While many religious groups lead the charge in charity and social work, some ministry leaders are driving luxury cars to their obese facilities. The excessive spending has Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, asking: If Jesus rode a donkey, why do ministers need Rolls-Royces? Also, are these ministries misusing their tax-exempt status?
But Georgia Democratic state Rep. Randal Mangham argues that appearances matter. “It’s important for kids to see you don’t have to sell drugs to drive a nice car,†he told the Los Angeles Times.
Does he have a Bible verse to back that up?
Posted by Kristin Mehler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- Chas on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
245 Comments
A church is a business that benefits from huge tax breaks and free public services. Tax them like you would any other business so they are no longer a drain on society.
Every time I see that a church got a new steeple I hear someone yelling, “Tax the Church!”
Have you ever thought that through? Would you tax the Salvation Army as well? Or hospitals? Or the United Way? Or any of the hundreds of other nonprofit organizations in the community?
First of all, I don’t know of any church in the community that is making money. Yes, they are paying their pastors. Many of the pastors have a doctorate degree, many years of experience, and deserve the money they make. After all, with the education and experience they have they could run most any business in the community.
Second, and most important, the right to tax is the right to control. While there is no clause in the Constitution that states “separation of church and state”, this is where the rubber meets the road. This is the determining factor of when a church ceases to be a church. If the pastor engages in politics from the pulpit and operates the organization as a money making business, then their tax exempt status should be pulled.
Either way, he is not tax exempt and he has to pay taxes on his wages. If he has enough left over to buy a fancy car, he must be doing something different than most preachers I know.
And third: Any church that is doing it’s job gives back far more to the community than is ever taken in through the collection plate.
I challenge you to go to the church nearest you every Sunday for one month and sit with an open mind and without complaint. You will be amazed at how much goes back to the community through that churches food pantry, services to help children, connections people make for baby sitting, trips to the store for elderly people, or taking elderly people to the doctor or other places, counseling for people who are struggling, or just being a friend in a time of need.
And your community gets all of this at no cost to anybody except the parishioners.
Yet we still have people who are cold hearted enough to envy the church’s tax exempt status!
Non-profits get tax breaks because they are non-profits. Churches are a for profit business. If they do charity then they can deduct that from their taxes as any other business does. So if a church doesn’t want to pay taxes they just need to do more charity. It’s pretty simple.
Somehow the Central Christian Church holding their huge concerts in their mega church doesn’t appear to be a charity any more than the Coliseum is doing charity when they play host to a hockey game.
Reading up on the link up, it sounds like the golden calf at foot of Mt. Sinai of the Old Testament.We do have a lot of deception in the church and the wrath of GOD will be upon them.
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
Doug,
If you read Rustyford posts explaining the role most churches play in a community you might learn something.
If not, you are not listening and your opinion is moot.
Churches are businesses just like any other business and they ought to pay taxes like any other business does.
“If not, you are not listening and your opinion is moot.”Posted by read and learn, whomever that might be.
You are talking about normal churches. What is being referred to here are the tele-church mega-churches, supported by donations solicited via air waves. You know, the ones with the $50 “prayer card”, etc..
Those are the ones that are in business to make money, and really have little, if anything, to do with religion.
The point is, everybody’s entitled to their opinion. You may not like it, but that hardly makes it moot.
The original story points out a definate mis-use of a church tax exempt status. IMHO, this is not even a church, it is a money making organization based on a bastardized version of the Gospel.
“Creflo A. Dollar, senior pastor of World Changers Church International, preaches that God will reward the faithful with material riches.”
This is simply not what the gospel teaches. In fact, the Bible teaches that the follower of Jesus Christ will do so at great cost. The Bible also warns against false teachings meant to draw people away from the truth of the gospel.
A local church having concerts is a totally different story. It all depends on how the money is used, and this money does not go into the pockets of the promoters. It’s no different than the giant concerts held to raise funds for tsunami or hurricane relief.
I have a problem with the super rich Evangelical types. The money for offerings was supposed to be for the Lord’s work, not personal luxuries for the Minister and his cohorts.
Yes, Ministers with PhD’s and in charge of big churches should be paid a PhD type salary, but that’s not what we are talking about in this topic.
What is being talked about is being “filthy” rich having too much money to buy luxury items, houses and cars.
Your basic Rolls Royce come out at MSRP of $333,000.00. That’s one third of a million dollars folks.
I think the Minister of a mega Church would do just as well with a Lincoln, Cadillac or some other car is more fitting the image of someone who should care more about their flock than their “image” to the public.
Even if the Minister spent 50,000 dollars on a very nice car, he/she would still have $280,000 to give back to the church or refuse to take in salary and give to charity.
I can’t think of any justification to buy items such of this according to the scripture.
Luke 12:15 – “And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”
Coveting is breaking one of the commandments. Coveting a Rolls Royce to establish an image is the breaking a Commandment, it should not be done. Building many barns to store the grain without being charitable is not leading a Christian life.
Where do you atheist and libs get the idea that if a Christian doesn’t walk in YOUR state of perfection, that they are a fraud? Is it okay that all of the baby killers drive fancy vehicles and have expensive buildings for offices but Pastor’s who don’t believe that way can’t. It’s okay that Al Gore collects millions for his new Global Warming religion and most of it tax free? It’s okay that Planned Parenthoold not only is tax free but receives billions of our tax dollars in it’s efforts to kill babies? And it’s okay with you liberals that National Public Radio receives billion of our tax dollars to promote their leftist thinking. And you complain about Christians being hypocrites.
Well, that donkey Jesus rode had leather seats.
Well, from the outside looking in, my take on Christianity?
Churches should be humble places. The expense of marble or stained glass would be much better spent helping people. ALL Christians too would have just what they need to get by. The rest they’d pony up to help others. A well to do Christian among suffering peoples is an insult to himself AND his/her creed.
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to pass into the kingdom of Heaven.”
It’s the overindulgence that is what we have issue with. What did Immanual Church ever do with all their money? Oh that’s right, they gave it to Terry Fox. See, that’s poetic justice right there and should teach them a lesson.
You listen to these evangelical groups in these mega-churches, and it is so wrong. Brainwashing the masses-if you give more than you can afford, and you can’t pay your bills, Gawd-dah will give more money back to you than you started with. Well why didn’t Gawdah just give the money to the church instead- or give more to the giver? The whole thing looking in from the outside is absurd. They all seem like snakes.. the biggest con in town.
You remember back in the early days of Christianity, the rulers built huge Cathedrals, and they were the most crooked. They used the church to control. Kindof has an ominous feel now doesn’t it?
Ha, JR, you and I both used the looking in from the outside. In back to back posts. Gosh someone’s going to think we’re the same person.
Good thing we were both at the meetup.
I’m no athiest nor am I a “lib”. Now that that’s out of the way, I’ll speak my peace. Why do you church people feel that you have to build these opulent churches anyway? Do you think God is impressed? He could fart one of your “masterpiece” cathedrals out. Also I see the pope driving a bullet-proof vehicle and see faith in action. Who needs your stinkin’ church? How about worship in your living room, outside by the water? Or is the line “wherever two or more gather…” one of those inconvenient lines to be omitted? And as for these pimp-preachers, go to hell. Also, I went to a church not to long ago that was celebrating it’s ten year anniversary, good for them. But what cracked me up was that they had a catered meal brought in for the congregation. As I was chowing down on it, I got to thinking “WWJD”? Well, he would assume that these people could go home and feed themselves and that taking all of these sandwiches to a shelter would have been a heck of a good way to celebrate the church’s anniversary.
That’s just me though.
I want all of these God-Mart’s and Jesus Christ Super Store’s taxed pronto. A bunch of people competing with one another and really have no idea who any of their fellow church-goers are anyway. Sick, revenue collections. Tax them to death.
So how would one go about writing legislation to tax the mega-churches but not the small neighborhood church that barely gets by?
I don’t think it would be possible to write a law that would stand up in court saying “Churches that make too much money or are not traditional enough are henceforth taxed at corporate tax rates.”
If the preacher is making more than 35k a year, that’s the taxable starting line.
Duane,This is a federal taxation issue.$35K in Wichita is not the same as $35K in San Diego.Another suggestion?
No, I have no idea. I just believe that a preacher should be humble but I ‘ve never met a “humble” preacher. The same scumbag with the beautiful parsonage won’t share a couch for one of his down and out parishioners, let alone a homeless man to crash on.
“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION” (U. S. Constitution)
The word ESTABLISHMENT doesnt mean the existence of such a thing…
it means the same as Clothing ESTABLISHMENET, or Eating ESTABLISHMENT…
In this case it means Religious ESTABLSHMENT… meaning business..
A religious ESTABLISHMENT is one business Congress is to just stay away from!! Period. That way you dont have to define what “kind” of religion it is, or what “theology” is practiced there, or what they do in “worship”
Thats what makes the idea of “freedom of religion” such a great thing in world history!
My personal feeling is that including all sorts of other Non-Profit Organizations in the mix is where we got in trouble.
Churches and religions just got lumped in together with “non-profits”
There should be a difference between a Non-Profit, and a Religious Establishment.
Unfortunately, we cannot legislate that a member of a religion live by and follow the tenets of their religion. This is an issue for each congregation to take up and handle themselves.
On that accord, I cannot understand why any church would allow their pastor to live so luxuriously. Are these leaders so magnanimous that their ‘flock’ is simply blinded into doing anything they ask? Where does this cross from church to cult?
Chas., I think the First Amendment to the Constitution uses ‘establishment’ in the sense of “the act of forming something,” not the entity, eating establishment sense of the word.
Unless two-thirds of a church’s income goes to documented charity and not to the huge overhead that a mega church incurs, ie; electric bills, the church should be treated as a for-profit business.
Listen to all this anti-christian libs, the ungodly news media, and congress members trying to define “humble”.
There is a good reason there is a separation of church and state.
This entire thread supports keeping the distinction.
I wish ALL Preachers drove Limo’s!God Bless them every one.
But go ahead libs, cast the first stone…..
This is where fundamentalism fails:
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24)
Posted by: Wiseman | November 26, 2007 at 03:38 AM
—–
No Offense, Wiseman, but the “eye of the needle” was a gate in the wall around Biblical Jerusalem.
It took longer for the “rich” man to unload his camel and get through the “eye” than it did for a poor man, with no camel, or not much packed ON his camel.
Yes, there is a danger for the wealthy.
However, it is not impossible to for the rich to make it into Heaven.
Fundamentalism does not always pay attention to translations, culture and artistic, Biblical metaphore.
Hahahahaha. Limo’s? Anti-Christian libs? This is your argument? This thread is an expose’ on hypocrisy. If this is the arguments for Christianity, then I will start being “anti-Christian”. I quit going to church and being amongst you “Christians” because of that line of thinking.
WWJD? Just another bumper sticker.
“However, it is not impossible to for the rich to make it into Heaven.
Posted by: Econ101 | November 26, 2007 at 10:04 AM ”
And you know this how?
When you were last in Heaven did you inquire of St Peter or did they contact you directly with this info?
FolksThe EMPLOYEES of ALL churches must pay taxes, just like the employees of any charity.
“FolksThe EMPLOYEES of ALL churches must pay taxes, just like the employees of any charity.
Posted by: Econ101 | November 26, 2007 at 10:11 AM”
Thanks for the news brief captain obvious
brianWhat I posted is pretty much settled Church doctrine.
Jesus was confronted about “waste” when Mary Madgdelen washed his feet with expensive oils.
“The poor will always be with you” is what Jesus said, to hypocrits like you.
I know you are but what am I
Eye opening thread.
I will challenge you on the ‘tax them all’ express to actually look at the charities supported in totallity by the churches.
Drop in and help serve at the Lords Diner. Spend your next Saturday morning helping out at His Helping Hands. Volunteer your time to help out with Catholic Charities.
If the churches pulled every dollar given by church members out of the community tomorrow the impact would be horrendous.
In my opinion the only real televangelist is Billy Graham. Look at the way he lives. He never flew in private jets – always flew economy. His home is the same one he built when his children were small. His humility is humbling to any who would look at him.
There are many ‘preachers’ in it for the money. They are exposed in the end. The most recent was Richard Robert at ORU in Tulsa.
If the tax exempt status was pulled it would take more paper work but I bet that with most churches the result would be the same. By the time you took the deductions for the depreciation of the offices required to manage the ‘charity’ and then took off dollar for dollar for the money given back to the community the gov would probably owe the church money.
Just a challenge to those who really do want to know the facts.
There isn’t a person on this Blog who would not be considered fabulously “wealthy” if transported back in time.
Until one of you can state that you have given up everything you own for the poor, or made sure that the poor would be provided for, at your death, with some charitable endowment, or made sure some other way that a large chunk of your “wealth” went to those less fortunate — you can be sure I won’t give your opinion much wieght.
Look, I think it is offensive what some church leaders do with their flock’s money.
The bottom line is this: Their CONGREGATIONS should be in control of the matter. The system should correct itself.
No law to regulate the issue would be, in the least bit, Constituional.
You folks want a Church that never tells the government what to do, but you want a free hand for government to tell the Church what to do.
That is not the Country that we live in.
What you want is simply not allowed.
Take a look at some charities that are not churches.
Do they have fund raisers?
Do they have nice buildings?
What does the average College Professor make, compared to the average preacher?
The Charitable work done by Churches is huge. Look at the bulletin boards in any church. Services for the disabled, child care, tutoring, prison ministry and host of other things.
The value of the church, in charitable life is often that it gets people involved in areas that they would never have considered, without the active encuragement of another church member.
Anyway, those of us who support the Constitution do not have to explain our reasoning.
We do so out of Charity.
You cant have what you want, anyway.
We are just explaining the situation to you, in hopes that you will not be so bitter and misinformed.
