I'm creating this thread to continue an off topic conversation from another thread which began here:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unethical-ways-to-save-money/msg2373522/#msg2373522
This is an issue I've given some thought to in the past and I do have an opinion but before taking a stance I'd like to learn a bit more about tax law as it relates to religious organizations.
If anyone would like to continue the conversation or has any knowledge to share this would place to do it.
I'm creating this thread to continue an off topic conversation from another thread which began here:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unethical-ways-to-save-money/msg2373522/#msg2373522
This is an issue I've given some thought to in the past and I do have an opinion but before taking a stance I'd like to learn a bit more about tax law as it relates to religious organizations.
If anyone would like to continue the conversation or has any knowledge to share this would place to do it.
If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
Churches do perform good work in their communities such as the operation of soup kitchens and shelters for homeless people.
Sponsored by their church, some churchmen go abroad and do good by assisting the poor and treating/curing diseased individuals.
For this good that they do I support tax exemptions for churches.
If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
Churches do perform good works in their communities such as the operation of soup kitchens and shelters for homeless people.
Sponsored by their church, some churchmen go abroad and do good works by assisting the poor and treating/curing diseased individuals.
For these good works I support tax exemptions for churches.
Yeah, the good stuff is great. Not entirely OK with funding the bad in order to get that good though.
Fighting against the distribution of condoms in AIDS stricken African countries.
I'm creating this thread to continue an off topic conversation from another thread which began here:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/unethical-ways-to-save-money/msg2373522/#msg2373522
This is an issue I've given some thought to in the past and I do have an opinion but before taking a stance I'd like to learn a bit more about tax law as it relates to religious organizations.
If anyone would like to continue the conversation or has any knowledge to share this would place to do it.
First of all, again, thanks for the thread. It's an important discussion. It's also a very clear cut one.
I can speak with firsthand experiences for churches and also for a non profit camp organization. There's two essential ways they benefit from tax law. People get a tax deduction for donating, and the non profit doesn't pay taxes. This is standard for non profits. The personal tax deduction for most churches that are normal size (less than 100 we'll say) is pretty irrelevant. You need to have a person donating a lot of money for this to impact them past the standard deduction, especially with the new higher standard deduction. From my experience, it doesn't really affect much. The one that does, though, is the taxing of the churches. If you look at things from the media perspective, churches are more like Joel Olsteen mega churches with millions of dollars in revenue. In reality, most are smaller without an even full time paid pastor, operating off of a shoestring budget. If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
The fact is that there are standard non profits and churches that aren't on the up and up. Some nonprofits have CEOs that make exorbitant amounts of money just like some churches have pastors that do as well.There is nothing unique about churches as non profits except for religion. So essentially, as I mentioned in the previous thread, we either reevaluate our entire strategy on non profits, single out religions as especially awful non profits that need to be treated differently than any other non-profit, or come up with another solution. If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional. It would certainly be targeting religions, essentially respecting the establishment of a religion (atheism, a non religion at least) by targeting anything but atheism. Even if you don't buy this, it's definitely targeting churches as not just not good but bad and not just bad but so bad that we override standard non profit rules just for them. It's pretty ridiculous.
According to the IRS, “Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.” So it isn’t required for your church to apply for 501(c)(3) in order to be tax exempt.
Steps for obtaining tax-exempt status for your nonprofit:
1. Incorporate.
2. Apply for an EIN.
3. Provide a detailed business purpose.
4. File Form 1023 with the IRS.
5. Pay the necessary filing fees.
6. When to file.
7. Complete the state-level application (if applicable).
most are smaller without an even full time paid pastor, operating off of a shoestring budget. If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
Churches do perform good works in their communities such as the operation of soup kitchens and shelters for homeless people.
Sponsored by their church, some churchmen go abroad and do good works by assisting the poor and treating/curing diseased individuals.
For these good works I support tax exemptions for churches.
I can speak with firsthand experiences for churches and also for a non profit camp organization. There's two essential ways they benefit from tax law. People get a tax deduction for donating, and the non profit doesn't pay taxes. This is standard for non profits. The personal tax deduction for most churches that are normal size (less than 100 we'll say) is pretty irrelevant. You need to have a person donating a lot of money for this to impact them past the standard deduction, especially with the new higher standard deduction. From my experience, it doesn't really affect much. The one that does, though, is the taxing of the churches. If you look at things from the media perspective, churches are more like Joel Olsteen mega churches with millions of dollars in revenue. In reality, most are smaller without an even full time paid pastor, operating off of a shoestring budget. If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
Yeah, the good stuff is great. Not entirely OK with funding the bad in order to get that good though.
I do too, but only for monies that pay for those good works. If you are a minister, you are allowed to claim a parsonage, which is tax-free housing benefit, and there's no definition of a parsonage. It can be, and often is, a giant mansion.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
That's not the highest best use of my tax dollars. The Catholic Church has spent untold million of dollars defending against lawsuits against pedophile priests. All those dollars are tax deductible, which gives the church a big leg up on the victims, who have to pay with after tax dollars.
If the money is actually going to a soup kitchen, fine. Sounds like a worthy, tax-deductible cause. If it is going to buy a luxury vehicle for Tom Cruise, then not so much.
I think you're missing a significant difference between religious groups and non-profits. Non-profits put all* of their donations/income toward their cause while religious groups may or may not put some portion of income toward charitable causes; it's not a requirement. It could be 20%, 80%, or 0%. If they have a building to worship in and paid employees to run services and events, then it's not 100%. Why should the dollars going towards causes other than charity have the same tax advantages?
And there's another issue thathasn'thas now :) been brought up, religious exemption are not the same as non-profit exemptions, they're easier to obtain and in some cases like the parsonage, better. On top of being exempt from property tax it's not classified as income for the purpose of income tax. A non-profit paying for an employee's housing would be counted as income*.QuoteAccording to the IRS, “Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS.” So it isn’t required for your church to apply for 501(c)(3) in order to be tax exempt.
https://www.aplos.com/academy/church-management/501c3-tax-exempt-right-for-your-church/
vs.QuoteSteps for obtaining tax-exempt status for your nonprofit:
1. Incorporate.
2. Apply for an EIN.
3. Provide a detailed business purpose.
4. File Form 1023 with the IRS.
5. Pay the necessary filing fees.
6. When to file.
7. Complete the state-level application (if applicable).
https://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/research-topics/incorporating-your-business/filing-f
And after completing those steps and paying the fees their business purpose still needs to be approved by the IRS. After approval their activities and spending will be more closely monitored than would a religious group's.
most are smaller without an even full time paid pastor, operating off of a shoestring budget. If they paid taxes, many would fold or they would lose the ability to do almost any community work because they could barely afford rent and utilities.
This last point is mostly irrelevant, but I question your framing of small churches. Do you have data to support any of this? I've attended many small churches, most of them far from 100 members, mostly rural and none of them appeared to be short on cash. In the area where I grew up there were lots of churches. Some of the congregations were poor but they always seemed to find a way to fund the church.
I'm sure some churches would fit your description but I think your use of the word "most" is suspect.
If they want to do good work they can do it under a secular guise. If there's any "churchiness" involved then who's to say that the tax exemptions aren't paying for missionary work, religious education, or other religious matters? There's nothing wrong with those religious matters, but I can not for the life of me understand why religious proselytising should be given a tax exemption. To me, it's no different from political influencing. It's fine for you to do so - to lobby - but it should not be subsidised by the public purse.
Otherwise, George Lucas might as well name Lucasfilm a church that promotes the Jedi religion, and then claim a tax deduction for all of its marketing activities. It's the same principle.
But what is wrong with them folding? If they are not self-supporting, what is it they do that is so important they need government charity? What benefit does the public get by supporting this function?
