When did Bill H. ever say or suggest that?
At least he’s showing a lot more class than some folks here who resort to personal insults just because they disagree with what he posted.
Sheesh. Just because this is the Pit where you can be rude, it does not mean you should be rude.
Bull. For many corporations, the tax write-off is the main draw. It’s the most popular reason given by company CEOs for corporate charity behind “enhancing corporate image in the community.” Citation: The Council for Advancement and Support of Education, Giving USA 2003, “Trends in Corporate Giving.”
If tax write-offs were of no concern to corporations, how come income-adjusted corporate giving increases and declines are roughly analogous to increases and declines in the stock market? (Citation: Giving USA 2003, again.) The simple and obvious answer is that corporations can save a lot in taxes at the end of the tax year by making donations. If the company stock price didn’t do so well…well, I guess those less fortunate have to do without, huh?
Balle_M wrote
I believe I’ll take the high road and ignore that part. You make your points as you best feel suits them.
[/quote]
That’s honestly wonderful. I’m glad to hear your church does such things. I’m not being sarcastic; I think it’s a very good thing.
But now let’s talk real numbers: What percentage of the money you tithe goes to these charitable activities, and how much goes to overhead, procetylizing, etc. Trust me, it’s a lot less than goes when you give to United Way or any other real charity. It’s not even close. The percentage of it’s income that a church spends on charity is likely higher than that paid by any other corporation, but not by much.
It’s an excellent point you make: when you give to a charity, you want to make sure it puts a very high percentage of the money you give into real charity, and as little into overhead as possible. I assume by your logic, you’ll now cease giving to your church altogether, as their numbers are far worse than the typical charity? Or perhaps I missed your point.
Duke wrote
Not according to your statistics. But anyway, it doesn’t matter if it is the draw. You are implying (no saying) that somehow there is a financial benefit for a corporation to give to charity, that they have more money by giving than if they don’t. And that’s simply not true. When a corporation gives to a charity, they have less money. And the charity has more money. period.
It’s identical to an individual contributor: if they changed the laws so that charitable contributions weren’t tax deductible, the sad fact is that people would give less to charity. But even with your tax deduction, the bottom line is that when you give to charity, you have less money and the charity has more.
And again, that’s identical to individual contributors: the number one reason to give to a charity is because it’s a good thing to do. The number two is because it’s tax deductible.
Uh… Could it be that in good times, corporations feel they have more money to give? I.e. could it again be identical to individuals in that when you have a very good year you give more to charity, and when times are tight, you give less?
You keep saying this.
Either produce the books showing that the specific churches the Belle and Isaobelle belong to are keeping more money for themselves, especially when doing food drives and the like (apparently they keep two cans of peas for every one donated?) than the “typical charity”. I’d also be interested in seeing cites for what the “typical charity” is.
And I’m not about to accept cites showing that, say, Robert Tilton or Pat Robertson are crooks. I’ll happily grant that. But you’ve been maligning Belle and Isabelle’s specific churches.
So either produce Belle and Isabelle’s individual church’s books showing malfeasance, or retract the statements.
And if you want to backpedal and say that you meant “typical churches”, well, like your “typical charity”, I want definitions and cites.
(Protestations that “This is the Pit, I don’t have to produce cites” will be met by much mocking from all quarters.
Fenris
Oh, and friend Balle_M, I neglected to mention the most important point:
Where tithing is concerned, charitable doings by the church are entirely secondary. Isabelle was clear that for her the bible commanded her to give 10%. The money wasn’t given because it was intended for charitable causes. It was given because a higher authority commanded it as part of her salvation. The charitable aspects are completely incidental.
Although in fairness I will say that I think that all charity is good charity, and even if it’s merely a byproduct, it’s still good and commendable.
Fenris wrote
Excellent point. Belle and Isabelle please publish your churches financial records for Fenris to analyze and see if they match the norm, or are perhaps true charities.
