Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The rise of social conservative churches has pissed me off the last eight years... And this is just as bad. How do these churches maintain their tax exempt status??



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 ... ne-church/

One of the third rail of politics.

But, churches should not be tax-exempt.

I disagree Jon - but I also think their exemption should be revoked for engaging politics... and right now we really don't do that enough.

dbackjon wrote:One of the third rail of politics.

But, churches should not be tax-exempt.

We can make that deal, are you willing to keep it balanced? Strip the charities too. If there are some churches that engage in politics, I agree with TTBF. The same with charities. However, if you're going to apply one standard, do it for all "non-profits." Are you willing to go that far?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:One of the third rail of politics.

But, churches should not be tax-exempt.

We can make that deal, are you willing to keep it balanced? Strip the charities too. If there are some churches that engage in politics, I agree with TTBF. The same with charities. However, if you're going to apply one standard, do it for all "non-profits." Are you willing to go that far?

Bingo!

Does the same standard evoking revocation of tax exempt status apply to the Trinity United Church of Christ? How about all the other AME churches who use the pulpit to preach hate on Sundays.

[youtube][/youtube]

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:One of the third rail of politics.

But, churches should not be tax-exempt.

We can make that deal, are you willing to keep it balanced? Strip the charities too. If there are some churches that engage in politics, I agree with TTBF. The same with charities. However, if you're going to apply one standard, do it for all "non-profits." Are you willing to go that far?

I disagree about the nonprofit thing.

The rationale behind the exemption for churches and nonprofits is totally different. Churches are exempt because of the first amendment... separation of church and state. However, it's a two way street, and churches need to stay out of politics.

Nonprofits are exempt as a way of encouraging the work they do. Many nonprofits advocate as a voice for those who are otherwise without one.

By the looks of the sign, it looks like a fairly liberal church.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
We can make that deal, are you willing to keep it balanced? Strip the charities too. If there are some churches that engage in politics, I agree with TTBF. The same with charities. However, if you're going to apply one standard, do it for all "non-profits." Are you willing to go that far?

I disagree about the nonprofit thing.

The rationale behind the exemption for churches and nonprofits is totally different. Churches are exempt because of the first amendment... separation of church and state. However, it's a two way street, and churches need to stay out of politics.

Nonprofits are exempt as a way of encouraging the work they do. Many nonprofits advocate as a voice for those who are otherwise without one.

According to the IRS they're the same, they both can get 501(c)3 status. They both are nonprofits.

I'm not sure I follow your logic about why churches are exempt. First, there is no separation of church and state. Second, if there was SoCaS, why would that matter about them being taxed or not--how does taxing a church as a business violate the First Amendment (including taxing the income of reverands)?

I understand your point about charities, but they need to stay out of politics too, or pay up. Neither should be free to engage in politics while receiving tax exempt status.

Gil Dobie wrote:By the looks of the sign, it looks like a fairly liberal church.

It is a liberal church... it explains that it is in the article.

I'm saying churches should stay out of politics whether they are liberal or conservative.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:One of the third rail of politics.

But, churches should not be tax-exempt.

We can make that deal, are you willing to keep it balanced? Strip the charities too. If there are some churches that engage in politics, I agree with TTBF. The same with charities. However, if you're going to apply one standard, do it for all "non-profits." Are you willing to go that far?

Yes indeed.

Including Private Universities. Time the level the field and revitalize our cities.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
I disagree about the nonprofit thing.

The rationale behind the exemption for churches and nonprofits is totally different. Churches are exempt because of the first amendment... separation of church and state. However, it's a two way street, and churches need to stay out of politics.

Nonprofits are exempt as a way of encouraging the work they do. Many nonprofits advocate as a voice for those who are otherwise without one.

According to the IRS they're the same, they both can get 501(c)3 status. They both are nonprofits.

I'm not sure I follow your logic about why churches are exempt. First, there is no separation of church and state. Second, if there was SoCaS, why would that matter about them being taxed or not--how does taxing a church as a business violate the First Amendment (including taxing the income of reverands)?

