[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It is a fact, in the past several dioces in the US passed large amounts of money to the Vatican each year, the last few years they have recieved money from the Vatican due to the legal bills. Seriously, if you doubt this pull the annual report for the dioces of New York or LA and read it.[/quote]
Your comments were limited to the Catholic Church only? You didn’t say so.
Do you ever get around to answering the question(s)?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
But the Church doesn’t have a tax free status because it is not for profit, it has a tax free status because it is a religious institution. This means it avoids a lot of the auditing that any other not for profit business would have to go through, this is wrong.
Why would we need to audit a church?
[/quote]
To ensure no-one is cooking the books.
Religious Organizations and Non Profits have an IRS code of 501c-3. This denotes non-profit status, and the irs requires that they file financial reports and a tax return. The irs can go in and do an audit any time they want and if something is fishy the non-profit can loose their non-profit status. This would suck for any large religious organization.
IMO the government should pass a law that all non-profits should use a percentage of revenue, 5-10%, to help people get off of welfare. If not you loose your non-profit status. This is how you get accountability. This might step over the boundrary of separation of church and state, but it will force non-profits to actually help people. I asked my local us house of representative about this and he stated, “no non-profit will ever take the place of the US government in taking care of people.”
Foundations are how the rich get richer. Set up a foundation and put all your real estate and cars and investments in it. You will never have to pay property taxes or income taxes. You never have to help a single person but your self. Small independent churches and the wealthy do this all the time. This is how you hide money from the government not the offshore accounts.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It is a fact, in the past several diocese in the US passed large amounts of money to the Vatican each year, the last few years they have received money from the Vatican due to the legal bills. Seriously, if you doubt this pull the annual report for the diocese of New York or LA and read it.
Your comments were limited to the Catholic Church only? You didn’t say so.
Do you ever get around to answering the question(s)?
[/quote]
erm yes I do. Religion in the US is highly profitable. The Catholic Church is one example. When I talked about the profitability being dented due to the legal bills caused by several thousand Priests raping small children then yes it was the Catholic Church to which I was referring.
Same principals apply though across the board, no person, group or organization should get any special treatment on the grounds of religion.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
To ensure no-one is cooking the books.[/quote]
Who cares, other than members of the church? Who are the stakeholders outside of the congregation that would care if a given church was “cooking the books”?
You are very, very confused.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Religious Organizations and Non Profits have an IRS code of 501c-3. This denotes non-profit status, and the irs requires that they file financial reports and a tax return. The irs can go in and do an audit any time they want and if something is fishy the non-profit can loose their non-profit status. This would suck for any large religious organization.
IMO the government should pass a law that all non-profits should use a percentage of revenue, 5-10%, to help people get off of welfare. If not you loose your non-profit status. This is how you get accountability. This might step over the boundrary of separation of church and state, but it will force non-profits to actually help people. I asked my local us house of representative about this and he stated, “no non-profit will ever take the place of the US government in taking care of people.”
Foundations are how the rich get richer. Set up a foundation and put all your real estate and cars and investments in it. You will never have to pay property taxes or income taxes. You never have to help a single person but your self. Small independent churches and the wealthy do this all the time. This is how you hide money from the government not the offshore accounts.
[/quote]
Problem with that is that not all not for profit organisations are charities.
Anyway, my understanding is that in the US the rules for a religious organisation are not the same as for any other not for profit organisation. I am not a tax lawyer or accountant but that is my understanding. If someone who is a tax lawyer or accountant wants to set me straight on that, then go ahead.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
To ensure no-one is cooking the books.
Who cares, other than members of the church? Who are the stakeholders outside of the congregation that would care if a given church was “cooking the books”?
You are very, very confused.
[/quote]
Well the IRS for one, if they are claiming to be a not for profit religious organisation then taking huge profits out (like a large number of tv evangelists)
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
erm yes I do. Religion in the US is highly profitable. The Catholic Church is one example. When I talked about the profitability being dented due to the legal bills caused by several thousand Priests raping small children then yes it was the Catholic Church to which I was referring.
Same principals apply though across the board, no person, group or organization should get any special treatment on the grounds of religion.[/quote]
Even if religion was “highly profitable” - and it isn’t - the fact that churches bring in a surplus of money over whatever costs they have is irrelevant. Businesses are regulated whether they make a profit or not because of the activities they engage in. Whether they achieve a profit or not is irrelevant to the purpose of public oversight.
