should the LDS church lose it's tax excempt status

[smileyeagle1021]

So, there has been a lot of talk recently about the LDS church's vocal support of Prop 8 in California and also it's financial support. Political contributions are not tax excempt as charitable contributions are. So, considering the church's activity in politics should it lose it's tax excepmt status, and taking it further should the donations to it be no longer tax deductible?

I'm split on whether or not donations to the church should lose their tax deductions sense most people who donate to the LDS church do so with the intention of that money being spent on legitimate charitable causes, but I do believe the church's choice to become involved in politics should lose them their tax excempt status. Anyone want to disagree or agree?

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

Absolutely not.

The Church does mostly wonderful things with the money it is given. If there is an entity that deserves tax exempt status, for the MOST part, it is the LDS church. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were to be denied their tax exempt status, it would open up a lot of doors for other entities to have their status revoked as well.

We might as well not have anyone receive that status at all.




As a side note, I don't think the official support of Prop 8 would have happened if President Hinckley was still around. I truly believe he was a strong, but wise prophet who would not have publicly supported a SPECIFIC political item. President Monson creeped me out before he became the president, back when I was learning names in Primary. Proves my gut was right.

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorryisgoodenough, I have to agree with you on the comment about President Hinckley. The church has gone downhill fast under Monson. It may be hard to believe now, but there was a time when I was an active member of the LDS church. Not coincidently I became less and less active after Monson became the President. Sadly I think Prop 8 is the first in a new trend. Unless the Church goes back to how it operated under Hinckley I don't think I can support it anymore.

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

Unfortunately, that is exactly how I feel. I was actually looking into finding my local Singles ward and contacting my new bishop when I heard about the Church's support of Prop 8.

Sadly, my sister doesn't understand. She's very active. I told her I think I'm going to wait until Monson is gone and the new president shows that he's truly inspired, and she went around telling all our LDS friends that I said I wanted President Monson to die.

-_-

Get it? I don't want him to be president and being the prophet is a life term?

Yeah, whatever.

But I don't think it's the CHURCH, necessarily, because under Hinckley, this didn't happen. It's the current presidency. Which is really hard to accept because the prophet is supposed to be called of God to divine prophecy. And in President Monson's case, I don't think that's how it's working.

So, no, I don't think their tax exempt status should be revoked...unless President Monson makes supporting specific legislative agendas a habit. Then...well....

[smileyeagle1021]

So, no, I don't think their tax exempt status should be revoked...unless President Monson makes supporting specific legislative agendas a habit. Then...well....

which unfortunately I get the feeling that he is going to do.

*sigh* it was so much easier being a gay mormon under Hinckley than Monson... with Hinckley I actually wanted to follow the teachers, chose celebacy and thought of finding a woman I could make it work with... Monson's tactic is to tell me I"m going to hell.

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

Well, as for that, I don't believe you should have to choose to settle for anyone than someone you love.

But Hinckley did give the impression that he understood the struggle, at least, for gay individuals to reconcile their orientation with their faith. Monson just gives the impression that it's dirty, and something to be dealt with with discrimination and force.

Which is so, so wrong.

[Slytovhand]

Bacccckkk to the original topic....

If we're going to bring this argument in, then it should be about any religious entity that gets involved in politics.. and in that respect, the Catholics and Protestant churches have a lot to answer for in this regard. Also, a lot of money will go to activist groups (eg Pro-Life stuff).

Personally, I'm not inclined for religions to have a tax exempt status in the first place. Not unless said donations actually go to a good cause.. and putting up another big building for all your worshippers to go to isn't one of them. After all, am I going to get tax exempt status if I put up a hall for heavy metal musos to gig at?? Even if it is for free?? Nope... so what's the relevant difference? (not talking about... open up said hall, and then give away free food etc to kids normally left on the streets, and then let them sleep in the hall... that'd be a different argument!)


Back off topic.. Smiley - love someone you love, cos you can't love someone you don't.

[anriana]

At the very least they should be taxed for the amount of money they donated to the Prop 8 campaign.

Personally I don't think churches should be exempt from any taxes except maybe money for established charity endeavors like soup kitchens or food pantries.