Econ, I don’t know which ‘you folks’ your post refers to, but you apparently did not understand the prior posts on this topic.
I don’t think anyone wrote anything like what you are drawing an inferential reference to.
Frankly, I think your bias against ‘libs’ and people whose views are more liberal any your own clouds your ability to fully understand what those people say.
Whoa,I don’t have to “state” or prove anything to you about how I help those in need. I, apparently unlike you, do not need a pat-on-the-back for helping someone. Most of my contributions are anonymous unless I’ve invited a bunch of friends that are having hard times over for Thanksgiving dinner. The congregations job? I thought the preacher was the head of the church? Isn’t he the “trusted” one? I’m sure in God’s eyes he will be the one with the really hard questions to answer for when he’s at the pearly gates (he is after all the shepard right?).
WHAT WOULD JESUS BUY?
Duane, you just publicly “patted” yourself.
Shame.
“ And God will reward you according to your giving, it may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next week, next year, in your life time.. You may have to wait till you reach your heavenly home, BUT God will reward you!”
From Robert Tilton, Evangelist on the “Hour of Power” a 60 minute program that was on at least five days a week. And for the full 60 minutes he would rant and speech in tongues saying you should sent him money.He message was that by sending him money God would bless you. He downfall came when ABC did a investigate that uncovered he had paid clerks that would take the money out of the envelopes and then throw away the pray request. He claim that he was giving money to an orphanage, claiming to have given it over million dollars a month in donations. But when they check with the administrator of the orphanage it was discovered he was only giving them two thousand dollars a month of the millions he was taking in. The bottled water he claimed was from the river Jordan turned out to be prepackage bottled water from the city main.
It was a perfect racket, when every someone investigated him he would claim the forces of the Devil was attacking the true servant of the Lord. But finally he did take a real fall, going from over thirty five million a month in donations to just over eight million a month. But that would only cover his monthly salary so he canceled the TV program.
Rusty most of the time I found you pretty level headed and right on, but give me a break! Such people may be serving the Lord but only if their Lord is the almighty dollar! Pastor Fox has his own version of the “Big Valley” out by Douglass Ks. Four ATV, a large collection of firearms and more cars and trucks then are found on some of the “we tote the note” used car dealerships on So. Broadway! Being a Man of God is rewarding and not always a pleasure to be. But when one thinks he is entitled to be enriched by that service, the enrichment should be of the soul. Not in the pocket book, otherwise the money becomes the Lord and not the God on high.
“Until one of you can state that you have given up everything you own for the poor, or made sure that the poor would be provided for, at your death, with some charitable endowment, or made sure some other way that a large chunk of your “wealth” went to those less fortunate — you can be sure I won’t give your opinion much wieght.”
Umm, how about keeping the estate tax? You’re dead, you won’t need the money…
Then I’m a good Christian right?
This thread is an expose’ on hypocrisy. Posted by: Duane
Where does it say:
Christians must be poor?Christians must be whimps?Christians must live in tents?
Or ANY religion??
For Christians, the bible says to live and “prosper”. Have life MORE THAN abundantly.
All of you are being judgemental – based upon YOUR personal perception of what a “christian” or “religious” person should be.
Like Jesus with a beard, long hair, and white.
You are NOT a hypocrite by being RICH, WEALTHY, or drive a fancy car!!!
Only in your liberal MINDS is this the case.
God didn’t want a bunch of whimpsliving in poverty!!!
WHAT WOULD JESUS BUY?
Posted by: TRACY
Well Tracy, why don’t YOU tell us?
Can you gen up a list of all makes/models/year of automobiles,and let us know the “OFFICIAL JESUS APPROVED CARS”????
I’m curious. Would my Honda hybrid make the list? It’s saving the environment (not people).
How about an SUV?Will a motorcycle pass?
You idiots who post the punch line on WWJD, are really wanting to post:
WSGD (What Should God Do?)or (What Should Government Do?)
My pastor drives a tracker. What church has members that give enough that the pastor can buy a Rolls?
I threw out a challenge. Haven’t heard anyone offer to take me up on it. How about it?
I could set here all day and post the names of preachers who give back much more than they receive to the poor and needy. The naysayers could match me name for name those ‘preachers’ who are fleecing their flocks. At the end of the day what is determined.
There are good and bad people in the ministry. God will be their judge. There are good and bad in every profession.
A thought provoking thread or another thread to bash Christian on? We can make it what we want it to be.
Our pastor drives a Chrysler 300. The poor man’s cadillac.
The preacher is another thing altogether. He should be doing it for free. But who am I right? I’ll tell you, I am a Deist that believes the bible to be hogwash, as it was written by rich and powerful men for the benefit of said rich and powerful men. If you want to know what God is, look at creation not some book written by men. So do what you all want, fight amongst yourselves. I’m no liberal nor am I a repugnican. Just a man fed up.
Duane if this is indeed your stance – Why do you think a preacher should work for free?
“I threw out a challenge. Haven’t heard anyone offer to take me up on it. How about it?Posted by: ksgrm | November 26, 2007 at 10:51 AM ”
I just reread your post and did not see any challenge. What was it?
There are laws against fraud.
The First Amendment does not protect Church leaders from criminal laws.
If you raise money for one thing, and then spend it on another, that is fraud.—–
Rooster — Taxes are NOT charity. The Inheritance or Death tax forces the liquidations of family farms and family businesses, it causes the unemployment of the employees of small businesses.
Tax them all. No more non profits. Yes, tax the hospitals and charities and every other damn thing that claims to be non profit. I spent most of my career in non profits and I can tell you, there is a TON of money to be made in them.
How about going to a national sales tax with food and prescription drugs the only excluded items? A tax on consumption, not earnings.
So when these so called charities or not for profit groups buy, they pay.
And are you good christians saying that the ONLY reason folks give to charity or church is for the tax deduction? Not to tithe or do good works?
heheheheheheheehehehehhe…..
I thought so.
I’m curious why you call yourself a deist. This isn’t a critisism it is a genuine question.
What belief system do you ascribe to? Have churches you belonged to in the past let you down?
I am trying to look at what makes people form a specific belief system.
I will challenge you on the ‘tax them all’ express to actually look at the charities supported in totallity by the churches.
Drop in and help serve at the Lords Diner. Spend your next Saturday morning helping out at His Helping Hands. Volunteer your time to help out with Catholic Charities.
I just reread your post and did not see any challenge. What was it?
Posted by: brian | November 26, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Maybe it wasn’t clear but this is what I was talking about. I have seen the droves of people who are helped by these programs and they always need volunteers.
How about going to a national sales tax with food and prescription drugs the only excluded items? A tax on consumption, not earnings.
Darn! I will vote for ksfarmgrrl no matter what political party.
Yes,let’s put rich man HR Block out of a business and cut the IRS jobs out completely.
End the crazy 1040 mess and tax us all at sales!
Of course, what I posted above would level the playing field. But I’m pretty sure you churchies and cons dont want THAT. You LOVE your special perks and would be unwilling to give them up to level the playing field.
Not for profit to the IRS just means any “profits” or income over expenses cant be distributed to the shareholders of the corporation. They must be, as Paul noted, spent according to the “mission” and articles of incorporation as submitted to the IRS for initial approval.
It doesnt say a damn thing about paying huge salaries and expensive perks for staff and board members.
I knew a couple in Texas who set up a 501(c)3 years ago, before the IRS supposedly tightened down the approval process. They still operate today. What they did was to incorporate, then get three of their most trusted pals to serve as a board of directors. The couple serves as “staff” and they skim off ALL the admin expenses from grants they went after.
And they were successful at getting grants from the DOD, the State of Texas, other federal agencies and non profits. They were experts at proposal writing.
They became millionaires. They invested their “salaries” in other for profit businesses that employed their “board members”.
They passed IRS audit with flying colors. I know all this because I worked for them for three years doing fundraising and grant writing.
And from my experience, I say TAX THEM ALL!!!!! A level playing field is the surest way to put an end to ALL this abuse.
But as I noted, a level playing field sparks OUTRAGE from those who benefit from the tilt.
…and what do “volunteers”, the back bone of any charity, have to do with paying taxes on income?
By definition, “volunteers” dont get paid. Why would revoking 501 status result in fewer volunteers?
Perhaps if the “volunteers” saw the money going where it should be going, they’d be more likely to volunteer more and recruit others to do the same?
All 501 orgs have to file tax returns and financial statements that are public record. Look at what they take in, and what they spend on “administrative” costs.
With some charities, less than 25% of income actually gets where it is supposed to go. The IRS does NOTHING to intervene on that count.
Not for profits are the second biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American Taxpayer.
Economic development as practiced now is the BIGGEST scam on taxpayers. And most of those groups are 501(c)3 or (c)4.
Your “tax dollars” at work.
Yes, every church I’ve been to had great people but always seemed like a sales pitch to tithe more in oreder to “grow”. Which just meant to get be able to build that bowling alley next to the youth sanctuary. Not until I read Thomas Paines’ “Age of Reason” did I understand the angst I have with the church. I see more of God in a spiderweb than I have ever felt reading the bible or attending church. And no, I’m no “pagan”, although I see that pagans maybe are in tune with God as well. And I think preachers should work for free because Jesus did. Good Christians get fed by the word, right? And it seems to me that good Christians would take care of the preacher, such as they did with the early disciples. But I guess things have changed.
I’m going to repeat my question. Do folks who “give” to not for profits only do so to get their own tax deduction and NOT for the good works or charity?
The silence is telling. If you didnt get a deduction for the money you put in the collection plate, would you stop donating to your churches?
I need to proof read a little better.
Labor Unions are “not for profit” organizations.
Should we tax labor unions?
Just for me, I’ve never included my “tithing” on my income tax. But I don’t do it that often, maybe 10 bucks whenever I go to a God-Mart. But I know what you mean.
kfg
Actually, it would be illegal for Dillons, for instance, to allow someone to come in and mop the floors, or carry out groceries, for free.Minimum wage laws, Department of Labor laws.If you put churces and 501 organizations on the same footing, would they be allowed to have “volunteers”??
Ksfarmgrl finally something we can agree on. I wouldn’t want to go to the extreme end you advocate but would buy into most of it.
There has to be an incentive for some people to give. Also you have to pay legitimate expenses and salaries to those who work full time in these organizations. Without this the majority of help to the poor and underpreviliged would be disorganized and result in less help.
You really haven’t taken the ‘not for profit’ deep enough. There are many of these organizations who pay large 6 figure incomes to their officers and they aren’t religious organizations. The tax base for this country is missing a large portion of their potential income by letting this go on. Check into insurance companies that are ‘non-profit’ for example.
The entire tax structure is due for a major overhaul.
The “fair tax” as it is called, or a national sales tax, does have some appeal to me.
However, the IRS has rules as to what is a “completed sale” and those laws will probably be the same under a sales tax.
We will simply see companies use the lease method, more often.
Or the “loan” — without transfering title.
Tax policy will create tax shelter, no matter how we tax.
ksgrm, I dont understand:
You really haven’t taken the ‘not for profit’ deep enough. There are many of these organizations who pay large 6 figure incomes to their officers and they aren’t religious organizations. The tax base for this country is missing a large portion of their potential income by letting this go on. Check into insurance companies that are ‘non-profit’ for example.
The entire tax structure is due for a major overhaul.
Posted by: ksgrm | November 26, 2007 at 11:30 AM
—–What?
Six figure incomes are TAXED now, regardless of whether it is 501 generated or not.
Also, the salary might well be high, but many officers of charitable organizations, and church officials, do huge amounts of work for that money.
Again, the board of directors, or the congregations involved, should quit contributing, quit tithing, and try to replace their leaders if they are making stupid decisions. And — they should call the authorities if criminal actions are suspected.
Maybe some of the bible thumpers can explain to me how Pat Robertson’s tax exempt airplanes that go to his gold and diamond mines in Africa are doing some sort of public service? Or how about Terry Fox’s church’s investment in a theme park is a public service? How is owning multiple mansions by televangelists a public service?
I own stocks and property just like any church but unlike them I pay taxes. So if I went out and protested at military funerals that will somehow be a public service and I can be exempt from having to pay the IRS.
You bible thumpers are deluded into thinking that your places of business, er worship, is anything other than a tax shelter used to fleece gullible sheep.
” Do folks who “give” to not for profits only do so to get their own tax deduction and NOT for the good works or charity?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | November 26, 2007 at 11:24 AM”
I would give the same.
And really, you only get a deduction if you itemize. And since it is a reduction in income, you only get a partial benefit from it. (If you donate $100 and your tax rate is 25%, that donation only helps you by $25.)
There was a long piece in the Kansas City Star on the finances of Phred Felps’ Westboro Baptist Church. Because it is a church most if its financial records are not available to the public or the Internal Revenue Service. And yet, conservative estimates of Felps’ travels to picket soldiers funerals with his “God Hates America” and “God Hates Fags” theology, run up to some $200,000 a year… just for travel. Phred claims poverty, and his personal checking account contains less that $1,000.
The Phred Felps “compound” comprises a full city block in an unscale Topeka residential neighborhood. The church building an all “church” properties — including the homes of all church members, are tax-exempt. All “church” expenses are untaxed.
Every dollar Phred Felps doesn’t pay — in property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes — has to be made up by people who *do* pay taxes. This amounts to taxpayers’ subsidizing Westboro Baptist… and every other church.
The NYT wrote an article last year about the special rights churches get that non-profit charities don’t get:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/business/11religious.html
Churches get tax breaks on their mansions, exempt from income tax withholding, exempt from social security taxes, exempt from paying unemployment taxes, exempt from property taxes, and state sales taxes.
With all these breaks churches expand their business empires into health clubs, concerts, radio stations, etc. But when a fire hits a church the fire department comes out and puts out the fire and sticks the taxpayers with the bill.
