Tax Exemption of Churches.

1. Do you think that churches should be tax exempt if they are non-profit organizations? Why or why not?

2. Would you agree that a church should remain tax exempt if it supports the passing or veto of specific legislation? Why or why not? On the same token, what about campaigning for against publicly elected officials?

3. The big one: Should churches be tax exempt, period? Why or why not?

Feel free to include real world examples or situations (such as some of the circumstances surrounding prop 8.)

1. No, they should not be tax exempt. Anything with any income should be taxed, even if it is non-profit.

2. They should not be tax-exempt. They can spend their money however they want and it should have no impact, however.

3. No, they shouldn't. They have an income from donations, that should be as taxable as anything else.

Originally posted by King Kandy
1. No, they should not be tax exempt. Anything with any income should be taxed, even if it is non-profit.

2. They should not be tax-exempt. They can spend their money however they want and it should have no impact, however.

3. No, they shouldn't. They have an income from donations, that should be as taxable as anything else.

I pretty much agree on all three points, really.

But what about an organization where all the people are volunteers and the money truly does not go to any of the people running the funds? In other words, a charity is set up to feed the poor in a South American country. Every person is a volunteer in that organization and no one is compensated at all. All funds go directly towards the people. Is that an example of an organization that should be tax exempt?

No. They have an income, so the income should be able to be taxed. I could care less what they use the money for, I don't believe in "vice taxes" to much extent. Pretty much, giving non-profits tax-exempt status is like saying it's a vice to make money.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No. They have an income, so the income should be able to be taxed. I could care less what they use the money for, I don't believe in "vice taxes" to much extent. Pretty much, giving non-profits tax-exempt status is like saying it's a vice to make money.

But they don't have income. None of them do.

In fact, people would be spending their own money to volunteer for that group. It would be "negative" income, from a literal perspective. So should they get "negatively" taxed? Meaning, get a credit?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But they don't have income. None of them do.

In fact, people would be spending their own money to volunteer for that group. It would be "negative" income, from a literal perspective. So should they get "negatively" taxed? Meaning, get a credit?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The employees don't have an income. The charity does, the "income" being the donations they receive that are redirected towards whatever charitable deeds they are doing. It's the business that is (or isn't) tax exempt, the volunteers themselves are different issue.

But the organization IS the volunteers. It is not a separate entity, they are one in the same.

Every dollar taken by taxes is a dollar not spent on starving or homeless families.

And, yes, there are charities like that, out there. This is why I bring this up.

I understand. They receive donations form people. These donations, imo, should constitute taxable income, even if they aren't used for the running of said company.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I understand. They receive donations form people. These donations, imo, should constitute taxable income, even if they aren't used for the running of said company.

I guess this is where you and I differ, and it's more of a word problem (semantics), than anything.

You keep saying income.

In this particular instance, tax law would say that their "income" is exactly 0...so there's nothing to tax.

See what I mean, now?

And if any of the volunteers decided to keep the money, they would cease to be a "volunteer" and then become an employee. Then that employee would have to pay taxes on his or her income...but as long as the charitable entity did not have any income, within the tax year, they will not pay taxes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I guess this is where you and I differ, and it's more of a word problem (semantics), than anything.

You keep saying income.

In this particular instance, tax law would say that their "income" is exactly 0...so there's nothing to tax.

See what I mean, now?

Now how about you stop being difficult by arguing that the word "income" is wrong and start talking about the real issue, whether it is right to tax their donations.

Originally posted by King Kandy
That's tax laws problem. They receive donations, and those go into a pot they then spend. Where did that budget come from? It came from revenue, in the form of donations. And that should be taxable.

Now how about you stop being difficult by arguing that the word "income" is wrong and start talking about the real issue, whether it is right to tax their donations.

Actually, that's the definition of what "income" is. You want a different word in there.

You probably are wanting "gross revenue" instead of income.

In that case, I have no logical "AHA! GOTCHA!" rebuttals to that. It's a direct conflict of opinion, at that point.

My personal opinion: there should be no such thing as taxed income. Only excise taxes.

Only excise taxes and nothing else at all? I'm not sure how a system like that could ever generate sufficient income, and that's beside the point anyway.

Why would non-profits not be taxed while businesses should be taxed? If you don't believe that then I don't really see the point in any of the questions you've asked.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Do you think that churches should be tax exempt if they are non-profit organizations? Why or why not?

2. Would you agree that a church should remain tax exempt if it supports the passing or veto of specific legislation? Why or why not? On the same token, what about campaigning for against publicly elected officials?

3. The big one: Should churches be tax exempt, period? Why or why not?

Feel free to include real world examples or situations (such as some of the circumstances surrounding prop 8.)

1. Yes, if they're non profit.

2. Yes. Much like heaps of questionable American NGOs that go around the world and meddle, blackmail and pray on poor deprived people to suck even more blood-money out of them continue to be tax exempt, so should the church.

3. Yes, because they are a religious, non profit organisation.

Why do you feel a non profit organization should go untaxed?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Only excise taxes and nothing else at all? I'm not sure how a system like that could ever generate sufficient income, and that's beside the point anyway.

You assume that the "system" has to be an overly-bloated, welfare, and military state, though. I don't.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why would non-profits not be taxed while businesses should be taxed? If you don't believe that then I don't really see the point in any of the questions you've asked.