Well, let’s see…
My tithing, which goes DIRECTLY to the programs I mentioned (we can earmark) was decribed as “personal luxury spending” and to consider donating to these programs as charity “Un-Christian.”
You make the call…
Nope. Sorry kid, I call bullshit.
You’re accusing them of malfeasance. It’s up to you to prove it.
(Nice attempt to weasel, though)
Fenris
Fenris wrote
You can call it whatever you like. And you can call me whatever you like, if it enhances (or supplants) your point.
Doesn’t change the fact that the typical religion delivers a very small percentage of their money to real charity. And it doesn’t change the fact that I have no access to other community member’s church records.
Those are not the same things. First, off, I did say that the tax write-offs were a “main draw behind” another draw, which is a far cry from what you said, that it wasn’t a draw at all. Second, while it isn’t possible for a company to be better off, they can get very close to even, if “even” is the amount they’d be paying to the IRS anyway. (The CASE survey intimated that avoiding paying money to the government was a factor in and of itself for many CEOs!) But see the next section…
For individual donors, wrong. There is a form of giving called the “Charitable Gift Annuity” that allows you (or more often your heirs) to keep more money from the IRS in the long run while still providing benefit to your chosen charity. The CGA laws are complicated, but I’ll just give an example instead: Our office recently wrote up a sample CGA for a potential donor, and (subject to shifts in stock prices and tax law changes), in 10 years the donor will be about $500,000 better off, and we will be $5.2 million better off. So, we’re both better off–if the donor agrees to the CGA!
Now, there is no form of CGA for corporations. But there is the corporate foundation. An over-simplification: Company X can put $10 million into the “X Foundation” endowment and, every year, donate about 5%, or $500,000, to charity. At the end of the year, they still have the $10 million…untaxed, for the most part. Company X loses almost nothing, and charities make $500,000. Again, I over-simplify greatly, but it’s a good way to keep your company profits, which are otherwise subject to taxes, out of the hands of the IRS.
According to CASE, not so. Tax deductions fall low on the list of donor interest. And it’s not surprising, because, if, like a lot of taxpayers, if you don’t itemize your taxes, you don’t derive any tax benefits from charity. In my job I find that a lot of donors give out of self-interest: so that they’ll be invited to dinners, where they can network; so their kid will get into the school (doesn’t happen often, but it does happen), and, in more than one case, so the school will “have to listen to what they have to say.”
Not necessarily. As you know, stock prices and company profit margins don’t always move in the same direction. CASE found that, in cases where stocks fell and profits rose, giving fell. If stocks rose and profits fell (or, in the case of a lot of tech companies, were non-existent), giving rose.
When I worked for a large telecom. I discoverd that one of the criteria that my managers annual bonus depended on was United Way participation. This manager was a MAJOR asshole. So none of us donated and he got fucked out of about 10K.
Got any numbers, there, Bill? I’d just love to see your estimates of giving overhead. Even CASE doesn’t keep them, and they would be very interested in seeing them.
Well, since my tithes are purely voluntary, and whether or not I donate a dime to my church makes no difference whatsoever to my membership, it has almost nothing to do whatever with paying dues to a club.
Nor is there any sense whatsoever in which my tithing is “purely self-interest”. If there is any doctrine which is preached and taught and stressed repeatedly at my church, it is that our salvation has already been bought and paid for, by Jesus and His sacrifice, and that no payment on my part is either possible or necessary. I do not and cannot purchase my salvation or my membership in the church of Jesus.
In other words, you are simply and comprehensively wrong.
Please do not post on subjects on which you are so obviously ignorant and mistaken.
Regards,
Shodan
Cool! I’ve never tried your method of debate. Let’s give it a shot, shall we? 
I assert that any poster who calls himself “Bill H.” who registered with the SDMB in June 2000 is a member of Charles Manson’s “Family”, had a long torrid affair with Squeeky Fromme and escaped the final dragnet and jail by dressing as a woman while supporting himself by giving blow-jobs to sailors on leave in San Fransciso for a buck per blow.
