Priest Refuses Communion for Obama Voters

The point is that non-profits should not be able to do exactly what you or I would do which is pay the profits to yourself.

To them, that money should have to go back out to their business and not to individuals, because if it is going to be run like a business, then it should be taxed like one.

DD

 

How about when the Red Cross pays their executives? Is that different to you?

And again...if the cash is taxed at the individual level as salary, isn't that enough/??

 

Nope, if they have a banner year their executives should not get a bonus.....any monies in a non-profit must go back out to the community, not to the people running the show.

DD

 

It is a practice that goes all the way back to the founding of the Catholic Church. I'm not saying that I think it is right, particularly in these circumstances. I am saying that for the last almost 2000 years, the Church has had the power to excommunicate.

 

absolutely true

 

ok..let's draw some distinctions here.

there are no owners of the Red Cross. i don't know if they give bonuses or not. i'm aware of some churches that give christmas bonuses...but in truth, they're really calculated in to the budget from the beginning...they're no real surprise and really are part of the compensation paid to staff members.

nonprofits have to have staff to carry out the work they do. there isn't a state in the union that doesn't allow a nonprofit to compensate people for working for them. BUT THAT MONEY IS TAXED BY THE IRS PER EACH INDIVIDUAL.

So even in the situation where you're talking about bonusing money out....it's taxed. It's income. It's not tax-free pay, da da. I still have no idea what you're trying to say.

if you're going to donate to a nonprofit, ask them to produce a budget. if they don't...then don't donate. ask to know how much of your money is going to pay administrative fees. all that stuff is usually pretty transparent. when it's not, it becomes criminal.

 

Max,

I get it is taxed as income, but what happens if there is a surpluss in money for the year, say $250,000 is left after all the paying of employees and staff.

That money should be taxed as profit......that is how I feel.

DD

 

Which churches are paying excess profits to themselves? In the Twin Cities diocese, all Priests receive a salary commiserate with their years of service. There is no "bonus" if a particular parish, for whatever reason, receives an extraordinarily huge stipend. All proceeds go to pay salaries, pay for the building, maintenance and upkeep, but more importantly, they go to charitable activities and those in need.

Sometimes I think you argue just to argue and without thinking things through. You try to create controversy where none exists. Your distrust of churches leads you to post in generalities about all churches. Sure, I suspect, there are those churches that abuse their tax exempt status but the majority of churches out there do very good work for the needy and don't have a profit to show for it.

I can't remember the last time our church was in the black, yet our level of commitment to those in need does not suffer. We find a way to support all of those who are looking to us for support and help and never turn anyone away. Our church is not unique in that respect, either.

 

but there are no owners, da da. there are no distributions to members...no dividends to shareholders. it gets rolled in to the next year's budget. if the entity dissolves, the cash has to be distributed to another non-profit and not to private individuals or entities.

telling the red cross or the star of hope that if they get more donations than they can disburse for 2008 that they'll be taxed on the remainder is ludicrous. i can't even begin to think of all the implications of that.

 

Please tell me you are kidding.

At a time when some charities are concerned about being able to do their work in the future as the recession continues, you are actually suggesting that the government deplete their operating funds by taxing them? What if the Red Cross, for example, has $250,000 in cash deposits at the end of 2008, the government takes $100,000 in taxes, and then the Red Cross has lowered donations and another hurricane to deal with next year? They may not be able to help people they normally would help. Who loses? We all do.

Really, REALLY bad idea.

 

Well, then exempt the Red Cross, Salvation Army and other non-profits, but treat churches this way.

The Church is a business, and I believe it should be taxed as such.

DD

 

yeah...as a shareholder in the church, i've been ducking paying my fair share of taxes for years now, da da.

ridiculous.

 

You pay your taxes, as individuals do, I would tax your church...I don't see anything wrong with that.

DD

 

my point was the church has no owners. no one is entitled to that money...BECAUSE FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME IT'S A NONPROFIT!!!

My church has NOTHING. We lease space for Sunday nights...the end. All of the rest of our money goes towards the community. Literally, all of it. We sponsor and coach kids playing sports in a sports league...kids who wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise...kids the rest of the community calls "at-risk" or "those apartment kids." We help out individual families in a pocket of poverty that exists in our community.

But yeah, da da. Tax us. Registration for baseball starts in February...hopefully we can get enough people to donate at just the right time to get around it.

this is you grinding an axe, da da. nothing more.

 

I think everybody's point to you is that $250K belongs to nobody and will be expensed eventually to something, either in feeding the poor, fixing the roof of the chapel, or setting up a substance abuse reconciliation center. It gets spent.

Corporations have owners, partners, or shareholders that seek a distribution for the profit of the company in dividends, etc. There is nothing like that in a non-profit, any non-profit. There is no distribution of profits to anybody, all the money is eventually expensed to something. There are no shareholders seeking a distribution of money after all the expenses are paid.

The point being, since all money is accounted for, spent, expensed, or is going to be expensed, its pointless for the government to attempt to tax it.

IF you changed the law and started taxing surplus money that may be held by a church, churches would just spend 100% every year. The problem with that is in years of shortfalls. If all of a sudden, churches can't carry over any surplus from 2006 0r 2007, they won't be able to meet their obligations to the community in 2008's recession when giving goes lower. All of a sudden, homeless aren't being fed, children aren't getting blankets, and the roof isn't getting fixed.

The MAJORITY of the charitable giving and charitable works in this country are through faith based organizations and churches. Why cramp their ability to do that? For the very small minority in churches that may or may not seek to use the exempt status to their advantage you would hurt the majority of churces doing good works?

 

As has been mentioned, no one was being refused communion. The priest asked Obama-voting parishoners to themselves refrain until they did penance. Those who did not feel it was a sin could easily ignore him.