Typo I fixed the post

That's all well and good but how do we begin to racially change the code?  :teehee:

 

Time for a new phone upgrade?

---

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.

I don't disagree at all. I don't think my post came across that way?

 

I do think a group or organization whether that is a church or a homeless shelter should get tax relief up to and including exemptions because they are not out for profits. 

---

Government is EXPRESSLY forbidden from writing any law (pro or con) pertaining to certain institutions in this country.

 

If that is true, why is the government allowed to write laws pertaining to standards of what qualifies as a church? 

---

I don't disagree at all. I don't think my post came across that way?

 

I do think a group or organization whether that is a church or a homeless shelter should get tax relief up to and including exemptions because they are not out for profits. 

 

But who decides whether they are out for a profit or not?   What if the person organizing and starting up the "charity" pays himself a million dollar salary?   What if they like to travel all over the world first class?   What if they hire their daughter to help them run it?   What if they hire their friends and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries?   At what point does it become a profit making organization?  

---

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. 

 

Again, to really answer this question for me would be "walking the fine line" regarding the COC.  My personal opinion is that the entity in the OP is not a "church" or a "charity".  It is clearly a money-making operation using existing laws to get federal as well as state funding.  I'm not sure if they are actually tax exempt, but if they are, then the scam is bigger than I thought.

---

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

But who decides whether they are out for a profit or not?   What if the person organizing and starting up the "charity" pays himself a million dollar salary?   What if they like to travel all over the world first class?   What if they hire their daughter to help them run it?   What if they hire their friends and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries?   At what point does it become a profit making organization?  

I think this is actually fairly easy to do. Take the average of the charities percentage of money brought in to money given out. You can then label anyone within the threshold as passing or failing the exemption test. Would it be this simple? Of course not but it is an idea of how you could go about it. 

---

Again, to really answer this question for me would be "walking the fine line" regarding the COC.  My personal opinion is that the entity in the OP is not a "church" or a "charity".  It is clearly a money-making operation using existing laws to get federal as well as state funding.  I'm not sure if they are actually tax exempt, but if they are, then the scam is bigger than I thought.

You should go look up the segment John Oliver did on the scam churches and tax exempt status in general. They are enough to make anyone's blood boil.

---

I don't disagree at all. I don't think my post came across that way?

 

I do think a group or organization whether that is a church or a homeless shelter should get tax relief up to and including exemptions because they are not out for profits. 

 

I don't think that your post that I quoted came across the way that you think.  I was kind of addressing an earlier post regarding "mega-churches".  I figured that you being the good liberal that you are probably agreed with the post.  Again, it's hard to really discuss this while staying within the COC.

 

I do also agree with you that a group or organization that does legitimate charity work should get tax relief.

---

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

I don't think that your post that I quoted came across the way that you think.  I was kind of addressing an earlier post regarding "mega-churches".  I figured that you being the good liberal that you are probably agreed with the post.  Again, it's hard to really discuss this while staying within the COC.

 

I do also agree with you that a group or organization that does legitimate charity work should get tax relief.

I'm like liberal light but I do appreciate the vote of confidence.  :thumbsup:

---

When you start trying to put in rules about who does and does not qualify for exemptions, you're just inviting certain parties with enough at stake to employ lawyers and accountants to make sure they qualify for those exemptions on paper, even if they do not in practice. The only way to put a fair end to that abuse is to eliminate nonprofit/tax-exempt status entirely, but then you're killing off thousands of reputable charities that actually do put their money where their mouth is. It's a painful proposition either way.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think that simply being a church should qualify an organization for tax-exempt status. Simple reason? The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state, and lifting taxation on a church is stepping across that line into displaying favoritism towards religion. Of course, we all know what that would accomplish: the church down the street that has an attendance of 50 and regularly has volunteer groups at retirement homes, cleaning up the roads and feeding the homeless would be forced to shut down while the mega-church two miles away simply cuts back on its charitable activities (if it really does any in the first place) and has the pastor tag a line about needing more donations to counter the government attack on their beliefs at the end of his sermon.

 

I think the best answer is to remove tax-exempt status, but to allow any charitable organization or church to write off taxes on any actual charitable expenses. Basically, tax them like we're taxed when it comes to charitable spending. Depending on the size of the organization, the percentage of income spent on payroll (to prevent a CEO from making a disproportionate amount of money, like many charitable CEOs do) and the amount of its annual income that is put towards charitable endeavors, additional exemptions or an increase in the tax deductions, up to a real dollar-for-dollar ratio, could be in play to help the organization with 5 employees, each of whom makes $35,000 per year, to continue functioning. Basically, the bigger you are, the more you pay, period, and no mega-church or 5,000-employee charity will be able to hide behind accountants to dodge significant tax bills, but all entities can realize significant tax reductions by devoting more income to charitable spending.

 

I know, it's not perfect, and it still leaves lots of potential for loophole exploits, but it's unquestionably an improvement over a system in which the NFL would still not be paying any corporate taxes had they not voluntarily done so. Lots of churches in this country do a great deal of charitable work; lots of others don't. Lots of charities put all their time and money into their work; many others pocket large sums of money and send as little as ten cents of every dollar taken in back into the community. There has to be a check in place to make sure that the small churches with members who bust their butts improving their community are taken care of, and the moneymaking machines hiding behind the veil of religion are forced to pay the same taxes that any other business bringing in cash by the busload would.

