Don't non profits (churches and others) get audited to show where they spend their money? There are already laws on the books stating that organizations will be taxed if they don't meet the non-profit "rules". So I don't see what the argument is? Is the argument that all non-profits should be taxed? Our local little league carries a balance from year to year to cover field maint., uniforms, food/snacks for the traveling tournaments. I never thought they should pay taxes on my donations. Its an interesting idea, I guess...
If a church engages in politics, then they can lose their tax exempt status. Teaching against abortion or homosexuality is not politicking. Stating that you should not vote for certain candidate or party due to religious beliefs is considered politicking.
The churches that can afford to be taxed are often the corrupt ones. There are many many small churches that would not be able to survive.
I've got no problem with anything you just stated. A house of worship, for example, can be for or against illegal immigration, but they cannot back a candidate of any party or campaign against a candidate of any party according to the candidate's position. Members of a house of worship can campaign and vote as they please. IMO, the house of worship entity nor its leader should not be allowed to openly campaign without ceding its non-tax status. However, I can't think of an instance where this action (a house of worship losing its non-tax status) has been taken.
I'm not sure why we're arguing with DaDa when it's clear he will never admit defeat. But... We're talking about taxes. It is completely about accounting methodology. I attend a well-heeled church that is building it's new facility right now (will be open in 2 weeks, in fact). If there is a church that could get enough credit to get a loan, this would be it. But, they (like all churches) had to drum up a significant amount of money on their own to even get a short-term construction loan. Something like a mortgage is out of the question. Banks don't want to lend to entities whose income is based on charitable giving. Saying a church's building fund is somehow illegitimate is ridiculous. My church's building was years in the making. No church buildings would ever be built if they couldn't store up excess funds for a few years.
I agree with this and think the rules on this divide should be much stricter. Candidates shouldn't be going into Churches and making speeches and things like that - it's a huge gray area of "how do we endorse someone without outright saying so" and more emphasis needs to be placed on creating limits.
A number of years ago, we had a priest who was essentially fired (moved out of a church and into a 'desk job') for coming dangerously close to endorsing a particular candidate in a homily. He tip-toed around the issue just enough, but was considered too much of a loose cannon to continue to speak from the pulpit.
Doing some googling, I found a couple of examples of letters of revocation by the IRS, but a lot of confusion as to whether the move actually stuck. One Christian blog argues to go ahead and meddle in politics because the IRS has never been able to enforce the penalty -- but it's just a blog, so who knows.
It's interesting to see the results of this poll (currently 33 people in favor of taxing churches to 26 against) compared to the actual discussion here. For those 33 of you (or 32 taking out DaDakota who's shared his views), what is your argument for this?
I actually want to know what the argument is. Is it that churches specifically should not be granted tax exempt status? or that the tax exempt rules are not tight/enforced? or is it that there should be no tax exempt status?
I always wondered how much money goes to preachers of some of the higher end churches, "Lakewood Church - Joel Osteen". Some of these preachers live in enormous houses and get new cars every month. Do they have to pay taxes on their earnings from the church?
I read somewhere that Osteen no longer draws a salary from the church and lives (quite nicely) on profits from his other ventures.
I think it's an interesting dynamic. If you go to an affluent church (like I do), do you really want your pastor living at a much lower standard of living than an average congregant? That doesn't quite seem right. And, my church does give its pastors a comfortable-but-not-super-fabulous living. But, at a place like Lakewood, the congregation averages a much more modest income, but their pastor is extremely wealthy. That seems a bit out of whack too, though his money probably comes from his extra-curricular stuff and not from salary.
