Your uses of “some” and “many” are confusing. Would you care to provide any numbers or evidence of this?
Absolutely.
Huh? A community center providing a community asset, and you’re going to ding them on that? Sorry, but that’s not that strong of an argument.
Aaaaand there it is. A complete fundamental show of ignorance of the difference between “for-profit” and “non-profit”. If you need some help in this, maybe you could go down to your local YMCA and ask them for their 1099.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a limit on the salaries that a non-profit organization can pay. In fact, there are many such organizations that pay high salaries to their leaders. Look up how much the Susan G. Komen foundations pays its executives, or any Ivy League university.
I would love to see you do this work of defense for Scientology or this.
Yo! 
If churches can be tax exempt, why should the same rule not apply to ComiCon or Wade Cook or Star Trek movies?
Nancy Brinker is the CEO of Susan G. Komen.
Yes, but paying your own tuition isn’t a charitable donation. That’s my point here-- donating to build a basketball court for you and your Jeezus Club members to use isn’t fucking charity. But I think the standards for what is a non-profit should be tightened up overall, not just for churches.
Not really, I don’t care that much. Are you honestly disputing that some churches are doing good work, but many are not, and serve to enrich their pastors? Because I think you’re just trying to shut me up by saying “cite!”.
I doubt you’ll be persuaded to my side regardless, but it isn’t FOR the community. It’s for the church.
I’ve worked on the business side of church, and I know how much money they bring in vs. how much is used for community projects. It appalled me, and was the reason I left the faith. You are correct that I’m not a tax lawyer and I don’t know the ins and outs of what makes something qualify as a non-profit, but I am a human being who knows the difference between doing-for-others, and doing-for-oneself. Building a gym for your members isn’t church work (checks forum) in my humble opinion. Obviously, YMMV.
What makes you think I support that either? Certainly nothing I’ve posted in this thread. The leaders of many non-profits INCLUDING MANY CHURCHES use the donations as a way to enrich themselves, not as a vehicle to help others. I think that should stop, and I wish the IRS agreed with me. Unfortunately, the rich assholes running these scams have more power than I do, so I doubt it will change any time soon.
It is if you’re the YMCA - odd that you ignored that portion of my post. And why use the very specific term “charity”? 501(c)(3) organizations do a very wide variety of activities, not all them being limited to “charity” in the strict “helping the less fortunate” sense of the word. Maybe you should start with familiarizing yourself with what a non-profit organization actually is, rather than your misunderstanding of what you think they should be.
Yes, I am - especially since by all practical purposes “some” nearly always means “fewer than many”.
If pointing out that you’re unable to back up a word you’re saying will get you to stop spewing nonsense, then you’re absolutely correct.
You’re aware that a church IS a community, right? Maybe not just *your *community? And that if you belong to *any *community of like-minded individuals and would like to create a place to congregate and recreate, you’d be afforded the same privileges and incentives? And that the ability to do so is, in fact, a positive thing to the larger surrounding community, regardless of whether or not there are people who don’t like you?
Your opinion is incorrect, because it is based on ignorance. The entire concept of non-profit organizations in this country was founded on the work that faith-based organizations did on a community level, most of which was on the community-building level (i.e. creating spaces of recreation and congregation) rather than strictly the religious services they provided. If you’d like a cite, you can go get a copy of de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”.
I think the objection is that you put the words in the wrong order: many churches are doing good work, but some serve to enrich their pastors. If it was truly the other way 'round, it’d be dead easy for you to find quick support for such a big claim.
I think one valid argument that could be made is charitable donations are deductible only to the extent that they exceed the fair market value of any services you get in return. Colleges cannot say your tuition payment is deductible to you. If you win something at a charity auction, only the amount in excess of the value of the item is deductible.
So why is the full amount of a church contribution deductible? Is the fair market value of the service zero? (That would not be a good argument for the church to make.) Is it because you don’t have to contribute to go to the service? (There are likely ways to skirt that argument for colleges as well.)
:rolleyes: Uh huh.
