Should Churches Be Made to Play By The Rules?

[Skwim]

.

An excellent, well reasoned consideration.

What do you think?

.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

.

An excellent, well reasoned consideration.

What do you think?

.

Makes sense, and I agree with him. Targeting specific ideas with what amounts to discriminatory legislation because a particular person or group doesn't agree with them isn't something I would want to see start gaining contemporary precedence.

 

[Augustus]

.

An excellent, well reasoned consideration.

What do you think?

.

Brief summary?

 

[Skwim]

Brief summary?

I guess it's all relative.

.

 

[Polymath257]

Brief summary?

The basic idea is that churches should be able to keep their non-profit status as long as they fill out the same forms (990's) as other types of non-profits. This would allow people to know where their money goes.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Simple solution: Tax'em. If they fill out the form? They can get credit for the *actual* charitable behaviors they do-- and NO tax exempt for routine church actions.

So, credit for actual utility payment programs, or food pantries, or clothing drives, etc.

NO credit for printing of propaganda, distribution of propaganda (bibles), keeping their lights on, payment to leaders, etc, etc, etc.

Treat them like the ENTERTAINMENT they are-- IF they can manage to prove their promises are NOT empty? THEN and ONLY THEN, do they get tax exemptions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, very well reasoned, and I find him quite convincing. I especially agree with his notions of government never being in the business of policing thought or belief. But yes, let churches, like all other tax exempt group, follow the same rules -- report, and stay out of politics, or lose the tax exempt status.

I like being argued to the way this fellow does.

 

[tayla]

Simple solution: Tax'em. If they fill out the form? They can get credit for the *actual* charitable behaviors they do-- and NO tax exempt for routine church actions.

So, credit for actual utility payment programs, or food pantries, or clothing drives, etc.

NO credit for printing of propaganda, distribution of propaganda (bibles), keeping their lights on, payment to leaders, etc, etc, etc.

This is a very good proposal. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for someone to indoctrinate others with false views.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a very good proposal. As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for someone to indoctrinate others with false views.

As the OP video points out, this happens all the time. There are many tax-exempt organizations that are wildly disliked by many people (NRA, Planned Parenthood).

But, churches have been allowed to violate the basic rules of tax-exempt organizations: that they should stay out of politics, and have their finances be public.

 

[Augustus]

The basic idea is that churches should be able to keep their non-profit status as long as they fill out the same forms (990's) as other types of non-profits. This would allow people to know where their money goes.

As well as that, I wonder if you could implement a law that says in order to keep tax exempt status there is a maximum salary/benefits package you can offer to staff, and/or a maximum % of income that can be spent on paying staff.

If you feel you deserve to be paid a massive salary/benefits package, then your church can afford to pay tax as you are viewing it as a business venture to enrich yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

As well as that, I wonder if you could implement a law that says in order to keep tax exempt status there is a maximum salary/benefits package you can offer to staff, and/or a maximum % of income that can be spent on paying staff.

If you feel you deserve to be paid a massive salary/benefits package, then your church can afford to pay tax as you are viewing it as a business venture to enrich yourself.

While I wouldn't be against such, I think it is enough to publish the salaries and expenses and let those who want to donate know. I am a bit leery of explicit caps just because times change and what is acceptable does also.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do you think?

This would not be as difficult to get changed as he suggests. The main obstacle is that so many try to argue that churches should lose tax exempt status instead of focusing on an achievable goal such as this one which would improve accountability. I'm sure many church people would support this measure.

Brief summary?

He argues that churches should have to fill out a 1099 form declaring their income, largest contributors and amounts paid to employees. Its an information form that churches, unlike other non-profits, don't have to fill out.

Further he argues that it would be politically difficult to get this changed.

 

[LuisDantas]

.

An excellent, well reasoned consideration.

What do you think?

.

I am a firm believer that the government has no business whatsoever in even trying to declare what should count as properly religious and what should not. That would be the very definition of religious discrimination, after all.

So sure, churches should not IMO have any specific tax exemptions. Many of them quite deserve those, and may apply for them just like any non-profit enterprise should. Many other churches are simply not non-profit enterprises by any sane understanding, and should not expect a privilege that they do not deserve or even approach.

There is simply no good reason for special adjustments to be justified by a claim of religious nature. Let the people decide what they consider to be "properly" religious as they like. And let the government have no reason to take stances.

 

[Skwim]

I am a firm believer that the government has no business whatsoever in even trying to declare what should count as properly religious and what should not.

Why not? If it's going to exempt certain enterprises from normal responsibilities, be it religious or otherwise, it has to define them doesn't it.

That would be the very definition of religious discrimination, after all.

How?

So sure, churches should not IMO have any specific tax exemptions. Many of them quite deserve those, and may apply for them just like any non-profit enterprise should.

"Churches should not IMO have any specific tax exemptions". ≠ "Many of them quite deserve those."

There is simply no good reason for special adjustments to be justified by a claim of religious nature. Let the people decide what they consider to be "properly" religious as they like. And let the government have no reason to take stances.

Not quite understanding your position here, particularly "And let the government have no reason to take stances." As you're aware, the government has taken a stance regarding non-profit enterprises, declaring religions to be exempt from certain liabilities that accrue to regular businesses. What the government has not done is take a stance against those liberties religions have acquired by default, which are not accorded other non-profits.

.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not understanding what your objection would be, @Skwim

ONGs such as Doctors Without Borders or Red Cross deserve certain exemptions, if they can document the justifications.

So should churches, under the very same constraints (or lack thereof).

At no point there is an actual reason to brand any such ONG as religious.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why not? If it's going to exempt certain enterprises from normal responsibilities, be it religious or otherwise, it has to define them doesn't it.

How?



"Churches should not IMO have any specific tax exemptions". ≠ "Many of them quite deserve those."


Not quite understanding your position here, particularly "And let the government have no reason to take stances." As you're aware, the government has taken a stance regarding non-profit enterprises, declaring religions to be exempt from certain liabilities that accrue to regular businesses. What the government has not done is take a stance against those liberties religions have acquired by default, which are not accorded other non-profits.

.

I do not really know what you are talking about. I guess that I am saying that there should not be any such differentiation.

 

[Polymath257]

I am not understanding what your objection would be, @Skwim

ONGs such as Doctors Without Borders or Red Cross deserve certain exemptions, if they can document the justifications.

So should churches, under the very same constraints (or lack thereof).

At no point there is an actual reason to brand any such ONG as religious.

So, then, ALL NGOs should fill out the same disclosure forms? Including churches? if so, that is precisely the point of the OP video.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, then, ALL NGOs should fill out the same disclosure forms? Including churches? if so, that is precisely the point of the OP video.

It is a fair point, and it is indeed what I propose.

Except that it seems to me that a large number of churches have no business whatsoever even claiming to be NGOs, of course. Because they are not, often by a very long shot.

However, I don't think that the video in the OP made quite that appeal. Maybe I misunderstood it?

 

[Polymath257]

It is a fair point, and it is indeed what I propose.

Except that it seems to me that a large number of churches have no business whatsoever even claiming to be NGOs, of course. Because they are not, often by a very long shot.

However, I don't think that the video in the OP made quite that appeal. Maybe I misunderstood it?

From what I got in the OP, he seems to think that having the finances public and eliminating interference in politics would go a long way to justifying NGO status. And, of course, those that violate the rules would lose their status.

 

[Riders]

.

An excellent, well reasoned consideration.

What do you think?

.

Churches should not be tax exempt.