Margaret Cho: ‘Tax the Church’
By Cho's own admission "I don't have the moral fiber to run for Office", but hey, "Tax the Churches".
By Cho's own admission "I don't have the moral fiber to run for Office", but hey, "Tax the Churches".
An Incurable Disease of the Left
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I believe it is coming..one it would shut the doors on about 50% probably and to be honest...I am surprised they have not already done it based upon the fact that many churches (so called) have a lot of money...When they are building 25 million dollar buildings, and charge $20 a ticket to see twinkle teeth speak...really surprised they have not pursued this already....!
Margaret Cho: ‘Tax the Church’
By Cho's own admission "I don't have the moral fiber to run for Office", but hey, "Tax the Churches".
By Cho's own admission "I don't have the moral fiber to run for Office", but hey, "Tax the Churches".
A
Society will suffer as a result. Non-profit churches engage in an enormous amount of charitable enterprises to the poor, needy, addicted, abused, and elderly. Those programs that survive, will have to be scaled back.
The government will be looked to for replacement to the tune of about $230 billion a year according to the National Center for Charitable Giving.
What's another $230 billion a year in government spending right? The important thing is that the first amendment will have been further materially denuded by those who hate Christianity [sarcasm intended].
The government will be looked to for replacement to the tune of about $230 billion a year according to the National Center for Charitable Giving.
What's another $230 billion a year in government spending right? The important thing is that the first amendment will have been further materially denuded by those who hate Christianity [sarcasm intended].
It's fundamentally insincere to profess faith in a message of charity and kindness while simultaneously hoarding profits from both the government and folks in need. If churches are making, and keeping (which is the important stipulation) profits, they should be taxed like any other business, because a business is what they are.
Otherwlse the church should run (as many currently do) as a not-for-profit organization, pay its employees, and donate the rest of its money to good causes. The latter's obviously preferable, for various reasons (not least because it doesn't restrain churches under employment and discrimination laws like regular businesses) and it's what honest churches already do anyway.
Otherwlse the church should run (as many currently do) as a not-for-profit organization, pay its employees, and donate the rest of its money to good causes. The latter's obviously preferable, for various reasons (not least because it doesn't restrain churches under employment and discrimination laws like regular businesses) and it's what honest churches already do anyway.
Last edited:
I'm not a church. My message is not "feed the hungry, tend the sick, clothe the naked, help the poor". I don't have savings, precisely because whatever extra money I have, when I'm out, I give away. And if I did have savings, I would have been taxed on my profits and wages before I put those profits and wages into my savings account anyway. You're trying to make out like my savings are tax-free: they aren't! So why should a ministers be? Why shouldn't a church owner who makes and keeps profits be taxed just like me or you?
If he's running a not-for-profit, thus giving away his extra money to the needy, then I see no reason why he should be taxed on that money. If he's paying himself a wage and keeping profits, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be taxed on that money.
If he's running a not-for-profit, thus giving away his extra money to the needy, then I see no reason why he should be taxed on that money. If he's paying himself a wage and keeping profits, then I see no reason why he shouldn't be taxed on that money.
Last edited:
That's exactly how Christians are.
They don't have a lot of savings, and what they have, they give it away...
to their CHURCH.. WHICH IS A CHARITY...
which USES THE MONEY IN VERY PARTICULARLY WAYS WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED....
AND WHICH ARE PUBLIC RECORD
(There are always a few fraudulent churches. That's why there are ALREADY laws governing how charities are to be run. I'm fine with fraudulent charities being prosecuted under existing laws... and so are other christians.)
Let's just be honest, and cut the nonsense.
You're all for charities.
You just want charities to ONLY be the charities YOU happen to like and agree with.
HOW OPEN MINDED OF YOU!
They don't have a lot of savings, and what they have, they give it away...
to their CHURCH.. WHICH IS A CHARITY...
which USES THE MONEY IN VERY PARTICULARLY WAYS WHICH ARE PRESCRIBED....
