So you want fewer groups doing charitable work? Who do you think is picking up that slack since progressive candidates have not traditionally suggested creating new ones that aren’t religious?
Except now you have the government deciding what constitutes charity for those religions which is a huge violation of the first amendment rights of those churches.
This isn’t remotely how this works. It’s not based on the acts being done, it’s based on whether the organization is being run to make money, or of it’s spending all it’s revenue in pursuit of a purpose.
You chosing to ignore the abusers doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One would think you would WANT those taking advantage of the system to make the thing you like look bad to be fixed. But here you are defending them
You’re not wrong, and neither are they. Non-profit charities should be able to pay taxes if income exceeds a reasonable amount and have deduction on FMV of benefits provided. Small charitable organizations should be exempt. Everyone should be required to keep records subject to unannounced auditing. Churches like Joel Osteen and creflo dollar should be under criminal investigation or simply go away.
Then they can file like every other nonprotand prove it through their finances, instead of the idiotic rubber stamp they get - including those megachurch abominations that drive lambos onto the stage of their sermons and own multiple private jets.
What exactly do you mean by mainstream? Evangelicals are the largest branch of Christianity in America. Hell white evangelicals alone are 13 percent of all Americans which is tied for the largest group of all.
They do other charitable work that isn’t handing out donated food. There is of course expenses associated with storing and giving out that food as well.
You’ll be furious to know that the workers are almost entirely volunteers as well. The cost to the church directly is negligible. And I’m still sure whatever other charitable work they do would not be significantly impacted by paying taxes. If anything, the money generated could do infinitely more good in expanding welfare programs. Charity is a band aid, not a solution.
My mom ran one for over a decade. You might be surprised to find out your assertions are not correct in my experience as the people running food banks are in fact paid.
The US social net was built around religious charity and it is sophomoric to presume the state would utilize increased tax revenue to replace what was lost.
Probably my culture, but I have no faith in charities. You know why? Because I haven’t given a single euro to charity in my entire fucking life.
"The effectiveness of charities in the USA and tax and transfer systems in the EU in combating poverty can be evaluated through different lenses:
Charities in the USA:
Charities in the USA often focus on direct interventions and community-based solutions. Organizations like GiveWell evaluate charities based on their cost-effectiveness and impact, ensuring that donations achieve the greatest good per dollar .
American charities often operate with transparency and target specific issues such as health, education, and direct cash transfers to those in need .
Tax and Transfer Systems in the EU:
The EU’s tax and transfer systems are designed to reduce poverty through redistributive policies. These systems aim to correct market incomes through taxes and social transfers, which can significantly reduce poverty rates .
The EU’s approach often involves comprehensive social welfare programs that provide a safety net for citizens, although the effectiveness can vary across member states .
Comparison of Effectiveness:
Studies suggest that while the USA has a strong culture of charitable giving, the EU’s tax and transfer systems may be more effective in providing a broad safety net that reduces overall poverty levels .
The EU’s systems are more integrated into the fabric of society, offering universal benefits that can reach a wider population, whereas US charities often target specific groups or issues .
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness can depend on various factors, including economic conditions, political climate, and social norms."
If they operated full time as a food bank and didn’t proselytize to the people they are helping, then they shouldn’t pay taxes. If they preach and try to convert people to their religion during their service, then I’m going to bet they try to do that to the people they feed. Preying upon people in their weakest moments is not a good thing to do, but it’s all I’ve ever seen Christians do
Edit: “Marianists emphasized the power of small communities to “renew Christianity” following the French Revolution.” If this is their emphasis, then they should definitely be paying taxes.
ok so the issue is your disdain for religion. You would be fine with a different food bank not paying taxes but only because they share your lack of faith.
Yes. I’m not sure why you seem confused. The premise is churches should pay taxes. I’m not sure what you don’t understand about that. They should pay taxes. They are influencing people’s opinions on our politics and policies. They should pay taxes. They are influencing people in their weakest moments. They should pay taxes. Do you understand that I believe any religious institution should pay taxes? I hope you aren’t confused still.
Anarchist groups do the sane thing so Food Not Bombs should pay taxes then and do less charity.
All your leftist charities do everything you state churches are doing. Should your local mutual aide org get taxed because they influence people’s views?
The real issue here is your bigotry against churches.
That’s simply not true. There isn’t enough money being made by religious organizations for that to be the case, and the tax exempt status of religious organizations is not connected to how poorly the working classes are faring.