If churches were really a charity then their excessive wealth would actually go to charity, not private airplanes and luxury cars.
Nice post Doug, fer realz.
DougI think Global Warming hype is crap.That does not give me the right to take away the not-for-profit or tax-exempt status of Al Gore’s various charities.The PURPOSE of the organization is what counts.The government does not get to tell businesses what is a wise business pursuit and what is not, the market decides.For instance; I market to retired people, primarily.If I decide to buy advertising directed at young parents, that might not be wise, but the IRS can not sit in judgement of that decision.Likewise, the government does not get to tell a charity what is and is not a wise charitable pursuit or expenditure.The Contributors have that duty.However, if FRAUD occurs, if a person tells you that the money is going to fight AIDS in Africa, and it can not be shown that this is true?Put that person in jail, religious organization or not.
Econ what I am talking about are the not for profits that don’t have stock holders and therefore the revenues go back into ‘reserves’. These are used to pay huge salaries and to pay the board of directors compensations which are way over the top. For as few as 6 meetings a year many directors are paid in the $50 to $60 thousand dollar range. These directors are political appointees and this is a way to thank them for their support.
As you know I am an accountant and have seen this first hand.
It is a way to not pay corporate taxes that very few people are aware of. It happens under the radar for many. Isn’t as easy to spot as over the top church spending but is very real.
Frmgrl I would have to agree with Brian. The amount of money we give isn’t given back to us with lower taxes due dollar for dollar. It is just a small percentage if you do indeed itemize.
“Actually, it would be illegal for Dillons, for instance, to allow someone to come in and mop the floors, or carry out groceries, for free.”
Link please? That is completely wrong. Volunteers, celebrity waiters, etc. happen all the time. It is not illegal. Their unions and insurance companies may not like it, but it isnt illegal.
Yes, we should tax them all, including labor unions AND churches. What part of “tax them all” is so hard to understand?
And, btw, volunteers are routinely covered under the umbrella policies of not for profits. So the fear of volunteers being injured and suing folks is the same for non and for profits NOW.
Jesus wept paulie. Just making stuff up today?
Al Gore’s charities report to the IRS and have to pay property taxes. It’s not the same thing and you are avoiding the issue Paul. Clearly you can’t debate the issue and seek to change the subject. Nice to know that you think your religion justifies greed and gluttony.
farmgrrl..
>>>How about going to a national sales tax with food and prescription drugs the only excluded items? A tax on consumption, not earnings.
So when these so called charities or not for profit groups buy, they pay.<<<
I can almost agree with the idea, but from a non-profit view, I think the burden should be on the seller, not the buyer. If I buy food to give away to the homeless, I don’t want that taxed, but if I sell tickets for a concert to raise money, great, tax it!
Well then germie, what is the benefit of making not for profit donations tax exempt? Remove that exemption and the whole damn 501 (c) whatever crap.
Level the playing field. MANY not for profits compete with private business, especially small business. The “not for profit” fundraiser meals in northwest Kansas during pheasant season take money from small restaurants.
The “entertainment” provided by not for profit community movie theaters takes business away from the for profit theaters.
Etc. etc.
I thought surely you uber capitalists would be bitchin’ about that now.
Level playing fields. What a concept…
Doug I believe you are wrong about churches not paying unemployment and FICA/Medicare taxes. Their employees are covered under these programs and as such would have to have contributions to these programs.
Just makes sense. Do you have some info that disputes this?
kfgNope, you are wrong.
You libs are the people who support “minimum wage” laws.
Is not ZERO a bit below the minumum?
It is, therefore, ILLEGAL!
Posted by: Al B | November 26, 2007 at 06:35 AM:
Where do you atheist and libs get the idea that if a Christian doesn’t walk in YOUR state of perfection, that they are a fraud?__________________________Where do you dingbat over-the-edge wingnuts get the idea that anybody who doesn’t swollow the same pablum you do is going to hell?___________________________Is it okay that all of the baby killers drive fancy vehicles and have expensive buildings for offices but Pastor’s who don’t believe that way can’t.________________________Last I heard, the “baby killers” aren’t tax-exempt. Unless of course, you’re refering to the Army.___________________________It’s okay that Al Gore collects millions for his new Global Warming religion and most of it tax free?___________________________What makes you think it’s tax free? Got something to back that up? Got some proof that any funding that is tax free is being mis-used?___________________________It’s okay that Planned Parenthoold not only is tax free but receives billions of our tax dollars in it’s efforts to kill babies?___________________________Billions? BILLIONS!?!?!?!I’d say you’re prone to lying.___________________________And it’s okay with you liberals that National Public Radio receives billion of our tax dollars to promote their leftist thinking.___________________________Suits me just fine.
And you complain about Christians being hypocrites.___________________________Only the Hypocritical ones.
DougThere are people on this thread who want to do away with ALL 501 tax benefits.I do not deny that Gore’s charities are a bit different from a church status charity.I was simply making the point that I do not agree with what Gore does.However, I am humble enough to admit that Gore is probably following the rules.His charities were not designed to make a profit, therefore, his charities should get some tax advantages, and he DOES!
Kansas sam, I said FOOD should not be taxed. That eliminates the problem you mentioned. I think you do great work and love your posts. But the example you cite would be a non issue if food were not taxable. Same with prescription drugs.
And germie? “As you know I am an accountant and have seen this first hand.”
Funny, I thought you said you were in human resources. But you arent worth the time for a bone dig. You are wrong on so many things it would take all the bandwidth here to post them all.
Frmgrl why do you feel the need to mock my name? In essence I was agreeing with you. Commonsense would tell you that there would have to be some exceptions. You would be turning out thousands of underprivileged if the programs as they exist now went out of existence.
A flat tax law might be a beginning.
…and once again, terry fox, the little ayatollah, is the poster child for why churches should be FULLY taxed.
“Pastor Fox has his own version of the “Big Valley” out by Douglass Ks. Four ATV, a large collection of firearms and more cars and trucks then are found on some of the “we tote the note” used car dealerships on So. Broadway!”
And writerdog, he STILL cant pay his personal property taxes over three years?
Render unto…
Ksfrmgrl I have a degree in accounting and a minor in human resource management. In small companies you are required to be both usually.
Sorry for thinking I could have a sane discussion with you. Equally sorry that life hasn’t treated you kindly and you are so bitter.
Have a good day. Gotta go.
Writer I am just curious where this sanctuary is? Is this public knowledge and I have missed it?
“Of course, what I posted above would level the playing field. But I’m pretty sure you churchies and cons dont want THAT. You LOVE your special perks and would be unwilling to give them up to level the playing field.
But as I noted, a level playing field sparks OUTRAGE from those who benefit from the tilt.”
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | November 26, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Yes let’s level the playing field. End all the special perks. Starting with the UnEarned Income Credit. Let’s end the tilt on that end too.
National Sales Tax baby!!!Farmy Girl for President!!!
Labor Union Leader salaries:
http://labornotes.org/node/513
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/brenner020207.html
http://www.nrtwc.org/nl/nl200703p7.pdf
UFCW, United Food and Commercial Workers President, makes more than $700,000.00 per year.(This is the union that spends thousands of dollars every year complaining about Walmart being non-union)
Unions are Not-For-Profit organizations.
Posted by: Econ101 | November 26, 2007 at 11:52 AM
OK Paulie, so that’s a “no” on a link to back up your crap?
Here’s a little clue. Not for profits are already subject to minimum wage laws for EMPLOYEES!!!
Volunteers, by their very definition are not EMPLOYEES!!!!
So… if the not for profits can use volunteers now, they can use them as for profits. As long as they are not EMPLOYEES.
Dammit boy, when you are full of baloney, why dont you just admit it?
It is NOT ILLEGAL to use volunteers in a for profit. It MIGHT be illegal to pay them $1 per hour, because then they would be… wait for it… employees.
But if you pay them nothing, they are volunteers, and there is NOTHING illegal about that, no matter if the organization if for profit or non profit.
Interesting than you can readily find the salaries of labor union leaders, “Econ101.”
Now post the URLs that reveal Pat Robertson’s annual compensation. Robert Tilton’s, Phred Felps’…
and there is NOTHING illegal about that, no matter if the organization if for profit or non profit.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl
And there is nothing illegal about churches paying their leaders rich salaries.
And there is nothing unethical about that either. Unless you yourself judge. But your judgemenship does not equal whatever religion decides.
Now post the URLs that reveal Pat Robertson’s annual compensation. Robert Tilton’s, Phred Felps’…
Posted by: MonkeyHawk
Who cares? Leaders of organizations SHOULD be paid well. They represent millions (literally). Not unlike a CEO.
There is no law against it.
Yet…….
heheheh germie. That would be your TAXPAYER funded degree in accounting with a minor in human resources?
hehehehehehheheh….
NO ONE can have a sane discussion with you when you are so WRONG all the time.
“Commonsense would tell you that there would have to be some exceptions. You would be turning out thousands of underprivileged if the programs as they exist now went out of existence.”
No, the only exceptions should be food and prescription drugs.
ANd right now, there are NO approved “purposes” for not for profits. The ONLY requirement is that your spending agrees with your “purpose” as stated in your articles of incorporation and your IRS application.
It is all about not returning money to shareholders, but putting in back into the “purpose”. And “putting it back into” can be waste or reserves.
And as for the “underprivileged”…
There were HUNDREDS of procurement assistance organizations that were incorporated as or under not for profits in the 1980’s. Their purpose? To help “small” businesses get government contracts.
With “small” being defined as under 500 employees.
So “underprivileged”…
About as “underprivileged” as those businesses and developers served by chambers of commerce, convention and visitors bureaus, economic development foundations…
GOOD GRIEF!
“And there is nothing illegal about churches paying their leaders rich salaries.”
Please post where ANYONE said it was illegal. Unethical? Maybe.
And I’ll remember your non judgemental churches the next time my partner and I try to get married in Kansas. Yeah. SO non judgemental you are.
And paulie? As for labor leader salaries, I believe I said long ago upthread that ALL not for profit status should be abolished, including for labor.
We’ll give up ours if you give up yours, ok?
That level playing field thing again. I just love how capitalists and religionsists are infavor of leveling the playing fields.
Until they’re not…
Hee hee hee.
Actually Paulie, the thing about labor leader salaries is pretty funny.
Maybe that should be your church’s new slogan?
“WE’RE NOT AS BAD A LABOR UNIONS”!!!
That ought to rally the faithful…
The Devil studies our love. The Devil knows how we bond and researshes it in all its forms, in our families, with lovers and friends, with members of the community. They will mimic our bonding perfectly, and the actors and models begin their sell sell sell death march.
Here they come. They have fire in their eyes.
They’re getting closer and closer! No!
MOTHER FATHER GOD SAVE US FROM THESE ARMIES OF FAKE FAMILY!
Reverend Billy
Hello KFG
The PURPOSE of the organization is what counts._______________________________
Remember:
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions”
Duane, your mistrust in man made institutions along with respect for God is commendable.
Amen friend.
And I’ll remember your non judgemental churches the next time my partner and I try to get married in Kansas. Yeah. SO non judgemental you are.
But your judgemenship does not equal whatever religion decides.
Posted by: Ronald
Still applies farmy.
That’s what religion is all about – whatever they judge to be correct. If they “believe” homosexuality is against their religions dogma, they may judge. They may also decide you cannot get married in their church.
That’s why it’s religion and not government.
That’s why posters can whine and cry all they want – but you won’t change a thing. Pastors can be billionares.
There’s no law. Yet.
farm girlYOU CAN NOT VOLUNTEER TO HELP A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION MAKE A PROFIT!
Thanks good Reverend,
I guess truth is an ugly thing. (of course, it’s just MY truth I know).
If churches are so trustworthy then they’ll have no problem supporting legislation requiring them to file a 990 form like any other non-profit. They can report on their income, their investments and their staff salaries.
FarmgirlYou are wrong on volunteer labor:
http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/resourcekit/Negotiating/wagehours.html
“Wage and hour laws also contain certain safeguards that prevent employers from displacing salaried personnel with those willing to forgo compensation in exchange for their services. As with most laws, the wage and hour laws were drafted with broad provisions designed to dissuade those bent on circumventing the prohibitions. These broad provisions sometimes prove burdensome to individuals who wish to volunteer their services. “
OMG, and the “rev” billy PERFECTLY illustrates the points I’ve made.
Yet another insane rambling. If anyone can translate, please do so.
So billy… do they know you’ve escaped?
This thread reminds me of why I’m a Libertarian.
If you don’t like how someone is spending their money then don’t participate in giving them any. However do not turn to the government to stop activities you disagree with.
Doug”privacy” is no concern to you?
What if a church uses its funds to move a battered woman into a safe house.Should the church be required to print the name of that woman, who received the help?What if a Church pays the legal fees for a protection order against a violent spouse?What of the Church heavily involved in an adoption or pregnancy issue?
What they do is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!
(It is the business of the congregation, and if they do not trust their leaders, they should quit contributing, fire those leaders, or call the authorities in extreme cases.)
“YOU CAN NOT VOLUNTEER TO HELP A FOR PROFIT CORPORATION MAKE A PROFIT!”
Paul, please provide some proof.
Yes, I saw what you posted about wage and hour laws.
Not for profits are CURRENTLY under the same wage and hour laws for employees. And they use volunteers now.
The link you posted noted that “displaced” employees are the problem. If they dont “displace” employees now, they wont be “displacing them” later.
If you cant see that you are wrong on this, I dont know how to help you. If they FIRED all EMPLOYEES and replaced them with volunteers, that would be one thing, but that is NOT what we are talking about with volunteers.
How do not for profits get away with using volunteers now, when they are subject to the SAME wage and hour laws?
ProudmanI have strong Libertarian leanings, myself.
These “Seperation of Church and State” Liberals could learn something from true Libertarians.