Does Scientology return any public benefit for the billions they generate? How about the New Jersey mosque of Omar Abdel-Rahman who plotted terrorism attacks?
https://www.nj.com/news/2017/02/blind_cleric_behind_1993_world_trade_center_bombin_1.html
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that killing people should not be a tax deductible activity.
If the function is to run a soup kitchen, then yes, I can see the rationale for a tax deduction. If the function is to buy private jets and have private clubhouses, or plot terrorist attacks, then I don't see why the US taxpayer needs to fund it.
If you want to preach philosophy, more power to you. Just do it on your dime, not mine.
If they want to do good work they can do it under a secular guise. If there's any "churchiness" involved then who's to say that the tax exemptions aren't paying for missionary work, religious education, or other religious matters? There's nothing wrong with those religious matters, but I can not for the life of me understand why religious proselytising should be given a tax exemption. To me, it's no different from political influencing. It's fine for you to do so - to lobby - but it should not be subsidised by the public purse.
Otherwise, George Lucas might as well name Lucasfilm a church that promotes the Jedi religion, and then claim a tax deduction for all of its marketing activities. It's the same principle.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Yeah, the good stuff is great. Not entirely OK with funding the bad in order to get that good though.
Fighting against the distribution of condoms in AIDS stricken African countries.
I condemn the Catholic Church for such an execrable policy.
Churches are self-supporting or they fold. It's that simple. If they don't get donations to pay for rent, they will get evicted. They don't expect or receive government dollars to subsidize their existence. The "not on my dime" phrase that keeps permeating has serious connotations as if they are being given money to exist and they're not. Many just can't be taxed on top of supporting themselves and survive.
If they want to do good work they can do it under a secular guise. If there's any "churchiness" involved then who's to say that the tax exemptions aren't paying for missionary work, religious education, or other religious matters? There's nothing wrong with those religious matters, but I can not for the life of me understand why religious proselytising should be given a tax exemption. To me, it's no different from political influencing. It's fine for you to do so - to lobby - but it should not be subsidised by the public purse.
Otherwise, George Lucas might as well name Lucasfilm a church that promotes the Jedi religion, and then claim a tax deduction for all of its marketing activities. It's the same principle.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
If they want to do good work they can do it under a secular guise. If there's any "churchiness" involved then who's to say that the tax exemptions aren't paying for missionary work, religious education, or other religious matters? There's nothing wrong with those religious matters, but I can not for the life of me understand why religious proselytising should be given a tax exemption. To me, it's no different from political influencing. It's fine for you to do so - to lobby - but it should not be subsidised by the public purse.
Otherwise, George Lucas might as well name Lucasfilm a church that promotes the Jedi religion, and then claim a tax deduction for all of its marketing activities. It's the same principle.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Do you live in the US? It might be a regulation on the books, but is simply not enforced. There is a thing called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" where churches video tape themselves giving political sermons, and then mail it to the IRS. Guess how many have lost tax-exempt status?
Make churches file a 990, and stop the political shenanigans, and end the parsonage perks.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Your last sentence is the crux of my point. To me, there's no difference between Lucasfilm advertising its films versus a church advertising its principles. It's all self-directed, and none of it is inherently altruistic. Yes, a church is more likely to operate a soup kitchen than Lucasfilm. But what that illustrates is that it is not the churchiness, but the charitable nature, of an activity that makes it worthy of tax subsidy. So, I don't think any lobbying - whether political or ideological or missionary - ought to attract a tax subsidy. Instead, only altruistic activities ought too. By that standard, many religious organisations would be precluded or partly precluded from their preferential status.
Otherwise we are throwing money at religious institutions to spread their religion. That is a questionable social choice. If we won't throw money at sports teams or politicians to drum up support, what makes religion special?
I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Obvious Silliness (w/r/t religion) is in the eye of the beholder.
Churches are self-supporting or they fold. It's that simple. If they don't get donations to pay for rent, they will get evicted. They don't expect or receive government dollars to subsidize their existence. The "not on my dime" phrase that keeps permeating has serious connotations as if they are being given money to exist and they're not. Many just can't be taxed on top of supporting themselves and survive.
It's very strange to read this post because of the contradictions:
- A church is self-supporting . . . but needs government tax breaks because churches can't support themselves.
- A church will get evicted if they don't pay rent . . . but churches don't pay property tax. So if they buy land, they never need to worry about being evicted ever again.
- Churches are not being given money to exist. Except tax money. They're being given this money every time that they are allowed to dodge paying taxes. Oh, and also the government pays people who donate to churches . . . thereby increasing the number of donations that churches get. That's an awful lot of money that they're being given by the government that is conveniently forgotten in your posts.
Lots of nonsense here.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Do you live in the US? It might be a regulation on the books, but is simply not enforced. There is a thing called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" where churches video tape themselves giving political sermons, and then mail it to the IRS. Guess how many have lost tax-exempt status?
Make churches file a 990, and stop the political shenanigans, and end the parsonage perks.
I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Obvious Silliness (w/r/t religion) is in the eye of the beholder.
With respect, no, to act like there's no difference here in the point that I was making is intellectually dishonest. Religions that have been around for centuries with devoted followers who genuinely believe in their points are an entirely different animal from a for profit business obviously creating something that they label a religion solely for the tax benefits.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Do you live in the US? It might be a regulation on the books, but is simply not enforced. There is a thing called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" where churches video tape themselves giving political sermons, and then mail it to the IRS. Guess how many have lost tax-exempt status?
Make churches file a 990, and stop the political shenanigans, and end the parsonage perks.
Yes, I do live in the US. Yes, I do understand that this law is not enforced very well. If people are upset about this, support the side of enforcing the existing law instead of going beyond the existing laws because they're upset that a law isn't enforced.
In regards to parsonages, I'll assume you didn't read my post above and post it again:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/executive-compensation
I'll copy the text out this time:
"Compensation includes salary and benefits, such as insurance, a car, housing allowance, or other fringe benefits, that should be included in the calculation of total annual compensation. See instructions to IRS Form 990, pages 31-32."
All non profits can provide housing as a benefit. Not to pick on you because this is your first post here, but I think I'll copy and paste this for future posts because I keep typing the same sentiment :):
Would you like for all non-profits to be abolished/put on a level playing field or are you singling out religions?
Churches are self-supporting or they fold. It's that simple. If they don't get donations to pay for rent, they will get evicted. They don't expect or receive government dollars to subsidize their existence. The "not on my dime" phrase that keeps permeating has serious connotations as if they are being given money to exist and they're not. Many just can't be taxed on top of supporting themselves and survive.
It's very strange to read this post because of the contradictions:
- A church is self-supporting . . . but needs government tax breaks because churches can't support themselves.
- A church will get evicted if they don't pay rent . . . but churches don't pay property tax. So if they buy land, they never need to worry about being evicted ever again.
- Churches are not being given money to exist. Except tax money. They're being given this money every time that they are allowed to dodge paying taxes. Oh, and also the government pays people who donate to churches . . . thereby increasing the number of donations that churches get. That's an awful lot of money that they're being given by the government that is conveniently forgotten in your posts.
Lots of nonsense here.
No, not lots of nonsense here, and nothing is being conveniently forgotten. Look, I get it that we view taxes differently. You come from the side that the government's right to money is some fixed entity in time and space that cannot be infringed upon. The fact that you act like anyone buying property, owning it outright and not being able to be evicted because they don't pay property taxes is some affront or logical fallacy (a government could very easily do away with property taxes and do it solely as income tax and actually allow people to really own their land, for instance) shows that your view and mine of tax will never align.