AND WHICH ARE PUBLIC RECORD
(There are always a few fraudulent churches. That's why there are ALREADY laws governing how charities are to be run. I'm fine with fraudulent charities being prosecuted under existing laws... and so are other christians.)
Let's just be honest, and cut the nonsense.
You're all for charities.
You just want charities to ONLY be the charities YOU happen to like and agree with.
HOW OPEN MINDED OF YOU!
Last edited:
I'm all for non-profits run by modest people who make fair wages, helping out communities. It's a known fact that many churches (small, honest churches run by honest people) are non-profits whose benefit to communities far outweighs what they get to avoid on taxes. I'm all for that.
What I'm not for are multi-million dollar megachurches with leaders who drive around in expensive cars, take three holidays a year and send their kids to elite privates schools, not paying taxes.
What I'm not for are multi-million dollar megachurches with leaders who drive around in expensive cars, take three holidays a year and send their kids to elite privates schools, not paying taxes.
V
Here's a newsflash for you, Omni. All churches in the U.S. are non-profit. Even the questionably Christ-following churches of which you speak that can be described as "mega." And, of the type of churches that you speak, you can count on one hand -- or perhaps two, but you won't use all your fingers -- those you describe.
My question is, what do you know about mega-churches? Supposedly, you're in Ireland. Ireland doesn't have any such animal.
My question is, what do you know about mega-churches? Supposedly, you're in Ireland. Ireland doesn't have any such animal.
I hear stories. I hear there are more than a few mega pastors with mega churches and mega followings who wear nice suits, drive fancy cars, like to jet off and soak up the rays at the expense of donators and congregations. Last I read, not all churches were 501(c). But, even if they were, there are a lot of ways that businessmen (that being their primary job role) can avoid taxes by owning non-profit religious organizations. In most Western countries, charities and non-profits run under special tax rules that mean they don't pay tax on donations or properties. But, in most Western countries, charities of all kinds are also used by for-profit-businesses as a tax dodging tool.
If a man owns a business and donates money from his business to his non-profit, then pays himself the donation in wages from his non-profit, he can thereby circumvent tax laws. I'm against that for all charities and non profits, not just churches.
Look, I'm not against churches no paying taxes if they're being genuine and honest about it, just like I'm not against any non-profit charity who does likewise. But it's when the law allows for blatant misappropriation of money, and dishonest use of these legal exceptions, that I get annoyed about it. Its clear to anybody who looks at the books what's happening, but the law allows for it anyway. It's like legislation is deliberately engineered to let people do the opposite of what they're saying they're doing. "Oh, my friend owns a charitable organization, we want to help the poor. Yes sirree, I did donate a million bucks from my business to my friend's charity, and yes sirree I am on my friends' books as an employee, and oh look, he did just pay me $999,999 in wages for the quarter, but surely there's nothing wrong with that, it's legal!"
If a man owns a business and donates money from his business to his non-profit, then pays himself the donation in wages from his non-profit, he can thereby circumvent tax laws. I'm against that for all charities and non profits, not just churches.
Look, I'm not against churches no paying taxes if they're being genuine and honest about it, just like I'm not against any non-profit charity who does likewise. But it's when the law allows for blatant misappropriation of money, and dishonest use of these legal exceptions, that I get annoyed about it. Its clear to anybody who looks at the books what's happening, but the law allows for it anyway. It's like legislation is deliberately engineered to let people do the opposite of what they're saying they're doing. "Oh, my friend owns a charitable organization, we want to help the poor. Yes sirree, I did donate a million bucks from my business to my friend's charity, and yes sirree I am on my friends' books as an employee, and oh look, he did just pay me $999,999 in wages for the quarter, but surely there's nothing wrong with that, it's legal!"
A
Pushing the misinformation being posted in this thread aside, the truth is that each year the IRS revokes the tax-exempt status of 501(c)(3) organizations (e.g. non-profit private foundations, churches, educational institutions, hospitals, and many types of public charities) for a number of reasons.
One of them is occurs because of inurement. A 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization). Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees. This includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.
If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in inurement or substantial private benefit, the organization has violated the law and can lose its exemption. Additionally, insiders guilty of inurement may be subject to criminal proceedings, fines, and excise taxes.
