There is no reason in the world why churches should be tax-exempt. That’s millions of dollars a year in foregone revenue to taxing authorities. If churches were paying their fair share, our property taxes would not be skyrocketing.
And I agree with the concept that if a church can lay out large numbers of bucks for stained glass and spires so they can show off how holy they are, they most assuredly are NOT non-profit.
Of course those big charities ahve huge endowments and teremendous amount of accountability. I am not saying that all high parid execs of NPOs deserve their pay, but it is hardly an indictment in and of itself.
And I’d imagine that the enforcement agencies responsible for making sure prostitutes actually are licensed and following the regulations would probably be quite expensive.
There’s health codes for restaurants and supermarkets, I’m guessing because those organizations must be licensed and regulated infractions do not occur? I dunno for sure if the regulation would really make prostitution any safer health-wise. Because many prostitutes are poorly educated and of low economic status, they aren’t going to want to go through the whole regulation thing, and considering prostitution has been illegal in many places for centuries I doubt the threat of punishment for breaking regulations would be a huge deterrent.
Most people without any real experience in the business world don’t seem to understand what “non-profit” means.
All it means is that profits from operations (that’s all your revenues minus all your expenses) don’t go into someone’s pocket. I own my own company (actually I have large interests in multiple companies) the profit generated can go right into my pocket if that’s what I want to do with it. That’s different from a salary. Many business owners will give themselves a salary. That’s a form of income for the individual and the owner, so it is taxed as income tax. From the perspective of the business, that’s an expense, a salary expense just like you record for your receptionist, your accountant, et al. Of course typically the CEO/President/etc’s salary will be significantly higher than everyone else’s, sometimes it isn’t, just depends. Sometimes an owner won’t take a salary at all and will just live purely on the profits of the business.
If I owned a non-profit corporation it would be illegal for me to take that profit and pocket it, it would be illegal for me to pay it out as dividends et cetera. However, it is not contrary to the nature of an NPO to give out salary for the workers, people in general do not work for free. Some do, and its awesome when they do, but for truly large charitable organizations (or other types of NPOs) being able to run in an efficient and acceptable manner demands salaried employees. And those salaries represent a cost of doing business, they don’t represent “profit” and thus aren’t violating the concept of the NPO.
Some people would argue that many NPOs have strayed from their original intentions. For example I remember reading an article in the Christian Science Monitor a few years back about how many workers of some charitable organization were complaining in Afghanistan because there weren’t enough Land Rovers to go around for their workers. I think sometimes some organizations have a lot of expense that maybe an organization that is designed with charity in mind shouldn’t be having. I don’t have a problem with highly compensated CEOs of any NPO though, quality demands a price, and I’d rather have an organization ran well than ran shittily, and that will often result in better end results for all (including people the charity is trying to help.)
Not all NPOs are charitable though.
And just because an NPO has facilities doesn’t mean it isn’t a profit, this shows a deep misunderstanding about exactly what non-profit means from the regulatory/tax stand point.
Also, it’s doubtful you would see a meaningful reduction in property taxes if church’s had to pay property taxes. And since property taxes would result in many churches having to close their doors (most especially poor and racial minority churches) it’s politically impossible because pretty much everyone would oppose it except the hard-core atheists who represent such a small minority of the population they remain (thankfully) irrelevant. You’d have every Democratic black preacher, every Jewish leader, every right wing fundie, every politician with lots of Catholics in their district up in arms over such a proposal. I can’t imagine an idea that would actually bring about such widespread and universal opposition that runs across the entire left-right spectrum.
Martin, you raise some good points and do a pretty good job of describing what a NPO is. However, I have to strenuously disagree with the following:
Have you ever tried to drive a Ford Escort across a pasture? If not, try to imagine it. OK, now try that over broken terrain. When they’re talking about Land Rovers in that context, they’re perfectly appropriate. They’re the correct tool for the job and given their durability in those conditions (no roads to speak of) they’re a great value, not just a great expense. Your argument conflates driving a Land Rover on an Interstate in the U.S. with someone driving a Land Rover in harsh conditions. I fully believe that organization needed more Land Rovers in Afghanistan, but not perhaps at the home office in NYC.