I understand your point about charities, but they need to stay out of politics too, or pay up. Neither should be free to engage in politics while receiving tax exempt status.

There IS as separation... it's in the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings have affirmed this. Churches, in our laws and our constitution are unique. Basically, the establishment clause is a two-way street. It says that the government stays out of the church, and the churches stay out of the government. that's why i advocate a strict adherence to their tax-exemptions.

Nonprofits are another matter entirely. so often, their work crosses over in to policy... sort of the nature of the beast. they stay away from ELECTORAL politics like the plague. Some don't... but most of them are 501(c)4... not 3. It's a major difference.

Bush sucked and still sucks.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
According to the IRS they're the same, they both can get 501(c)3 status. They both are nonprofits.

I'm not sure I follow your logic about why churches are exempt. First, there is no separation of church and state. Second, if there was SoCaS, why would that matter about them being taxed or not--how does taxing a church as a business violate the First Amendment (including taxing the income of reverands)?

I understand your point about charities, but they need to stay out of politics too, or pay up. Neither should be free to engage in politics while receiving tax exempt status.

There IS as separation... it's in the Constitution, and Supreme Court rulings have affirmed this. Churches, in our laws and our constitution are unique. Basically, the establishment clause is a two-way street. It says that the government stays out of the church, and the churches stay out of the government. that's why i advocate a strict adherence to their tax-exemptions.

Nonprofits are another matter entirely. so often, their work crosses over in to policy... sort of the nature of the beast. they stay away from ELECTORAL politics like the plague. Some don't... but most of them are 501(c)4... not 3. It's a major difference.

We could argue this all day, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. The Establishment Clause protects the citizens from a state run religion and from persecution for having a particular religion (or none at all).

As to not taxing or staying out of the church, local governments need to be notified. If a church starts up in some cities I know of, and has not gotten it's tax exempt status, those cities require them to pay licensing tax (until they are considered tax exempt). Nevertheless, some charities are 501(c)3, the Second Food Harvest of NC comes to mind. I am not an accountant, thank God, so I readily admit I am not up on the finer points of tax law. However, if a charity is going to get involved in politics, they should give up their tax exempt status. Otherwise, it's a double-standard, especially when you consider the government is not bound to let charities be tax exempt, as you argue it is with churches. Just my .02 (actually it's less than that, what with inflation/ deflation )

Which end of the spectrum does peace/anti-war fall on?

Benne wrote:Which end of the spectrum does peace/anti-war fall on?

it can be on both ends - ultra isolationism or pacsism...

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
We can make that deal, are you willing to keep it balanced? Strip the charities too. If there are some churches that engage in politics, I agree with TTBF. The same with charities. However, if you're going to apply one standard, do it for all "non-profits." Are you willing to go that far?

Yes indeed.

Including Private Universities. Time the level the field and revitalize our cities.

Then you would have few private universities. REmember private universities don't pay taxes (neither do public ones) but they typically get zero or very little public money to run the university so it is probably a wash.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I disagree Jon - but I also think their exemption should be revoked for engaging politics... and right now we really don't do that enough.

the take away the TES of educational institutions too. They have a right to free expression.

I worked for the Pawtucket Foundation assessing the effect NPO's had on a city and if their exempt status benefited or hurt the city of Pawtucket; they gave so many more benefits (whether they are schools, hospitals, charities, historic buildings, social program offices, etc..) it would be a shame to take away that exemption.

OL FU wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Yes indeed.

Including Private Universities. Time the level the field and revitalize our cities.

Then you would have few private universities. REmember private universities don't pay taxes (neither do public ones) but they typically get zero or very little public money to run the university so it is probably a wash.

dgreco wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I disagree Jon - but I also think their exemption should be revoked for engaging politics... and right now we really don't do that enough.

the take away the TES of educational institutions too. They have a right to free expression.

I worked for the Pawtucket Foundation assessing the effect NPO's had on a city and if their exempt status benefited or hurt the city of Pawtucket; they gave so many more benefits (whether they are schools, hospitals, charities, historic buildings, social program offices, etc..) it would be a shame to take away that exemption.