^ That's already on the books and presently enforced by the IRS nationwide.
Other ways a 501 (c) (3) organization can lose its status is thru political lobbying and campaigning, failing to comply with the annual reporting obligation, failing to operate in accordance with its stated purpose, violating the law with respect to unrelated business income (UBI), etc...
Non-profits are already tightly regulated. It's inane to wrongly assert non-profits should be treated like for profit corporations. The very assertion violates the Constitution of the United States (meaning it's unconstitutional), the resulting historical U.S. judicial precedent, the principles of liberty and natural law (e.g. resulting in greater government authoritarianism), best practice for societies which benefit from non-profits as do their governments which benefit from the relief non-profits provide to their social programs which would be saturated much more than they already are if non-profits were forced to scale back services and close due to government taxation.
One of them is occurs because of inurement. A 501(c)(3) organization is prohibited from allowing its income or assets to benefit insiders (people with a personal or private interest in the activities of the organization). Insiders are typically board members, officers, directors, and important employees. This includes the payment of dividends, the payment of unreasonable compensation to insiders, and the transfer of property to insiders for less than fair market value.
If a 501(c)(3) organization engages in inurement or substantial private benefit, the organization has violated the law and can lose its exemption. Additionally, insiders guilty of inurement may be subject to criminal proceedings, fines, and excise taxes.
^ That's already on the books and presently enforced by the IRS nationwide.
Other ways a 501 (c) (3) organization can lose its status is thru political lobbying and campaigning, failing to comply with the annual reporting obligation, failing to operate in accordance with its stated purpose, violating the law with respect to unrelated business income (UBI), etc...
Non-profits are already tightly regulated. It's inane to wrongly assert non-profits should be treated like for profit corporations. The very assertion violates the Constitution of the United States (meaning it's unconstitutional), the resulting historical U.S. judicial precedent, the principles of liberty and natural law (e.g. resulting in greater government authoritarianism), best practice for societies which benefit from non-profits as do their governments which benefit from the relief non-profits provide to their social programs which would be saturated much more than they already are if non-profits were forced to scale back services and close due to government taxation.
A
Please note that my previous post in this thread was a general one intended for all viewers and not directed at any one person (though one person unfortunately internalized it that way).
I would recommend anyone interested in this discussion, as it relates to the U.S., visit the 'Tax Information for Charities and Non-Profits' section of the IRS website: Tax Information for Charities & Other Non-Profits
I would recommend anyone interested in this discussion, as it relates to the U.S., visit the 'Tax Information for Charities and Non-Profits' section of the IRS website: Tax Information for Charities & Other Non-Profits
**facepalm**
IF a church (or any other non-profit) kept a profit, it would no longer be operating as a non-profit and would lose it's 501c3 tax exemption.
I'm not aware of the laws in Ireland, but here in the US a non-profit is only allowed to roll over a certain amount of money from one fiscal year to the next (I'm not sure if it's a set sum or a percentage of their gross). This allows for non-profits to maintain a sum of money in reserve for an "emergency fund".
IF a church (or any other non-profit) kept a profit, it would no longer be operating as a non-profit and would lose it's 501c3 tax exemption.
I'm not aware of the laws in Ireland, but here in the US a non-profit is only allowed to roll over a certain amount of money from one fiscal year to the next (I'm not sure if it's a set sum or a percentage of their gross). This allows for non-profits to maintain a sum of money in reserve for an "emergency fund".
Last edited:
That's obvious, I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is that a person can run what is legally a non profit and still profit from it. There are ways around it. If there weren't, church owners wouldn't get rich. I mean, just take one look at the Catholic Church and the Evangelical mega churches, for instance. Nobody holds those kinds of property and owns those kinds of possessions without profiteering of some kind.
There's also the very real issue of churches using tax exempt status to peddle political philosophies and support particular candidates, which is against the law, but a difficult charge to enforce in court.
There's also the very real issue of churches using tax exempt status to peddle political philosophies and support particular candidates, which is against the law, but a difficult charge to enforce in court.