I’m not a member of the YMCA but if in fact the dues you pay to use the pool are considered a charitable donation, I think that’s pretty fucked up. If what you mean is that the YMCA themselves are a non-profit, I think it’s more boderline, but I know they do good work in the community so whatever.
Yeah, and I disagree with that. I think you aren’t understanding me; I’m not arguing the law with you. I don’t know the law, nor do I give that much of a shit. I’m saying what the law ought to be, in my opinion. Because that’s what this forum is-- a place to post your opinions.
It isn’t a misunderstanding. It’s just “what I think they should be” And since I already have a millions things pulling me in different directions, and this isn’t an issue I care about, no. I will not be familiarizing myself with the legal definitions of a non-profit.
I don’t want to answer this, because it depends on what your opinion of what charity and good works are. In my opinion, they ought not qualify, and I do indeed believe that most churches are not doing good works and should not be tax exempt. Some are, and should. I realize my opinion differs from the law here. But in my experiences with the business side of churches, most are more interested in making money than in helping people. And I think that’s wrong (if legal).
I don’t have to back up my opinions. That’s why they’re opinions. There’s not a factual basis for “what is charity” in the larger, moral sense. If you want to base your opinion on the law, that’s fine and valid. But I don’t think the law id particularly moral in this regard, and I prefer to use my conscience.
I’m aware it’s possible to define community like this, but I think you know what I meant. People raising money amongst themselves to build a gym they get to use isn’t what I think of as “doing good for the community”. Again, your opinion differs. Yay, diversity!
Really? My Porn’n’Booze Club can be a non profit? We pool our money together to buy ourselves porn and booze. For the community :rolleyes:
No, it’s not “in fact”. It’s like you don’t even understand what a fact IS. You think it’s a positive thing for the community. It’s your opinion that it’s good for the community. I disagree that church gyms help anything, I think they separate the community and increase divisions.
Well, no. Generally this is a concept I can get behind, but you are wrong here.
Yeah… I don’t care what it was founded on. I have no special love for the founders of America, nor do I think that had some unassailable insight. In other words, it is my opinion that they were wrong on this.
Since my main objection to religious institutions is not their tax-exempt status, I voted no.
I also did not clearly understand how I would express my being in favor of a religion without actually participating in that religion. Would I have to wear a T-shirt? Post a lawn sign?
So you spent the better part of a pretty long post describing how little you know about non-profits, mention several times that you don’t know anything about the tax rules for non-profits, tell me you have no interest in knowing the history behind our system of non-profits, yet you don’t think your opinion of non-profits is informed by a good deal of ignorance? Okay… I guess if you don’t know the difference between “many” and “some” that’s a tall order to fill.
I’m not in favor of taxing religious groups like a regular business. If they were, the charitable work that many do would be greatly harmed. Then there would be a greater demand for the government to fill in the gaps, and I don’t think they’d do better work, or do it more efficiently.
The power to tax is the power to interfere and suppress. Making religious organizations subject to taxation would make them subject to an undue amount of other meddling and interference on the part of government, which would make it impossible for them to interfere with the degree of independence from government that would be necessary to uphold any reasonable concept of religious freedom.
It would be impossible to subject religions to taxation without blatantly violating the First Amendment. This is the very reason why religions are exempt from taxation.
The hell? Nobody is talking about tuition. Have you never heard of people making charitable donations to a university? Really?
No. First of all the hypothetical religion would have to teach the minimum and basic doctrines of Christianity (see Nicene Creed) for me to “support” it and secondly regardless of doctrine mandating that its adherents give a tithe of ninety percent is an outrageous and unbiblical rule that puts a yoke on men’s consciences.
So, some would want to close the parochial schools, not let them build gyms, or ball fields & move all the children into the public school system & it’s overall superior education of the first 12 grades?
My folks & my self had to pay all the taxes & still thought that the parochial schools were superior enough to warrant the extra costs & burden. Just think of what that would do to your yearly tax cost
Also what most here have been saying…
Only if people with differen worldviews were taxed differently.
And guess what? They are. The jesus brigade gets a free cut where everybody else pays their dues.
Render unto ceasar, bitches.
Yep. No tax advantage, but no penalty either. Tax them the same as any other not for profit organisation.