Not all of their properties, but a step forward

You want to use the government's guns to take the Churches donations because they might be corrupt? I trust the Rabbi or Pastor a hell of a lot more than a politician. Politicians in my homestate keep taxing us more and more while cutting education and infrastructure. No doubt that they enjoy their new modernized office while students are studying pre-9/11 textbooks.
Meanwhile my neighborhood church that routinely sacrificed water for heat in the winter and vice versa in the summer always delivered the help they promised to the sick, crippled, addicted, or hungry.

I don't get the logic there "image the money that could go to soup kitchens." Taking money from a no profit organization that feeds the poor to give it to a different non profit that feeds the poor?

Churches are a hell of a lot better at helping people than governments.

taxing churches because a vast minority might be corrupt when the biggest non profits pay their CEO like half of their donations is just such a fucking stupid lack of priorities.

Well- I have to mostly agree... with everyone! Many churches DO help the community and do well. Others- don’t. Some, do harm. All churches are different. But here’s the thing- wether the church is buying soup for the poor or paying to re do the chapel in solid marble... what’s the difference? Let’s step away from religion for a second. If you don’t believe in religion- what is a church? It’s basically a social club right? So....

If we pretend to all agree that to anyone who doesn’t believe in your religion that you’re basically playing make believe.... what’s the difference between that and a group of buddies playing dungeons and dragons? So if they want to all chip in 10% of their pay check so they can buy fancy die sets for everyone and the newest editions of the monster manual or whatever- why would or should that be taxed?

But the key here is just that- if we are calling it a social club or whatever- we should treat it like any other. If we call it a non profit- we should treat it like any other. So on and so. But NPO’d in general need to be cleaned up.

the chief difference being that i dont live my life based on the words written in the players handbook. Calling it a social club and comparing it to a dnd group is disingenuous. A dnd group doesnt help anyone else. A church feeds the poor regardless of their faith. Hell most churchs dont even ask any questions at all, if they are handing out food they'll give it to anyone that walks up. It's the equivalent of a soup kitchen that also talks about philosophy and mental health once a week. You dont tax charities. Churches as a whole are by definition charitable, its in the tenets of every major religion in the US.

A dnd group CAN help just like a church CAN and not all do. But there are tons of groups into cars or motorcycles or video games, civil war or other historical enactments ETC. who do charity work. A motorcycle club for instance can be an analog to your example of people “living their life by the code,” and often they raise funds for organizations, do gift giving or charitable work, even on this site we’ve seen memes of clubs who protect kids and families against their abusers.

Then give them exemptions, too

But what do tenants have to do with anything? How many corporations have “charity” or “goodness” etc as a tenant in their values etc? The tenants of the United States include equality and freedom for all- but gay people couldn’t marry unlike recently, and don’t get me started on all the other examples. So it would seem one has to do more than just declare something one of their tenants for it to actually matter. They must live it.

What you have is a group of people, sharing ideologies, reading books, hanging out, singing songs etc. in a club house. Doing charity work (or not) based on their proclivities. Since we can’t all agree on a God or even if one exists- not really fair to bring that into things. To some- football is God, etc. But as I say- it’s fine to not tax social clubs where people all just chip in for communal use fees and to build a cooler club house. But there needs to be equality in that.

actually some of those DO get exemptions for their work.

also corperations might have ideals listed as important to them yes, a religion has active rules regarding it one good example is Islam. charity is an active requirement for a muslim as in something they HAVE to take part in if they have anywhere close to the ability to do so. Its an active integral part of exist, its not just some profiteering concept that is chosen by a marketing team to sell more 5 cent packs of silly straws. Comparing a church to a corporation is ALSO rather disingenuous.

Well that was sort of my point wasn’t it? Not to attack churches or religion but to say that it’s all well in fine that they get certain exemptions. A church is a social club like the Freemasons or elks or anything else.

It’s a group of like minded folk with rules, expenses, a club house, often doing charity work and enriching their social and personal lives. Usually income is just donations from members who aren’t paying for goods or services, merely trying to keep their club alive.

So it isn’t fair to specifically tax churches when there is no tax inherent to a group of private citizens pooling income to make large purchases. That said- the system by which various non profits etc. are both taxed and regulated needs worked on. There are very loose guidelines as to how much charitable work or what counts as such one needs to claim such status, and mixing things in like fundraisers for profit complicates things.

