Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #41
churches often profit while maintaining their tax-exempt status.eh.. priests pay taxes.. I guess there might be ways around it but IRS says they have to.
Also.. going to church is free, sitting down and listening to the priest is free, if you donate its because you want to, donating is not an obligation... so its a free service... article doesn't really put it that way though. the church is not "profiting" its just taking donations, you want your donations taxed then?
Reaction I get from you guys:
churches dont give me money? FUCK CHURCHES THEN DERP
not only that, but they still take advantage of public services without contributing any taxes to fund them:Do religions engage in charitable work that addresses the physical needs of the poor? Many do, but that is not their primary focus. Religions are quick to trumpet when they do charitable work—ironically for Christians, since the Bible explicitly says not to (Mathew 6:2). But they don’t do as much charitable work as a lot of people think, and they spend a relatively small percentage of their overall revenue on such work. For instance, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS or Mormon Church), which regularly trumpets its charitable donations, gave about $1 billion to charitable causes between 1985 and 2008. That may seem like a lot until you divide it by the twenty-three-year time span and realize this church is donating only about 0.7 percent of its annual income. Other religions are more charitable. For instance, the United Methodist Church allocated about 29 percent of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010 (about $62 million of $214 million received). One calculation of the resources expended by 271 U.S. congregations found that, on average, “operating expenses” totaled 71 percent of all the expenditures of religions, much of that going to pay ministers’ salaries. Financial contributions addressing the physical needs of the poor fall within the remaining 29 percent of expenditures. While these numbers may be higher as a percentage of income than typical charitable giving by corporations, they are not hugely higher (depending on the religion) and are substantially lower in absolute terms. Wal-Mart, for instance, gives about $1.75 billion in food aid to charities each year, or twenty-eight times all of the money allotted for charity by the United Methodist Church and almost double what the LDS Church has given in the last twenty-five years.
if you read the thread before posting "omg anti-religious people derp lol :P" you might have noticed some of thisMichigan, who argued that religions should at least pay their fair share for services like fire protection, streetlights, police, and roads.42 They use those services just like other organizations do.
-
churches often profit while maintaining their tax-exempt status.
not only that, but they still take advantage of public services without contributing any taxes to fund them:
if you read the thread before posting "omg anti-religious people derp lol :P" you might have noticed some of this
-
This is great and all, but why not fund/tax exempt completely secular organizations which do the same thing? Then you'll know exactly how all the money is spent.
Why does it have to be a church that does charity.
-
A little late for my opinion, but here it is.
Personally, being an atheist, I think that the church should be as transparent with it's money spending as possible. That means that all of the charities that it helps fund should be looked at and monitored as closely as anything else, and that there should probably be a few other laws put in place to regulate.
Other than that, I don't see much of an issue with a church not being taxed, as long as it gives it's proceeds to charitable, underfunded, and needed organizations. The money that we would get off of taxing them wouldn't be very helpful in the grand scheme of things, and it can be put to better use locally, rather than by the government who would have it disappear in a heartbeat.
-
That isn't going to put food on someone's plate you know.
You know whats exciting? Being able to pay for your montly stuff without having to cry yourself to sleep thinking what the hell are you gonna eat tomorrow with a few dollars.
-
$70bn isn't much in the grand scheme of things?
the US Department of Education's budget in 2011 was $69.9bn [1], what about doubling the education budget, that seems pretty helpful
Edited:
there are a lot of things that don't put food on people's plates, that still serve a very important purpose
scientific advancement and research seems like a valid investment for what is supposed to be a first world nation
-
I read the article, who are you to say how churches should spend their money? It is donations from the churches community, not your money. Also, doesn't everyone who "form" the church pay income taxes? The people make up the church. Also, as for property taxes, church is exempt from paying taxes, its in the constitution and it is their right.
-
I think that flies off the table when a country is in such a deep hole like America is.
-
But those funds wouldn't be lumped into one thing. It would be spread out so much over so many departments that it would have next to no impact. 70 billion is truly a fuckton of cash, but just look at how many federal agencies there are that would probably all get a chunk of that change:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...deral_agencies
-
Have you ever heard about a tithe
-
I thought secular organisations that did that kind of stuff were tax exempt.
-
separation of churchandstate
separation of churchandstate
fuck it's not working.
-
did any of you tools even read the article? Or at least half of it?