Some of these folks want to squash the Church.
You wingnuts are too funny. No one is trying to STOP anything. Just get them to pay their taxes like everyone else. Churches, unions, KofC and Planned Parenthood.
Is there something about level playing field you guys dont understand? Or is it as I predicted?
You LIKE your special benefits. You dont WANT a level playing field.
…and paulie? Is there something you know that equates “burdensom” with illegal?
It may be “burdensome” but it is not illegal.
And still not for profits, covered by the same wage and hour laws as for profits, manage to use volunteers now.
WHY would that change if they had to pay taxes?
Damn, can you say “labored hypothesis”?
I don’t think churches should be taxed, people on here are mostly talking about Chritianity, theres other churches of different religions. Most Churches serve a good function, I do think it would be wise for the adminstrations running the churches, and the few people that recieve pay from churches to use their money wisely, because it does make a church look bad when their pastor is driving a Lexus SUV, living in a mini-mansion, and when the church has olympic size swimming pools and other outrageously expensive possesions. Now if the pastor has other means of income, then an expensive car dosen’t matter as much, but it still dosen’t appear Christian like to spend money on a completly sefish indulgent material possesions while we have unfortuante people here in Wichita that could use a beat up car to drive to work instead of biking or taking the bus. Its sounds like the do as I say not as I do.
Oh and billy or duane or ronald or whatever the nic is today…
I dont WANT to have your church marry me. Dont even go there. You have no right to judge me in the civil arena.
If you do, then I have the right to judge you and yours in the civil arena too.
NO exceptions. NO not for profits. LEVEL the playing field.
I think that the good Reverend was a bit excited, but biblically speaking, he’s dead-on. He’s telling you (believers) that these are (seemingly) the false prophets er profits that the book talks about. Yes, I’m a Libertarian as well.
FarmgirlIt is you church bashers that want to “level the playing field” and make churches and charities the same as for profit organizations.
How do you determine “profit” as another poster asked?
Administrative expenses are a “cost of business”.
UBTI already exists, in law, that is “Unrelated Business Taxable Income”.
UBTI must be paid by non-profits, NOW, for commercial activities.
My guess is that “taxing churches” will result in NO net revenue, to the IRS, a gross violation of the 1st Amendment, a gross violation of privacy, in the works of the charities involved, as well as many more unintended consequences.
(Perhaps, for some of you more hateful religion bashers, the negative consequences are your primary goals?)
Beyond that, however, if you make it so that there is NO distinction between different types of organizations, how do we decide what organizations are “exempt” from minimum wage laws?
Non profits are NOT EXEMPT from minimum wage laws now.
Please post which groups are exempt from minimum wage laws and which are not.
Thanks for admiting you LOVE the special perks that churches get. You wont give them up even if OTHER non profits like PLANNED PARENTHOOD give up theirs.
Nice to know that what is good for the goose is NOT good for the gander.
Hypocrisy, thy name is….
Paulie, you are so blinded by your cult, you cant even see.
“(Perhaps, for some of you more hateful religion bashers, the negative consequences are your primary goals?)”
If that were my goal, I wouldnt be advocating to abolish ALL not for profits, now would I?
Think boy. Or do you have to call your priest to KNOW what you think?
**There isn’t a person on this Blog who would not be considered fabulously “wealthy” if transported back in time.
Until one of you can state that you have given up everything you own for the poor, or made sure that the poor would be provided for, at your death, with some charitable endowment, or made sure some other way that a large chunk of your “wealth” went to those less fortunate — you can be sure I won’t give your opinion much wieght.**
My opinion doesn’t carry any weight because I don’t choose to give away my earthly possessions, but yours should, because you use the ‘Back to the Future’ argument? Tell ya what Mr Wizard, when you get your time machine all hooked up, I’ll come over and you can send me back 20 years and we’ll see how ‘fabulously wealthy’ I am.
DEE DEE DEE
WriterDog — Just a point of clarification — The “Hour of Power” was NOT Robert Tilton’s TV show… Robert Schuller has the “Hour of Power” and he does not preach the terribly flawed “prosperity gospel” made notorious by Robert Tilton…
Just wanted to clarify that…
Shuller is an ordained minister of the Reformed Church in America, one of the oldest protestant denominations in the United States.
KFG, yer sposa figger out that I’m Rev. Billy.Damn, ya didn’t take the linkie huh?
The real (fake) Rev Billy sounds like a hit with me.
And no, I don’t wanna get ya married, money or no money. I mean, I don’t care if ya do. I think ya otta be able to, well ya know. Anyway….
Farm Girl,I’m not “judging” anyone and I have no church (other than wherever I’m standing at the moment). If a preacher driving a Rolls is your idea of charity, so be it. It’s just not mine.
Lets put this another way:
When a “business” fails, the investers, in that business, get a tax right off.For those who “material participate” in that business, there is no limit to the amount of that right off, other than the amount “at risk” to them.This tax write off can be carried into the future, against all “Schedule C” income, for instance, for the “self employed sole proprietor”.
This deduction for loss is not only “above the line” under accounting speak, it also reduces FICA taxes.
So, a “business” that seeks, primarily, to “save souls” under the common understanding of Christian Doctrine, and also tries to cloth the naked and feed the hungry and shelter the vulnerable?
I think said “business” will fail.
Currently, a contribution to a charity type Church is NOT deductable as a business expense.
Currently, when a church folds, the pastor and the congregation do not get to carry forward any “loss” on their tax returns.
A contribution to such a church, if you convert their status tot he same as any other business? Why cant I deduct, as a business expense, what I give to this other “business” and call it public relations?
Unintended consequences.
If we give you church bashers what you want, today, you will be very, very unhappy with what we come up with, under those new laws, tomorrow!
Thank God the Constitution stands in your way!
Everyone remember that weird guy (Oregon) who set up that commune and had multiple Rolls Royces?
Bhagwan something or other?
KFG, yer sposa figger out that I’m Rev. Billy.Damn, ya didn’t take the linkie huh?
The real (fake) Rev Billy sounds like a hit with me.
And no, I don’t wanna get ya married, money or no money. I mean, I don’t care if ya do. I think ya otta be able to, well ya know. Anyway….
Posted by: TRACY | November 26, 2007 at 01:06 PM
So Tracy admits to spamming, trolling and stealing someone’s Website link.
Response from Libs?
nuttin…
Religious scams are nothing new, of course. During the 1940s my dad interned at the old St. Mary’s hospital in Kansas City. He happened to share lunch with the Hospital Administrator one day who mentioned that the facility had generated a profit in the past fiscal year.
Dad asked her what happens when a non-profit makes a profit. She said, “I guess I’ll give the nuns a raise.”
Most of the nurses at St. Mary’s at the time were nuns living in the convent, vow of poverty and all. Of course they didn’t get a *raise* except on paper.
“Federal Fair Labor Standards ActFor nonprofit organizations, the determination of Fair Labor Standards Act applicability depends upon the answers to a series of questions. These questions, set out below, test the nature of the organization’s activities and its relationship with those providing service:
In addition to its educational, charitable, or religious functions, does the nonprofit organization operate any commercial activities that involve commerce or the production of goods for commerce?
Do the individuals who serve in these commercial activities financially depend, as a matter of economic reality, upon the nonprofit organization that they serve?
Do the individuals who serve the educational, charitable and/or religious functions of the organization engage in activities that involve interstate commerce or the production of goods for interstate commerce?
Affirmative responses to any or all of these three questions will subject either the nonprofit organization as a whole, or select groups of its personnel, to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provisions. The following materials will offer a more detailed explanation of this federal employment law, its accompanying regulations, and the manner in which these provisions are currently being applied by the U.S. Department of Labor.”
http://www.ed.gov/inits/americareads/resourcekit/Negotiating/wagehours.html
KFG
Your original posts, on this topic, thread, seemed to indicate that non profits and for profits were the SAME where volunteers were concerned.
write offsorrynot right offright to a write off?
Ya, thats what I meant
Paulie, I’m starting to wonder if you really are a financial advisor.
First off, the “at risk” limitation is serious. They cant deduct any more than they put in, or have “at risk”.
Second, any “loss” has to be carried back before it can be carried forward. It used to be three years back, but I’m not sure what it is now.
Third, NOTHING reduced FICA taxes. It may reduce their “self employement tax” but that is because their “income” has been reduced.
Do you pay taxes on income you didnt receive? I dont.
And fourth, NON of that has to do with not for profits. Contributions made to 501(c)3s are a deduction in the year they were made. They dont have to wait for a “loss” like for profits.
But please, just keep posting this crap and NOT answering my questions about how not for profits circumvent the wage and hour laws NOW.
The more you post this nonsense, the LESS credibility you have. I suggest you cut your losses and admit you are wrong, but if you want to CONTINUE being handed your butt, by all means…
Paulie, first off your link is from 1998. Almost ten years old.
Second, you need to read the ENTIRE link.
“In drafting the FLSA, Congress provided no broad exception for nonprofit charitable, religious and educational organizations.”
In case that isnt clear enough, here is the “rest of the story” from your link.
“In fact, the drafters of the legislation, when expanding the FLSA in 1961 to cover “enterprises,” made clear their intent to include nonprofit organizations within the legislation’s definition of “employer” or “enterprise.”
Need more?
“On two separate occasions, Congress explicitly rejected proposals to exempt nonprofit organizations from FLSA coverage. In fact, the FLSA definition of “enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” specifically includes many entities commonly considered to be charitably motivated.”
The definition extends coverage to any enterprise that
is engaged in the operation of a hospital, an institution primarily engaged in the care of the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises of such institution, a school for mentally or physically handicapped or gifted children, a preschool, elementary or secondary school, or an institution of higher education (regardless of whether or not such hospital, institution, or school is public or private or operated for profit or not for profit)”
it goes on…”While nonprofit organizations are not generally exempt, some of their activities may fall outside FLSA coverage. The educational, eleemosynary, religious, and similar activities of a nonprofit organization are not subject to FLSA enterprise coverage. However, if the same organization conducts commercial activities, such activities will trigger FLSA protection.”
And what does this mean?
“Commercial activities generally constitute business endeavors that place the nonprofit organization in competition with ordinary commercial enterprises.”
Gee, I think I even mentioned that concerning competition with for profit businesses.
“As a rule, the Department of Labor and the courts interpret the law very broadly when determining whether an activity constitutes a commercial enterprise. The FLSA defines “commerce” simply as:
trade, commerce,transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof.”
How does this apply?”In applying this definition, the courts have not limited commerce to refer to transactions where there are actual commercial sales of the goods produced and transported. Nor do courts restrict FLSA application to situations where large amounts of goods are sent outside the state where produced.”
If, for example, a charitable organization operates a printing and publishing plant, employees involved in these activities will find themselves under the protections provided by the wage, hour, and child labor provisions of the FLSA.”
Not all the businesses operated by nonprofit organizations automatically constitute commercial enterprises. For example, federal courts have held that neither a group home for troubled juveniles, nor a shelter that provided food, clothing, and housing to the victims of domestic violence, qualified as commercial enterprises for the purposes of the federal employment law.”
This is all regarding volunteers.
NO WHERE does it say that for profit companies are FORBIDDEN from using volunteers.
Which was the point of this whole ridiculous “discussion”.
But nice try at changing subjects, posting half truths, and generally exposing yourself and your religious paranoia.
And for confirming that unless your churches get special tax treatment, they will fold.
S0 much for that famous christian charity…
FarmgirlNopeFor the Schedule C person, and many if not most self employed people fall in this category, a loss is a loss is a loss, on C.
The pastor who contributes to his own church can take a charitable deduction against ordinary income taxes.
The pastor who files a schedule C because his “church” is his “business” ?
This is weird, what you are proposing.
My point is that the Federal Treasury will get NO benefit, and might actually lose money, with your plan.
Thank God, again, that your plan is not Constitutional.
Farmgirl
It is you who is blinded by ideology.
I never said that tax exempt organizations were “exempt” from wage laws, where “employees” were concerned.
I stated, factually, that you could NOT volunteer to carry out groceries at Dillons.
Dillons wont let you.
It is illegal to do it on a regular basis, for no pay, especially if it “displaces” other workers.
Funny how neo-cons are suddenly interested in privacy rights when their income is at stake. They have no problem invading people’s privacy with illegal wiretaps, opening up women’s abortion records, reading through e-mails, setting up a nationwide civilian spy program (TIPS), infiltrating peace organizations, etc. But when it comes to reporting income like every non-profit has to then they cry persecution.
Enough of the croc tears Paul. If a church runs a shelter then the 990 form will say that the funds goes to a shelter, they don’t reveal who actually stays at the shelter. You are seriously desperate to justify a church’s greed.
“For the Schedule C person, and many if not most self employed people fall in this category, a loss is a loss is a loss, on C.”
Paulie, you forgot to say “net” loss. The net goes to their personal income, and personal income loss has to be carried back before it can be carried forward.
I know vaughn is busy now, but perhaps a real expert could weigh in here?
And I’m not proposing anything “weird” or pastors being business owners or anything else.
I’m proposing something quite simple and fair. Abolish ALL not for profit status. Abolish the income tax and go to a national sales tax with food and prescription drugs exempted.
KFG
YOU were Wrong on this post of yours:
“Posted by: ksgrm | November 26, 2007 at 11:46 AM
“Actually, it would be illegal for Dillons, for instance, to allow someone to come in and mop the floors, or carry out groceries, for free.”
Link please? That is completely wrong. Volunteers, celebrity waiters, etc. happen all the time. It is not illegal. Their unions and insurance companies may not like it, but it isnt illegal.
Yes, we should tax them all, including labor unions AND churches. What part of “tax them all” is so hard to understand?
And, btw, volunteers are routinely covered under the umbrella policies of not for profits. So the fear of volunteers being injured and suing folks is the same for non and for profits NOW.