I'll reiterate again, you are arguing against the concept of non profits in general. Non profits are there because enough people thought someone should be able to make an organization that didn't have to be taxed. Yes, an organization can be self-supporting, allowed because they don't pay taxes, and it doesn't mean they are not self-supporting. They are literally paying the bills to people for things they are using like electricity, water, etc. That means they are self-supporting. They are not a business. They are not set up like a business. They should not be taxed like a business, or, again, elminate non profits altogether.
I think you're missing a significant difference between religious groups and non-profits. Non-profits put all* of their donations/income toward their cause while religious groups may or may not put some portion of income toward charitable causes; it's not a requirement. It could be 20%, 80%, or 0%. If they have a building to worship in and paid employees to run services and events, then it's not 100%. Why should the dollars going towards causes other than charity have the same tax advantages?
This one is kind of weird, and I have seen your posts enough to know that you don't have conversations not in good faith, so I'll assume there's some confusion on my part to understand. Do you really think all non profits put all of their donations towards directly whatever specifically they're doing with no overhead? Why do you think there are tons of non profit rankings out there that rank how much actually goes towards the cause versus compensation of CEO's, building overheads, etc.? It's kind of a big deal if you're researching charities to give to to evaluate where the money is actually going to specifically save lives or whatever the cause is...
The other difference is, for a church, meeting together is actually a big part of the cause, so the building, utilities, etc. that allow that isn't really wasted. It's part of the whole deal.
I do too, but only for monies that pay for those good works. If you are a minister, you are allowed to claim a parsonage, which is tax-free housing benefit, and there's no definition of a parsonage. It can be, and often is, a giant mansion.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
That's not the highest best use of my tax dollars. The Catholic Church has spent untold million of dollars defending against lawsuits against pedophile priests. All those dollars are tax deductible, which gives the church a big leg up on the victims, who have to pay with after tax dollars.
If the money is actually going to a soup kitchen, fine. Sounds like a worthy, tax-deductible cause. If it is going to buy a luxury vehicle for Tom Cruise, then not so much.
If you have an issue with overall compensation of individuals of non profits, address that on the entire scale of non profits. If you're super concerned with fringe benefits like housing, address it with all non profits. It's certainly allowed with them as well:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/executive-compensation
Again, we're either targeting religions because we don't like them specifically, in which case, be up front about it and be aware that it's pretty much unconstitutional or do it for all non profits.
I do too, but only for monies that pay for those good works. If you are a minister, you are allowed to claim a parsonage, which is tax-free housing benefit, and there's no definition of a parsonage. It can be, and often is, a giant mansion.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
That's not the highest best use of my tax dollars. The Catholic Church has spent untold million of dollars defending against lawsuits against pedophile priests. All those dollars are tax deductible, which gives the church a big leg up on the victims, who have to pay with after tax dollars.
If the money is actually going to a soup kitchen, fine. Sounds like a worthy, tax-deductible cause. If it is going to buy a luxury vehicle for Tom Cruise, then not so much.
If you have an issue with overall compensation of individuals of non profits, address that on the entire scale of non profits. If you're super concerned with fringe benefits like housing, address it with all non profits. It's certainly allowed with them as well:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/executive-compensation
Again, we're either targeting religions because we don't like them specifically, in which case, be up front about it and be aware that it's pretty much unconstitutional or do it for all non profits.
No. Please review the parts in bold. Again, the part that is actual charity is fine. That and whatever overhead it takes to maintain the charitable organization can be tax exempt/deductible. In my example above I mentioned Tom Cruise. The Church of Scientology has gifted Tom Cruise numerous luxury vehicles because of his friendship with Church of Scientology leader David Miscaviage. The Church of Scientology didn't pay any tax on the income used to buy the luxury vehicles, and its members got a tax deduction when they contributed the funds.
Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize Tom Cruise's lifestyle is objectively stupid. I'm against things that are objectively stupid.
If you want to have a clubhouse where you and friends meet once a week and talk philosophy, then great! More power to you. But there is no reason why you need to reach into my pocket in order to help fund your club.
By the way, lots of organizations separate their activities into profit and non-profit wings. There is no reason why a church couldn't separate out the money they spend on the soup kitchen from the money they spend giving Tom Cruise luxury vehicles.
I realize there are some gray areas here, but let's start by stop doing things that are objectively stupid and go from there.
The tax exemptions certainly apply to money that goes to all church activities. Money is fungible; I have no problem with that.
There are restrictions of all non profits, religions including, to not lobby from a legislative stance. Religions are no different than that. If a pastor comes up and says vote for this guy or that guy, the church can lose their non profit status.
There are no restrictions on any non profit for "lobbying" for any other situation than political. To churches on that would again be targeting churches. Your last point is reminiscent of the John Oliver episode where he started a church with ridiculous ease. Your example is an example where no one with common sense would allow because it's obviously not genuine (like Oliver's church). I am not opposed to more oversight to filter out obvious silliness.
Do you live in the US? It might be a regulation on the books, but is simply not enforced. There is a thing called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" where churches video tape themselves giving political sermons, and then mail it to the IRS. Guess how many have lost tax-exempt status?
Make churches file a 990, and stop the political shenanigans, and end the parsonage perks.
Yes, I do live in the US. Yes, I do understand that this law is not enforced very well. If people are upset about this, support the side of enforcing the existing law instead of going beyond the existing laws because they're upset that a law isn't enforced.
In regards to parsonages, I'll assume you didn't read my post above and post it again:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/executive-compensation
I'll copy the text out this time:
"Compensation includes salary and benefits, such as insurance, a car, housing allowance, or other fringe benefits, that should be included in the calculation of total annual compensation. See instructions to IRS Form 990, pages 31-32."
All non profits can provide housing as a benefit. Not to pick on you because this is your first post here, but I think I'll copy and paste this for future posts because I keep typing the same sentiment :):
I did read your post, and please correct me if I'm wrong here. Non-profits can provide housing as compensation, and that housing benefit is included as a part of total compensation. Therefore, that person is taxed on the housing benefit. With churches, neither the church nor the employee are taxed on this benefit, thus what I referred to as the parsonage allowance.QuoteWould you like for all non-profits to be abolished/put on a level playing field or are you singling out religions?
Abolished, no, absolutely not. Level playing field is what I'm after (although level playing field to me implies some kind of competition. I would say equal treatment.) I work at a non-profit, and we file a 990, and I think we should be required to file one. I also think Churches should be required to file one if they want tax exemption.
Snip
Generally speaking, housing allowances are considered taxable fringe benefits by the IRS. The code does provide for very narrow exceptions to this rule under section 119. For clarity's sake - Section 119 applies to all employers, not just non-profits. Please see the following article for a wonderful breakdown of this particular code section:
https://www.netassets.org/blogs/net-assets/2016/06/15/housing-benefits-and-taxation-a-misunderstood-area
Parsonage, covered in section 107 of the IRC is a whole 'nother ball of wax, and faaaaaaaar easier to exploit.
But there is no reason why you need to reach into my pocket in order to help fund your club.
But there is no reason why you need to reach into my pocket in order to help fund your club.
As a single person, that's how I feel about the big tax breaks married people get, child tax credits, or any proposal for UBI, paid family leave, or government provided child care. I prefer the government stay out of the church and not try to get tax them.
But there is no reason why you need to reach into my pocket in order to help fund your club.
As a single person, that's how I feel about the big tax breaks married people get, child tax credits, or any proposal for UBI, paid family leave, or government provided child care. I prefer the government stay out of the church and not try to get tax them.
Children are different because they grow up to become the adults that will support all of society when you get old. You may not like the tax breaks that families get, but children do provide a societal good. I can't imagine you will be building the roads you travel on when you are 90 years old. Or working and paying taxes. What about the health care workers that will provide your health care? The police, firefighters, military, etc.? All those people are now children and it is your best interest that they become healthy, productive adults.