Some of it depends on the situation the Universities are in.

Philadelphia has been hit hard by this - non-profits (especiallay Universities) eat up a lot of the land in Philly, which shrunk the tax base to the point were the city had to raise taxes on residents to keep up with services, which caused citizens to flee, etc.

dbackjon wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Then you would have few private universities. REmember private universities don't pay taxes (neither do public ones) but they typically get zero or very little public money to run the university so it is probably a wash.

dgreco wrote:
the take away the TES of educational institutions too. They have a right to free expression.

I worked for the Pawtucket Foundation assessing the effect NPO's had on a city and if their exempt status benefited or hurt the city of Pawtucket; they gave so many more benefits (whether they are schools, hospitals, charities, historic buildings, social program offices, etc..) it would be a shame to take away that exemption.

Some of it depends on the situation the Universities are in.

Philadelphia has been hit hard by this - non-profits (especiallay Universities) eat up a lot of the land in Philly, which shrunk the tax base to the point were the city had to raise taxes on residents to keep up with services, which caused citizens to flee, etc.

It is obviously case by case, but what we saw was that unless the real estate was prime land which would allow for a high tax on the property because of size etc... it had very little effect on the whole. All the employees will/do spend money in select city, people that work for these NPO's live in the city or a near by city making up for the lost tax on the NPO's etc.. We did not go as deep as a professional firm did but we did a 5 year look through 990's and a few other things and were pretty confident in our findings.

dgreco wrote:

dbackjon wrote:


Part of Phillies issue was that the city itself is pretty small, surrounded by lots of suburbs, where most of the university employees live.

Some of it depends on the situation the Universities are in.

Philadelphia has been hit hard by this - non-profits (especiallay Universities) eat up a lot of the land in Philly, which shrunk the tax base to the point were the city had to raise taxes on residents to keep up with services, which caused citizens to flee, etc.

It is obviously case by case, but what we saw was that unless the real estate was prime land which would allow for a high tax on the property because of size etc... it had very little effect on the whole. All the employees will/do spend money in select city, people that work for these NPO's live in the city or a near by city making up for the lost tax on the NPO's etc.. We did not go as deep as a professional firm did but we did a 5 year look through 990's and a few other things and were pretty confident in our findings.

Philadelphia has been hit hard by this - non-profits (especiallay Universities) eat up a lot of the land in Philly, which shrunk the tax base to the point were the city had to raise taxes on residents to keep up with services, which caused citizens to flee, etc

dbackjon wrote:

dgreco wrote:
It is obviously case by case, but what we saw was that unless the real estate was prime land which would allow for a high tax on the property because of size etc... it had very little effect on the whole. All the employees will/do spend money in select city, people that work for these NPO's live in the city or a near by city making up for the lost tax on the NPO's etc.. We did not go as deep as a professional firm did but we did a 5 year look through 990's and a few other things and were pretty confident in our findings.

?

dbackjon wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Then you would have few private universities. REmember private universities don't pay taxes (neither do public ones) but they typically get zero or very little public money to run the university so it is probably a wash.

dgreco wrote:
the take away the TES of educational institutions too. They have a right to free expression.

I worked for the Pawtucket Foundation assessing the effect NPO's had on a city and if their exempt status benefited or hurt the city of Pawtucket; they gave so many more benefits (whether they are schools, hospitals, charities, historic buildings, social program offices, etc..) it would be a shame to take away that exemption.

Some of it depends on the situation the Universities are in.

Philadelphia has been hit hard by this - non-profits (especiallay Universities) eat up a lot of the land in Philly, which shrunk the tax base to the point were the city had to raise taxes on residents to keep up with services, which caused citizens to flee, etc.

I think there were other problems with Philly than private institutions. Besides that I would imagine that taxing property of private institutions is a local issue not an IRS issue. But I may be wrong.

Another point I am not sure of but I would have no problem with local government charging private institutions a user fee for services generally paid for by property taxes. I am not talking about paying for schools but paying for fire, police, etc. seems fairly reasonable.