Jesus wept paulie. Just making stuff up today?
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | November 26, 2007 at 11:48 AM
—-I proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this post of yours was false.
You are now changing the argument.
Fair labor standards, and the minumum wage laws, will not allow someone to “volunteer” at a for profit business.
Paulie, saying that DILLONS WONT LET YOU is very different from IT IS ILLEGAL.
IT is illegal ONLY if it displaces employees.
And, since you NOW agree that not for profits are subject to wage and hour laws…
…if they use volunteers NOW, as not for profits, they could use volunteers THEN if their not for profit status goes away.
You are being deliberately obtuse and mixing apples with oranges. It appears you would rather crawl up on the roof to be right than stand on the ground and admit you were wrong.
Whatever. You are so profoundly wrong on so many things, it is pointless to continue here.
No wonder bonbon lost if THAT is the kind of advise she got…
Fair labor standards act does cover employees of charities, yes.
But, volunteers at charites are NOT required to be paid minimum wage.
Volunteers at for profit corporations?
The IRS and the Department of Labor say: There is NO SUCH THING!
Hee hee hee hee.
Posts crossed. You “proved” nothing paulie. You are just willfully ignoring the facts that it is NOT illegal for for profits to use volunteers, unless it displaces employees.
And, since you now admit non profits ARE covered by wage and hour laws, it is ALSO illegal NOW for non profits to use volunteers to displace employees.
You are hopeless.
You lost KFG
It is ILLEGAL for any for profit corporation to allow free labor.
It is illegal.
It is against the law.
I won this one.
KFG
you say:
” unless it displaces employees.
And, since you now admit non profits ARE covered by wage and hour laws, it is ALSO illegal NOW for non profits to use volunteers to displace employees.
You are hopeless.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | November 26, 2007 at 01:37 PM
—-
If a for profit business allows anyone to work for free, that is prima facie evidence that a worker has been displaced.
For a non religious person, you seem to be counting “volunteers” in the head of a pin.
This argument is exactly the reason that the IRS and its code need to be abolished. No one “knows” the code, just the way it’s supposed to work.
I meant that it’s supposed to be confusing, to everyone.
I guess all those volunteers who helped clean up the Dillon’s store after the Greensburg tornado should be jailed, huh “Econ101?”
Well,
I personally don’t agree with a church or Pastor having such obviously excessive things such as a Rolls Royce or personal jet.
However, this is less than 1% of the Christian church.
Mega-Churches are a wierd thing.
When you have a congregation above 20,000 all of a sudden a jet or fancy car are very small things compared to the total offerings of the congregation.
I don’t know the specifics of why these pastors have these nice things, but they couldn’t get them without the congregation giving it to them.
At some point, the people didn’t have a problem with rewarding their pastor with those things.
It is rare that a church Pastor can do anything he wants or spend money however he wants.
Most churches have a board of Trustees, Deacons, or Bishops who make the decisions or approve of things.
Most churches “hire” their Pastor to be the spiritual leader and they negotiate salary and perks with him.
So, if these Pastors have jets and nice cars it is most likely because they were given to them by the congregation.
Like I said, I don’t agree with some of these things, but that is why I am not a member of a mega-church.
I believe in smaller community based churches which split when they reach a certain size.
“In my opinion the only real televangelist is Billy Graham. Look at the way he lives. He never flew in private jets – always flew economy. His home is the same one he built when his children were small. His humility is humbling to any who would look at him.” (Ksgrm)
Ummmm….. WHICH one of Billy’s homes is it that he is living in now?? He has several… I’ve seen the one he owns in Minneapolis… NOT small…
But, he needs it for when he goes to the Home Office for business…
And his SALARY level seems to be off-written, as “contributions” to his own religious organization!Thats a unique way of writing off income on the IRS 1040… A very popular trick on the part of many clergy of many denominations…
I cant speak for his transportation, but I know he stays in the BEST of the best Hotels when he travels… And he has also never told followers they should be POOR, or that they should be RICH, if they know God!
Graham doesnt play with the “prosperity gospel” at all!!
Graham’s son, Franklin, is a different piece of work from his dear sweet Daddy!!
You want some of that action don’t ya Chas? :)
Well good afternoon, I was up late and I slept late.Econ, you are only partly right about the eye of the needle; the gateway was narrow and low.The trick was to get your camel to walk on their knees to go thru the gateway and the poor man did not own camels.Also Econ, you are right about “Fundamentalism”.Btw, I am “nonconforming and secular” in my beliefs, strongly against fundamentalism.Now I have to get ready to go to work, will catch up later.
It is ILLEGAL for any for profit corporation to allow free labor.It is illegal.It is against the law.I won this one.
Posted by: Econ101 | November 26, 2007 at 01:38 PM
===========================
You are only partially right, Econ… The trick is that a FOR PROFIT can use volunteer labor…
IF and ONLY IF, they dont attempt to write off the “value” of the volunteer labor as a tax deduction…
Since it is illegal for them to write off donated labor, most do not allow it… However, it is an internal decision, but not a legal one…
I have – upon a couple of occasions – done volunteer labor for a normal “business”
I have also seen a few stores who would employ a church youth group to be grocery sackers for a few days during holiday peak times…
Then, they would do the bad nasty thing, of adding up the volunteer hours, and donate that amount to the congregation of the youth who volunteered… THAT is not a legal thing to do!!
above post >>>
“employ” is wrong word…
“allow” is the right word.. sorry!
I thought the prohibition for volunteer employment had to do more with pecuniary liability laws than whether the proprietor was profit or non-profit.
In other words, the volunteer employee gets injured or causes injury, the for profit agency is up that proverbial creek without a paddle.
Kansas, I already addressed that. MOST not for profits carry liability insurance for their volunteers.
At least the sane ones do.
They also have umbrella policies that cover volunteers. Just like for profit corporations have umbrella policies.
If the not for profits DONT have such a policy in place, they are being penny wise and pound foolish.
Liability is an INSURANCE matter. Not a tax matter.
kfg,
Okay…
Just as long as they don’t do the parking lot samba with a caravan of shopping carts on my car. :)
Chas,
Bill Graham has been on straight salary since somewhere in the 50’s.
He allowed that salary to be controlled by a board of outsiders.
His salary has been fairly modest comparatively speaking.
Many of those houses you talk about (which the board gave to him) were then donated to Christian causes.
I don’t know what you are trying to imply, but Billy Graham is a pretty straight forward guy.
Time Magazine has been running articles on his finances for over 30 years.
Try reading some of them and you will see that Billy is an honest guy not raking in the big bucks like you make it sound.
Kansas you are pitiful dude.There weren’t a damn thing malicious about what I posted.
Yer just an over the top whiner dude.
Lighten up.
Have some fun, get a shave, go out once in a while. Be fun or sumpin’ for it’s too damned late!
Got it on record right here.Ol’ Kansas,
a confirmed stick-in-the-mud.
Yep.
Ha!
TRACY,
Are you “the” Tracy?
I welcome you back, but why are you heckling Kansas?
It doesn’t add anything to the conversation.
Nathan, Graham may not personally RECEIVE such funds… But he benefits off of the donations, that are very large… In other words, his Salary is modest, comparatively speaking… BUT, his benefits are basically under the table, and thus not reported as “income”
BTW, what is done for Graham, is fairly common in some of the larger (not necessarily mega style) churches…
Chas,
What are these benefits you are talking about?
Graham doesnt play with the “prosperity gospel” at all!!
Posted by: Chas. | November 26, 2007 at 01:54 PM
What in the world are you talking about? Where did you go to see his ‘home office’. It is located in Montreal, NC as is his boyhood home and it is not far from his mountain home.
Give me some sources for maligning a great and humble man.
Ownership, perhaps, should have been mentioned.
Currently, I can not “own” a tax exempt organization. I can contribute. I can be an employee. I can be on the board of directors.
However, I can not “own” a tax exempt organization.
I might have skipped a few steps here, but I thought you could all keep up, sorry!
This is what the future would look like, if the Constitution allowed you to do what you want, taxing churches:
If you erase the differences between tax exempts and taxable organizations, you will make “ownership” of a charity a possibility, and perhaps make that the favorable method of running some “charitable” organizations. There is no longer a tax advantage to do otherwise, under your changes, is there?
If the purpose of the business is “charitable” does that mean that the business will not be allowed to show a loss?
I must admit, I am not proposing these radical changes, so I dont know if those of you who want to make these changes have thought this through.
Also, miniumum wage laws and the Fair Labor Standards Act absolutely DO treat non profits different from profitable organizations.
If the PURPOSE is for profit, any labor, towards that end, must be compensated. Any labor, on behalf of the busines, is evidence that that other labor has been displaced. (This is not true in a charity. A charity can reasonbly state that the work would not have been done, if not for the volunteer.)—–
Again, it is illegal to allow volunteer or uncompensated labor for the production of profit, for a for profit company.
This would drive a stake through the heart of volunteerism, if we got rid of the non profit status.
I would imagine that the vast majority of church provided services are pro-bono unpaid volunteer work. The financial transactions, the actual cash changing hands, is a small portion of the actual good work that Churches accomplish.
Same for most charities.
My Mom’s small-town church had its annual meeting just before Thanksgiving and I happened to look at the financial report. The amounts I cite are from memory and approximate.
The pastor earns $35,000 a year.
In addition all housing expenses (the parsonage) are paid by the church.
A retirement annuity has been established (the non-profit equivolent of a 401k), paid by the congregation.
His car and all expenses are provided.
The church pays full life insurance coverage for the pastor and his family.
The church has established trust funds for his kids’ college educations.
All told, this small-town congregation pays out close to $100,000 a year for a pastor who, from all reports, is dedicated and has built the church, has inspired people both within the church and throughout the community to work on beneficial projects.
Since he is a clergyman, he gets special dispensation on his $35,000 salary off the top. He sounds like the kind of guy who might tithe, so let’s assume he gets a tax break on the $3,500 he gives to the church and/or other non-profits.
Compared to Billy Graham, “Nathan,” my Mom’s pastor is dealing with chump change. There’s probably a legitimate reason (as with my Mom’s pastor’s automobile allowance) for Jerry Falwell (or, ahem, the Thomas Road Baptist Church of Lynchburg Virginia) to have hot-and-cold-running Learjets.
Then again, we have a full thread of people willing to justify a “Christian” pastor in a Rolls-Royce.
For every dollar allegedly stolen from tax-payers by so-called welfare cheats, there are hundreds if not thousands of dollars sucked from tax-payers by religions. Maybe, even, by all non-profit organizations; after all, that’s what they’re for.
“ksfarmgrl” has the rational approach to all such abuses. Get rid of the temptation to abuse the tax laws.
Of course, that’d mean losing mortgage deductions and deductions for children and business expenses and tax-free bonds… The Cons never mention that when they’re talking about the Flat Tax, do they?
MonkeyHawk,
Do you know the difference between a government taking money from people and then redistributing it and people freely donating their money to a church?
Moving to a national sales tax does have some appeal.
I am still not ready to jump on that bandwagon, but I have to admit some of the positives, in that approach.
However, most of the people who want to eliminate the “tax exempt” treatment do not seem to want to eliminate the income tax, in general.
I would still argue that the elimantion of the “tax exempt” status, or “not for profit” status, under IRS Income Tax Code would not generate much, in the way of additional revenue.
In fact, it might cause us more problems, because the deductions for business losses are actually better than the deductions for charitable contributions.
In fact, the general taxpayers might be worse off, because the services, provided by churches and charities, might then be the burden of the taxpayers, directly!
mean losing mortgage deductions and deductions for children and business expenses and tax-free bonds… The Cons never mention that when they’re talking about the Flat Tax, do they?
Posted by: MonkeyHawk | November 26, 2007 at 03:13 PM
Bring on the consumption tax!Bring it on! Flat Tax.
Immediately end the redistribution of wealth of the EIC.
This is the only fair way of doing it – end the pork at both ends of the spectrum.
Anything to save all our souls from what we are about to face in less than sixty days. Mountains of tax forms. Tax preparers who have been demonstrated as not preparing taxes the same for the same individual in tests.
“Nathan” –
Do you understand the difference between a church distributing moneys to people they or their theolgy deem “worthy” and the 1st Amendment’s prohibition against government advocating a particular theology?
You and I are paying Phred Felps’ tax bill. You and I are subsidizing Westboro Baptist Church’s “ministry.” You and I subsidized Jerry Falwell’s Learjets. You and I are underwriting Pat Robertson’s diamond mines.
You okay with that?
MonkeyHawk,
The absense of the government taking money from a church is not my support of it or underwriting.
Do you know the difference between a government taking money from people and then redistributing it and people freely donating their money to a church?
Posted by: Nathan | November 26, 2007 at 03:17 PM
The absense of the government taking money from a church is not my support of it or underwriting.
Posted by: Nathan | November 26, 2007 at 03:29 PM
Nathan, I think your comments are falling on deaf ears. They honestly don’t get it. I think it’s because some liberals are blinded by greed. Yes. That is the correct word. They see a mountain of money that is ripe for the taking. Regardless the source. Regardless of the repercussion. The federal trough has to have more revenue, to dish out to THEIR charitable organizations.
It’s like when I post about Robin Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. They see that as their right, and OBLIGATION.
They want more MONEY.
Wow, “American Way” –
That was positively Rovian!
With enough audacity Karl Rove could turn a two-tour-in-Vietnam and double Purple Heart veteran into a “coward” and portray AWOL in the Alabma National Guard Shrub into a “hero.” Nothing but audacity could turn an Oval Office blow-job into an impeachable offense and accept the lies and incompetence of Iraq as “leadership.”
The Karl Rove formula has always been, “Take your weakest weaness and accuse your opponent of it.”
The Republic Party *is* the party of “I’ve got mine, the rest of the world can go to hell.”