Children are different because they grow up to become the adults that will support all of society when you get old. You may not like the tax breaks that families get, but children do provide a societal good. I can't imagine you will be building the roads you travel on when you are 90 years old. Or working and paying taxes. What about the health care workers that will provide your health care? The police, firefighters, military, etc.? All those people are now children and it is your best interest that they become healthy, productive adults.
That's all true, but no one ever had a child in order to get a tax deduction. The reason why the credits exist is they are easy to understand and lots of people have kids, so politicians can point to them and say "look! I cut your taxes!" which makes politicians popular. Very likely a better use of the money would be to ensure that schools are functional and safe, public health needs are met, etc. But that's a harder sell than tax cuts.
Let's say a group of friends and I own a house/condo/property of some sort. Once per week we go to the property to hang out but we do use the property maybe a couple other times per week. During our hang outs we talk a lot about Star Wars and Luke Skywalker. We sing songs about Luke, etc. We light candles and read from Star Wars themed books. Part of our hang out is that we collect money to cover the costs of the property, insurance, electricity, etc.
We do a few charity projects and donate some money, but overall spend less than 10% of our budget on charities or helping others, the vast majority of our time is spent talking about a mythological entity that is not real and the vast majority of the money goes to support meeting to talk about him.
Should my group of friends and I get to be a non-profit? Exempt from property taxes? Should the money we collect get to be tax deductible? Most people would say no because our organization is not for the "public good", it really just exists to talk about Luke Skywalker and the Star Wars Universe. Same with churches.
Religious activities like church services are not a public good. Just like hanging out and talking about Luke Skywalker is not. The fact that churches get tax exemptions for that is ridiculous. Any actual charitable work they do can be spun off into a proper non-profit. Religious institutions should be taxed like any other social club.
To answer the tangent, I do agree there's a similarity between religious tax breaks and child-related tax breaks. Both are arbitrary concessions given for specific lifestyle choices. Why not subsidise dog owners? Or car enthusiasts?
With children, there's an argument that they become the next generation of tax payers and therefore have an ancillary benefit. But I would agree generally that we shouldn't be giving financial inducements to people to have kids - that causes a cascade of perverse incentives.
In your example, sure it is obvious, but when you look into others it's no so clear cut.
Scientology has not been around for centuries. Mormonism is less than 200 years old so not quite centuries as you set the bar at. How long do you to be around to count?
Santaria only has about 22,000 followers in the US. Is that enough 'devoted followers'? What if they only had 10,000? 2,000? 100?
How do you constitute genuine belief as a metric? The People's Temple congregation was pretty clearly devoted, is that the bar? Or is an attendance check on Sunday morning while I act like a christless heathen the other 6.75 days of the week good enough?
I did read your post, and please correct me if I'm wrong here. Non-profits can provide housing as compensation, and that housing benefit is included as a part of total compensation. Therefore, that person is taxed on the housing benefit. With churches, neither the church nor the employee are taxed on this benefit, thus what I referred to as the parsonage allowance.QuoteWould you like for all non-profits to be abolished/put on a level playing field or are you singling out religions?
Abolished, no, absolutely not. Level playing field is what I'm after (although level playing field to me implies some kind of competition. I would say equal treatment.) I work at a non-profit, and we file a 990, and I think we should be required to file one. I also think Churches should be required to file one if they want tax exemption.
In a democracy, we are the government. It's not some scary boogeyman waiting in the shadows to do us wrong. Taxation is certainly not some fixed entity in time and space, it changes all the time. It changes at our whim because we collect taxes to fund our society. There should be a significant societal benefit if we're choosing to give away the tax revenue that we are owed by an organization enjoying operation in our society.
Whatever your views of taxation, at the end of the day you need to pay your bills. We currently say that churches don't need to pay their bills to the government. That's not self-supporting.
I'll reiterate again, you are arguing against the concept of non profits in general. Non profits are there because enough people thought someone should be able to make an organization that didn't have to be taxed. Yes, an organization can be self-supporting, allowed because they don't pay taxes, and it doesn't mean they are not self-supporting. They are literally paying the bills to people for things they are using like electricity, water, etc. That means they are self-supporting. They are not a business. They are not set up like a business. They should not be taxed like a business, or, again, elminate non profits altogether.
Legally, in the US all non-profits except churches are required to file a detailed application form, fee and annual information to obtain and maintain their tax-exempt status.
The forms include information about governance, composition of the governing body, the management policies, a lists of officers/directors/trustees/key employees, the compensation paid by the organization to such persons, the organization’s mission, activities, and current and prior years’ financial results, reports of revenue and expenses, financial schedules, including information about donations and whether donations are spent on programs or management and fundraising, statements of revenue and functional expenses, etc.
Because there is no requirement to report any of this information, it's impossible to determine if any church is in fact operating like other non-profits. This creates an excellent opportunity for fraud and abuse. That's why mega church pastors own private jets, muti-million dollar mansions, and multiple expensive vehicles.
Are you in favor of changing this so that churches are required to report their financial information like non-profits, or do you favor the current 'special favors only for churches' system?
When I said they put all of their income "towards" their cause I meant for that word to be all encompassing. Money might be used to pay for salaries, overhead, hold promotional events, or anything else so long as it is part of the larger goal.
In the case of a church, not all spending is tied to charity. Meeting and fellowship may be part of the cause, but they are not charitable activities. In fact, none of their activities are required to be. If your argument is that religious groups are the same as other non-profits the charitable aspect should be a requirement, not an option.
I'll also add that where I've said "non-profit" I believe what I'm referring to is a 501(c)(3). There are other classifications of non-profit which receive different exemptions and have different requirements. Both religious groups and charitable non-profits fall under 501(c)(3) so I think it's reasonable to assume that's what we're all talking about.
I do too, but only for monies that pay for those good works. If you are a minister, you are allowed to claim a parsonage, which is tax-free housing benefit, and there's no definition of a parsonage. It can be, and often is, a giant mansion.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc417
That's not the highest best use of my tax dollars. The Catholic Church has spent untold million of dollars defending against lawsuits against pedophile priests. All those dollars are tax deductible, which gives the church a big leg up on the victims, who have to pay with after tax dollars.
If the money is actually going to a soup kitchen, fine. Sounds like a worthy, tax-deductible cause. If it is going to buy a luxury vehicle for Tom Cruise, then not so much.
If you have an issue with overall compensation of individuals of non profits, address that on the entire scale of non profits. If you're super concerned with fringe benefits like housing, address it with all non profits. It's certainly allowed with them as well:
https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/executive-compensation
Again, we're either targeting religions because we don't like them specifically, in which case, be up front about it and be aware that it's pretty much unconstitutional or do it for all non profits.
No. Please review the parts in bold. Again, the part that is actual charity is fine. That and whatever overhead it takes to maintain the charitable organization can be tax exempt/deductible. In my example above I mentioned Tom Cruise. The Church of Scientology has gifted Tom Cruise numerous luxury vehicles because of his friendship with Church of Scientology leader David Miscaviage. The Church of Scientology didn't pay any tax on the income used to buy the luxury vehicles, and its members got a tax deduction when they contributed the funds.
Using taxpayer dollars to subsidize Tom Cruise's lifestyle is objectively stupid. I'm against things that are objectively stupid.
If you want to have a clubhouse where you and friends meet once a week and talk philosophy, then great! More power to you. But there is no reason why you need to reach into my pocket in order to help fund your club.
By the way, lots of organizations separate their activities into profit and non-profit wings. There is no reason why a church couldn't separate out the money they spend on the soup kitchen from the money they spend giving Tom Cruise luxury vehicles.