[Barbiegirl]

Not being in california I wasn't really paying that much attention to everything going on with this vote.
So my question is, Is there proof that The Church itself donated money to the campaign or was it donated by individuals in the church?

Also, From what I've glanced at it looks like the church can state their opinion on issues affecting the community but cannot endorse a candidate. If that is correct and the Church itself did not donate money then I don't think they should lose tax exempt status.


And a quote that I like "The Church is perfect but the people aren't" Don't know who said it.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well, as for that, I don't believe you should have to choose to settle for anyone than someone you love.

But Hinckley did give the impression that he understood the struggle, at least, for gay individuals to reconcile their orientation with their faith. Monson just gives the impression that it's dirty, and something to be dealt with with discrimination and force.

Which is so, so wrong.

thank you... I'm glad I'm not the only one who had noticed that... I was afraid maybe I was imagining it... nope.

and coming back on topic again... I think I have to agree with Slyt, churches are being run way too much like businesses now. I think that a building for the sole purpose of worship should be taxed unless it serves some other charitable purpose in the community... as Slyt pointed out, someone who opens up a hall for free concerts doesn't get a tax break unless they perform some other charitable activity there, so why do churches get that tax break?

[ThePhoneGoddess]

I don't agree with automatic tax exemptions for churches period. First of all, smaller religions and those without a cohesive clergy or structure often don't get these benefits. Second, non-religious organizations which apply for tax exempt status have to go through much more rigorous application and approval process than religious organizations do.

Charitable trusts under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code technically have to make their financial records available to the IRS for inspection, but it is rare that such a review ever occurs with a church because of the possibility that it might result in an entanglement between church and state. Other organizations which receive direct subsidies from the government are not so free to keep their finances secret from the general public. An automatic tax exemption seems to be nothing more than a permanent subsidy.

Giving churches automatic tax exempt status is assuming that they are spending their money benefitting the community they are in---this is the purpose of tax exempt status, to encourage people to donate money to organizations which use the money to benefit the local community. But there are no checks or balances to make sure that that is what churches are doing with their money---it is simply assumed.

It is estimated that there may be as much as $100 billion dollars in untaxed church property in the United States. For every dollar which the government can't collect on church property, it makes up for by collecting it from citizens. So basically, all citizens are forced to indirectly support churches, even those they do not belong to and may even oppose.

This quote by President James Garfield sums it up pretty well:

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt for equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community."

James A Garfield, 20th U.S. President (1881)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Absolutely, they should have that exempt status yanked out from under them like the proverbial rug - and so should every other church as far as I'm concerned. (The one possible exception maybe being things like food pantries and soup kitchens - but there should be some way of verifying that money goes to where it's supposed to) This would also go a loooooong way towards taking the bite out of a lot of these dominionist-based churches, since they rely heavily on money to fund a lot of their little nasties.

[Boozy]

Why not make churches pay taxes, but remove the charitable donation deduction limit for all individuals and organizations?

If a church or religious group can provide receipts showing that everything they brought in went to pay for charitable acts, then they remain tax-free. If they used it to install expensive stained-glass windows, or send their choir on a tour of Europe, or buy ads in California during a political campaign, then they pay taxes on that amount.

[smileyeagle1021]

stop it Boozy... you're making way too much sense :p

[Boozy]

Well, sort of... :D

There are a few major flaws in my plan. For example, there are currently (to my knowledge) no exemptions available for property taxes. And if there were, you'd need to be careful that those donations actually benefited the community, as property taxes fund local programs like schools. A donation to Rwandan relief, while admirable, isn't going to pay a local teacher's salary. And a no-limit deduction for everyone (not just churches) could reduce tax revenue to the point where it's difficult to fund necessary programs like waste management and water treatment for which there are no charities.

[prb]

The way that it works here is that any religious organization can apply for Charitable status. They then receive a 9 digit business number and a 6 character charitable account code (always RR0001).

This number, the phrase "Canada Revenue Agency" and "www.cra-arc.gc.ca" must be mentioned on receipts and this number printed on anything that asks for a donation.

They must, like all other charities, file a Registered Charity Information Return every year. This is made available to the public at the cra-arc.gc.ca website. Like any other entity, they can be audited and must retain records for 7 years from the date of filing the return.