There is no need for fiscal public oversight for the kinds of activities churches engage in.
What is clear is that you simply want to punish churches and have an ax to grind that these institutions get some preferred treatment. You don’t have a good reason to require public oversight of churches other than to make their lives more miserable. There is no “good” public policy served by regualting churches other than to massage the pleasure buttons of bitter secularists.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Religious Organizations and Non Profits have an IRS code of 501c-3. This denotes non-profit status, and the irs requires that they file financial reports and a tax return. The irs can go in and do an audit any time they want and if something is fishy the non-profit can loose their non-profit status. This would suck for any large religious organization.
IMO the government should pass a law that all non-profits should use a percentage of revenue, 5-10%, to help people get off of welfare. If not you loose your non-profit status. This is how you get accountability. This might step over the boundrary of separation of church and state, but it will force non-profits to actually help people. I asked my local us house of representative about this and he stated, “no non-profit will ever take the place of the US government in taking care of people.”
Foundations are how the rich get richer. Set up a foundation and put all your real estate and cars and investments in it. You will never have to pay property taxes or income taxes. You never have to help a single person but your self. Small independent churches and the wealthy do this all the time. This is how you hide money from the government not the offshore accounts.
Problem with that is that not all not for profit organisations are charities.
Anyway, my understanding is that in the US the rules for a religious organisation are not the same as for any other not for profit organisation. I am not a tax lawyer or accountant but that is my understanding. If someone who is a tax lawyer or accountant wants to set me straight on that, then go ahead.[/quote]
You are correct in that not all non-profits are charities, but if they want to be able to give a reciept for gifts they have to be a 501c-3. This allows the person who gives to the 501c-3 to deduct from their tax return if they itemize deductions. This then makes them all go by the same rules under the irs code. There is no special treatment for churces or religious organizations and that includes all religions and not just Christianity.
Here is a helpful link that gives a general overview of when churches get pinged for taxes (yes, churches pay taxes when they engage in business, for example).
Took me all of 20 seconds to Google. If anyone is interested in discovering what really occurs w/r/t churches as opposed to just simply making up a reality that suits an agenda, 20 seconds and an internet connection is all you need. Happy hunting.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Even if religion was “highly profitable” - and it isn’t - the fact that churches bring in a surplus of money over whatever costs they have is irrelevant. Businesses are regulated whether they make a profit or not because of the activities they engage in. Whether they achieve a profit or not is irrelevant to the purpose of public oversight.quote]
It is very relevant to the irs. This is lost revenue to the government. By definition a not for profit means that all money over and above the cost of doing business has to be used. It is very hard for a not for profit to keep or save money above and beyond their costs. There is a hospital down here in Texas that is building a huge building because they have too much money in their accounts. The building will stay mostly empty because if they did not use this money it would be forfeited over to the government. This is how not for profits work. It makes it hard for not for profits to save money in the good times for the lean times. I have seen good charities or not for profits close their doors because the money did not keep flowing in. The Catholic Church does a really good job of helping the dioces that start to loose money because the congregation stops giving because of many different reasons.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is a helpful link that gives a general overview of when churches get pinged for taxes (yes, churches pay taxes when they engage in business, for example).
Took me all of 20 seconds to Google. If anyone is interested in discovering what really occurs w/r/t churches as opposed to just simply making up a reality that suits an agenda, 20 seconds and an internet connection is all you need. Happy hunting.[/quote]
He is one from the IRS website. If you want to be able to deduct your contribution you must register with the irs and go through all the paperwork. Otherwise you can not deduct your contribution. I dont know about you all but I only give to organizations that are listed with the irs. Those books are looked at.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
It is very relevant to the irs. This is lost revenue to the government. [/quote]
“Lost revenue” is secondary the other prevailing policy concerns at issue w/r/t to religious exemptions. “Lost revenue” yields to the bigger debate - as in, the fact that the IRS may be losing revenue does not win or lose the debate over taxation of religious institutions.
As I just learned from the irs publication there is a difference between churches and a religious organization. I find it very confusing to actually have to deliniate between the two, but there is a difference.
I agree with you, in what you are saying, but there are a lot of religious organizations that dont do the right thing in social services as the Catholic Church for example.
[quote]
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
Sloth wrote:
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.