And you, “American Way,” have the audacity to call Democrats the party of “greed?!”
I admire your audacity. I admore your guts.
But you guys are sure full of s#it.
“Of course, that’d mean losing mortgage deductions and deductions for children and business expenses and tax-free bonds…”
I’m cool with that Monkeyhawk.
And paulie? Do you even READ my posts? I said in my very first post here that I want to get RID of the income tax and go to a consumption tax with food and prescription drugs exempted.
Paul, you act like ALL this is about taxing churches in some unfair way that is more than what “others” pay.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. I want churches, which, in order to be 501(c)3, HAVE to be incorporated, to pay taxes like any other BUSINESS. And they are BIG business.
Spin this as church hating if you want, but I also said I supported removal of ALL 501(c) designations and go to a flat tax on CONSUMPTION.
Given our dwindling resources, the dollar, peak oil, etc., it is HIGH TIME we consumed less. And taxes can drive that. If you buy, you pay. If you save, you dont.
Since when did using the tax code to save become a bad thing?
Only to the churchies I guess. They dont want you to SAVE. The want you to CONTRIBUTE.
Put Planned Parenthood and the churches on equal footing. Funny, you dont hear the Planned Parnethood fans (including me) complaining.
Only the churchies….
Oh, and all the anti-brown skin anti-immigration fanatics should LOVE that immigrants will be on the same tax footing as everyone else. They buy things, and will pay the SAME taxes as citizens. So will foreigners and tourists. No more income tax dodgers or offshore investment benefits.
You buy it here, you pay the tax. No exceptions other than food and prescription drugs.
And the anti-immigration crowd should ALSO love the idea of converting all those IRS employees, other than the sales tax auditors, to… wait for it…
INS employees.
What’s not to like about that plan? Other than those who DONT want a level playing field and who DO want churches to continue to receive state sponsored financial support.
Heheheheh. I’m reminded of a true joke.
Do you know what they called the 1986 tax code reform bill?
The tax lawyers’ and CPAs’ relief act.
And on that note, I’m off to feed the chickens. Which will allow me to be a humanitarian and communist at the same time. I mean, since I own the means of production and all… and perhaps I should have said “avianatarian” instead of humanitarian….
Chas
Under IRS tax law, you are correct in how “volunteer” labor must be accounted for.However, it is still NOT ALLOWED under Department of Labor rules.
Farmgirl
Exactly! You do “have to incorporate” — for the tax break of a charity!
Nobody starts a “charity” under a Schedule C because there is no tax advantage to do so.If you take away the tax advantage, what is to stop someone from running a “charity” that way?
And, if you tax income (hard to account for, with all that social welfare spending and goodwill generation) — if you tax the income you gotta let them write off losses, if they fail, dont they?—-I understand that you ALSO support the consumption tax, to replace the income tax.
I dont trust the feds to dump the income tax.
I think we will get a consumption tax ON TOP OF an income tax.
That is my primary worry about the “fair tax” or national sales tax.
Somewhere, buried deep within my memory, and not subject to immediate recall, there exists the name of a SCOTUS decision that addressed the issue of taxation of churches. What does reside within the easily accessible part of what memory I still have is the following paraphrase of the holding of the opinion, which is that there is no constitutional grounds for the special tax treatment given to churches and certain other nonprofits covered by section 501(c)(3), IRC; rather, the theory on which such special treatment is based is that these organizations, to which contributions are deductible by the donors, are performing services that otherwise would necessarily be performed by the government. Thus, IIRC, SCOTUS held that there is no First Amendment basis for the special treatment churches (staying with churches here for obvious reasons), and income or other taxation of a church is not proscribed by the First Amendment. Rather, it is the charitable purpose of a church, in giving assistance to those who the church determines are entitled to the same, which relieves the government from providing same through that which we have, in the past, referred to as “public assistance”.
As has been posted above, a church need not file a form 990, required of almost any other tax exempt organization. This is a part of the IRC and the regulations thereunder, but the specific citation escapes me at the moment.
Churches have utilized their tax exempt status to conduct activities, such as radio stations, otherwise conducted by corporations for profit as a part of their religious activities. Whether this is wise is for Congress to determine. As kfg pointed out somewhere above, being “non profit” for purposes of the IRC doesn’t mean the organization doesn’t make a profit, it merely refers to the fact that the profit cannot inure to the members who are analogous to stockholders of a private corporation. In other words, the church or other organization cannot “pay a dividend”. On dissolution of a 501(c)(3) organization, there are prohibitions against the remaining assets inuring to the benefit of any member, etc., but rather, upon such dissolution, the remaining assets are to be transferred to another 501(c)(3) organization so the same may be used in furtherance of a purpose recognized under the IRC as one suitable for granting an organization exemption from income taxation.
IIRC, the SCOTUS decision referenced above addressed an attempt by a state to assess property taxes or some other form of taxation against a church, but the holding was clear; there is no First Amendment prohibition thereof, but rather a policy decision made to exempt the churches from taxation on the basis of the charitable work being done by the same, in place of a governmental entity that would otherwise be providing the same.
BTW, nothing in the language of 501(c)(3) requires legal incorporation to be entitled to the benefits thereof; the IRS certainly prefers this, but an unincorporated association of individuals may be eligible for 501(c)(3) status, so long as their organizational documents pass muster, which is almost impossible for an unincorporated association under 501(c)(3), other than a church. Under other provisions of section 501(c), it is clear that incorporation is not needed; but then, organizations qualifying for tax exempt status under the other subsections of 501(c) are not those to which tax deductible contributions may be made, e.g., business leagues, labor unions, social clubs.
VT – might they be subject to UBTI tax? 990-T?
oops – UTBI
It is funny how the right wingers hate government handouts and welfare until it is their welfare or handout. Every taxpayer in the US is being forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize the churches and other non profit entities. Even if you limit the discussion to only one form of subsidy, the tax deductible contribution, it is easy to see that churches and their members receive a huge government imposed transfer of wealth at the expense of the non religious. The ability to deduct the contributions made to a church from taxable income is a massive redistribution of the tax burden from people that attend and contribute their money to religious organizations and the people that do not. In fact, it is the special tax treatment that should be considered a violation of the 1st Amendment, not the revocation of that treatment. It is not rational to assert that requiring a church to pay the same taxes as every other citizen and business is preventing the free exercise of religion, but it is obvious to any but the most obtuse that forcing citizens that do not attend or contribute money to a church to pay additional taxes as a result is an establishment of religion for all practical purposes.
I read recently the report showing Americans to be the most generous (per capita) people of the developed countries, however parsing of the benefactors showed that most of it went to tithing rather than “non-church” charities.
I really don’t care if churches are taxed. The money they have is donated from the congregation.
The congregation earned the money and has already paid tax on it (presumably).
I kind of like the idea of a national sales tax instead of an income tax.
In principle, it more closely ties the income with the expenses.Much of the govenment spending is for infrastructure (either tangible or intangible).
A rich person and a poor person mostly use the infrastructure the same amount but a tiered income tax like we have now places a higher burden on people making more money (see ability to bear).A sales tax would make more sense because those that consume more most likely use more infrastructure.
Kansas you are pitiful dude.There weren’t a damn thing malicious about what I posted.
Yer just an over the top whiner dude.
Lighten up.
Have some fun, get a shave, go out once in a while. Be fun or sumpin’ for it’s too damned late!
Posted by: TRACY | November 26, 2007 at 02:29 PM
The last time I tried to have some fun, your Lib friends went chimpanzee insane and since then called me troll,nic switcher and stealer and those were the nice names.
The Libs here have zero sense of humor.
yeah.damn libs
Good points, Scott.
“”"I challenge you to go to the church nearest you every Sunday for one month and sit with an open mind and without complaint. You will be amazed at how much goes back to the community through that churches food pantry, services to help children, connections people make for baby sitting, trips to the store for elderly people, or taking elderly people to the doctor or other places, counseling for people who are struggling, or just being a friend in a time of need.”"”
All things the United Way and the Salvation Army also do and they spend a LOT more of each dollar given on the poor. I doubt your average church spends more than 3% of its income on “the community” while the Salvation Army spends about 97%. The churches are too busy buying gold plated steeples and Roll Royces for the minister!
You just reminded me, I had to pay a ton o’ cash for counseling at the God-Mart there at 29th and Rock. So much for community outreach.
“The congregation earned the money and has already paid tax on it (presumably).’
Not true brian. By deducting it we render in non-taxed.
Didnt Oral Roberts once claim that God Would strike him dead if he didnt get his followers to donate millions to his church?
VTVery well done.However, the court found a legislative intent rather than a Constitutional intent — perhaps??? — because the Court prefers not to make a “Constitutional” argument unless it has to.
The Court generally rests its opinions on statute, in cases where statute and intent will answer the question, correct?
Tax churches, directly, or attempt to do so, and we will see if it is Constitutional, or not.
I think NOT.
Ben
You were right the first time.It is UBTI.Some trusts, and even some IRA’s I have dealt with, have had to pay UBTI on non-exempt (leasing of personal property) income.
The Phelps family runs that way all his children donate 100% of their salaries to the “Church” then they dont pay any taxes and the church pays them and gets money for their “outreach programs”
Why do Libs hate rich people?
Not true brian. By deducting it we render in non-taxed.
Posted by: Ben | November 26, 2007 at 06:55 PM
Ben this just isn’t a true statement anymore than the one about the Phelps children giving 100% of their income to the church and therefore having to pay more tax.
Charitable contribution aren’t given back dollar for dollar even if you itemize. It depends on the tax bracket you are in. But yes taxes are paid on these wages. And before anyone on here hollers no I don’t support anything the Phelps do just pointing out the inaccuracy of the statement.
Folks,
It will always be relatively easy for people to do things you don’t like, in a perfectly legal manor, without getting taxed for that activity.
Once again, it was not my intent to give everyone a primer on employment law, tax law or any other subject.
My point? Your changes will have consequences.
It is hard to do “accounting” where a charity is involved, since so many things a charity does a business would not do.
If you turn “charities” into tax paying businesses, many accounting rules would have to be modified.
Obviously, if what charities do, as an “expense” is deductable from income, how do you stop other businesses deducting the SAME thing?
So, other businesses would now be deducting under much more favorable conditions.
Charitable deductions for the individual might go away, but if “feeding the poor” becomes a business deduction, or “Evangelizing” becomes a business deduction, then for-profit businesses will get even more bang for their “charitable” expenses. (They arent donations anymore.)If charity becomes like any other business, how can you stop a manufacturer or food business from deducting “charity” as a business expense, with greater benefits, in real dollars, than the same charitable contribution would get them, today?
And again,
I do not direct my comments at those who want to eliminate the income tax, entirely.My comments are primarily directed at those who want to retain the income tax but abolish tax exempt status for charities.
Interesting stuff on billy graham’s finances. He’s just a poor ol boy. http://cnt10.tripod.com/graham.htm
Phantom I hardly ever see an article accusing someone of so many things without proof on any allegation. ‘Has been accused of’ is hardly proof. An organization as large as the Billy Graham ministries would of necessity need to have a lot of people on the ground. It would be logical that some of these would be family. As for his salary, this is ridiculously low for someone with the credentials and responsibility he has. Also the fact that he still draws a salary is a type of retirement seen frequently. You showed me nothing but tabloid magizine fodder.
Why is it so important to run down this person that has given back to the world so much. Can the libs only be truly happy if he can be proved to be corrupt?
Wow Kev! Congratulations! You just won the most ignorant post of the day award. Your continued contributions to the weblog help assure me without any doubt – that you are on the correct side. Please don’t ever considering crossing over. You support us better from over there.
All things the United Way and the Salvation Army also do and they spend a LOT more of each dollar given on the poor. I doubt your average church spends more than 3% of its income on “the community”. The churches are too busy buying gold plated steeples and Roll Royces for the minister!Posted by: Kev | November 26, 2007 at 06:20 PM
One chance at redemption: Please provide a source to support the above statement.
Gore went to divinity school, but didnt graduate.We have Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton and many other members of the “religious left” — but the left attacks faith every chance they get.
Even if you abolish the tax exempt status, you still cant control where charities spend their money.
You will actually encourage the directors to pay HIGHER salaries to the employees, including pastors. That way, there would be no “retained earnings” subject to corporate or you new “charitable” tax.
Also, stupid expenses are still deductable.
You might just encourage more stupid expenses, instead of spending money wisely, or saving reserves for future emergency needs.
Again, the consequences of your plan are: less help to worthy causes, more expenses, as those folks depend on government sources, MORE dumb expenses in order to avoid retention of earnings, HIGHER salaries and bonuses, to the directors, in order to avoid retention of earnings.
And, of course, more attorneys and accountants, on the payroll, to handle all of your new rules.
That you usual nic there “A Bunker”?
Central Christian, that monstrosity out on west Maple, just to name two.
CLEAR examples of shine over substance in local churches.
My take? The pricier a church looks, the less credence I grant the people who attend it. Same for any minister with a better than average ride.
Oh an YES remove the churches from tax exempt. That or create a special filing where they have to SHOW how much they are taking in and account for where it goes.
No no NO! To a flat or “fair tax”. Those are HEAVILY weighted against the poor and lower middle class.
I don’t know ksgrm, it sure seems that liberals are not only secular in their beliefs, they are anti-Christian. Witness trying to trash someone of impeccable reputation and tremendous accomplishment like Rev Graham. For what possible purpose??
It’s sad when people don’t get into Biblical studies and see that donkeys were also used ruling leaders (judges) and kings and their families? See these examples of high officials riding donkeys:
Judges 5:102 Samuel 16:1 and 2Judges 10:42 Samuel 19:26
See also this article from http://www.jerusalemperspective.com/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Syndicated DonkeyBivin, David
As Jesus approached Jerusalem for the last time, he and his large band of Galilean disciples climbed the steep eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives. Near Bethany he sent two of his disciples to a nearby village, presumably Bethphage, with instructions to bring him a previously unridden donkey colt which they would find tethered at the entrance of the village.