[smileyeagle1021]

PRB, I think you have proven once again, that while more complex, the Canadian code may make more sense than the US code.

[PepperElf]

I will probably offend someone but... well that's why I'm posting this to fratching and NOT to cs

churches / religions are allowed to voice what they believe in general. Such as whether or not they feel homosexual relations are sinful or not.

However they are not allowed to say "go vote for candidate x" or specifics.



However... if the government feels the LDS should lose tax-exempt status for their stance on Prop 8. Then they need to pull tax-exempt status for EVERY SINGLE CHURCH that holds political rallies. And yes there are many of them who have held services just praising a specific candidate.

so that means, if lds can't voice their opinion on prop 8
then no more reverend joe shmo yelling at the top of his lungs at the pulpit "vote for candidate x"

the law is for everyone, not just to be used against people you disagree with.



as for pulling tax-free from all churches. i'm against that.
with the rising costs of fuel and such, it's getting more expensive to heat and light most churches. in my home town they've already closed one church of my religion (it's for sale if you wanna buy it!) and people have consolidated to another church.

it would be nice if all expenses were covered by donations, but they're not. where my family lives one church is actually in debt and is facing possible closings as well if they can't get enough funds

and some people who are against churches might say "good let them close" but... it also hurts people who are poor who can't afford to donate.
and church isn't just for the rich, it's for the poor, so to me... stripping away tax-free status will cause a lot more closings and .. it might not hurt the people woh can afford to go a few more miles (or furter) to get to church, but it will affect the people who can't afford to.

[anriana]

as for pulling tax-free from all churches. i'm against that.
with the rising costs of fuel and such, it's getting more expensive to heat and light most churches. in my home town they've already closed one church of my religion (it's for sale if you wanna buy it!) and people have consolidated to another church.

it would be nice if all expenses were covered by donations, but they're not. where my family lives one church is actually in debt and is facing possible closings as well if they can't get enough funds

and some people who are against churches might say "good let them close" but... it also hurts people who are poor who can't afford to donate.
and church isn't just for the rich, it's for the poor, so to me... stripping away tax-free status will cause a lot more closings and .. it might not hurt the people woh can afford to go a few more miles (or furter) to get to church, but it will affect the people who can't afford to.

Why should an organization be tax-exempt because it can't pay it's bills otherwise? Tax-exempt status is for non-political non-profit organizations, not political organizations who can't cover their operating costs.

[PepperElf]

because they are already tax exempt

i'm just pointing out that taking it away from a church will have negative effects to a community - in response to the notion that no church should get tax exempt status posted earlier

[bunnyboy]

Eh, even if they were threatened...

Again...

They would suddenly have a revelation about how they should ever be away from any politics.

You know just like they were all, no blacks in the priesthood, until they were threatened and had a sudden revelation on how blacks could now hold the priesthood.

yeah it's the Church that has sudden revelation when something threatens their ability to make major amounts of money.

Bitter bunny? No not at all.

And as for taking out the tax exempt status, hey I agree, seem to remember about giving something that belonged to some emperor to that emperor...

[PepperElf]

normally i'd say yes, when a church is specifically saying "vote for *specific name*" or "don't vote for *specific name*"

but over prop 8, that's some grey water right there...

a church is allowed to say whether or not they feel gay marriage is a sin or not.


but here's something else to consider

Were there any churches that publicly said "Vote against Prop 8"?

Because if the Mormon church loses tax-free status for taking an official stand for it... then the same will have to apply to churches who took official stands against it.


To me the question really is... is this latest issue about the law at all
or is it just an attempt to punish the Mormon church over their beliefs?


The way to tell is this... look at the organizations who are pushing the issue. see if they would press the same issues against any church that officially stood against Prop 8.

If they would treat both churches the same then yes, they're really concerned about the law.

If the answer is no... then it's not about the law, it's about fueling a grudge.