---

When you start trying to put in rules about who does and does not qualify for exemptions, you're just inviting certain parties with enough at stake to employ lawyers and accountants to make sure they qualify for those exemptions on paper, even if they do not in practice. The only way to put a fair end to that abuse is to eliminate nonprofit/tax-exempt status entirely, but then you're killing off thousands of reputable charities that actually do put their money where their mouth is. It's a painful proposition either way.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think that simply being a church should qualify an organization for tax-exempt status. Simple reason? The First Amendment establishes a separation of church and state, and lifting taxation on a church is stepping across that line into displaying favoritism towards religion. Of course, we all know what that would accomplish: the church down the street that has an attendance of 50 and regularly has volunteer groups at retirement homes, cleaning up the roads and feeding the homeless would be forced to shut down while the mega-church two miles away simply cuts back on its charitable activities (if it really does any in the first place) and has the pastor tag a line about needing more donations to counter the government attack on their beliefs at the end of his sermon.

 

I think the best answer is to remove tax-exempt status, but to allow any charitable organization or church to write off taxes on any actual charitable expenses. Basically, tax them like we're taxed when it comes to charitable spending. Depending on the size of the organization, the percentage of income spent on payroll (to prevent a CEO from making a disproportionate amount of money, like many charitable CEOs do) and the amount of its annual income that is put towards charitable endeavors, additional exemptions or an increase in the tax deductions, up to a real dollar-for-dollar ratio, could be in play to help the organization with 5 employees, each of whom makes $35,000 per year, to continue functioning. Basically, the bigger you are, the more you pay, period, and no mega-church or 5,000-employee charity will be able to hide behind accountants to dodge significant tax bills, but all entities can realize significant tax reductions by devoting more income to charitable spending.

 

I know, it's not perfect, and it still leaves lots of potential for loophole exploits, but it's unquestionably an improvement over a system in which the NFL would still not be paying any corporate taxes had they not voluntarily done so. Lots of churches in this country do a great deal of charitable work; lots of others don't. Lots of charities put all their time and money into their work; many others pocket large sums of money and send as little as ten cents of every dollar taken in back into the community. There has to be a check in place to make sure that the small churches with members who bust their butts improving their community are taken care of, and the moneymaking machines hiding behind the veil of religion are forced to pay the same taxes that any other business bringing in cash by the busload would.

I like this much better than my simple solution. 

---

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.

He only pays taxes on goods he's selling me the pipes and the assortiated parts needed for the repair I'm not paying taxes on his labor.


The only time something is taxed is when goods are exchanging hands and that's a one time tax. The seller of the goods doesn't pay a tax with his resale tax.

---

That's all well and good but how do we begin to racially change the code? :teehee:


Time for a new phone upgrade?

Seriously, this iPhone is going on the fritz with the autocorrect.....

---

If that is true, why is the government allowed to write laws pertaining to standards of what qualifies as a church? 

 

Because no one pays attention to the Constitution anymore?

---

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

But who decides whether they are out for a profit or not? What if the person organizing and starting up the "charity" pays himself a million dollar salary? What if they like to travel all over the world first class? What if they hire their daughter to help them run it? What if they hire their friends and pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries? At what point does it become a profit making organization?

All of those people pay income taxes. We're talking about taxing institutions and entities, not individuals. The concept you're talking about is fair use; what is the equivalent in compensation for the use of equipment owned by a non-profit and how do we tax the individual for that use?


These arguments are exactly the reason that we need consumption taxation, Uncle Sam gets his cut when the money is spent, period.

---

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

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

 

^This!!!!

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

All of those people pay income taxes. We're talking about taxing institutions and entities, not individuals. The concept you're talking about is fair use; what is the equivalent in compensation for the use of equipment owned by a non-profit and how do we tax the individual for that use?


These arguments are exactly the reason that we need consumption taxation, Uncle Sam gets his cut when the money is spent, period.

 

In that scenario, would religious institutions pay consumption taxes on all items they purchase?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

^This!!!!

A consumption tax isn't happening. Regardless of whether it's the right move going forward or not it's not going to happen.

---

He only pays taxes on goods he's selling me the pipes and the assortiated parts needed for the repair I'm not paying taxes on his labor.


The only time something is taxed is when goods are exchanging hands and that's a one time tax. The seller of the goods doesn't pay a tax with his resale tax.

 

No, you missed my point. 

 

You said, "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." 

 

To which I replied, that if you pay taxes on your income, then you hire a plumber and pay him, he pays income tax on what you pay him.   Double taxed just like your example. 

 

Double taxation, triple taxation, quadruple taxation, occurs everywhere.   People pay tax on their income, then they pay someone for something and that money is taxed as income to that person or entity.   And so on ad infinitum. 

---

In that scenario, would religious institutions pay consumption taxes on all items they purchase?

No, and neither would any other entity. You just need a mechanism to insure that individuals aren't gaming the system by making every purchase through an entity.

---

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