All in saying is that taxing a religion for being a religion isn’t fair, but being able to tax religious organizations for certain and justified things certainly is. But likewise a religion should t get a free pass on taxes simply by virtue of being a religion. A philosopher writing and speaking their works is still taxed. So the spiritual enrichment of the thing doesn’t qualify alone, because people also find such virtues and guidance in life through music or sports etc. to a non believer a church is just a club. So it’s fair to look at it as such, and many clubs as you say aren’t taxed.

Sassy, people who can barely afford food and still pay taxes do so because if they don't they go to JAIL. Asshole. Taxes should face the same financial rules as other non-profits because they are NON-PROFIT. They donate to the community all of their excess. But you want to tax all of them in a specific niche of NPO due to the fact that some people who run these organizations can be corrupt. Taxation due to a 'just in case'. How about you pay all of Funsub $5 a day 'just in case' you say something else stupid?

Lmao aren’t you a ray of sunshine. Why shouldn’t churches pay taxes? Let’s be real here, they aren’t as non profit as you think. Many churches have monetary gain and hole up so much money that they could contribute to society past blurring the lines of church and state through bribes. If you live in this country and earn monetary gain, then you should pay taxes. It’s that easy. Churches have no business being beyond basic rules

This is the United States, not 15th century Europe.

Churches are non profits. That's a basic fact. Non church non profits are hella more likely to be currupt. Every major non profit that everyone knows about pays their ceo enough that they could quit after a year and never work a day in their life again. Churches barely get by and even then they still sacrifice necessary things to be charitable.
Idk how backwards it is where you live but in America you can't preemptive punish for something someone might do. You also cant treat a portion of a group (NPOs) differently because a minority of the minority are bad people. By the logic we should tax churches because a tiny amount of them are currupt, we should arrest everyone on funsub because a portion of them are criminals.

Well yes, part of this whole discussion that has been overlooked several times is the idea that we might reassess some of the rules and requirements on NPO’s of various types. There isn’t an intention to punish anyone for “possibly being corrupt” but to instead remove loopholes allowing corruption. Taxation itself isn’t a punishment either.

Not many CEO’s of companies travel in a bulletproof glass car and live in a historic castle with a Swiss Guard either. So I mean- if we want to say that level of wealth automatically makes one corrupt.... that’s not really helping the case for not taxing religion. Now it is you who have become a bit mixed up. It seems that the clergy of large or affluent flocks tend to live pretty well- with the opposite being less common for them. In fact- there appears to be a direct correlation between how well the clergy tend to live and how much the church takes in.

The CEO, the Bishop... it doesn’t matter. They all are rich men and all politicians by necessity. That means they are going to be 99.9% corrupt. NPO laws aren’t designed to serve the public and if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. They’re designed to allow rich people to see to their pet projects while avoiding taxes and still doing it up cozy- but to also give some guidelines so no one is too disgusting about it and ruins the deal for the rest of the country club crowd.

That's a pointless thing to make seeing with the fact that the person with that bullet proof car you speak of has his own country. That's like trying to make a point because the dude that founded sealand did something.

Oh man. Yeah. Because even 1/10 major power rulers also happen to be the heads of entire religions in both matters of the soul and state. The county said ruler rules only exists because of religion. Now- if we wanted to make Catholic Churches embassies thats another matter. The point stands. The heads of these charities live and eat better than the majority of those they serve. They aren’t the majority living “simple lives” and giving most of what they make back.

Again- I’m not saying churches should be universally taxed. They provide spiritual services, many do provide alms. They also happen to be in the business of preserving art and culture which makes many “living museums.” So these are all valid grounds for tax exemption. My whole point is that THE ENTIRE NPO SYSTEM, INCLUDING CHURCHES- is screwed up.

Non profit corporations at least justify their need to pay “competitive salaries” because they often require people with experience and skills that could work in the private sector or a for profit that essentially does the same thing but... for profit. So they can say: “we need a CIO and a good one. We need a Lawyer and a good one. We are competing with Amazon and Apple for good people- so we have to be competitive. That isn’t the case with religion. You’re telling me the pope would quit if he found a job that paid more? That the Bishop would leave if another job offered flex time and had a better company car?

The argument doesn’t hold up with religion because the Catholics or the Mormons don’t have to say “damn man. Temple Beth Israel just got new desks for the Rabbis. If we don’t up our game all our clergy will convert to Judaism..” religion is a “calling” not a job. Anyone “doing it right” didn’t get in the business for fine cuisine and free laundry. If anything the type of people you MOST want to attract for spiritual leadership are those who put people before worldly wealth. So how come so many religious clergy live so well that they could have A car that wasn’t as nice as pay one more poor persons way for a whole year?