[smileyeagle1021]

If the answer is no... then it's not about the law, it's about fueling a grudge.[/color]

The LDS church didn't just say that they were against gay marriage... bishops stood up and said that you should support prop 8. And while I'll admit my bias on the issue and say I'd have less problem with a church publicly opposing prop 8 I still would have a problem with them telling people how they should vote.
I like how my church handled the common ground initiative, while it was an issue the pastor made a point of saying that official church policy is to be accepting of everyone and that everyone deserves equal protections, and if you'd like more information on the matter he would be happy to arrange for you to meet with one of equality utah's representatives... at no point though did he say that you must support the common ground initiative. My roommate saw at least one member of his ward who was practically forced out because he made the mistake of making it known that he opposed prop 8.

That said, the LDS church deserves every grudge against it that they have. Between massacring innocents in Mountain Meadows, to discrimination against blacks and homosexuals, to doing everything in their power to control the state of Utah. Every year the legislature holds a closed door meeting with LDS church officials, and every year all the LDS representatives vote damned near unamimously... and we are to believe this is a coincidence... I think not.
Let's not even go into the number of suicides of gay mormon teens who have been told they must chose between the church they love and who God made them to be. Oh, I don't care how hypocritical it is, that church deserves every punishment that we can find to throw at it.

ETA- and for the record, yes I am bitter over the fact that they promised me that all I had to do to be 'straight' and meet all my family's expectation was to have myself dunked in water and say prayers regularly... I'm bitter over the fact that the ward I was in while living in Logan was kind and accepting and honestly did try to help me with that (even though most of them didn't really know what they were helping me with), they would have failed, but at least they were helping, then I came to salt lake and I was told in so many words that I was not worthy of being an active member because I was not perfect enough... people didn't even know what it was that was wrong with me, they could just tell something was wrong with me and judged me for it. Then when I finally admitted that I couldn't be straight, rather than letting me leave with some shred of dignity they made me jump through hoops to have my name removed, a most tiring, and somewhat humiliating process to be honest. Because every correspondence needed to be done via certified mail, and every letter needed to be motorized to verify it was actually me writing it. So, I three times had to go to a complete stranger to have letters, giving out personal details that I shouldn't of been having to write out anyway, to have it notarized, just to convince the church that I did indeed want out. There truly is no love lost between me and the church.

[anriana]

The LDS didn't just say "vote for prop 8;" it poured non-taxed money into advertising in favor of prop 8.

[ladyneeva]

Unfortunately, distasteful as it is... I don't think their direct lobbying in favor of that bit of hateful legislation should constitute their loss of tax exempt status. Because, again distasteful as it is... organizations with 501(c)3 status are allowed to lobby in favor of or against legislation.

Due to their (in my opinion) extortionist tactics (mandatory tithing etc), the LDS have a LOT of money. So they can spend a relatively huge amount of money lobbying without it being considered a substantial amount for the purposes of deciding if they have exceeded the amount they're allowed to lobby.

So, unless we want to change things in such a way that groups devoted to say child welfare would not be able to support/oppose a bill or something that they feel would be in favor of or against their stated reason for being... we unfortunately can't prevent churches from supporting/opposing things that they feel are for/against their purpose.

That said... I don't believe churches, in general, should get tax exempt status across the board. Their employees should have to pay the same income taxes employees at any other job pay, they should be required to pay the relevant property and business taxes on the churches etc. Donations in excess of the amount spent in that year on charitable pursuits and reasonable operational expenses should be taxed... and NO forms of lobbying, advertisement, propaganda, etc should be considered "charitable pursuits". In order to qualify as a charitable pursuit, the activity should have to be undertaken with no expectation of or request for monetary repayment (requesting that in order to get assistance one would need to donate some form of reasonable labor or volunteer hours would be ok I think) and available to anyone regardless of church affiliation or lack thereof, gender, sexual orientation, etc, and with no requirement of conversion to the religion in question.

The sad thing is in order for that to work we really would need to define charity so rigidly.

[protege]

The LDS didn't just say "vote for prop 8;" it poured non-taxed money into advertising in favor of prop 8.

In that case, they shouldn't be tax-exempt. You want to play politics? Fine, pay the entrance fee like everyone else.

[Flyndaran]

...
yeah it's the Church that has sudden revelation when something threatens their ability to make major amounts of money.
......

That's all organizations, not just religious ones.
Get a group of people together, and greed will win out.

Personally I don't like tax exempt status for any religious organization. Every business, and that's what they are, should pay taxes.