I mean, there’s just no way to verify that really. None of the gospels were written during the time he was supposedly alive. The closest would’ve been decades later.
It’s interesting you assert Jesus ministered for free, rejected what I said as lacking verification. We all pick and choose based on our personal peculiarities, mine having been finding more books that were excluded and relating that information towards parables describing the hero’s journey in yet another way. I’m not finished learning yet hence I leave aside what I’ve not yet delved into. I’m curious as to why you would accept he ministered for free and reject women supported him?
Yeah it’s a game of telephone millennia old. I don’t think it’s too big an ask to meet the universe halfway. Do what you can with what you’ve got, the rest is up to God/the universe/luck or what have you.
I always said God doesn’t need your money. His kids do. And that’s all of us who aren’t out living a Walden lifestyle, relying on bartering… Oh wait, barter is a cumbersome way of exchange, so where goods and services are little fragments of God, too. Or the universe. Or luck.
There are tens of thousands of churches and only a handful are megachurches like this. It’s akin to how Europe has thousands of Churches while having far fewer cathedrals.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Churches should pay taxes that’s all. Don’t complicate it. Why would paying taxes force them to engage in less charity? Are you saying they’re incapable of doing both?
The whole basis of the no taxing thing was because of the charity. I’m fine with small churches who do a lot of good for their community being exempt, the problem are the mega churches who make mountains of money and do nothing good with it.
I think you’ve got this the wrong way around buddy.
The government specifically decides who is a church, and that means they don’t pay taxes. If they decide you’re not a church, you have to meet the stricter criteria. That’s LITERALLY the government dictating religious matters, they are exempting certain groups based on religion, and not others.
Let me give you an example:
Say I have a deeply held belief in, oh, the treegod in my backyard, and decide to do charitable work by letting people sit under my tree and eat a meal for a small fee. The government will immediately decide I’m not a church, and I will still have to pay taxes over my income, and I still have to pay property taxes, etc etc.
But if the catholic church does it, they’re exempt, because the government makes special exemptions for their religion, and not mine.
Now, I can still be tax exempt, but I will have to show my paperwork, and prove that i’m doing the right things. The catholic churhc doesn’t, because the government makes special exemptions for their religion, and not mine.
The fair thing would be to hold EVERY group, religious or not, to the same standard.
In your own example you aren’t a religion which is the critical bit. There are lots of tax exempt churches and religious groups that are very tiny. You just need to have an actual religion you believe to be true and have a community of fellow worshippers.
Paying taxes immediately benefits everyone in the community. Helps pay for schools, roads, police and fire, etc. Do you not know how taxes work? There’s also the added benefit of not being proselytized at.
Perhaps larger, proselytizing , politically active in the pulpit churches should pay taxes. Perhaps small churches who ‘proselytize’ by merely setting an example by serving should be exempt.
Would you want a food bank to pay taxes?
I would like a for-profit organisation that is occasionally gives food on their conditions to pay taxes.
Yes! They can deduct anything they donate from their taxes!
So you want fewer groups doing charitable work? Who do you think is picking up that slack since progressive candidates have not traditionally suggested creating new ones that aren’t religious?
If they are doing as much charity work as they claim they are, then there’s no issue, since it will all be deductible.
No harm, no foul. Only hurts the liars and the cheats. Win, win.
Except now you have the government deciding what constitutes charity for those religions which is a huge violation of the first amendment rights of those churches.
This isn’t remotely how this works. It’s not based on the acts being done, it’s based on whether the organization is being run to make money, or of it’s spending all it’s revenue in pursuit of a purpose.
And churches aren’t for profit
Many of them ARE. That’s the problem.
You chosing to ignore the abusers doesn’t mean it’s not happening. One would think you would WANT those taking advantage of the system to make the thing you like look bad to be fixed. But here you are defending them
Lol k
Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but they already do that.
No violation of the first amendment at all.
In what way does the government determine what are appropriate acts of charity for religions? Please be specific.
The same way they do for 501c3’s.
The 1A conflict is because they are religious and the government deciding what charity they can engage in violates the stablishment clause
You’re not wrong, and neither are they. Non-profit charities should be able to pay taxes if income exceeds a reasonable amount and have deduction on FMV of benefits provided. Small charitable organizations should be exempt. Everyone should be required to keep records subject to unannounced auditing. Churches like Joel Osteen and creflo dollar should be under criminal investigation or simply go away.
