Time to lose the tax exemption for religions (salvation, soul, Scientology)

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by jjrose

And those nonprofits have to SHOW that they are actually doing what they say they are. They can't just say "I'm nonprofit and do good stuff". If they can not SHOW that they are benefiting the community they lose their nonprofit status. Churches don't have to prove anything to keep their nonprofit status. They can do nothing but have church services on Sunday for an hour and still keep their tax free status.

IMO everyone should have to pay property taxes and be taxed like any other person/business. You are taxed on all income THEN you get to deduct actual charitable giving and expenses on your taxes. That would also help with the issue of "charities" that only use 10% of less of all donations on actual charitable causes.

Every single non-profit does indeed have to pass a test. Shows what you know. Non-profits, churches included, get audited all the time. The IRS has an entire section on how it may audit churches that it deems as not performing their stated mission. As one example, churches cannot make political endorsements. Stump for a particular candidate or party and you'll lose your non-profit status so fast it'll make your head swim. Yeah, some skate on the edge of what's permissible, but most play it completely safe.

But even if the activity of a church is one of strictly having church services (Which it is not. If you think that, then you're just not paying attention), then that's ample. Otherwise, you are trying to impose state sanctions regarding theological decisions on what a church should or shouldn't be doing. I mean, the role of a theater company is to put on plays, after all. The local Elks Lodge exists to have meetings of the local Elks Lodge. Otherwise, what you're doing is using the state to go after organizations that you just don't like. And you really don't want that, for it means other people can ask the state to go after your favorite charity, too.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned, it betrays a lack of understanding of either businesses or non-profits. If you operate a business, you are only taxed on your profits, not your revenue -- the bottom of the income statement, not the top. So if you operate a restaurant, you are taxed on what's left over after you pay your rent, your employees, and the rest of your operational expense. If you actually taxed top-line revenue, you'd be putting a lot of businesses AND non-profits out of operation.

And let's be clear here. You're not wanting churches to pay their fair share. What you're really looking for is a way to go after institutions for which you don't care. Because if you're not about taxing the Sierra Club, the local arts organization or any one of the other zillion non-profits out there, then that's exactly what you're doing. And if you are indeed for going after the assets of any non-profit, then you would be an extremely foolish person. For all those organizations perform extraordinarily valuable functions for society far beyond whatever tax revenue they could provide.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Yawn.

Let's do this. So we don't just make this another tedious attack on religious faith through the tax codes, let's substitute a different organization on the original post: The symphony orchestra, the local amateur theater company, the American Red Cross, or whatever other non-profit is out there. Because unless you're going to take on every non-profit in the country, then you certainly can't target your local church.

Second, if you don't think churches don't perform a great deal of good, then you're delusional. The very large majority of churches have active outreach programs to help the poor and the disenfranchised. Heck, my mid-sized Episcopal church does the following:

• Along with a couple of other nearby churches, offers meals for the homeless.
• Offers a shelter for homeless families.
• Has a GED program.
• Operates a month-long summer day camp in an impoverished rural county.
• A summer camp for those with developmental challenges.
• Food drives.
• Clothing drives.
• A nutritional clinic in Haiti.
• A ministry that rehabilitates appliances for the poor.
• Habitat for Humanity homes.
• Support for families facing emergencies at the nearby children's hospital.
• A women's shelter.
• Charitable stipends to about a dozen area charities.

And those are just the things I can think of right off the bat. Maybe you should bother checking into what churches do before actually condemning them. It's lazy of you.

The OTHER charities pay property tax to the jurisdictions they are in.

Churches don't.

Why?

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

You're not a very informed person. Non-profits, regardless of their nature, do not pay property taxes as long as they meet specific governmental guidelines. The reason for this is simple. They leverage resources to achieve good in the community in ways that government simply could not. If you insisted on non-profits paying property taxes, you could look forward to a huge number of non-profits closing up shop, including those that aren't even remotely religious.