His disciples did as they were asked, but as they were untying the donkey, according to Luke 19:33 its “owners” -not “owner” said, “Why are you untying the colt?”
Without Precedent
All English translations of the New Testament, with the exception of the Jerusalem Bible, give “owners” at this point in the text. But why would this young donkey have had more than one owner, a thing that was unusual in ancient Jewish society? Was this a special donkey, so valuable that it had to be syndicated as many racehorses are today, or owned in partnership as a business investment?
Commentators generally have understood the plural “owners” to mean “the owner and those with him” (ICC), or “its master and mistress, expressed merely as the plural” (Anchor Bible). However, there is no ancient precedent for this understanding. There are examples of two or more animals being owned by one man, but no substantial evidence of one animal being owned by several men.
Possible Solution
Perhaps Wycliffe Bible translator and Jerusalem School scholar Dr. Randall Buth has provided a solution to this puzzle. He has pointed out in his article, “Luke 19:31-34, Mishnaic Hebrew and Bible Translation: Is kurioi tou polou Singular?” (Journal of Biblical Literature, 104 (1985), 680-685), that in Hebrew be’alim, (”masters, lords, owners”) the plural of ba’al, (”master, lord, owner”), often is used in a singular sense.
The classic example of this usage is found in Exodus 21:29 in connection with the laws pertaining to a goring ox:
If, however, that ox has been in the habit of goring and its owner [literally "owners"], though warned has not kept it penned up [singular form of the verb] and it kills a man or woman, the ox must be stoned and its owner [literally "owners"] also must be put to death [singular form of the verb].
Twice in this passage, the plural noun be’alim, (”owners”) appears with a singular verb, indicating that the noun is in fact used in a singular sense.
Singular Idiom
The same idiomatic use of this plural noun in a singular sense is found in Mishnaic Hebrew, except that the accompanying verb is usually in the plural. Ancient Greek and Aramaic translations of Scripture such as the Septuagint and the Targums render the idiomatic plural noun, “owners,” as “owner.” This suggests that the idiom was foreign to Greek and Aramaic.
In fact, this idiom does not exist in Greek or Aramaic. It is unattested in Greek literature and Jerusalem scholar and Aramaic specialist, Prof. Michael Sokoloff, has confirmed that this idiom also does not exist in any early Palestinian Aramaic text.
More Accurate
Dr. Buth may have discovered a significant key, which can aid in revealing the original language of the Gospel story. Because Hebrew and Aramaic are so similar in their idioms, it is seldom that one can find in the texts of the Gospels a Hebrew idiom that is not also an Aramaic idiom. This idiom, however, seems to be unique to Hebrew. It is all the more significant because it is found neither in the Septuagint nor in Greek literature in general.
As Dr. Buth has suggested in his article, if we assume a Hebraism behind this rather surprising plural, then the story reads more naturally. The owner, not owners, asked the two disciples, “Why are you untying the colt?”
This Hebrew idiom, sheltered in the Greek of Luke’s Gospel, is another example that shows how translating the Gospel texts into Hebrew makes it possible to achieve a more accurate English translation.
(c) Copyright 1987-2003 Jerusalem Perspective. All rights reserved.
Writer I am just curious where this sanctuary is? Is this public knowledge and I have missed it?Posted by: ksgrm
Yes and no, though it has not been a real public secret to the members of either his old Church or new one.And there has not been a concerted effort to hide it, not much has been done to make it an issue in the public forum though. My youngest son married a church member and has been required to resign his membership at his (my son’s) old church in order to be carried on Fox’s new church membership roles. But before too much is made of that, it is my understanding that is a common practice among churches. Anyway, he has been to Fox’s place several times and said it is quite impressive. Fox often invites members to come to his place to ride the ATVs and shoot or just hang out. Kind of like a retreat and day camp for the members, nice if you have it LOl.
I do not know exactly where it is, I have not been all that interested as my family all know my opinion of Pastor Fox. Fox did agree to marry my son and new wonderful daughter-in-law at our church, I amazed and got a few “at-a-boy’s from my family and church members for shaking his hand and thanking him. I had actually thought that I might not be willing to attend the ceremony since Fox would be there. I see him as a threat to the faith… Long story. BTW along with a wonderful daughter-in-law I also have two of the cutest, smartest, loving Granddaughters out of the deal. That in itself was worth putting my moral stance aside for about an hour! Fox himself is not a bad guy, he is just lost his way having been caught up in the wave that has swept through the Southern Baptist. Sadly the new Pharisees…
You are correct Chas, the name of his program was “Success-N-Life”. BTW according to wikipedia he now has a new version of Success-N-life on BET. I guess I was thinking about one of his phrases he often used on his program where he would say ‘this is the hour of power”.
Instead of asking the question why the federal prosecutors and the law enforcement in the regional FBI, IRS and US Attorney’s offices will not investigate government corruption and graft in local & state government agencies and courts, the US Senate Finance Committee has deflected attention by criticizing the spending habits of televangelists who fly to their events in jets or buy extravegant furniture. I hope Senator Grassley does not criticize the Vatican for its oppulence. Apparently these preachers are not as important as our US congressman & senators who fly back & forth to Washington DC with their family members seated next to lobbyists in their corporate jets. I think Grassley needs to look in the mirror at the beam in the federal government’s eye before he looks for specks in eyes of religious organizations.
This is just another example of government elitists trying to muzzle criticism from independent churches. Lord knows that the mainstream Protestant & Catholic churches are afraid to speak out about the routine human rights violations for fear of losing their faith based religious grants. Everything is political and about getting pork from the federal government
Bill McKean 293-6079kiakahahaha@yahoo.com
“…but the “eye of the needle” was a gate in the wall around Biblical Jerusalem.”
It’s good to see that someone knew the origin of the quote. Glad you posted it, Paul.
Thanks Writer, I knew Fox before he became famous. He was the youth minister in my brother-in-laws church many year ago when first starting out in a small town in Oklahoma.
You are right in your thinking that he lost sight of the goal. Unfortunately that happens. Glad the son and new DIL worked out so well. Grandkids are a blessing beyond belief.
Yes, grandchilren are wonderful.I just inserted the feeding tube, into her “mickey button” and turned on the pump.Daughter went to Ohio, on Cell Phone company business.I get the very special child, for two weeks.
WD, I disagree with you, that man Fox has something very sinister up his sleeves at all times. I believe he is the problem, and those who follow him have the same sinister heart.
Billy Graham, while I don’t believe in what he preaches, I don’t think I’ve ever heard him be oppressive to anyone. So for him, I have respect.
Rox and Catherine
I did post that quote, upthread, about the “eye of the needle” being a gate in the wall, in biblical times.
Thanks for noticing.
However, I also too some heat, from the libs, for saying EVERYONE in America, or at least on this Blog, would be considered “rich” if we got on a “time machine” and went backwards.
I obviously meant back to BIBLICAL times.
At the time of Jesus, and his donkey, it was considered “wealthy” to have a “beast of burden” —
Furthermore, none of them had “health care” as we know it today.
Their diets were not nearly so complete or healthy.
Travel, for even short distances, was expensive, painful and dangerous.
There was no theft insurance or homeowners insurance.
A fire, or a brutal neighbor or enemy could take what you had, rather easily.
Refridgerators, TV sets, central air conditioning, washers and dryers.
We all have far more, in our lives, than the “rich man” that Jesus scolded.
The point is not that any, set “amount” is immoral or wrong, the point is that EVERYONE is expected to give SOMETHING, when we can, to someone who needs it.—-One other observation:
It seems liberals see the “good” that charities do as a threat, rather than a benefit.
Liberals seem to want an “uber government” and charity, any charity, is taking “power” away from the all powerful state.
So, our arguments, that Charities do go work, actually work against us.
Dont you understand?
Only the GOVERNMENT can do anything of any value, in their minds.
Think of it this way:
When a charity goes over-the-top, or does something unwise or illegal, the libs want to punish ALL charities.
When a government agency screws up?
Get a new director.
Have another election.
Etc.
When do libs ever call for LESS government, when government fails?
When have libs ever admitted that Communism or Socialism are failures?
Their failures, you see, just werent run by the “right” people in the “right” way.
The doctorate was paid for by money that should have gone to pay taxes. The most these jerks, master storytellers, should get is an equivalent salary to a director of some non-profit. I hope non-profiters will forgive me for comparing church to them. Churches are the cause for decay.
Scripture and toilet paper – not much difference.
“Econ101″ –
Now all you need is girl in a gingham dress, a lion, and a tin man and you can remake “The Wizard of Oz.”
You’ve already got the straw man.
All Ronald Reagan needed was one mythical welfare recipient driving a Cadillac to attack all government aid to really poor people (mostly poor children, btw, who happened to pick the wrong parents).
This thread started out with a few posters who expressed revulsion with so-called “clergymen” driving around a third-of-a-million-dollar Rolls-Royce, and you spew your usual “socialist” and “communist” name-calling.
Fact is, the only-est reason FDR created Social Security, Aid to Dependent Children, and other (to you) “socialist” programs was the old system faild. Churches weren’t taking care of elderly. Charities couldn’t feed hungry kids. Before Medicare, old people couldn’t pay for health care.
The problem with health care was so critical Harry S Truman proposed universal coverage in America in 1948. Fifty-nine years later, after Cons have promised the free market (and charity) would solve all healthcare problems, people are getting the message.
The good reverend in the $333,000 Rolls-Royce *could* provide healthcare coverage for all the members of his “church,” but went for the car instead. Jerry Falwell might have eked by with only one Learjet and donated the $4-8 Million for each of his back-up jets and, I dunno, purchased school lunches for every kid in western Virgina. Pat Robertson’s diamond mines could finance daycare and job training for single mothers who receive food stamps or ADC, but he opted for the bling.
We “libs” call for less government spending all the time. For example, we’re against corporate welfare. Did you know your tax dollars go to McDonald’s to subsidize Big Macs in Bombay? The folks in India *don’t eat beef!” f’r cryin’ out loud! Sam Brownback gets fifty grand a year for his hobby farm. Archer-Daniels-Midland gets your tax money at a rate of 49-cents-a-gallon for every gallon of ethanol.
Phred Felps doesn’t pay taxes in Topeka because you, “Econ101,” pay them for him. The Pope wears a ring that could pay the rent for everyone in Spanish Harlem for decades.
Did you know the New York Yankees don’t pay property tax? It’s because Yankee Stadium is built on land owned by the Knights of Columbus; tax-free.
If charities and non-profits and churches actually did what their charters *say* they’re for, there would be no need for all that “socialism” you so hate, “Econ101.” But the fact is, that’s not what a lot of them do.
Just what do you think Terry Fox would do for a living if he had to live like a Salvation Army officer?
FDR didn’t create Social Security, he copied a program created by Bismarck, but for the same reason he didn’t want to end up like the Kaiser’s cousin Nicholas, or King Louis.
Touche, Monseiur MonkeyHawk.
You rock as usual.
TomP, uh . . . what?
MonkeyI challenge you to prove this one:
“Did you know the New York Yankees don’t pay property tax? It’s because Yankee Stadium is built on land owned by the Knights of Columbus; tax-free.postedby monkeylol
Monkey, actually I call you on this one, on two points.
First, the K of C pretty much prohibits its affiliates from owning any realestate, directly.
The Knights Home Office is in New Haven Ct. I have been there.
I have represented local K of C affiliates, here in Wichita, in property tax appeals, and had their classification changed from “commercial” to “not for profit” which, in Kansas, means taxation at residential rates. However, the Knights set up “boards” or Columbian Associations, whose board members must be member nights, to own real estate. The Knights are prohibited from owning any realestate, in the name of the Knights, even in the name of a local chapter.
I question the property tax law in New York, I question any deed that you say is held by the Knights.
Even so, beyond that point:
Universities are tax exempt.
Universities own property and build rather pricey buildings.
It is not your call.
Bitch all you want.
Dont contribute to the charities or churches you dont like.
But, it is none of your business, beyond that point.
I would never contribute to a flamboyant, self agrandizing preacher. However, I would greatly fear any country or any goverment that thoguht it was the duty of the state to police such things.
Very well, you are correct, the Home Office owned it, as an investment.What is wrong with that?
http://www.mapsites.net/gotham/webpages/justinspiegel/stadiumrenovation.html
Charities own lots of investments, dont they?
Charitable Investment Trusts have been around for a long time.
I think that many of the Democrat members of Congress, at least in the Senate, sit on Charitable Trust boards.
Charities have endowments.
The rent and dividends from these investments and endowments do quite a bit for charity.
The Knights of Columbus, for instance just gave away thousands of wheelchairs to military veterans.
The Knights of Columbus gave millions of dollars in assistance to the families of firemen, policemen and military killed on 9-11.—-No, I dont like it when preachers abuse their office and enrich themselves.However, I realize that it is the primary duty of the congregation, to keep an eye on tax exempt funds, and none of the governments business, as long as no laws were broken.
I still question why New York would allow such property to be tax exempt.
Use determines classification.
Use determines value.
Use determines taxation.
These are fairly universal rules.
Show me where that land was tax free as far a property tax laws are conncerned, would you please?
Well I’ve weighed in little here.
I don’t like checkbook charity. I don’t like grand fantastic churches constructed on high dollar real estate while there are hungry and suffering not just here but all over the planet.
Let me tell you what you have done here Paulecon.
The Knights of Columbus and their tootsie roll thing the last week or so?
When I ran into them, I told them I knew one of their members and no thanks the generic lifesavers and no donation.
Let the free market work.
Some charities dont deserve to survive. Dont contribute.