This is a post about churches.
I know. They are also functioning as a food bank. They are a non-profit acting in a charitable manner.
Do ypu think they should engage in less charity so they can pay taxes?
Then they can file like every other nonprotand prove it through their finances, instead of the idiotic rubber stamp they get - including those megachurch abominations that drive lambos onto the stage of their sermons and own multiple private jets.
Which are by no means common at all
Then fixing the idiotic rules won’t make much of a difference…stop defending the abusers
Yes, they should not pay takes for money they can justify they used for charity.
Building mega-churches, having expensive cars and jets is not charity.
That’s also extremely uncommon in almost all churches/denominations. The overwhelming majority of churches in the USA are mainstream denominations.
What exactly do you mean by mainstream? Evangelicals are the largest branch of Christianity in America. Hell white evangelicals alone are 13 percent of all Americans which is tied for the largest group of all.
https://www.prri.org/research/2020-census-of-american-religion/
Evangelical churches are not a single denomination but rather are a collection of unaffiliated churches.
The reality is the mega church that owns private jets is extremely uncommon.
I guess we’ll just pretend the Vatican doesn’t exist
The Vatican isn’t a mega church. Almost no one in Roman Catholicism is using a private jet.
I dunno about other churches but I’m pretty sure the one I grew up in gave away donated food. Paying taxes wouldn’t impact that at all.
They do other charitable work that isn’t handing out donated food. There is of course expenses associated with storing and giving out that food as well.
You’ll be furious to know that the workers are almost entirely volunteers as well. The cost to the church directly is negligible. And I’m still sure whatever other charitable work they do would not be significantly impacted by paying taxes. If anything, the money generated could do infinitely more good in expanding welfare programs. Charity is a band aid, not a solution.
My mom ran one for over a decade. You might be surprised to find out your assertions are not correct in my experience as the people running food banks are in fact paid.
The US social net was built around religious charity and it is sophomoric to presume the state would utilize increased tax revenue to replace what was lost.
These taxes can be used to support food banks. So the church would receive subsidies.
Tax and transfers. Income inequality is 0,26 in my country and 0,41 in yours. Even china is down to 0,35.
Charity doesn’t seem to work. Taxes do work.
I don’t need to feel good about doing something nice for someone else. I just pay taxes and the person doing something nice gets paid to do it.
They can be used for that purpose but they aren’t. This church is doing this right now.
Charity isn’t meant to tackle income inequality. It’s assistance for anyone who needs it when they need it (in theory).
Probably my culture, but I have no faith in charities. You know why? Because I haven’t given a single euro to charity in my entire fucking life.
"The effectiveness of charities in the USA and tax and transfer systems in the EU in combating poverty can be evaluated through different lenses:
Charities in the USA:
Tax and Transfer Systems in the EU:
Comparison of Effectiveness:
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness can depend on various factors, including economic conditions, political climate, and social norms."
If they operated full time as a food bank and didn’t proselytize to the people they are helping, then they shouldn’t pay taxes. If they preach and try to convert people to their religion during their service, then I’m going to bet they try to do that to the people they feed. Preying upon people in their weakest moments is not a good thing to do, but it’s all I’ve ever seen Christians do
Edit: “Marianists emphasized the power of small communities to “renew Christianity” following the French Revolution.” If this is their emphasis, then they should definitely be paying taxes.
ok so the issue is your disdain for religion. You would be fine with a different food bank not paying taxes but only because they share your lack of faith.
Yes. I’m not sure why you seem confused. The premise is churches should pay taxes. I’m not sure what you don’t understand about that. They should pay taxes. They are influencing people’s opinions on our politics and policies. They should pay taxes. They are influencing people in their weakest moments. They should pay taxes. Do you understand that I believe any religious institution should pay taxes? I hope you aren’t confused still.
Anarchist groups do the sane thing so Food Not Bombs should pay taxes then and do less charity.
All your leftist charities do everything you state churches are doing. Should your local mutual aide org get taxed because they influence people’s views?
The real issue here is your bigotry against churches.
And are they tax exempt no matter what activity they do?
Anarchist groups and leftist charities don’t make promises on the afterlife to people in need, do you not see how that is a problem?
Anarchist groups do in fact influence people’s views. You just want a different standard because you theoretically support leftism and not religions.
