I hate that stuff, too. I don't find it meshes with the Gospel they claim to preach, either. And while I argued against this in this thread...I'd like to say I'm fine with taxing the hell out of the "churches" associated with Dollar and Creflo listed in judoka's article.
Church's are tax exempt because they are a charitable cause. These get rich salesman are covetous, they rob widows to buy airplanes and swimming pools. They neglect the poor to wear $1,000.00 suites and polute the truth for personal gain. Church's do not make profits, they serve people, poor Christians and the poor of the world, Churches do not erect temples they seek out the least the last and the lost of their world. A church does not promote a leader or a book or sell the gospel, churches are representative of Jesus, who became poor to bless others. Hypocrites and Hell Anyways, it is nice not to be taxed, we stretch every penny to help others.
I still think it would be a bad idea to tax churches. We can look at Rhester's little church and Benny Hin's but those represent extremes while there are many churches in between and where we draw the line is the tricky part. I think for the sake of religious freedom and separation of church and state we don't tax churches.
The problem is how do you decide which to tax and which not to tax. Only tax churches with operating revenue above $X? Where I live, we have the same problem. Religious organizations are listed as charities and tax exempt, but there are some mega-churches that look more like cash generating corporations than charities (pastors living decadent life styles, ATM machines placed at church entrances, side businesses, etc).
agreed entirely. i'm not for taxation of churches at all, because i can't imagine the government would do a good job of sorting through this mess. my call for the taxation of those specific churches was tongue-in-cheek only.
measure and tax the tangible benefits received by individuals. better assess the charitable purpose being practiced by the organization and the resources that go to that purpose ensure all ancillary revenues (book sales, speaking tours etc) are captured by the organization's disclosures. the government already sorts through this sort of mess with other charitable organizations, but it seems some churches are playing a little loose with the separation of individual vs organization. and if it means you need to disclose that Pastor John is getting a $10m salary (when you include book sales etc) then, so be it...assuming a charity could do that and still retain its status...so grandma knows this when she cuts them a check. And if senators do a 3 year indepth review, require them to draw conclusions on whether (or not) the churches are offside with the IRS, and give them the same sorts of powers to compel cooperation as you'd give a committee reviewing MLB.
even preachers pay income tax, if they're paid by their congregation. "income" is defined pretty broadly under the tax code.
It's true they pay tax on their salary. I'm not convinced the super high-rollers are taxed on the benefits they, and their families get through the use of church assets. The plane trips. The luxury homes. The hookers. etc. I also don't like that while "the Church of Reverend John" is a charitable organization, when Reverend John, of that church, writes a book about the teachings of the church, while he's reverend of the church, and promotes that book during the "Church of Reverend John's Television hour" and sells it through their bookstore, to the church's parishioners -- the proceeds are somehow a private venture. A charitable entity as a promotional arm of a private business.... (fwiw -- i'd buy reverend rhesters book. And if he offered it with a soundtrack -- i'd buy that too!). I think there's big time abuse here. I think there's a huge reluctance to look at it for fear of being seen as 'attacking' religion. Greenpeace has been stripped of, or refused charitable status in many countries because their activities don't fully meet the respective definitions of charitable purpose. I suspect there are a few mega churches who have also strayed from the flock....
i'm with you. i understand what you're saying. frustrates the frock out of me too. i know a guy who is a pastor and writes books that are very well read and received. he gets paid by the church with a salary none of you would balk at....and all money that comes in off the books goes directly to a nonprofit that filters money out to other nonprofits. i like that guy.
Easy. If they have more than you do, then their property should by stolen and redistributed to various government agencies.
Taxes are not "stealing," they are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. If you want to live tax-free, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year. You'll just have to watch out for the pirates because you won't have that Marxist Commie police force helping you out.
Income taxation is a form of theft and there isn't much civilized that it is financing. And you are right, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848. http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/
This seems to me to be more an issue of governance than taxation. If a church has a legitimate board of directors who are legitimately representing the stakeholders, they would prevent abuse of church assets. (Though, honestly, I think that's hard to achieve in a church.)
Income taxation is a form of theft? I guess it's good to know when people have moved beyond reasonable discussion.
Report: Majority Of Money Donated At Church Doesn't Make It To God http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-majority-of-money-donated-at-church-doesnt,18765/
Just remember, taxes are not "stealing," they are the price we pay to live in a civilized society. Swiss town warns dog owners to pay tax or pet will die Associated Press Jan. 10, 2011, 11:04AM GENEVA — A Swiss village has found a drastic way to compel dog holders to pay their pet's annual tax: cough up, or the dog gets it. Reconvilier — population 2,245 humans, 280 dogs — plans to put Fido on notice if its owner doesn't pay the annual $50 tax. Local official Pierre-Alain Nemitz says the move is part of an effort to reclaim hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes. He says a law from 1904 allows the village to kill dogs if its owner does not pay the canine charge. Nemitz told the AP on Monday that authorities have received death threats since news of the plan got out. "This isn't about a mass execution of dogs," Nemitz said. "It's meant to put pressure on people who don't cooperate." http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/bizarre/7374306.html