Some churches dont deserve to survive. Dont contribute.
I have no problem with the press exposing the excess of egotistical, self-dealing preachers. That might help the faithful to know what is going on, and quit contributing or fix the problem.
However, getting mad a self dealing preacher is one thing. Getting mad at a charitable organization for making a smart investment that generates money, which can be used for charitable purposes?
That is envy and ignorance.
“Econ101″ –
You *ARE* contributing to Phred Felps and the preacher with the Rolls; every dollar they don’t pay in taxes, you help make up the difference.
Oh, and regarding the KofC and Yankee Stadium:
http://tinyurl.com/2lqtk3
JRLOLHate and vindictiveness, incarnate.
I live in Wichita.When you introduce yourself, to non wichitans, be sure and apologize for that guilt by association.
Ted Kennedy is a Knight, as are at least several dozen other prominent Democrats.
I dont agree with them on very much, but none of them would support the lefts attacks, on this Blog, against the Knights or against churces.
MonkeyOwnership does not determine taxation, at least not in Kansas.
Use determines taxation, where realestate taxes are concerned.
Most scholarhips are endowment fund distributions.To be an endowment, funds must be invested for future distribution.Many endowment funds invest in realestate, to generate income and future distributions.
The Knights, also, generate quite a few scholarships every year.
Last time I looked, “Econ101″ –
Yankee Stadium wasn’t in Kansas.
By the way:Dues to the Knights of Columbus are NOT tax deductable.
Most of the revenue produced by the Knights is produced by their fraternal insurance, a Mutual Insurance Company that gives millions to charity each year.
The Knights was founded at a time when most insurance companies would not sell insurance policies to Catholics.
MonkeyTrue enough, but most states treat realestate the same way, for tax purposes.
YOU claim to be a Knight of Columbus econpaul.
I find you contemptible. You shame the organization you belong to. Do not blame me for tarring them with you.
JRContemptable?Pick any issue.I can find a Democrat, in Congress today, that agrees with me on that issue.
On Israel, nobody in Congress agrees with you, JR.
On the border? Nobody in Congress agrees with you.
Pick the issue on which you disagree with me the most. If given some time, I could find someone in your life, that you care about, that agrees with me.
JR, you are very immature to take politics so personally.
My girlfriend is a Democrat with several elected officials on her speed dial. The main reason her friends back East dont like me? I take her away from her campaign work, back there.
Carville and Matalin can get along.
One of my best friends, ever, was the late Jan Kennedy, a Democrat.
You treat politics like a life and death strugle.
Politics not only defines you, JR, politics limits you.
Your hatred of Republicans is no more justified than hatred based on race or gender or ethnic origin or religion.
Your hatred is unprinicipled, unwarranted, counterproductive and ugly.
With no malice and no violation of any commandment about using the Lords name in vain,
I will pray for you.
MonkeyTake a look at this:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/property/property_tax_reduc_non_profit.shtml
Apparently, in New York, the local jurisdictions collect the tax and forward it to the state, much like we do here.
However, look at this statement:
“Many types of not-for-profit organizations are eligible for a full or partial property tax reduction if their property is used for charitable, educational, medical, or religious purposes.”
Again, USE determines taxation.
MonkeyAgain, from the same link:
“If a portion of the property is used for ineligible (e.g., commercial) purposes, an exemption may be sought only for the part of the property that is used for eligible purposes. Unused portions of the property leased to private entities are not exemptible.”
MonkeyHawk,
Once again…
HOW am I contributing to someone when they are not being taxed???
You still have yet to explain that.
Do liberals go to some special logic school where noting makes sense except for in their heads?
Ah I don’t want you to pray for me econpaul.
I don’t consider you a good representative for me.
“Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbor.”
Now I don’t know which commandment that is. Maybe you do.
And given that, maybe you would like to recant your defamation of me.
YOU said you had an email that suggested to you that I was a drunken woman and child beater Paulecon. YOU lied. Or to better fit the conversation, you bore false witness.
Now that among other of your posts pretty much destroyed you here as credible Paulecon.
Now you rest assured Paulecon, I don’t judge all Christians by what you give us here.
It’s just you I want to cleanse from the better part of what you pretend to believe in.
This has been an interesting and insightful discussion. Not only have many people contributed but, for the most part, it hasn’t degenerated into name calling and hatefullness.
Econ, I have said some harsh things before in relation to economics and labor. Please don’t begrudge me for that. It is something that is pretty dear to me and has a lot of meaning. I can understand some of your points, though. As with churches, there are good labor unions and there are bad ones. I just happen to belong to a good one that attempts to accomplish a great deal for it’s members.
I do not condone churches (nor Unions) that take advantage of it’s members! The church IS the membership, and the leadership is responsible both to and for the congregation. The leadership should be responsive to God, the committees of the church, and the community. If they become too authoritarian maybe they need to be taken down a notch or two. That will happen, just maybe not in the time or the way people think it should.
I don’t like that some people blamed “the libs” on this thread. I tend to be far more liberal than many of the posters here, yet I belong to a fairly conservative church. I also believe in my ability to think for myself, read my own bible, along with a great variety of other books, and come to my own conclusions.
As far as Churches go, I have known of a few discussions over money. It has always seemed to me an interesting situation that, even though Jesus railed at the money changers in the Temple, it was money that was at the heart of his betrayal. (John 12: 4-6) It does sound a little bit like the comments here about Jerry Falwell selling his Learjet and give the money to people. I was of the understanding that the plane belonged to the University, much like some of the Universities in Kansas have airplanes. Either way, the relavence of a ministry owning an airplane depends upon it’s usefulness. A large ministry can either do great things or it can fail in a great way. Whoever bought the plane did not consult me when they bought it. The group that financed it should hold the user (or users) accountable and make sure they get their money’s worth.
I would say the same for the congregation of the preacher with the Rolls Royce. I don’t know how he paid for the car. He may have inherited a large sum of money and bought it. He may have sold a business and bought it. He may have swindled his congregation, in which case they should take matters into their own hands and find another preacher who can shepherd the flock instead of fleecing them. It may have been donated to him by a rich benefactor. (In that case, I need to make it my business. I could be great friends to a rich benefactor!) But that is their call as to whether it fits in with their community, their purpose, and their needs. Just because it seems grandiose to me does not mean I should judge them.
As far as a more fair tax system, it is definitely needed. There have been far too many tweaks for too many special interest groups to say our current system is working. I am not sure that a national sales tax would be the right way to go. In my lifetime I have seen too many good ideas turned into nightmares by congressional busybodies. A national sales tax sounds to much like a Value Added Tax that some other countries have.
Again, thanks to all for a thought provoking discussion. WriterDog, I am sorry if I disappointed you. I don’t mean to seem that I approve of what a Church does just because it is a church. As with any group, there are good and bad, and some that are just so-so. It is important that we do no destroy the good in the process of defining the bad. VT, your comments were insightful, very knowledgable on items that are vague to most people.
And to the person who commented that Jesus’ donkey had leather seats! That was hilarious. You just have to remember that Jesus didn’t own it, he only borrowed it for a one way trip!
For many centuries, the Church Fathers made it “sinful” to have any money or blessings from God. Thus even today, people will view Christians who have any amount of wealth as “bad”. When you look at the early Church Fathers, you find that so many of them came from pagan philosophies and religions that painted different pictures of the physical world than what the Bible truly says.
If you were one of the early Church Fathers who were raised in the neo-pagan / Gnostic philosophies most of their lives, and then converted to Christianity, you would view the sacred writings with those non-Biblical filters. Let me point out some details.
In the minds of many of Early Church Fathers, the physical world was evil and the soul was waiting to be “redeemed” into the realm of the “spirit.” In other words, the only real goal of the Believer was to wait until he or she died and could go to Heaven. To show you what these Fathers believed, some of them stated that the “Original Sin” was sex and not just eating from the Tree of Knowledge! Around the time of the Nicene Council and Creed, the early Church forbade sexual relations, even between married husbands and wives. They said that sex was so evil that the Holy Spirit had to leave during marital intimacy. What a contradiction of Hebrews 13:4. And of course, that prohibition did not last long!
But even worse than that is how they viewed the true intentions of the soul and spirit, and the relationship between Heavenly things and this physical world. Food, money, and anything physical was “evil” as seen in many sermons from centuries ago. As mentioned, when you see the physical world as completely evil and something from which to escape, salvation only becomes an escape mechanism and your religion becomes a religion of death. You are just waiting it out down here so that eventually you can die and go to your home in Heaven.
The soul was viewed through the neo-pagan / gnostic “glasses” in which the soul was forced to come into a physical body and be purged through lots of trials and other bad things to be worthy to go to the spiritual realm, separate totally from the physical realm.
Christianity, by default, is a religion of death. Yes it is claimed to be a religion of LIFE but the evidence shows that the pulpit wants to create a fear that needs not be there. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing more depressing than a Catholic Church on Easter, but then again they “kill” Jesus every Sunday and Wednesday anyway. Over and over again. And wow that cannabalistic notion of “Transmortification”, eww. And what of the protestants? They just terrify children with stories of fire and brimstone bs. These churches that speak in tongues? Gimme a break. The speaking in tongues was supposed to be a way that some believer from Zimbabwe could communicate to another from Russia through God. Not some freak making up gibberish. Churches, hmph.
Econ, with reference to your post(s) about taxation of churches and other nonprofits under the existing corporate tax structure, and especially with reference to the issues raised on deductible expenses, etc. Good points, but I would suggest that if income taxation of a nonprofit now exempt is to be done, the existing private foundation rules might serve as a guide for how this could be done without wreaking havoc. I would also point out that until an organization obtains its 501(c)(3) status, the Code presumes the same is a private foundation. Private foundations also do not pay income taxes, so long as the various statutes and regulations governing the same as to donations, etc., are complied with.
Ben, a church can be subject to income taxation on UBTI; in such cases, there is a requirement to file the appropriate returns. Over the years, I’ve counseled with some churches on how to avoid this, as a church can unwittingly fall into it by acquiring real property for future use, and exceeding the period set forth by statute (used to be five years) before the property is sold or converted to the use, e.g., expansion of existing facilities, for which it was acquired.
As I know Econ is aware, under Kansas law, should a church, e.g., have real property which is used for a nonexempt purpose, it will pay real property taxes on the same. Downtown, this can occur by a church leasing its parking during the week to folks working downtown desiring a parking place. The presumption in the law is that all property is subject to taxation, and it is the burden of the owner to show its use meets the requirements set out in the various statutes for exemption.
Finally, Econ, whether direct income taxation of a church would be violative of the First Amendment is a question which has yet to be answered. My personal opinion is that such would not violate the First Amendment, but I’m not SCOTUS.
239 posts on a religious thread!
Amazing!
God Bless all the liberals who are seeking answers to their questions about life.
Thank-you for understanding that faith is not a matter for politics or government.
The Church, the Body of believers, is not for sale nor is it an income seeking or revenue building operation.
It exists solely for the Body of Believers and their enlightenment unto their faith.
Praise God the wisdom of man treads lightly on the wisdom from above. Render unto Caesar.
What makes someone who questions the church a “liberal”? I’ve voted Republican ever since I could in 1991. I was a blind idiot, voting down party lines for too long. This is precisely the problem with politics as usual.
VTThanks for your comments.
I was wondering, if a charity was just another form of taxable business, if that charity/business could sell “limited partnerships” to pass the “business loss” to investors.
I am not kidding here. I understand the “at risk rules” but I think we will be opening a can of worms if anyone thinks you can treat charities or churhes like a true business.
Businesses can take on partners. Businesses can allocate “profits” and “losses” between partners.
Businesses can also form an “S Corp” with “pass through” of taxable income and losses to the shareholders.
Again, however, your points about the private foundation rules are helpful, in looking at this brave new world that I hope does not come into play.
I would also look at, perhaps, the “pass through” rules used by associations.
The PTO and the Neighborhood Association usually dont pay taxes. They usually dont apply for 501 status, either. There usually isnt any profit, so there is no need, correct?
As far as SCOTUS and direct taxation of Churches never comming up, well we agree it hasnt come up. We disagree on what would happen if it did.
Rather moot point, however:
There isnt a single member of Congress, in either Party, that supports the direct taxation of Churhes and religious 501 organizations, to the best of my knowledge.
Finally, I still think that the elimination of 501 status reeks havok on volunteerism.
If the organization is NOT a charity, the organization will probably have to pay minimum wage to anyone who “labors” on behalf of that organization.
Econ, as to PTOs, Neighborhood Associations and the like, from a purely technical perspective they likely should apply for the appropriate status under 501(c), IRC. However, IIRC, there is a de minimis rule which allows these type of organizations to exist without the potential for income taxation even though no formal application, etc., has been made. As you are likely aware, a homeowners’ association is one of the specific statutorily denominated tax exempt organizations under 501(c), I forget the specific subparagraph right now.
I’m with you on the mootness on the federal level. However, there have been attempts at the state level in recent years (Colorado comes to mind) to change the rules at that level, which will be, IMHO, the source of any litigation which makes it to SCOTUS on this point.
Your hypothetical on volunteers is interesting; under existing law, the issue becomes one of determining whether the volunteer is an “employee” under the various statutory tests, such as right to control, etc. In Kansas, there is a statute under the workers’ compensation law which makes a volunteer an “employee”, so to speak, for purposes of comp, even though the individual is clearly not an employee for any other purpose. If I have a bit of time, I’ll post the statutory cite.
>>>All things the United Way and the Salvation Army also do and they spend a LOT more of each dollar given on the poor. I doubt your average church spends more than 3% of its income on “the community”. The churches are too busy buying gold plated steeples and Roll Royces for the minister!Posted by: Kev | November 26, 2007 at 06:20 PM <<<
Kev.. keep in mind that the Salvation Army IS a church.