If your objection is to religions having religious views then that is just bigotry.
We wouldn’t need that much charity if they paid their fucking taxes
That’s simply not true. There isn’t enough money being made by religious organizations for that to be the case, and the tax exempt status of religious organizations is not connected to how poorly the working classes are faring.
I’m pretty sure that Jesus guy that christianity is so famous for was doing it all for free.
Jesus had wealthy women giving him money.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+8&version=GW
I mean, there’s just no way to verify that really. None of the gospels were written during the time he was supposedly alive. The closest would’ve been decades later.
It’s interesting you assert Jesus ministered for free, rejected what I said as lacking verification. We all pick and choose based on our personal peculiarities, mine having been finding more books that were excluded and relating that information towards parables describing the hero’s journey in yet another way. I’m not finished learning yet hence I leave aside what I’ve not yet delved into. I’m curious as to why you would accept he ministered for free and reject women supported him?
Yeah it’s a game of telephone millennia old. I don’t think it’s too big an ask to meet the universe halfway. Do what you can with what you’ve got, the rest is up to God/the universe/luck or what have you.
I always said God doesn’t need your money. His kids do. And that’s all of us who aren’t out living a Walden lifestyle, relying on bartering… Oh wait, barter is a cumbersome way of exchange, so where goods and services are little fragments of God, too. Or the universe. Or luck.
Sure, not enough money at all /s
Do you think the existence of a singular megachurch is why the working class cannot make ends meet? How would that even work?
Yes, everyone knows that the US only has one megachurch.
There are tens of thousands of churches and only a handful are megachurches like this. It’s akin to how Europe has thousands of Churches while having far fewer cathedrals.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Churches should pay taxes that’s all. Don’t complicate it. Why would paying taxes force them to engage in less charity? Are you saying they’re incapable of doing both?
The whole basis of the no taxing thing was because of the charity. I’m fine with small churches who do a lot of good for their community being exempt, the problem are the mega churches who make mountains of money and do nothing good with it.
That’s the assumption. Many don’t. They should have to prove they’re doing that charity work like every other nonprofit.
I’m not. They can register as a tax-exempt charity and do the paperwork like all the other tax-exempt charities.
Sure, I agree with that.
Well if a church is doing so much charity that it offsets their profits then it won’t be a problem.
If they are paying taxes they have less money to engage in charitable works. Is this not immediately apparent?
There are plenty of tax-exempt charities. And they file paperwork and meet several conditions. Churches don’t.
If churches want to be tax-exempt, they should meet the same criteria as the other charities.
Yes, that “condition” is the 1st amendment establishment clause. It’s inappropriate for the government to dictate religious matters.
It’s odd how many people here want to ditch 1A while bitching about right wing authoritarians.
Holy shit what? The first amendment is literally exactly why they should be taxed…
I think you’ve got this the wrong way around buddy.
The government specifically decides who is a church, and that means they don’t pay taxes. If they decide you’re not a church, you have to meet the stricter criteria. That’s LITERALLY the government dictating religious matters, they are exempting certain groups based on religion, and not others.
Let me give you an example:
Say I have a deeply held belief in, oh, the treegod in my backyard, and decide to do charitable work by letting people sit under my tree and eat a meal for a small fee. The government will immediately decide I’m not a church, and I will still have to pay taxes over my income, and I still have to pay property taxes, etc etc.
But if the catholic church does it, they’re exempt, because the government makes special exemptions for their religion, and not mine.
Now, I can still be tax exempt, but I will have to show my paperwork, and prove that i’m doing the right things. The catholic churhc doesn’t, because the government makes special exemptions for their religion, and not mine.
The fair thing would be to hold EVERY group, religious or not, to the same standard.
In your own example you aren’t a religion which is the critical bit. There are lots of tax exempt churches and religious groups that are very tiny. You just need to have an actual religion you believe to be true and have a community of fellow worshippers.
Paying taxes immediately benefits everyone in the community. Helps pay for schools, roads, police and fire, etc. Do you not know how taxes work? There’s also the added benefit of not being proselytized at.
Perhaps larger, proselytizing , politically active in the pulpit churches should pay taxes. Perhaps small churches who ‘proselytize’ by merely setting an example by serving should be exempt.
deleted by creator
Nonprofits are not paying taxes.
But they do have to prove they are nonprofit, unlike churches. At least understand the thing you have an issue with