-
This is $70 billion per year, after 10 years you have $700 billion, after 20, $1.4 trillion, in the grand scheme of a government, 20 years is nothing and getting an additional $1.4 trillion dollars is pretty cool
-
The first thing I learned in my General Business course at college was, "Non-profit organization does not mean it is not allowed nor does not make, a profit."
-
What
You do realize that economic progression and success = food on the table, right?
How could you not make that connection, do I really have to spell it out for you
-
I never said secular organizations that do the same shouldn't be tax exempt.
-
so by that logic we just shouldn't really be giving the government any money, it doesn't really matter how much funds we can raise and put somewhere useful because you instantly assume it'll be dithered around the alphabet agencies. instead we should grant churches an exemption from taxes that everyone else pays so they can hopefully donate some of it and pocket the rest. well, not to mention the fact that the hundreds of thousands of churches across the country that are generating this revenue would piss this money away into a million different charities just like the govt would with random agencies, so in the end i guess it doesn't really matter where the money goes since it'll just be distributed across a massive pool of destinations.
literally everything about this is wrong, it doesn't even need explaining
Edited:
yeah i think you're seriously overestimating how big a hole america is in, not to mention seeing things in the most simplistic, black and white way possible. there wouldn't be food to put on the table without a developed society to inspire and employ
-
The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
August 2008
11,794 Posts
How about we take half of it?
Guess I'm going to have to take the position of the often-hated apologist here and say I am neither surprised nor do I want everything taken away. Reduce the cost, absolutely, but they shouldn't have to be self-funded. It shouldn't cost money to keep up a belief. I'd love that money spent on Nasa, sure, but you can't compare religious organizations with normal ones. Many -- though far from all Facepunchers lack perspective in this case.
-
have you ever seen a mega church? Or that house that pastor had? These aren't your small little churches in a meadow or something
Edited:
did you know that the LDS church payed for most of Prop 8's fundings? Did you know allot of these churches have millions in their bank accounts?
-
But the vast majority are. Just because one person abuses the system doesn't mean that every single person who uses the system also needs to be punished. Punish the people who abused the system, and if it is feasible, fix the system so that it is harder to abuse, it's as simple as that.
-
The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
August 2008
11,794 Posts
That, and also what I was saying was reduce the budget a bit, just don't remove it.
-
227 dollars per american citizen (as of Q4 2011)
-
The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
August 2008
11,794 Posts
Seems logical when close to 90% of Americans are religious.
-
I have anecdotal evidence you murdered JFK.
If we could stick to facts, that'd be lovely.
You don't actually understand how taxes work in this country, you're just going OMG QUIT HATIN TEH CHURCHES. Calm down and read a book.
-
There is no happily habitable place outside of earth.
I mean, yes we can build enclosures, but eventually this will happen:
-
Tbh dont know where to start.
How about the fact that not taking money is not the same as it costs money.
dont believe me? fine send me 40 bucks- What you dontwanna? FUUU stop costing me money!
Or i could point out you could reduce religious institutions budget all you want- by not donating to them. Stop trying to tell me what i should be spending my money on, if i want to give all my cash to mormons or whomever- then i will- who are you to say i cant.
Think you can do a better job at charity then religious institutions? This is me, over here, not stopping you. Feel free to apply for tax exempt status (protip you dont have to be a religious institution) and do your best at whatever you wish.
Fake edit- liberals who think all money everywhere should be theirs to do as they please make me sick. Do whatever you want with your money. If you spent half the time earning money instead of thinking of ways to leach off of others you could fund a space shuttle mission to alpha centauri by now.
Fake fake edit- those who post that "you are wrong but i cant be bothered to explain why" lack the intelligence needed to constructively argue their point
-
Nice gimmick account bro.
"Frogs contribute to our GDP by way of side-twirling their fine egyptian fire moustaches. If you take issue with this prove how I'm wrong."
Sometimes a person says something wrong, and it's wrong, and you can explain why it's wrong. Other times, a person says something which is not even wrong, just gibberish. You cannot explain the flaws in these statements because they are generated by a complete lack of understanding of a concept. I can't tell you why 2 + 2 =/= Pirates! if you don't actually know what any of that means.
-
Like the name? been reading facepunch for a few weeks now, felt it was time to start telling ppl why theyre wrong- so i registered
Easy, frogs dont contribute in that way to the GDP as evidenced by the lack of proof that they do.
Stop pretending this is deep, earth shattering, thick book stuff. Its not- you could explain your position fairly easily if you wished. You just dont wish to.