I suppose what's driving this is the notion that churches actually make money. Oh, I'm sure there are a few megachurches out there that manage through smoke and mirrors to line the pastor's pocket. But the vast majority of churches are shoestring operations, bringing in barely enough to fund its activities, pay the light bill, and pay the clergy a salary. Even then, the salary of your average clergy isn't anywhere close to what he or she would make as a manager in the private sector. I've sat on the vestry of my own church and know what the finances are like.

Property taxes are a state regulated item. It may be correct that in your jurisdiction, all not-for-profits are exempt from property tax.

That is not the case in most jurisdictions. However, I'm not aware of any jurisdictions where churches pay property taxes.

[Mightyqueen801]

Originally Posted by reed067

Pagans, Atheist, etc do the same thing, so what's your point? Perhaps it's because we aren't waving a bible in front of the plate of food that you'll give them IF they convert.

What do you hope to gain by stating such nonsense? If you really believe that soup kitchens run by churches wave a bible, preach at, or try to convert the recipients they are feeding, you have just proven that you yourself have never been inside a soup kitchen. I have, in different times and different places, and I have never even seen them asked to say a simple prayer before the meal. They are just fed.

[reed067]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Your paranoid thesis notwithstanding, very few religious charities have that kind of litmus test for its beneficiaries, thanks. But you've missed my point. If you're going to tax churches, then you have to tax all non-profits. Because all kinds of non-profits own property. Otherwise, if you are opposed to religious faith, it's just kind of a way to use the IRS to do your dirty work for you.

Pagans & Atheist can't be taxed we don't have a building to gather in. That building takes up city property use city water & power. Yet, everyone else is the way paying for the taxes on all of this. It's time to step & pay your share. If the rest of us went to said place like a church ( and I'm opposed to the mega churches not the small one.) then I would have no problem with paying taxes but not paying them because in some ways you give to charity should not exclude the church from paying it's fair share. Even more so when you want to dabble in politics

[reed067]

Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801

What do you hope to gain by stating such nonsense? If you really believe that soup kitchens run by churches wave a bible, preach at, or try to convert the recipients they are feeding, you have just proven that you yourself have never been inside a soup kitchen. I have, in different times and different places, and I have never even seen them asked to say a simple prayer before the meal. They are just fed.

You would be wrong to assume that. There have been a few times in my life where I have to be quite a few soup kitchens. And while not all there have been some that have passed out tracts & some even handled out bibles. I am not talking about soup kitchens nor did I mention them at all. Missionaries who travel overseas is what I am referring too, one of my best friend is a missionary & he will tell you with food, blankets, comes mention of the bible & God.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by cpg35223

Every single non-profit does indeed have to pass a test. Shows what you know. Non-profits, churches included, get audited all the time. The IRS has an entire section on how it may audit churches that it deems as not performing their stated mission. As one example, churches cannot make political endorsements. Stump for a particular candidate or party and you'll lose your non-profit status so fast it'll make your head swim. Yeah, some skate on the edge of what's permissible, but most play it completely safe.

But even if the activity of a church is one of strictly having church services (Which it is not. If you think that, then you're just not paying attention), then that's ample. Otherwise, you are trying to impose state sanctions regarding theological decisions on what a church should or shouldn't be doing. I mean, the role of a theater company is to put on plays, after all. The local Elks Lodge exists to have meetings of the local Elks Lodge. Otherwise, what you're doing is using the state to go after organizations that you just don't like. And you really don't want that, for it means other people can ask the state to go after your favorite charity, too.

As far as your second paragraph is concerned, it betrays a lack of understanding of either businesses or non-profits. If you operate a business, you are only taxed on your profits, not your revenue -- the bottom of the income statement, not the top. So if you operate a restaurant, you are taxed on what's left over after you pay your rent, your employees, and the rest of your operational expense. If you actually taxed top-line revenue, you'd be putting a lot of businesses AND non-profits out of operation.

