the income tax.  Churches by their very nature are not-for-profit and therefore have no income to tax as defined under the tax code.  If the church has become a for-profit organization then I agree, their tax exempt status should be revoked. 

 

The second problem I have is using the tax code to promote an agenda.  It happens all the time in the tax law, not just with regard to churches, and I don't generally care for its use.  So your denying a legitimate not-for-profit organization their tax exempt status based on a few bad apples doesn't sit well with me.  What other not-for-profit organizations are you going to deny a tax exemption to and for what reasons?

Here is a list of tax exempt organizations:

 

http://www.muridae.com/nporegu...nts/exempt_orgs.html

 

They include fraternal organizations, labor unions, real estate boards, recreational organizations, and lots of others that some people might object to. If we get rid of the exemption for churches because some of you object, then we should get rid of all of them, because SOMEBODY out there will object to each of them.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by DarkAngel:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

 

I have two problems with denying churches tax exempt status.  The first is that the tax we are talking about is the income tax.  Churches by their very nature are not-for-profit and therefore have no income to tax as defined under the tax code.  If the church has become a for-profit organization then I agree, their tax exempt status should be revoked. 

 

The second problem I have is using the tax code to promote an agenda.  It happens all the time in the tax law, not just with regard to churches, and I don't generally care for its use.  So your denying a legitimate not-for-profit organization their tax exempt status based on a few bad apples doesn't sit well with me.  What other not-for-profit organizations are you going to deny a tax exemption to and for what reasons?

 

 

Just as I said. Those that break the rules. As it stands today all they have to do is say they are a church and they get it. If the money they take in is not used to actually help the needy and less fortunate, but instead used to build basket ball courts and support certain political agendas then why are they still allowed to call them selves non-profit? I think it goes beyond the mega churches. Even some of the local churches here in the Shoals have not spent a larger proportion of their funds on the needy than they have on building a bigger building than their rival down the street.

 

To me its like the welfare issue. I am not against welfare at all. However I do feel like the system needs to be cleaned up and those that truly need and deserve the help would be getting the help and not those that abuse the system.

 

Most churches abuse the system. Any organization that does that while under the not-for profit banner should have their privileges stripped. In todays climate the churches have way too much power and are being given a pass.

 

The churches might have started out with a mission to help the needy, but that is no longer the case. Most do very little if anything and it takes a back seat to promoting their belief and obtaining bigger and better buildings. Not to mention their political power and campaigning from the pulpit.

If they get rid of the tax exemption for churches, you will see a LOT more preaching from the pulpit! There will be nothing to stop them, and then our whole political system will be skewed by the will of fundamentalist preachers.

 

I remember when Bush was elected the second time, a lady came into my store and said she voted for Bush because her pastor told her to. I was outraged, A), because this pastor was breaking the rules, and B), because, well, this isn't the politics section so I won't get into it.

 

And before you ask, yes, this church WAS investigated. No one had recorded the sermon so there was no proof. They were "let off with a warning".

 

Once again, we are faced with a "principle or practicality" question. If you stick with your principles, and want to see these exemptions come to an end, you may just see the fundies take over the whole country, and if you don't like religion now, you ain't seen nothing yet. So it looks to me like your principles (in this case) will lead you to the exact place your principles want to eradicate.

As you said they already do it O No. That is my point. There is really no oversight when it comes to that type of rule breaking. Many people I know have told me that they were told to vote this way or that way at their church. The churches can spend up to 20% on supporting or opposing legislature. When we are talking about the LDS or the Catholic church that is a huge chunk of change.

 


They have their cake and eat it too. Nothing stops them right now from getting into the political arena. There may be rules set up to stop them but they are either not enforced or it is hard to prove that they are violating them it gets no where. Churches are very good at hiding their dirty secrets.

 

As for non-profit......when you take the money you have as an org and start buying up property that can not be taxed I believe you have made a profit. Land is money....

 

Can you imagine the good that could truly be done by churches if they actually did what they claim to do?

Can you imagine the good that could truly be done by churches if they actually did what they claim to do?

 

There really are a lot of them that DO. I hate that some of them get away with telling people how to vote, and if we (they?) could do something to stop them from doing that, that would be great. Once again, it is a case of laws not being enforced.

 

But I would hate to see the really good churches and pastors who do so much for the poor and the sick and the elderly, lose the tax exemption that allows them to accomplish so much. It really is true that a lot of pastors are getting paid poverty level wages, and there are a lot of churches that have had to close completely due to lack of money to even keep the heat on. It's just like with the welfare recipients - we need to enforce the laws we already have, and weed out the corruption.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I'm curious.  All you folks who want to tax churches - and understand that churches and pastors are two different entities - do you also want to tax other not-for-profit organizations such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Humane Society, etc, etc?

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

 

The Salvation Army IS a church.Ask any official of that organization and he/she will confirm this.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:

I'm curious.  All you folks who want to tax churches - and understand that churches and pastors are two different entities - do you also want to tax other not-for-profit organizations such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, the Humane Society, etc, etc?

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

 

The Salvation Army IS a church.Ask any official of that organization and he/she will confirm this.

 

_______________________________________________________

Okay you answered part of the question. Yes the Salvation Army is a Church.

What about all the charities? Tax them or not?

Skippy

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:

Should this church also be taxed?  http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ 

 

If I become an ordained atheist minister and perform charity services, should I also get tax-free living arrangements?

 


I admit I had a little chuckle when I read that..but no, I don't you or your church should be exempt.  If a charity is just a charity and not a religious organization or church I have no problem with it, but not for any organization whose main goal (or one main goal) is to further a religious cause.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×