What’s with messages about worldly wealth not meaning anything juxtaposed against marble columns and gold filigree? The role model of Christianity wore simple robes and preached in the streets. Went on the warpath against Golden idols and conspicuous displays of wealth. Here we are- saying we aren’t going to tax religion because it helps? So does Amazon. Bill Gates is one of- and on his death basically will be- the greatest contributor to charity in history. So at what point do we say the charity given must be greater than the personal gain to warrant tax free status?

Google offers many millions of dollars, probably billions- in free services to businesses and consumers that allow those consumers to keep money they would have spent. Allows small businesses without the millions of dollars enterprise solutions to do the same thing would cost. Should they be tax exempt too?

So to recap- I’m not saying tax all churches. I’m not even saying tax some churches on everything. I’m saying that the argument that they shouldn’t pay taxes at all by default is silly. I’m saying that if we say “well- they don’t pay taxes so they can do charitable work, and they aren’t for profit!” Ok. Let’s ask them to open their books to public audit. Let’s get a CPA to look it over. I bet you any amount of money that any decent auditor could find places they could cut back spending enough to allow them to continue- even expand their charitable work.

So look- we can easily determine how many sq feet per person you need to be basically comfortable on average. We can easily figure out attendance to any given church. We can easily figure out lots of things. And we don’t need to tax churches on donations that go to rent of a reasonable space, to the basic upkeep of a functional environment of worship. To works of historical or artistic or spiritual importance and significance. To the basic sustenance of the clergy. Hell- we already know what that number is.

So allocate exactly what welfare or minimum wage (for an employee provided room and board) would be to the upkeep of each member of the staff. Most states say that’s between $500-1200 a month. If the poorest of their congregation can survive on it, sure they can. Don’t tax legitimate travel for church business or education. There’s tons of guidelines in government and private sector to determine what that number is.

But the Mercedes? Fuck yeah tax all that money except the $10k a new base model sub compact would cost. The $10,000 garb? Yeah. Case by case but maybe tax that too- we can base that easily. Whatever the lowest amount paid for items like religious garb by any other church of the same denomination is- that’s the amount that doesn’t get taxed. The rest is taxed.

All day long you’ll see people online telling you how to eat healthy for $1 a day or some shit. The government has their own figures, that’s what people on food stamp type programs get. Don’t tax them for spending that much to eat. Tax anything over that. It’s simple. We shouldn’t tax churches simply for existing. We won’t tax the bread but we should tax the butter.

Because EVERY dollar that goes to excess above what is needed to function in the capacity of providing alms and spiritual guidance or preservation of art and history? That’s money that was donated for those ends- NOT so the bishop could have a nice Mercedes and a house in the suburbs. Justify that crap all you want. We are all human and will take advantage of job perks. We want to be comfy even if we are serving god(s).

But not taxing folk for the same thing other folk get taxed for? Not part of the deal. The point is to facilitate their “good works,” not subsidize their comforts and vanities. As you point out with the pope- religion isn’t like other things. Few countries in earth would most of the population stop eating meat for even one day because the leader said that their soul would be damned for it. People don’t protest and complain about tithing the way they do taxes. They don’t have the voice or transparency they do with tax money and while almost everyone asked seems to think the government is wasteful with taxes- you don’t see that so much in religion. In fact- it’s kinda against the rules in some regards.

So religion has a power government doesn’t. Religion is a big business and business is booming sister. They’ve done so well that they can have whole damn countries. Bill Gates and Amazon don’t even own their own countries, make enough to keep a country running. That’s a lot of freaking money, and if even 70% was going straight to those in the general public in need of say don’t tax em at all.

The truth however is that we know not even half makes its way to such uses. With eyes to see it is quite evident where much of it does go. So tax those churches and only those portions that aren’t used in DIRECT service of the people who donated. Do the same to other NPO’s. NPOS are tax exempt at the public’s pleasure. They serve the public but are private organizations. They need to be beholden and accountable to the public.

Make the law so that the church or the NPO have a choice- use the money for ACTUAL public benefit or lose it to taxes. You’ll see more good being done because frankly- the taxes gains probably would be put down some toilet or another unless we could get a leash on Capitol Hill. So make the law so that it forces NPOS to actually use the money for good instead of for self.

Omfg