In addition, these posters who call themself “Bill H.” went on to have carnal knowledge of farm animals all over California to the extent that they are the most wanted Livestock Molesters in the Western Hemisphere.
But, y’know, I don’t have to document it or cite it or prove it or anything. If it’s not true, then any poster named “Bill H.” can provide documentation showing I’m wrong.
The fact that I have no proof of my statements doesn’t change these facts.
This IS more fun that traditional “accuser must present the evidence!” / “Innocent until proven guilty” style arguments. But is it more productive, I wonder. :dubious:
Fenris, who asserts that he has no carnal knowledge of either Squeeky Fromme, sailors or livestock.
well, Fenris - the local ‘church w/all the flags’ at one point bragged about some particular amount of $$ they used to distribute to the food banks. It was a small fraction of what they’d spent on the sound system for their church.
I have no problem believing that the average church spends less % of their donations on what would be generally considered “charity” than the average non profit.
From my experience (in my position, I need to know about charitable possabilities around my local), churchs that have food banks, clothing banks etc, the actual goods are donated goods from their members (no cash outlay), they use some small space w/in the church itself (no additional cash outlay) and have their staff/volunteers monitor/distribute the items, but generally not on a full time basis (IME, they would be ‘open’ an hour or two a day M-F or something along those lines).
Both churchs and non profits would have ‘operating costs’ (occupancy issues, insurances, wages to staff etc.). The difference, of course, is that for the church, their main reason for existence is not the charitable acts, but the service to their members religious needs. this is as it should be. the main reason for existence for the non profit, is the charitable acts themselves. So, when the congregation donates/tithes $$ to their church, they are indeed, donating to the charitable acts of the church, but I’d be astonished to discover in any case that the amounts attributable to the charity amounts to 70/80% of the total.
This is not to suggest that those choosing to donate $$ to their church are not ‘doing good’ etc. But it is very different from donating $$ to a cause/charity that one is not directly obtaining services from. (not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, either - I certainly don’t de-value Michael J. Fox’s contributions to Parkinson’s causes for example).
tomndeb - my understanding of designated funds to the UW is that they are indeed donated to the charity directly (not necessarily penny for penny).
I know that the UW is seen (and in some cases correctly so) as the maurading giant ape of charities. Non profits (generallY) have a very difficult position to maintain - fund raising can be an expensive operation on an individual basis, and simply out of reach for many. Plus, how many times do you wish to get hit up for ‘cause du jour’? It’s a tough gig - many of the charities involved do actually do good works.
UW’s tend to fund things that are more local initiative related (IME), for example funding services to homeless in a specific geographic area vs. funding research on a particular disease. so there’s more of a local influence on improving life for those in need locally.
The bottom line for me is that it’s your money, if you wish to donate it to buy needlepoint kits for mountain climbers, I won’t tell you no. and I absolutely resent like hell anybody strong arming folks to give (some asshole keeps supplying my name to a local charity as one who’s volunteered to be ‘arrested’ and call folks for donations for ‘bail’. :rolleyes: If I ever find out who the hell it is… )
Give, don’t give. it’s up to you.
It was given because a higher authority commanded it as part of her salvation.
I must have missed the part in the New Testament where Jesus gathered the crowd 'round Him and said:
Blessed are those that give 10%, for they shall see heaven.
There is not ONE verse in the Bible that says that you have to tithe to go to heaven. Get your facts straight, Bill.
SnoopyFan wrote
I wasn’t disputing the bible. I was disputing friend Isabelle who said of her bible
And that’s fine. I support her in spending anything she likes in any way she likes. Further as I’ve said before, she strikes me as a fine and decent person, and also a person with charitable intents. I just have issue with tithing being mixed in with charity, as if they’re the same. And I especially have issue when the amount tithed likely surpasses by far the actual charity givings, effectively taking too much credit for charity donations.
wring, you mentioned “the church with all the flags.” Is that in Michigan by any chance?
why yes, Baker, yes it is. (near Lansing as a matter of fact. you know of them???)