http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/286956...apartments

 

These are the same people who operate Eureka Gardens.   They operate as a ministry.   Their top "minister" is paid $485,000 a year.  

 

So my question is, with so much abuse of tax exempt status, from political organizations to churches to charities, a lot of which are really being run for the benefit of the people who run them, what would be the downside to simply ending any and all use of tax-exempt status?   Make every organization taxable.  

 

I'm almost certain one of you guys can crush this idea logically, so this thread may not last more than a few posts, but I want to give it a shot anyway.   Let's think out of the box a little.  

 

End all tax-exempt status for everyone.  

 

 

 

 

---

I think they just need to be more strict when determining Tax-Exempt status.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I think they just need to be more strict when determining Tax-Exempt status.  

 

"They" meaning the government, which is in charge of determining who is exempt and who is not?  

---

Yes.  


Small Churches shouldn't be taxed.  While Mega Churches absolutely should.  Charities that put most of their money into their work shouldn't be taxed, while charities that keep most of their money should be considered fraudulent. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Yes.  


Small Churches shouldn't be taxed.  While Mega Churches absolutely should.  Charities that put most of their money into their work shouldn't be taxed, while charities that keep most of their money should be considered fraudulent. 

 

The problem is, you are giving the power to grant tax exempt status to an entity that is driven by money and politics.   If the IRS refuses to grant tax exempt status to anyone, they are hauled before congress and berated for it.   (Sometimes justifiably so, but still...) 

 

It would devolve into a highly political process.   What is a mega-church?   How do I avoid mega-church classification?   More jobs for the experts who advise you on how to avoid becoming taxable.   More pages in the tax code to deal with the details.    How many churches will be built with 1,999 seats because 2,000 seats makes you a mega-church?   The details and complications are only limited by your imagination.  

 

Is there a way to avoid all the complications with a simple rule that would accomplish what you want?  

---

Seats would not determine the status of 'mega church'.  How much money you bring in would.  Pretty simple really. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Yes.  


Small Churches shouldn't be taxed.  While Mega Churches absolutely should.  Charities that put most of their money into their work shouldn't be taxed, while charities that keep most of their money should be considered fraudulent. 

 

Government is EXPRESSLY forbidden from writing any law (pro or con) pertaining to certain institutions in this country. We should vigorously defend all of them in equal measure, because the loss of any one weakens the protections of them all.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The problem is, you are giving the power to grant tax exempt status to an entity that is driven by money and politics.   If the IRS refuses to grant tax exempt status to anyone, they are hauled before congress and berated for it.   (Sometimes justifiably so, but still...) 

 

It would devolve into a highly political process.   What is a mega-church?   How do I avoid mega-church classification?   More jobs for the experts who advise you on how to avoid becoming taxable.   More pages in the tax code to deal with the details.    How many churches will be built with 1,999 seats because 2,000 seats makes you a mega-church?   The details and complications are only limited by your imagination.  

 

Is there a way to avoid all the complications with a simple rule that would accomplish what you want?  

 

Yes, end taxation of entities and replace it with an individual consumption tax.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Government is EXPRESSLY forbidden from writing any law (pro or con) pertaining to certain institutions in this country. We should vigorously defend all of them in equal measure, because the loss of any one weakens the protections of them all.

So none of them should get tax exempt status at all?

 

I think there is place for legit charities that do charitable work to receive tax relief since they are actually not in the business of making money for making monies sake.

---

So none of them should get tax exempt status at all?

 

I think there is place for legit charities that do charitable work to receive tax relief since they are actually not in the business of making money for making monies sake.

 

No, none of them can or should be taxed.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

No, none of them can or should be taxed.

They are a business and take in money. I understand you would prefer a consumption tax but that's not really the issue being discussed. Under the current tax policy should they be taxed, not taxed or as 11thDoctor proposes, taxed on weather they are actually charities or not?

