Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I think tithing is a bogus construct for Christians, the idea that we must give 10% of our income to churches; so perhaps this will allow ministries to pivot and start to be honest about that issue.
I think tithing is a bogus construct for Christians, the idea that we must give 10% of our income to churches; so perhaps this will allow ministries to pivot and start to be honest about that issue.
It could be good or bad. I'm surprised the church in the video gets to keep its charitable status, however I don't know the IRS rules. I would like to think that this would require more paperwork for the church and more documentation of how it spends its money.
This could be a very good thing. I don't agree with the video's focus on fear. The presenter keeps bringing up the fear that this could be a slippery slope. Ministries have almost no financial accountability. This is less of a slippery slope and more of a hill to climb. Running a business is not easy. If they are going to make a profit to fund their ministry that is probably good, provided that is what the business is actually used for.
Do you think it's time religious institutions ought to pay taxes?
Not quite, but I think they should have to report as if they were paying taxes, and I think they should be subject to random audits like businesses are.Do you think it's time religious institutions ought to pay taxes?
Not quite, but I think they should have to report as if they were paying taxes, and I think they should be subject to random audits like businesses are.
The reason I don't think they should be taxed is that gives them an incentive to become involved in government -- to lobby. Some already lobby.
@Epic Beard Man, after watching that video and seeing how the present situation for the mainstream churches is getting harder (financially) to sustain due to dwindling numbers, the problem seems to be that 'old time religions' are not giving people what they want, so they are turning elsewhere. The monster mega churches are doing a thriving 'business' because its so impersonal. People can be anonymous audience participants because no one knows who they are, or what they are doing in their lives....and nobody cares.....there is lots of entertainment and emotional appeal, but also 'megabucks' that go with that. Seeing these evangelical 'thieves' profiting off the donations is sickening to me. Its the very reason why Jesus threw the merchants out of the Temple for turning it into a "den of thieves".
Speaking for my brotherhood, it was one of the reasons I found JW's so attractive.....no one is paid to do God's work. Every elder is self supporting so that they are not a drain on congregations' finances. And there several elders in each congregation who look after all the members....each member is known and cared about. If they need help. They only have to ask, and there will be an army there if necessary to take care of a problem. Its a very secure place to be, and the ones who are helped, in turn help others once they are back on their feet.
Our world wide brotherhood contributes whatever they can afford to a central fund that is used to support missionaries in lands where there is no work available, and to take care of those who are victims of the ever increasing natural disasters. Our brothers are first on the ground to offer assistance, and they set as a priority, finding those in our spiritual family to make sure that their immediate needs are met. If accommodation is needed, it will be offered by other congregation members if their circumstances allow.
We still hold our Christian meetings over Zoom and chat with one another before and after so we don't lose contact even in lockdown situations.
We look after our own and if all churches did that, imagine what the world would look like in these difficult times?
As for the poor, we have set our priorities to helping them in practical ways that will train a person to become self sufficient. They can learn skills and gain employment, and most importantly, self respect. That way we have no "rice Christians" who only show up for the free handout. Instead of giving the man a fish, we teach the man to fish. We know that our money is not wasted on a grandiose lifestyle of any one. Those who have give.....those who don't have can give in other ways, like supporting the elderly or the sick with help in the home or running errands. We don't see that as someone else's job.
Since no one gets paid for anything connected with our worship, we have no way to rort the system....and there is no one who's in it for the money (wrongly motivated) because there isn't any......we are counseled to be 'givers' not 'takers'.
The old is new again.
Monastics have been doing business for a long time. Selling honey, mead, candles and more.
I'm not sure what you mean by what Jesus was talking about. Are you saying that monks selling goods to make their community self-sufficient was something Jesus taught against? Creflo Dollar types? Yes, Jesus and the entirety of the early Church warned against that type.What gets me is wasn't this exactly what Jesus was talking about? I mean with the exception of money changers in front of the church you have the likes of Creflo Dollar who is using millions of dollars to fund a jet to go from here and there off the tithes of members? Why is God's word big business?
I'm not sure what you mean by what Jesus was talking about. Are you saying that monks selling goods to make their community self-sufficient was something Jesus taught against? Creflo Dollar types? Yes, Jesus and the entirety of the early Church warned against that type.
There is a near endless supply of people who have a gaping hole in their life, that they are desperate to fill. The wrong person will squeeze them dry, and they know their marks.
Of course they should!!Do you think it's time religious institutions ought to pay taxes?
Normally, that would be because they are not businesses and do not earn a profit (no owner, no shareholders), just like any other charitable organisation that relies on donations from the public to fund activities for the public good. For the UK, the rules are set out in theOf course they should!!
What reason is there for them not to?
Church of England ...Normally, that would be because they are not businesses and do not earn a profit (no owner, no shareholders), just like any other charitable organisation that relies on donations from the public to fund activities for the public good. For the UK, the rules are set out in the
Charities Act 2011, which contains the following as a definition:
QUOTE
The Charities Act 2011 provides the following list of charitable purposes.[36]
A charity must also provide a public benefit.[37]
- the prevention or relief of poverty
- the advancement of education
- the advancement of religion
- the advancement of health or the saving of lives
- the advancement of citizenship or community development
- the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
- the advancement of amateur sport
- the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
- the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
- the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
- the advancement of animal welfare
- the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
- other purposes currently recognized as charitable and any new charitable purposes which are similar to another charitable purpose.
UNQUOTE
(From: Charitable organization - Wikipedia )
The advancement of religion is thus recognised in law as a social good, and this view was reconfirmed as recently as ten years ago.
In cases where a religious organisation does run a business, e.g. monks brewing liqueurs or selling honey, I rather think they have to keep accounts and pay tax on the profit from it, but I could be wrong. Perhaps someone here knows.
Atheists can and do run charitable organisations. The law doesn't inhibit that in any way.Church of England ...
Properties and finances of the Church of England - Wikipedia.
"The Church of England has a large endowment of £8.7 billion which generates approximately £1 billion a year in income"
Catholic Church
Roman Catholics: The Vatican's Wealth
"Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion."
Atheists do many good works too, but they do not get the tax breaks
Have you been to The Vatican? Westminster Cathedral?Atheists can and do run charitable organisations. The law doesn't inhibit that in any way.
As for sources of church income, these numbers are meaningless unless set against the expenditure. Do you see a lot of clerics running around in Rolls Royces? I don't. So where does the money go, do you suppose?
The operating costs of these churches are vast, notably the maintenance of the buildings, many of which are jewels of the European artistic heritage.
Definitely.Do you think it's time religious institutions ought to pay taxes?