I realize there are some gray areas here, but let's start by stop doing things that are objectively stupid and go from there.
If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional.
If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional.
This would make a lot more sense if churches were non-profit. But in reality, churches can operate as for-profit businesses while getting non-profit tax treatment.
I don't want to single out churches that deserve non-profit status. That's not most of the big ones, though.
However the problem is people really are singling out churches, because almost all of the railing against this kind of stuff are against those churches and not other non profits.
If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional.
This would make a lot more sense if churches were non-profit. But in reality, churches can operate as for-profit businesses while getting non-profit tax treatment.
I don't want to single out churches that deserve non-profit status. That's not most of the big ones, though.
It certainly is some, not all, of the big churches that cause a lot of the issues. However the problem is people really are singling out churches, because almost all of the railing against this kind of stuff are against those churches and not other non profits. I've rarely if ever seen arguments pushing taxing non profits because they're wasteful of money or pay certain employees huge salaries, etc. At most it's been don't donate to some of these places. The fact is, there's a reasonable argument to regulate all non profits on some of this stuff. The reality though is people like picking on churches. They make comments using a few bad apple examples and then promote removing non profit taxes of all churches (but exclusively of churches) using a meme or specific example of one or ten or whatever churches that have issues whereas, again, non profits in general in similar situations are either ignored or at worse called out for people to not donate to them.
Call a spade a spade is all I ask for. I'm in favor of all non-profits (including churches) having the same standards to meet (and enforced) for taxation purposes. This way, no one is picking on anything specific. Seems this thread has done a good job explaining the different (lower) standards churches already have compared to other non-profits, you take that to be 'picking on churches'. Well, I guess I could see that. If there was some charity that didn't have to follow the rules other charities did, it would make sense that favored charity would get "picked on" by the general public for their unfair advantage.If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional.
This would make a lot more sense if churches were non-profit. But in reality, churches can operate as for-profit businesses while getting non-profit tax treatment.
I don't want to single out churches that deserve non-profit status. That's not most of the big ones, though.
It certainly is some, not all, of the big churches that cause a lot of the issues. However the problem is people really are singling out churches, because almost all of the railing against this kind of stuff are against those churches and not other non profits. I've rarely if ever seen arguments pushing taxing non profits because they're wasteful of money or pay certain employees huge salaries, etc. At most it's been don't donate to some of these places. The fact is, there's a reasonable argument to regulate all non profits on some of this stuff. The reality though is people like picking on churches. They make comments using a few bad apple examples and then promote removing non profit taxes of all churches (but exclusively of churches) using a meme or specific example of one or ten or whatever churches that have issues whereas, again, non profits in general in similar situations are either ignored or at worse called out for people to not donate to them.
I have an inherent distrust of organizations the larger they get, be they government or business. They tend to not do things very ethically and as is more germane to this conversation, they tend to be very wasteful in their spending.
When I said they put all of their income "towards" their cause I meant for that word to be all encompassing. Money might be used to pay for salaries, overhead, hold promotional events, or anything else so long as it is part of the larger goal.
In the case of a church, not all spending is tied to charity. Meeting and fellowship may be part of the cause, but they are not charitable activities. In fact, none of their activities are required to be. If your argument is that religious groups are the same as other non-profits the charitable aspect should be a requirement, not an option.
I'll also add that where I've said "non-profit" I believe what I'm referring to is a 501(c)(3). There are other classifications of non-profit which receive different exemptions and have different requirements. Both religious groups and charitable non-profits fall under 501(c)(3) so I think it's reasonable to assume that's what we're all talking about.
This has come up several times. The issue, I believe, is that people are bringing in assumptions about non profits. The churches mission is at least in a significant part meeting together. Churches also perform charity, as well. Somewhere along the line, this was decided as an acceptable rationale for non profit for civic good in general (and there are solid reasons for it being a civic good). However, this is not exclusionary to churches. The YMCA is a good example of a non profit where a big portion of the good is in the bringing of people together. There are also amateur sports leagues where they don't do charitable good as everyone seems to be limiting it to be as their exclusive purpose (i.e. it's not designed to get underprivileged kids to play sports). This is not a foreign concept for non profits in general, so we are left again with, attack churches in particular or the larger non profits as a whole.
Section 501(c)(3) — 71.3% of all nonprofits — religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, public safety, amateur sports, prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Charitable contribution deduction is available.1
To qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, an amateur athletic organization must fall under one of three rationales endorsed by the IRS:
1.An organization is educational by either teaching sports to youth or being affiliated with an educational organization. Such organizations may also provide facilities and equipment.
2.An organization that “develops, promotes, and regulates a sport for youths” may be charitable as combating juvenile delinquency or lessening the burdens of government. These organizations may also provide facilities and equipment.
3.An organization is “organized and operated to foster national or international amateur sports competition and no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment.”2
An organization that is primarily social or recreational (e.g., social clubs, organizations of casual athletes, or organizations “whose primary purposes are the recreation of their members”) will not qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status2
However the problem is people really are singling out churches, because almost all of the railing against this kind of stuff are against those churches and not other non profits.
Churches are not non-profits. I don't think they should get non-profit tax treatment.
I'm not singling out churches, I'm singling out fraudulent non-profit organizations. Which is most of them, since they were created by individual human beings for the purpose of getting rich, and now (sometimes thousands of years later) there are individual human beings who become vastly wealthy from running them.
Some faiths are less guilty of this than others. L. Ron Hubbard certainly made millions from making up a religion. Joseph Smith lived a live of relative luxury after making up his religion. The Episcopalians, though? I'm not sure you can clearly point to an individual dude who made money off that idea.
If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional.
This would make a lot more sense if churches were non-profit. But in reality, churches can operate as for-profit businesses while getting non-profit tax treatment.
I don't want to single out churches that deserve non-profit status. That's not most of the big ones, though.
It certainly is some, not all, of the big churches that cause a lot of the issues. However the problem is people really are singling out churches, because almost all of the railing against this kind of stuff are against those churches and not other non profits. I've rarely if ever seen arguments pushing taxing non profits because they're wasteful of money or pay certain employees huge salaries, etc. At most it's been don't donate to some of these places. The fact is, there's a reasonable argument to regulate all non profits on some of this stuff. The reality though is people like picking on churches. They make comments using a few bad apple examples and then promote removing non profit taxes of all churches (but exclusively of churches) using a meme or specific example of one or ten or whatever churches that have issues whereas, again, non profits in general in similar situations are either ignored or at worse called out for people to not donate to them.
You've acknowledged that churches receive different tax benefits than other 501(c)(3) organizations yet you continue to insist that people are picking on churches? I can't speak for everyone but I feel confident that my opinions on this issue are not due to a bias against churches. I grew up attending church, most of my immediate and extended family attend church, and I have great respect for the charitable activities of churches. I've even considered joining a church for the charity/community aspect (and the singing, but not that new school praise music crap).
Going back to your first comment in this thread, I don't think anyone is calling for a complete elimination of the non-profit status of churches, they're just asking for equal treatment and that the religious aspect not be taken into consideration. Where a church acts as a charity or provides direct benefit to the community, they should receive the same benefits as any other 501(c)(3). Where a church acts as a social club they should receive the same benefits as any other 501(c)(7). In any case they should be subject to the same qualifications and oversight as other non-profits to receive these tax benefits. Is this still picking on churches?
Call a spade a spade is all I ask for. I'm in favor of all non-profits (including churches) having the same standards to meet (and enforced) for taxation purposes. This way, no one is picking on anything specific. Seems this thread has done a good job explaining the different (lower) standards churches already have compared to other non-profits, you take that to be 'picking on churches'. Well, I guess I could see that. If there was some charity that didn't have to follow the rules other charities did, it would make sense that favored charity would get "picked on" by the general public for their unfair advantage.
