<br> Read these and tell me the difference.... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&oq=definition+of+a+non+profit&gs_rfai=&pbx=1
Wow...you are either being intentionally obtuse or you have zero understanding of how the world really operates. McDonald's sells franchises. The individual operators of those franchises pay McDonald's a gazillion dollars to fly their logo and sell their products. Even still...if I franchised out McDonald's in Timbuktu and did really well, my business model would not be to take all of my profits and put them into a second location. There would be plenty of money left over (unless I want to go out of business). Churches...not so much. They, by definition, do not turn a profit. They generally have to have special collections for the building fund to build a new parish. They also will usually build a new parish when the existing parish can no longer serve all of the parishoners. Also...read 503(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
If it helps you, switch MacDonald's with Bill's Local BBQ Restaurant. A church makes a profit (or else how does the Catholic Church get so much property and keep expanding). The difference is the profit is voluntary from it's customers, but this doesn't change the fact that they make a profit and are selling a product. Just like Bill's Local BBQ Restaurant.
Non-profit organizations should not be pushing any political agenda or else they risk losing their 503(c). I've been in a handful of churches where they are firm in not endorsing any candidate to the congregation in general.
You're misunderstanding the definition of 'for profit' and 'non-profit'. McDonalds is not selling you burgers because they are concerned for your hunger needs. They are selling you a burger in hopes to squeeze every penny possible from you. Having money left over after bare expenses is not the definition. That said, there are many non-profit organizations that are clearly raking in the money and certainly should be reclassified, but the way the codes are written, as long as they follow the list of rules, they are free from paying the IRS.
So you are only miffed by this non-profit tax exemption thing because this specific cultural center/mosque is likely to qualify for it?!!! I wish you had raised this issue earlier, and not just because you oppose this specific place. Your argument would have been more credible.
So it is intent that makes something "non-profit"? by any definition of the word "profit" that is absurd, but I do believe your right in saying this is how a government defines something as "non-profit". I am not "miffed" by anything. I am simply opening up discussion about tax-breaks for what the government calls "non-profit" groups and how others feel about how this will play out in the whole Ground Zero Mosque saga. This is the Discussion Forum isn't it?
Still irrelevant. A business has an owner - the profits flow to *someone*, whether it be a shareholder or a partner or a sole proprietor. The profits of a non-profit don't flow to anyone - they remain in the entity forever, which means they are ultimately used to further the purpose of the organization. Non-profits are perfectly allowed to participate in revenue and profit-generating activities (for example, Goodwill Stores). But if a non-profit were to get into a traditional business, they would pay taxes. For example, Goodwill can't run a McDonald's and avoid taxes on it because the profit from that is not directly related to it's purpose as an organization.
I see your point. There's plenty of rich "holy men" who live quite lavishly off the donations of their followers. But nonetheless, it's not a "for-profit" business. The reason is two-fold. The first has to do with separation of church and state - quite literally. Putting churches under tax laws blurs that line and the tax can be seen as a tax on freedom of speech / practicing of religion. Secondly, many religious organizations provide services to the community and supplement the role government plays (providing shelter and food to the homeless/hungry for instance). There are rules governing what a church can and can not do to maintain that tax exempt status however so it's not as clean cut as it sounds. I find it disgusting the way religion bath themselves in wealth off the money of more humble working people. But that's the way the people want it. They don't want their pastor to be poor, or they would find a church in which the pastor (or rabbi, imam, or priest) was of meager means too.
This The government shouldn't be taxing religious institutions and religious institutions shouldn't be involved in politics.
I think tallanvor and everyone else are arguing two different things. Everyone else is referring to the current legal classification, tallanvor, it seems to me, is pointing out that this legal classification might be questionable, as in reality, many churches are involved in many for-profit businesses and, despite the legal and accounting situation that says otherwise, could arguably be seen as being out there to make profits and in fact just take advantage of the tax benefits they get by being regarded as a non-profit entity. See: Scientology, but probably also the more traditional churches.
My understanding, admittedly limited, is that while churches may make money they cannot make a profit, ie pay off dividends to people with an ownership stake. Any money made has to be reinvested into the church. Yes that does mean expanding the church. That isn't the same as McDonalds where while yes McDonalds will expand but they are also paying profits back to the ownership. That doesn't mean that some church leaders don't get around this by paying themselves exorbitant salaries and other perks as employees of the church. Some churches have both for-profit and non-profit elements to them but they have to keep them separate for tax purposes and are taxed on the for profit sections as other businesses.
