Should Churches Pay Taxes?

[OWB]

OWB do you now believe we are in the last days.......3 agreements! LOL

:whistling: :scare:

The last days? No, probably not. However, I'll refrain from going out into the storms today.

 

[OWB]

Of course it's not only churches with tax-exempt status. Many organizations with much more of a political focus have tax-exempt status - e.g. NAACP which has clearly pushed the envelope on political endorsement. Why single out religious orgs?

True. TAX THEM ALL.. :rock:

 

[volinbham]

True. TAX THEM ALL.. :rock:

I know, you never met an entity you didn't want to tax

 

[OWB]

I know, you never met an entity you didn't want to tax

Tax tax tax tax tax tax...

Seriously though, I think that if any organization is involved in politics and don't pay taxes, they should.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The last days? No, probably not. However, I'll refrain from going out into the storms today.

:mf_surrender:

 

[volinbham]

I believe the political endorsement issue is an IRS issue. Part of the tax-exempt status is the allowance of donations to be considered tax-deductible for donors. The IRS views using revenues that were obtained tax-exempt to fund political activities as outside the scope of the mission of the organization.

Any tax accountants want to help out here?

 

[OWB]

Should donations to the church be labeled charitable donations?

 

[volinbham]

Tax tax tax tax tax tax...

Seriously though, I think that if any organization is involved in politics and don't pay taxes, they should.

I agree but the problem is what does it mean to be involved? I think the IRS looks at use of funds to specifically endorse a candidate or referendum (just speculating here).

Clearly the majority of non-profits (like we're speaking of) whether religious or not have a cause that is related to politics.

 

[volinbham]

Should donations to the church be labeled charitable donations?

Absolutely

 

[therealUT]

Should donations to the church be labeled charitable donations?

Donations to Churches are from Adjusted Gross Income deductions.

 

[vader]

I feel they should be Tax Exempt. However, I also feel that businesses and individuals should also be income tax exempt. So, I guess my analysis isn't all that insightful.

If we are keeping the Federal Income Tax though, I believe they should have to pay taxes. I feel this way for the sole reason that many non-denominational churches are set up as tax shelters.

realUT, you and I don't always see eye to eye on some issues, but on taxes, I totally agree. However, the gubmint needs some money to run and keep us safe. What tax strategies do you propose?

 

[therealUT]

I agree but the problem is what does it mean to be involved? I think the IRS looks at use of funds to specifically endorse a candidate or referendum (just speculating here).

Clearly the majority of non-profits (like we're speaking of) whether religious or not have a cause that is related to politics.

The IRS is so logjammed that unless you are making a very large donation to a single campaign (basically it is material on their tax return as received from you) then the IRS is not going to catch you (the exception here is if you just happen to win the IRS lottery and receive an audit.)

 

[therealUT]

realUT, you and I don't always see eye to eye on some issues, but on taxes, I totally agree. However, the gubmint needs some money to run and keep us safe. What tax strategies do you propose?

A national consumption tax. Two things happen, off shore money comes back to the US, and ex-pat corporations return to the US. This leads to more money circulating in the US, which in turn would mean that lower consumption taxes would generate equal or greater amounts of revenue. Also, with a consumption tax, one basically chooses whether or not they want to pay taxes (spend their money) or not (put their money into annuities.)

 

[vader]

A national consumption tax. Two things happen, off shore money comes back to the US, and ex-pat corporations return to the US. This leads to more money circulating in the US, which in turn would mean that lower consumption taxes would generate equal or greater amounts of revenue. Also, with a consumption tax, one basically chooses whether or not they want to pay taxes (spend their money) or not (put their money into annuities.)

Are there any candidates that support this idea?

 

[therealUT]

John Linder, Congressman from GA. A few others have at least voiced positive opinions about it. The problem comes from Washington lobbyists.

Most lobbyists in the Beltway earn their living lobbying for tax breaks for their industries. For this, they are paid very, very well. A national consumption tax would eliminate industry need for such lobbyists and they would have to find other employment. However, since industry heads rely on lobbyists for their information about what is going on in Congress, the lobbyists basically keep their bosses in the dark. Many of our congressmen (Dems and Republicans alike) rely on lobbies to voice their opinions and sponsor bills. Therefore, barely any progress is being made in actually drafting legislation concerning such a major tax overhaul.