-
I believe the money donated to the church that is used for charitable events that the church has going on should be tax free, just as any money you give to a charitable organization to is tax free. However, money given to the church employees should be taxed just like any other employee. Sounds like a free compromise to me.
-
now i like your church, that's the spirit of giving then taking.
-
Ok guys if you feel so strongly about this then petition your congressmen.
EDIT:
How is this dumb?
-
Uhh if they make a profit they can afford to be taxed.
Edited:
In terms of taxes, it is.
If you refuse to pay your taxes, you go to fucking jail for tax evasion.
-
yeah look at all these valid points
clearly just bandwagoning!
-
The people who complain about atheist band-wagoners are actually getting more annoying than the actual atheists themselves.
-
I'm not calling it complex, I'm calling you incompetent.
-
-
the reason i didn't explain why DarkSiper's post was wrong is because it was literally so far from the truth i figured nobody would actually need a rebuttal, they would just read the post, think "lmao is he serious" and keep scrolling. since clearly you somehow lack the ability to figure out why he's dead wrong:
if i gather a bunch of people in my basement on sundays and they donate 10,000 to me, i have to report that as income, and pay tax on it. it's my money, who is the government to say what to do with it? oh right, it's the government, and they need to collect taxes to sustain any form of a civilized country. so if i'm getting taxed, why are the churches exempt just because they put a statue of a dead dude nailed to some wood on the front lawn?
that isn't how taxes work. if i'm running a business, my business has to pay tax, AND i have to pay tax personally. just because a bunch of people who are essentially customers of the church pay taxes on their own doesn't mean the church is accounted for
no.. the constitution says:
i.e. the church doesn't get special treatment. it is no different from any other business, any other person/group/entity/organization, etc.. i don't know where you got "exempt from taxes" in there, because i'm not seeing it
-
i love it when people say "it's in the constitution" but fail to mention where.
-
You literally could gather in your basement with your supporters, and collect money- and bank it tax free (assuming you filled out the appropriate paperwork and qualified for tax exempt status)
Of course in this hypothetical instance you would be representing the organization for which you are seeking donations.
Assuming that you have no such desire, you are taxed as a citizen. Religion itself, is not a citizen. It is an abstract concept, an idea, an organization if you will.
Religious institutions are in no way a "business". They do not produce (for sale) goods and/or services. You could make an argument that its ran like a business, or that ministers do X for money, and several other avenues of thought. But the fact remains- even the federal gov recognizes that such institutions are not a business.
Shamelessly stolen from elsewhere.....
First, tax exemption for churches has helped a pluralistic society in which a broad spectrum of religious perspectives -- including irreligion -- can flourish. Such pluralism safeguards against extremism and should be maintained.
Second, taxing church property and income would destroy the free exercise of religion that the Bill of Rights seeks to protect. The old principle that the power to tax is the power to destroy is still valid. In regard to taxing door-to-door religious solicitation, the court held in Murdock v. Pennsylvania in 1943:
The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance.
The power to tax religious institutions must be construed as the power to limit the free exercise of religion. Levying property taxes upon churches would have the effect of closing the doors of thousands of small congregations that operate on a shoestring. Many downtown churches would be forced out by the property taxes on their valuable land, and their buildings would be replaced by high-rise office complexes.
A third reason for not taxing church property is the excessive government entanglement that such taxation would bring. What agency would be responsible for assessing the value of the property, and how would the value be calculated? To what extent will the government require inspection of church property and, in the process, its records? These are but a few areas of church-state entanglement that would come with church property taxes. Of course, with government intervention comes government regulation, which could extend into many aspects of church life. Such entanglement must be viewed as unconstitutional.
full paper can be found here http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1030 , and in fact theorizes that it could be taxed in the future. Downside to a living document i suppose, its open to the interpretation of the current generation
Aside from all this, i maintain that a tax on religious organizations would be punitive in nature. Simply taking from those you dont agree with while justifying that action with vague theories on how the money would be better spent in ways you agree with.
-
Wow what an unbiased source with absolutely no personal stake in the issue.
Edited:
FYI that paper is wrong. The 71 billion dollar number is does not qualify as destructive taxation. That number is derived from applying normal, non-destructive tax rates to churches.
Edited:
hello persecution complex its been a long time.
Nobody gives a fuck what you worship. The only issue is that you aren't contributing to society.
Agree x 6
Disagree x 1
Dumb x 9
Informative x 1
Funny x 20
Zing x 1
Optimistic x 1