---

I do believe that this is a topic (Tax Exempt Status) that should be discussed, but it is going to be on the "fine line" regarding the COC.  I don't believe that tax exempt status is the problem in this case.

 

Regarding the entity that the OP brought up, this sounds like more of a scam rather than a charity.  It is most certainly not a church in the way most established religions are such as the Catholic Church, Baptist Church, etc.  I hadn't paid much attention to it until the OP posted this thread.  This article regarding Eureka Gardens really raised my eyebrows.

 

I do believe that this goes beyond tax exempt status.  This is a failure (yet again) of government plain and simple.

 

 A few quotes from the article that I linked.

 

Eureka Gardens tenants called News4Jax, crying foul after a U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development inspection gave the complex a passing score of an 85 in August. A week after those reports aired, a multi-agency city code enforcement sweep at the complex uncovered numerous defects that were not included in the HUD report.

 
The city inspection found 163 units out of 400 with code violations at Eureka Gardens. That's 40 percent of the homes in squalor.

 

JALA attorneys are also looking into the fact that Hamlet (pictured below) and his company have spent only 3 percent of $7 million in federal funding on maintenance and repairs for the six Jacksonville properties.

 

Those properties were purchased in 2012, and in one year, Global Ministries Foundation pulled in $7 million to run the properties, according to an audit. But the company spent just $242,757 of that on maintenance and repairs spread across all six aging housing facilities.

 

These people are getting tax payer dollars in the form of subsidies to run these properties, and they are getting even more tax payer dollars since rent is paid via HUD.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

They are a business and take in money. I understand you would prefer a consumption tax but that's not really the issue being discussed. Under the current tax policy should they be taxed, not taxed or as 11thDoctor proposes, taxed on weather they are actually charities or not?

 

Charities are not specifically enumerated as free of government restriction. Whether or not a church is a charity is irrelevant, religion is not open to government regulation and what we currently have is unconstitutional.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm down with ending all exemptions. But you'd have to racially change the tax code or your double taxing.


To clarify income taxes are paid I donate money to cause A then if cause A is supposed to be taxed you've essentially double taxed my contribution.

---

Charities are not specifically enumerated as free of government restriction. Whether or not a church is a charity is irrelevant, religion is not open to government regulation and what we currently have is unconstitutional.

There are plenty of laws on the books that grant tax free or tax relief status to non profits and charities fall under those. 

 

As for churches the first amendment says nothing about taxation. As far as I understand it has been interpreted as saying the government can enact no laws either promoting or restricting religion. The 1st doesn't say anything about them not paying taxes. That comes from being a non profit. So yeah, whether a church is a charity is very relevant. 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

---

I'm done with ending all exemptions.

Does that mean you don't want to end them any longer? Or you approve of removing exemptions?

---

Does that mean you don't want to end them any longer? Or you approve of removing exemptions?

Typo I fixed the post

---

There are plenty of laws on the books that grant tax free or tax relief status to non profits and charities fall under those. 

 

As for churches the first amendment says nothing about taxation. As far as I understand it has been interpreted as saying the government can enact no laws either promoting or restricting religion. The 1st doesn't say anything about them not paying taxes. That comes from being a non profit. So yeah, whether a church is a charity is very relevant. 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

 

A "typical" church is both a non-profit and a charity.  Churches don't charge money for their services and do help people in need.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm down with ending all exemptions. But you'd have to racially change the tax code or your double taxing.


To clarify income taxes are paid I donate money to cause A then if cause A is supposed to be taxed you've essentially double taxed my contribution.

 

Double taxation occurs everywhere.   If you hire a plumber, you pay him with money you have already paid taxes on, and he has to pay tax on what you pay him.   So double taxation is not the issue here.  

---

A "typical" church is both a non-profit and a charity.  Churches don't charge money for their services and do help people in need.

 

But who decides what qualifies as a church?   The government.    Do you think that power should be in the hands of the government?   As long as some entities get tax exempt status, the government will be making those decisions. 

---