Aside from the charity aspect, I have no idea why religion gets to be a special club but a lack thereof (e.g. a group of freethinkers), or any other social club would not get equal tax treatment.
BTW, if you haven't heard of people railing against "bloated administration" salaries of charities, I don't know what to tell ya. Maybe some people are more okay with that as the ones doing that aren't purporting to be doing it in the name of a god and just comes with the territory of running a business, I'm not sure.
I have an inherent distrust of organizations the larger they get, be they government or business. They tend to not do things very ethically and as is more germane to this conversation, they tend to be very wasteful in their spending.
Do you have this same level of distrust of religious organizations as they grow to large? The Catholic Church is one of the largest and richest institutions in the world.
Churches are not non-profits. I don't think they should get non-profit tax treatment.
I'm not singling out churches, I'm singling out fraudulent non-profit organizations. Which is most of them, since they were created by individual human beings for the purpose of getting rich, and now (sometimes thousands of years later) there are individual human beings who become vastly wealthy from running them.
Some faiths are less guilty of this than others. L. Ron Hubbard certainly made millions from making up a religion. Joseph Smith lived a live of relative luxury after making up his religion. The Episcopalians, though? I'm not sure you can clearly point to an individual dude who made money off that idea.
Again, I don't take that to be picking on churches. I have read multiple articles, seen commentary on social media, etc. talking about removing churches' non profit status altogether. That is picking on churches. I have not called anyone out on here for talking about addressing actual differences. The issue, as I mentioned with Dabnasty above, is that it doesn't end there.
As I also mentioned above, I have seen people railing against other charities. I don't think it's as often as with churches, but maybe that's subjective. What I don't believe is subjective is the extension that I keep seeing of for churches - let's remove non profit status altogether, for those other charities - let's legislate and fix the individual issues.
When I said they put all of their income "towards" their cause I meant for that word to be all encompassing. Money might be used to pay for salaries, overhead, hold promotional events, or anything else so long as it is part of the larger goal.
In the case of a church, not all spending is tied to charity. Meeting and fellowship may be part of the cause, but they are not charitable activities. In fact, none of their activities are required to be. If your argument is that religious groups are the same as other non-profits the charitable aspect should be a requirement, not an option.
I'll also add that where I've said "non-profit" I believe what I'm referring to is a 501(c)(3). There are other classifications of non-profit which receive different exemptions and have different requirements. Both religious groups and charitable non-profits fall under 501(c)(3) so I think it's reasonable to assume that's what we're all talking about.
This has come up several times. The issue, I believe, is that people are bringing in assumptions about non profits. The churches mission is at least in a significant part meeting together. Churches also perform charity, as well. Somewhere along the line, this was decided as an acceptable rationale for non profit for civic good in general (and there are solid reasons for it being a civic good). However, this is not exclusionary to churches. The YMCA is a good example of a non profit where a big portion of the good is in the bringing of people together. There are also amateur sports leagues where they don't do charitable good as everyone seems to be limiting it to be as their exclusive purpose (i.e. it's not designed to get underprivileged kids to play sports). This is not a foreign concept for non profits in general, so we are left again with, attack churches in particular or the larger non profits as a whole.
I'll agree that this is a conversation worth having. Does the existence of religion contribute to society? Certainly there are plenty of examples of people who turned their lives around for the better and did so for their religion. For others, religion helps them through difficult times in life or helps them accept the loss of loved ones or to accept their own mortality. On the other hand religions have hindered the progress of medicine and science and been used to justify harmful acts. Then you'd have to take into consideration the societal good provided by any other product as well. I've read books that I feel have made me a better person. Some people go to bars to find a sense of community. Anyway, this is a separate conversation that could get very complex so I'd rather keep it simple for the sake of this thread. There are lots of pros & cons we could point to but I don't think they can be clearly defined the way the activities of an organization like the YMCA can. If it could, we wouldn't need a specific classification for religion under the 501(c)(3) rules.QuoteSection 501(c)(3) — 71.3% of all nonprofits — religious, educational, charitable, scientific, literary, public safety, amateur sports, prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Charitable contribution deduction is available.1
You mention that a big portion of the good provided by the YMCA is bringing people together but that is not why they are given tax-exempt status. Their tax-exempt status is based on education, health, and fitness. When you say "bringing of people together" are you referring to classes provided by the YMCA? Exercise groups? Interestingly, there have been a number of law suits against the gyms and health clubs run by the Y which receive tax benefits even though they're in direct competition with other gyms. In my limited reading it does sound like the Y gets an unfair advantage but the courts have consistently ruled in their favor. Perhaps there's more to the story than I am aware of.
As for amateur sports clubs, they must meet specific qualifications:QuoteTo qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, an amateur athletic organization must fall under one of three rationales endorsed by the IRS:
1.An organization is educational by either teaching sports to youth or being affiliated with an educational organization. Such organizations may also provide facilities and equipment.
2.An organization that “develops, promotes, and regulates a sport for youths” may be charitable as combating juvenile delinquency or lessening the burdens of government. These organizations may also provide facilities and equipment.
3.An organization is “organized and operated to foster national or international amateur sports competition and no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment.”2QuoteAn organization that is primarily social or recreational (e.g., social clubs, organizations of casual athletes, or organizations “whose primary purposes are the recreation of their members”) will not qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status2
I'm not sure I understand number 3 well enough to comment on whether I think it is fair or not but I've never said that I'm in favor of all other types of non-profits. You seem concerned that anyone is questioning the validity of the tax exempt status of churches but not other non-profits but I'm not sure what you expect. This is a conversation about religious groups specifically. Sure there may be other non-profits that I don't agree with but I can't discuss all of them at once.
1http://seriousgivers.org/question/are-there-nonprofits-that-arent-charities/
2http://www.nonprofitlawblog.com/amateur-athletic-organizations/
If we want to eliminate the concept of non profits, that's fine (a bad idea in my mind) but at least consistent. If we want to take away non profit status for churches, that is simply targeting religion. It's also unconstitutional.
This would make a lot more sense if churches were non-profit. But in reality, churches can operate as for-profit businesses while getting non-profit tax treatment.
I don't want to single out churches that deserve non-profit status. That's not most of the big ones, though.
It certainly is some, not all, of the big churches that cause a lot of the issues. However the problem is people really are singling out churches, because almost all of the railing against this kind of stuff are against those churches and not other non profits. I've rarely if ever seen arguments pushing taxing non profits because they're wasteful of money or pay certain employees huge salaries, etc. At most it's been don't donate to some of these places. The fact is, there's a reasonable argument to regulate all non profits on some of this stuff. The reality though is people like picking on churches. They make comments using a few bad apple examples and then promote removing non profit taxes of all churches (but exclusively of churches) using a meme or specific example of one or ten or whatever churches that have issues whereas, again, non profits in general in similar situations are either ignored or at worse called out for people to not donate to them.
You've acknowledged that churches receive different tax benefits than other 501(c)(3) organizations yet you continue to insist that people are picking on churches? I can't speak for everyone but I feel confident that my opinions on this issue are not due to a bias against churches. I grew up attending church, most of my immediate and extended family attend church, and I have great respect for the charitable activities of churches. I've even considered joining a church for the charity/community aspect (and the singing, but not that new school praise music crap).