And let's be clear here. You're not wanting churches to pay their fair share. What you're really looking for is a way to go after institutions for which you don't care. Because if you're not about taxing the Sierra Club, the local arts organization or any one of the other zillion non-profits out there, then that's exactly what you're doing. And if you are indeed for going after the assets of any non-profit, then you would be an extremely foolish person. For all those organizations perform extraordinarily valuable functions for society far beyond whatever tax revenue they could provide.

Maybe you missed where I said that ALL orgs, businesses, people should pay taxes but get to deduct the actual expenditures used for charity. ALL that includes the sierra club, the local theater, the breast cancer foundation, the childrens hospital, ALL means everyone.

You pay on what you bring in minus actual charitable contributions.

Sorry if you feel that playing by the same rules that I have to play by is unfair, but I think it's unfair that I still have to pay taxes even though I donate to charity while Mr. mega dollars preacher lives in a mansion with a rolls and a private jet which are all tax exempt.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by cupper3

The OTHER charities pay property tax to the jurisdictions they are in.

Churches don't.

Why?

You're wrong. Even in jurisdictions where nonprofits have to pay property taxes, they can get exemptions if they pass all the criteria.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Maybe you missed where I said that ALL orgs, businesses, people should pay taxes but get to deduct the actual expenditures used for charity. ALL that includes the sierra club, the local theater, the breast cancer foundation, the childrens hospital, ALL means everyone.

You pay on what you bring in minus actual charitable contributions.

Sorry if you feel that playing by the same rules that I have to play by is unfair, but I think it's unfair that I still have to pay taxes even though I donate to charity while Mr. mega dollars preacher lives in a mansion with a rolls and a private jet which are all tax exempt.

You really don't understand how these organizations operate, do you?

What's more, how do you measure? Who comes up with the standards of what is charitable activity and what is not? How do you measure outcomes? If you run a free counseling service, do you measure the resulting mental health of the clients? If you run a homeless shelter, do you ratios of mainstreaming them into society? I mean, every single one of these organizations needs workers, equipment, supplies, vehicles, and a host of other things just to function. If an organization needs a financial manager, does it hire someone straight out college for a rock-bottom salary, or does it hire someone with experience who commands a higher one? For while one might be cheaper while the other one will likely be far more effective in advancing the goals of the organization.

For starters, shearing 10%-20% off the top impinges on every single charitable organization to perform its mission, chiefly because they are almost all run with very little margin for error to begin with. As one example, I work with my local symphony orchestra. It's a good symphony, one that performs 70+ times a year. But it always comes down to the wire in terms of meeting its fundraising to keep its doors open.

Now, take away 10-20% of their revenue, and there's no more symphony. Which means there are no workers or orchestra members making money and paying payroll taxes. And the city is deprived of an important cultural asset.

Then, of course, you take the lazy path of the preacher with the lear jet. At last count, there were around 320,000 individual churches in this country. Maybe a half-dozen have preachers who live anything close to the lifestyle you describe. As for the rest, the clergy live a hand-to-mouth existence, certainly one that no one would ever consider wealthy. They certainly are not in it for the money.

[cpg35223]

Originally Posted by reed067

Pagans & Atheist can't be taxed we don't have a building to gather in. That building takes up city property use city water & power. Yet, everyone else is the way paying for the taxes on all of this. It's time to step & pay your share. If the rest of us went to said place like a church ( and I'm opposed to the mega churches not the small one.) then I would have no problem with paying taxes but not paying them because in some ways you give to charity should not exclude the church from paying it's fair share. Even more so when you want to dabble in politics

Just because you can't get it together to buy your own building doesn't mean you get to penalize those who have the wherewithal to do so.

And, as I pointed out in a previous post, dabbling in politics is a very easy way for a church to be stripped of its non-profit status. The IRS is pretty strict about that.