Actually, that's what the thread is about. Why they should or should not be taxed.

Why should they be taxed?

If they don't distribute excess goods or funds to the vested parties, then why should they be taxed? How about this: if they don't have any income, why should they be taxed?

Even better: if they don't have any income, and no one is paid or compensated that participates in the organization, and all monies are put into doing things positive (cleaning the environment, feeding the poor, clothing and housing the homeless, etc.), then why should the be taxed? What purpose does taxing that organization accomplish? Why should they be taxed when that organization is far more likely to use the funds more properly for their goals (since they are singularly minded to their goals) than a government entity that has far more interests than just a specific charitable goal? Why don't you consider that wasting time and money? If they have to be taxed, someone has to get paid to tax them, make and interpret laws about them, and investigate them. That's a very large overhead just to accomplish the same thing, except doing it less efficiently.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You assume that the "system" has to be an overly-bloated, welfare, and military state, though. I don't.

Actually, that's what the thread is about. Why they should or should not be taxed.

Why should they be taxed?

If they don't distribute excess goods or funds to the vested parties, then why should they be taxed? How about this: if they don't have any income, why should they be taxed?

Even better: if they don't have any income, and no one is paid or compensated that participates in the organization, and all monies are put into doing things positive (cleaning the environment, feeding the poor, clothing and housing the homeless, etc.), then why should the be taxed? What purpose does taxing that organization accomplish? Why should they be taxed when that organization is far more likely to use the funds more properly for their goals (since they are singularly minded to their goals) than a government entity that has far more interests than just a specific charitable goal? Why don't you consider that wasting time and money? If they have to be taxed, someone has to get paid to tax them, make and interpret laws about them, and investigate them. That's a very large overhead just to accomplish the same thing, except doing it less efficiently.

You also assume every "non-profit" is totally honest and transparent about what they do with their funds. This is quite simply false and many organizations have gotten away with quite a bit of money, money that they didn't even need to pay business tax on because they were able to get away with it as "non-profits".

Let's talk about the "positive" things charities do, like cleaning the environment and helping the homeless. This is the job of the government to deal with. Now government can't get this done, because their welfare budget is chipped to the bone by people who aren't willing to pay taxes (except when a new aircraft carrier or predator drone needs to be built). And the charities can't get this done because 99% of charities only treat the symptoms.

Running a soup kitchen? We would be better off trying to reduce unemployment and having comprehensive workfare programs. Trying to fix hair lips? We would be better off actually working to create stability in the regions so that they could take care of themselves. Doing cleanup drives? We would be better off if we tried to change the policies that lead to these places being hurt in the first place.

Essentially, it's nice to look at a poor person and say "We should help him". But that doesn't accomplish much in the long run. What we need to be looking at is "Why was he like that in the first place? How many people are just like him? What are the biggest causes of poverty? What kind of top-down solutions will ensure that the greatest number of people are given the most help?" Only then can we create large scale meaningful change. Large-scale being the key word here. Only organizations with high power and finance can really dig in deep to confront the core problems facing society.

KK, I did not assume jack shit about every NPO being goodie goody Mormon types. That's just bullshit and my OP clearly indicates that I wished to discuss altering the law. That was an indirect comment about some NPOs being pieces of shit leeches on society...and they are just "legal criminals."

I'll read the rest of your post, later...as you probably made some good points. I've gotta go to bed. 🙁

You do release that a huge number of scientific and technology research centres and social development associations are non-profit organisations, right?

I assume you also release that for many, their existence depends entirely on grants and charitable donations, from either individuals or the government.

It is silly to think that non profit organisations are just 'help the homeless' and have a soup kitchen, or whatever.

They should not be taxed as they are doing a public or scientific service and their money comes from free donations from people who believe in particular cause.
In many instances, if the organisation is really good it will get money from the government themselves. It seems redundant to give money to a NPO then take it away in tax.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Do you think that churches should be tax exempt if they are non-profit organizations? Why or why not?

Yes, they should be in that case, however there should of course be rules that non-profit or more specifically charitable organisations would have to follow. For one, they would have to operate not for porfit...and they'd have to spend the money in specific ways. I am not sure as to the rules at the moment, but I am sure there are some. So, yeah, if the church wants to be a non-profit organization and behaves like a non-profit organization it should be treated like one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
2. Would you agree that a church should remain tax exempt if it supports the passing or veto of specific legislation? Why or why not? On the same token, what about campaigning for against publicly elected officials?

Like I said they should be treated exactly like the type of organisation they chose to be. I suppose it is a arguable whether non-profits should be allowed to take political stances and fund legislation changes. But if others are allowed, so should Religions, there's nothing special about Religions, and that should go for the good as well as the bad. Though that might be a problem with the whole US Constitution...

Originally posted by dadudemon
3. The big one: Should churches be tax exempt, period? Why or why not?

No. "Religion" shouldn't be a specific term legally. It should be a club, or a non profit or just a straight business and it should be run that way and treated that way.a

How much of this thread will be decided by each poster's opinion on the churches themselves?

My first instinct is that this question is entirely subjective; it is about goals rather than means. It is entirely possible to evaluate what would happen if they are allowed to keep this status and what would happen were it revoked, but choosing between those outcomes will ultimately come down to individual prejudices, won't it?