Going back to your first comment in this thread, I don't think anyone is calling for a complete elimination of the non-profit status of churches, they're just asking for equal treatment and that the religious aspect not be taken into consideration. Where a church acts as a charity or provides direct benefit to the community, they should receive the same benefits as any other 501(c)(3). Where a church acts as a social club they should receive the same benefits as any other 501(c)(7). In any case they should be subject to the same qualifications and oversight as other non-profits to receive these tax benefits. Is this still picking on churches?
Yes, I have acknowledged that, and yes I do think that people are picking on churches (maybe not you in specific, but that there's an underlying theme of it). The reason is what I said before. The topic of removing non profit status comes up a lot more in conversation, in articles, etc. for churches than other non profit organizations despite similar infractions. Additionally, the fixes proposed in these discussions more often tend towards full elimination specifically of churches' non profit status versus fixing perceived issues. I.e. the posts above where they keep bringing up Tom Cruise getting a sports car and then use certain bad situations to extend their proposals beyond just fixing them.
Perhaps no group is for removing non profit status and everyone here only wants to make churches have to do the same paperwork as other non profits and not have the parsonage allowance (these are the two differences I'm aware of that have been brought up). If so, great, we all agree. If not, we can continue to discuss.
The Episcopalians, though? I'm not sure you can clearly point to an individual dude who made money off that idea.
I’ve seen this belief stated a dozen times here that churches do all sorts of great charitable work in their communities. Actually they spend less than 6% of revenue on programs that benefit others. The vast majority of church budgets go to salaries and facilities (overhead) and the vast majority of the benefits are enjoyed by the members. Churches have a business model that looks more like a country club than, say, the Red Cross or Rotary Club. There are college fraternities that apply more of their revenue to social service, and corporations that rival churches in their charitable giving.
https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/ (https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/)
In my town we have several thousand churches and maybe a half dozen of the much-celebrated “soup kitchens”. Some of these kitchens require religious participation as a condition of receiving food. The number of congregations paying for billboards and TV broadcasts is greater.
So yes, churches are a different type of thing than a nonprofit altogether. Unless you consider religious activity to be a charitable good in itself, they aren’t charities.
The tax code made them this way.
That's fair, I have seen articles and individuals calling for the complete removal of non-profit status I just didn't see where anyone in this thread was suggesting it. My guess would be that if most of the people who advocate for complete removal were to be involved in a conversation like this they would take a more nuanced stance but as it is they are probably just scratching the surface of the issue and looking at the big picture. Plus articles that argue both sides of an issue tend not to get people riled up the way a strong one sided stance does and therefore they're less likely to get published :(
I think the situations where individuals are taking advantage of the system in ways that were not intended are relevant to the conversation because it is the current law which allows them to do so. The very hands off approach of regulating what a religious organization can and can't do is what makes this abuse so easy. There is abuse of charitable non-profits too, it's just not as easy to do when you're required to track where dollars are going and get IRS approval for your activities. If someone argues that all churches should lose their tax exempt status in relation to charitable activities because others have abused the system, then of course, that's an unfair conclusion.
I'd argue that all churches should lose tax exempt status until they meet the same reporting requirements that other non-profits must. Otherwise you're just throwing the door open to the kind of fraud that exists in churches acting as non-profits today. Don't believe me? Good! You can prove me wrong when the financial records of churches are available and shown to be above board.
A wise man once said that he had an inherent distrust of organizations. Don't trust a church to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts. Make them prove that they are. Like every other kind of non-profit must do.
There is a natural human tendency to disfavor exercise of rights appurtenant to institutions one dislikes. To check this illiberal bent one needs to be heedful of Justice Black's admonition for what it says about hated ideas and cherished ideas is equally applicable to disfavored rights and favored rights. Deference to exercise of disfavored rights fosters a pluralistic milieu that supports exercise of favored rights.
I’ve seen this belief stated a dozen times here that churches do all sorts of great charitable work in their communities. Actually they spend less than 6% of revenue on programs that benefit others. The vast majority of church budgets go to salaries and facilities (overhead) and the vast majority of the benefits are enjoyed by the members. Churches have a business model that looks more like a country club than, say, the Red Cross or Rotary Club. There are college fraternities that apply more of their revenue to social service, and corporations that rival churches in their charitable giving.
https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/ (https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/)
In my town we have several thousand churches and maybe a half dozen of the much-celebrated “soup kitchens”. Some of these kitchens require religious participation as a condition of receiving food. The number of congregations paying for billboards and TV broadcasts is greater.
So yes, churches are a different type of thing than a nonprofit altogether. Unless you consider religious activity to be a charitable good in itself, they aren’t charities.
The tax code made them this way.
Churches, especially small ones, are very thrifty and can get a whole lot more bang for their buck on helping out people because of thrift and willingness to volunteer beyond the money by people that can't support as much financially. Again, things like that are the nuances that are left out of the above perspective.
I’ve seen this belief stated a dozen times here that churches do all sorts of great charitable work in their communities. Actually they spend less than 6% of revenue on programs that benefit others. The vast majority of church budgets go to salaries and facilities (overhead) and the vast majority of the benefits are enjoyed by the members. Churches have a business model that looks more like a country club than, say, the Red Cross or Rotary Club. There are college fraternities that apply more of their revenue to social service, and corporations that rival churches in their charitable giving.
https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/ (https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/)
In my town we have several thousand churches and maybe a half dozen of the much-celebrated “soup kitchens”. Some of these kitchens require religious participation as a condition of receiving food. The number of congregations paying for billboards and TV broadcasts is greater.
So yes, churches are a different type of thing than a nonprofit altogether. Unless you consider religious activity to be a charitable good in itself, they aren’t charities.
The tax code made them this way.
This is not a crazy point, however, you're missing a lot of the nuance. I skimmed the article that you copied, but I'm wondering if you read the comment section, because it provides a great counterpoint to the overall concept that I'll copy here:
"While I agree that congregations need to better spend their money, your comparisons are way off. How can you compare charities that have millions in donations with a congregation that takes in only 40, 000 to 60, 000 in donations. Of courses their percentages are lower."
Percentages can be skewed with larger donations (shouldn't be a foreign concept, it's the whole MMM mindset of don't brag on yourself for saving X percentage, talk about how much you actually spend because if you're saving 25% on $500k salary...not that impressive), and yes, the fact that a huge majority of churches are trying to maintain existence means that the percentages of money that goes beyond subsistence is going to be affected.
I'll give you another example, as well. A church I was involved in performed a children's clothing giveaway. The church had an attendance of around 15-20 and donations of around 40k. It was operating at subsistence levels. The money spent on the children's clothing ministry was still a small percentage of that budget, but that was not indicative of the help provided. First, it was subsidized by many, many volunteer hours to go to thrift stores, sort through clothing in bulk to get the right kinds, and buy the clothing by the pound, purchased very cheaply because of this aspect. Secondly, for a church of 15-20 people - really around 10-12 adults, literally dozens, probably 100+ of families were helped a year with free children's clothing. Churches, especially small ones, are very thrifty and can get a whole lot more bang for their buck on helping out people because of thrift and willingness to volunteer beyond the money by people that can't support as much financially. Again, things like that are the nuances that are left out of the above perspective.
Churches, especially small ones, are very thrifty and can get a whole lot more bang for their buck on helping out people because of thrift and willingness to volunteer beyond the money by people that can't support as much financially. Again, things like that are the nuances that are left out of the above perspective.
That is also true of small non-profits. I belong to 2 non-religious groups, one a non-profit and one a charitable organization. Our budgets are small, and except for outside speakers (who are paid an honorarium) the activities are all done by volunteers.
I entertained the notion in the first thread reply (and would be curious how that would work) but ultimately decided far better to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Equivalence of churches with other non-profits (and churches conforming to the standards non-profits have to prove their status) would be great.
