Taxing churches - for or against?

I'm not arguing to tax churches. However, I think it's fair to say pastors are already major political figures, especially in local politics.

 

Like I said in my first post, go after the Clergy like Joel, who actually rake in some tax free income. The church however doesn't really profit. You said it when you said they bought the Summit. They bought it. Its an expense(depreciated over time). Churches are non-profits. Its the pastors that can profit.

 

Property taxes would close the doors on a lot of churches (no doubt the intended goal of a lot of the people suggesting it).

A great number of churches are supported solely or almost solely by the donations of their members. For many churches there is not enough money to effectively run a church, pay salaries, etc. AND pay the potential taxes being suggested. There are a ton of independent churches that barely carry a balance year to year to save up for future expenses.

 

If Joel makes money, he's taxed on it. I'm sure he's super wealthy...and I'm sure he pays taxes.

The church brings in tons of money...but there are no shareholders here. There are no owners of that money. It's turned into paying for expenses...past that, the law says the rest of it has to go to non-profit/charitable efforts.

If Lakewood shuts down today...whatever's in the pot, after expenses, has to go to charitable efforts or be distributed to another non-profit. There's no windfall of cash for someone to take home. If the church breaks the law, hold the Trustees accountable under the law. That happens.

 

there are no owners of that "profit" you speak of. the money has to go to expenses (which can include salary for staff) or it has to go to charitable efforts. they break the law if it goes somewhere else.

 

I am surprised to see you struggle with the concept of profit in relation to non-profit entities. I know you are generally argumentative and love to see your username appear as many times as possible on the board, but I always thought you had a high business acumen.

What vow of poverty?

ROFL

"All ready happening"=failed presidential bids over 20 years ago?

Your hatred for religion blinds you and is preventing you from accepting facts.

 

You are simply wrong here.

Some churches bring in a great deal of money, this is correct. So do cancer research charities, autism behavioral therapy groups, etc. What you aren't grasping somehow is that there is no one who gets to own that profit.

Except there is no psychologist who owns his own practice taking home all of the profits at the end of the day.

This is a pretty huge difference, but it also isn't the only one as many people have tried to point out to you.

Do you believe all charities should pay taxes, or just religious ones (which you have demonstrated a disdain for on this board.)

Sigh...

 

i don't know...how many? the other pastors? church secretary? youth pastor? they're all fireable, da da. they're holding down jobs. their salary is taxed as income personally. the same way the staff of any other non-profit works.

what about not-for-profit hospitals, dada?? tax them? they make lots more money than churches, i assure you!

 

These are questions asked by the IRS before handing out exempt status. They also ask about policies regarding conflicts of interest. They deny when they're concerned and make you prove up why it's really ok.

 

ok...if you're for taxing not-for-profit hospitals, churches, etc. then it's likely there's no amount of conversation about the distinctions between these and for-profit entities that's going to make a difference. if you don't see how a church or a non-profit hospital is radically different from a law firm, for example, i'm not sure what to tell you.

i would suggest you research how entities get tax exempt status from the federal government and what they have to do to stay in compliance with state law, as well.

 

because it's an aside, da da, that came up in the discussion but doesn't directly address the question in your post. because those are personal tax exemptions he's talking about. personal tax. personal. as in a person being taxed...not an entity.

 

Thanks for all the info, I changed my mind.

Structure seems as sound as it possibly can be.

 

This is a separate argument. If you want to argue that pastors/church officials should have their tax status reworked, fine. That's another discussion. I would agree with his overall point. Housing allowances are a particular annoyance.

 

Stashed away in some building fund? You mean put in a fund to use for future expenses? Again, why is this a sticking point for you. It would still be utilized for legit expenses of the non-profit. It isn't like someone gets to just liquidate the building fund and go buy to a strip club and pay for hookers. If they do that they are breaking the law.

Again, your overall issue seems to be with the concept of the non-profit. You seem to just not like it at all. If you are honest that you want hospitals and charities taxed as well, then I am surprised, but the conversation can't go anywhere as most people will not agree with you. That's just a simple matter of principal. You want charities taxed whereas most people accept their tax exempt status. I think what has actually happened is you really just want churches taxed because you don't like them and you are saying it's fine for all charities as well to hide your position.

You also seem to be putting the tax status of the church and that tax status of the pastor/staff in the same argument. These are two separate arguments and get two different answers from me.