Cockney wrote:
Religions should get no special treatment whatsoever, if that is what you are inferring from what I wrote then you are correct.[/quote]
The tax issue could be set aside. If we’re distracted by the tax issue, the much more fundamental problem will sneak up on us. If Churches are treated no differently from businesses, then their hiring, firing, and employee benefits fall under oversight. Meaning they’ll either bend to government will and jettison core beliefs to accomadate the new reality (imposed by force) of being equal opportunity employers and providers, or, they’ll have to lock their doors and start up underground churches.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
erm yes I do. Religion in the US is highly profitable. The Catholic Church is one example. When I talked about the profitability being dented due to the legal bills caused by several thousand Priests raping small children then yes it was the Catholic Church to which I was referring.
Same principals apply though across the board, no person, group or organization should get any special treatment on the grounds of religion.
Even if religion was “highly profitable” - and it isn’t - the fact that churches bring in a surplus of money over whatever costs they have is irrelevant. Businesses are regulated whether they make a profit or not because of the activities they engage in. Whether they achieve a profit or not is irrelevant to the purpose of public oversight.
There is no need for fiscal public oversight for the kinds of activities churches engage in.
What is clear is that you simply want to punish churches and have an ax to grind that these institutions get some preferred treatment. You don’t have a good reason to require public oversight of churches other than to make their lives more miserable. There is no “good” public policy served by regualting churches other than to massage the pleasure buttons of bitter secularists.[/quote]
Not at all, I just don’t see any reason at all why they should get special treatment.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
Sloth wrote:
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.
Cockney wrote:
Religions should get no special treatment whatsoever, if that is what you are inferring from what I wrote then you are correct.
The tax issue could be set aside. If we’re distracted by the tax issue, the much more fundamental problem will sneak up on us. If Churches are treated no differently from businesses, then their hiring, firing, and employee benefits fall under oversight. Meaning they’ll either bend to government will and jettison core beliefs to accomadate the new reality (imposed by force) of being equal opportunity employers and providers, or, they’ll have to lock their doors and start up underground churches.[/quote]
Interesting point, what particular laws would you be concerned that a church would fall foul of?
So you don’t like its conclusions. Go do your own research then. There are tons of stats out there that say religious people give more. Maybe that’s cause and effect; maybe it’s the other way around. Anyhow, they’re using their right of free association to get together with whoever they choose, and give money to the causes they care about, under the control of people they apparently trust, on terms they’re happy with.
Sure, tax it like a business if you like. I’ll find stealthier ways to give away my money. LOL most of the tax system is set up to try to track down illicit income. It would be pretty funny to try to turn it around and try to tax unregistered giving instead.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
Sloth wrote:
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.
Cockney wrote:
Religions should get no special treatment whatsoever, if that is what you are inferring from what I wrote then you are correct.
The tax issue could be set aside. If we’re distracted by the tax issue, the much more fundamental problem will sneak up on us. If Churches are treated no differently from businesses, then their hiring, firing, and employee benefits fall under oversight. Meaning they’ll either bend to government will and jettison core beliefs to accomadate the new reality (imposed by force) of being equal opportunity employers and providers, or, they’ll have to lock their doors and start up underground churches.
Interesting point, what particular laws would you be concerned that a church would fall foul of?[/quote]
The law being used to dictate the employment of homosexuals, women, transgender, etc as clergy (or, other roles). We’d have sexually active-transgendered-lesbians and their governmentally protected positions.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Fine by me as long as churches start paying tax like any other business.
Sloth wrote:
I have to admit I was a bit slow catching on to the implications of this post. In Cockney’s world, where religious institutions are treated as businesses, the power of the state would be guaranteed. Workplace anti-discrimination laws and regulations could be fully employed to hammer religion into obedience. There would be no walking away, as in this case.
Cockney wrote:
Religions should get no special treatment whatsoever, if that is what you are inferring from what I wrote then you are correct.
The tax issue could be set aside. If we’re distracted by the tax issue, the much more fundamental problem will sneak up on us. If Churches are treated no differently from businesses, then their hiring, firing, and employee benefits fall under oversight. Meaning they’ll either bend to government will and jettison core beliefs to accomadate the new reality (imposed by force) of being equal opportunity employers and providers, or, they’ll have to lock their doors and start up underground churches.
Interesting point, what particular laws would you be concerned that a church would fall foul of?
The law being used to dictate the employment of homosexuals, women, transgender, etc as clergy (or, other roles). We’d have sexually active-transgendered-lesbians and their governmentally protected positions.[/quote]
The selection of clergy is not via the standard job application model so I would have thought you are safe on that count.