Fortunately, one cannot keep such people in the dark forever. I have a feeling that in the next 20 to 30 years, we will do away with the income tax (which has not even been around for 100 years right now.) I also foresee the retirement age rising to around 65 or 70, and home mortgages lengthening to 50 years.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

If Churches and other religious organizations are nothing more than churches and religious organizations, they should not be taxed. Churches and religious organizations that try and flex their political and governmental muscles should definitely be taxed. I'd start with PTL and Pat Robertson, Falwell would be next. Anyone hear that Chavez wants to assasinate Robertson? :lol: :lol:

 

[therealUT]

I would support the following legislation:

Churches will never be taxed as long as the government never meddles in issues concerning morality.

 

[allvol123]

I would support the following legislation:

Churches will never be taxed as long as the government never meddles in issues concerning morality.

how do you determine the government meddling in morality? I mean that is very subjective, what one persons considers morlaistic others do not. A couple hundred years ago many people considered owning slaves to be moral I am sure.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

I would support the following legislation:

Churches will never be taxed as long as the government never meddles in issues concerning morality.

I'd add...the Churches never meddle in issues of government. Quite frankly, I'm all for good religious men and women serving our country in government. I believe they should take the ethics and morality they learn in Church and use that in their service to the country. I do not believe that any one religious group or sect has the right to undo the constitution..."freedom of religion." In fact at the current rate we may need to add "freedom from Religious extremists" to the Constitution. All of a sudden our constitution is being deemed to mean freedom for Christians and only Christians. Next step will be freedom for fundamentalist Christians. Like it or not our Constitution allows for freedom of all religions which includes Buddists, Muslims, Jews as well as a host of others. This new "my religion or the highway" group is anti-US Constitution in my mind and that makes them an enemy of this country.

Smoke on that for a while!

 

[therealUT]

how do you determine the government meddling in morality? I mean that is very subjective, what one persons considers morlaistic others do not. A couple hundred years ago many people considered owning slaves to be moral I am sure.

If it physically harms another person (without their consent) then it should be outlawed.

 

[BHAMVOLFAN]

If it physically harms another person (without their consent) then it should be outlawed.

So what would you say about the 100,000 or so Lebanese that have had their homes destroyed by Israel (with our support)? These folks I'm talking about are not terrorists, not armed, are poor, just want to be left alone to live their life? Would you consider Israel's bombing of their homes, their water and electrical supply wrong? Should it be outlawed?

 

[allvol123]

If it physically harms another person (without their consent) then it should be outlawed.

what if it harms a country without their consent, should it be outlawed. You obviously see where I am going with this. We agree on a lot of issues, but this one not so much.

 

[allvol123]

So what would you say about the 100,000 or so Lebanese that have had their homes destroyed by Israel (with our support)? These folks I'm talking about are not terrorists, not armed, are poor, just want to be left alone to live their life? Would you consider Israel's bombing of their homes, their water and electrical supply wrong? Should it be outlawed?

nope, israel is defending itself. Lebanon shouldn't allow terrorists to set up shop in their country if they can't deal with the consequences.

 

[therealUT]

So what would you say about the 100,000 or so Lebanese that have had their homes destroyed by Israel (with our support)? These folks I'm talking about are not terrorists, not armed, are poor, just want to be left alone to live their life? Would you consider Israel's bombing of their homes, their water and electrical supply wrong? Should it be outlawed?

Not at all. Israel is fighting against an enemy that has killed Israeli's for over 20 years. Israel handed over Southern Lebanon to the Lebanese government under the pretense that the Lebanese gov't would use their military to rid Souther Lebanon of Hezbollah. They did not uphold their end of the bargain for over 6 years! Israel finally attacked after numerous Hezbollah offenses against Israeli citizens, the last being the kidnapping of 2 IDF soldiers. I also believe in total war, as total war often reduces the duration of a war, and therefore limits total casualties (civilian and non-civilian.)

 

[therealUT]

what if it harms a country without their consent, should it be outlawed. You obviously see where I am going with this. We agree on a lot of issues, but this one not so much.

I obviously do not see where you are going with this...please explain.