That's fair, I have seen articles and individuals calling for the complete removal of non-profit status I just didn't see where anyone in this thread was suggesting it. My guess would be that if most of the people who advocate for complete removal were to be involved in a conversation like this they would take a more nuanced stance but as it is they are probably just scratching the surface of the issue and looking at the big picture. Plus articles that argue both sides of an issue tend not to get people riled up the way a strong one sided stance does and therefore they're less likely to get published :(
I think the situations where individuals are taking advantage of the system in ways that were not intended are relevant to the conversation because it is the current law which allows them to do so. The very hands off approach of regulating what a religious organization can and can't do is what makes this abuse so easy. There is abuse of charitable non-profits too, it's just not as easy to do when you're required to track where dollars are going and get IRS approval for your activities. If someone argues that all churches should lose their tax exempt status in relation to charitable activities because others have abused the system, then of course, that's an unfair conclusion.
That's a good point. I think I have somewhat created a strawman for people on this board with my arguments because of what I assumed the other side would be because of the articles and things that I've read. I don't think we're all really that far off because most all seem fine with leveling things out to equivalency of churches with other non profits and leaving it there (please correct me if I'm wrong, internet masses :) ). I may be wrong on this, but no one except GuitarStv's humorous comment below has directly called for removal of non profit status. I do think that your point about equivalent reporting is a good one as it would go a long way to making people that are willing to have reasonable discussions less concerned about churches as non profits.
I’ve seen this belief stated a dozen times here that churches do all sorts of great charitable work in their communities. Actually they spend less than 6% of revenue on programs that benefit others. The vast majority of church budgets go to salaries and facilities (overhead) and the vast majority of the benefits are enjoyed by the members. Churches have a business model that looks more like a country club than, say, the Red Cross or Rotary Club. There are college fraternities that apply more of their revenue to social service, and corporations that rival churches in their charitable giving.
https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/ (https://holysoup.com/the-shocking-truth-of-church-budgets/)
In my town we have several thousand churches and maybe a half dozen of the much-celebrated “soup kitchens”. Some of these kitchens require religious participation as a condition of receiving food. The number of congregations paying for billboards and TV broadcasts is greater.
So yes, churches are a different type of thing than a nonprofit altogether. Unless you consider religious activity to be a charitable good in itself, they aren’t charities.
The tax code made them this way.
This is not a crazy point, however, you're missing a lot of the nuance. I skimmed the article that you copied, but I'm wondering if you read the comment section, because it provides a great counterpoint to the overall concept that I'll copy here:
"While I agree that congregations need to better spend their money, your comparisons are way off. How can you compare charities that have millions in donations with a congregation that takes in only 40, 000 to 60, 000 in donations. Of courses their percentages are lower."
Percentages can be skewed with larger donations (shouldn't be a foreign concept, it's the whole MMM mindset of don't brag on yourself for saving X percentage, talk about how much you actually spend because if you're saving 25% on $500k salary...not that impressive), and yes, the fact that a huge majority of churches are trying to maintain existence means that the percentages of money that goes beyond subsistence is going to be affected.
I'll give you another example, as well. A church I was involved in performed a children's clothing giveaway. The church had an attendance of around 15-20 and donations of around 40k. It was operating at subsistence levels. The money spent on the children's clothing ministry was still a small percentage of that budget, but that was not indicative of the help provided. First, it was subsidized by many, many volunteer hours to go to thrift stores, sort through clothing in bulk to get the right kinds, and buy the clothing by the pound, purchased very cheaply because of this aspect. Secondly, for a church of 15-20 people - really around 10-12 adults, literally dozens, probably 100+ of families were helped a year with free children's clothing. Churches, especially small ones, are very thrifty and can get a whole lot more bang for their buck on helping out people because of thrift and willingness to volunteer beyond the money by people that can't support as much financially. Again, things like that are the nuances that are left out of the above perspective.
If this organizational format can only devote a maximum of maybe 1-5% of revenue to providing tangible help for non-members, and spends far more on infrastructure, salaries, and marketing, is this organizational format more like a business than a charity? Again, there are country clubs, labor unions, and fraternities/sororities that give back a greater percentage of revenue.
The point about labor mobilization is an interesting one, but also represents a retreat into an area that is harder to measure. What percentage of the total labor that goes into running and participating in a religion goes toward tangibly helping people outside the organization? 3%? 5%? 1%? It would be hard to pin down an exact percentage. Given the interchangeability of time and money, I would estimate the time spent on actual charity to match the percentage of money spent.
Donations to the hyper-efficient United Way go a lot farther toward tangibly helping people outside the organization than donations to your local church. Similarly one could argue that all those people spending millions of hours of labor per day to maintain elaborate temples, perform rituals, engage in marketing, and to study their own dogma could be more productively using their time as volunteers for charities and non-profits.
Your last sentence is the crux of my point. To me, there's no difference between Lucasfilm advertising its films versus a church advertising its principles. It's all self-directed, and none of it is inherently altruistic. Yes, a church is more likely to operate a soup kitchen than Lucasfilm. But what that illustrates is that it is not the churchiness, but the charitable nature, of an activity that makes it worthy of tax subsidy. So, I don't think any lobbying - whether political or ideological or missionary - ought to attract a tax subsidy. Instead, only altruistic activities ought too. By that standard, many religious organisations would be precluded or partly precluded from their preferential status.
Otherwise we are throwing money at religious institutions to spread their religion. That is a questionable social choice. If we won't throw money at sports teams or politicians to drum up support, what makes religion special?
Your last sentence is the crux of my point. To me, there's no difference between Lucasfilm advertising its films versus a church advertising its principles. It's all self-directed, and none of it is inherently altruistic. Yes, a church is more likely to operate a soup kitchen than Lucasfilm. But what that illustrates is that it is not the churchiness, but the charitable nature, of an activity that makes it worthy of tax subsidy. So, I don't think any lobbying - whether political or ideological or missionary - ought to attract a tax subsidy. Instead, only altruistic activities ought too. By that standard, many religious organisations would be precluded or partly precluded from their preferential status.
Otherwise we are throwing money at religious institutions to spread their religion. That is a questionable social choice. If we won't throw money at sports teams or politicians to drum up support, what makes religion special?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-lucas-donate-4-billion_n_2067145
Does that equal to a soup kitchen?
The churches to businesses comparison I don't see as too accurate. I do understand the arguments of churches to Rotary Clubs or Masonic lodges or whatnot that themselves are tax exempt but with different tax exempt statuses. My thoughts on that were to Dabnasty - in a nutshell, the purpose of exclusively helping people in need has not been a litmus test for non profits in multiple other examples, and thus churches are not unique in this aspect.
Churches do perform good works in their communities such as the operation of soup kitchens and shelters for homeless people.
Sponsored by their church, some churchmen go abroad and do good works by assisting the poor and treating/curing diseased individuals.
For these good works I support tax exemptions for churches.
You have some good points. I'd say that churches were called out specifically because historically they have been considered good for a variety of reasons. That's part of the reason why this is so challenging of a discussion. There's no one thing that churches benefit. They do very effective charity work local and abroad. They foster a sense of community. They provide localized resource distribution for people in need within the organization and of those that people within the organization directly know. People do have lives changed that tie back to church.
Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
(Context: I cut off the quote because the rest of that right is about Freedom of Speech which we aren't debating.)
My take on that, Congress should be completely neutral to religions, neither for or against.
I don't think they should get their own special tax treatment just because they are churches. I don't think donations should be tax deductible just because they are churches. I don't think pastors/priests/etc. should get special tax free housing allowance just because they service churches.
Many, likely most, churches are doing a whole lot of charitable work. Fine, register as a 501(c)(3), and follow the same rules other charitable organizations are held to.