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
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.