[PepperElf]

so... what about churches that poured their funds into opposing prop 8?

as i mentioned before... the law has to apply to everyone

[smileyeagle1021]

PepperElf, I agree, the rules should apply to everyone. That said, I will give much more leeway to a church that gets involved in politics to protect their ability to free exercise to practice gay marriage than to a church that gets involved in politics to codify their bigotry.

[Flyndaran]

so... what about churches that poured their funds into opposing prop 8?

as i mentioned before... the law has to apply to everyone

I don't want any type of business, except pure charities, to get preferential treatment even when they agree with me.
Heck, I don't trust any group to consistently agree with me, so why should I give them special status on the rare occasions they do?

[Rapscallion]

Question - who is to decide what is political and therefore should be untouched by church funding?

Rapscallion

[BroomJockey]

Question - who is to decide what is political and therefore should be untouched by church funding?

Rapscallion

I'd say, if it involves needing politicians having to do something involving laws, that'd be a fair definition of "political." And to be fair, I'd have nothing against the individual members of the church banding together to do something with their own money, but it'd need to be without church funds, and without orders from the clergy.

[Flyndaran]

I'd say, if it involves needing politicians having to do something involving laws, that'd be a fair definition of "political." And to be fair, I'd have nothing against the individual members of the church banding together to do something with their own money, but it'd need to be without church funds, and without orders from the clergy.

That would be the minimum I would demand.

[PepperElf]

i've already stated my opinions on whether or not a church should be tax-free over supporting or not supporting prop 8


as for a church's tax-free status in general... no i don't feel churches and religious groups should be taxed.


i understand the opinions against this tax-free status. there are many faiths out there where the pastor lives an extravagant life with a new car each year and a trophy wife. and for something like that... yeah i can understand wanting them to start paying taxes on the income


but then i look at the church my family goes to. they're already in debt up to their eyeballs, and most of this debt is what they owe for the main diocese on loans to cover the heat & electricity.

and... regardless of people's opinions on the worth of religion, this church provides an even more important service to the community now. it's the only church in miles... (and it's the first i've ever personally seen) that actually offers specific services for the disabled: the new head pastor is fluent in sign language and always does at least one Mass each weekend in sign-language.


so the idea of taxing this already fund-strapped church... would make me sad. i am pretty sure this church would have to close.


and i also feel... the government takes too much of everyone's money for their own pet-projects as it is.

[Rapscallion]

If taxed like a business, they'd only pay taxes on 'profits'.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

If taxed like a business, they'd only pay taxes on 'profits'.

Rapscallion

So you would want them to play the same deceitful games that many rich people and companies do to avoid paying real taxes?

I'm an atheist, so I don't see churches as performing any service other than brainwashing. SOME churches perform charitable acts, but that is far from universal and there are many secular chartiable organizations.
I have to single out The United Christian Children's Fund as deserving of special consideration as they don't hold back. They use 80% of all donated funds for the children.... Though I wonder if they spend any of that money on unnecessary bible "schooling".

[Boozy]

If taxed like a business, they'd only pay taxes on 'profits'.


Property taxes are levied according to the value of the land and would apply whether or not the building is a non-profit, a home, or a business. Except for churches.

[Rapscallion]

So you would want them to play the same deceitful games that many rich people and companies do to avoid paying real taxes?

If we allow businesses to get away with it, why shouldn't we allow churches to? They provide a range of services for money tendered - can't see the difference.

Property taxes are levied according to the value of the land and would apply whether or not the building is a non-profit, a home, or a business. Except for churches.

Actually, that's a fair point. The Church of England certainly used to be the biggest land owner in the UK, probably still is. I was more thinking of income.

In the UK, though, local authorities have tax-collecting abilities and not the national government (unless they vote them in for themselves), and they base this on rentable value (or certainly used to). Would certainly hurt the institution.

Rapscallion

[PepperElf]

but some churches basically have no profits
other than paying perhaps a small number of staff, like a secretary or the organist

in fact, for my faith, the only time i've ever seen a church that wasn't in some state of low funds was the church on the military base since the heat & electricity are supplied by the base.

however in that instance, i believe the priests and pastors might be paying taxes on their income since they're pulling military Officer pay.

[Boozy]

Actually, that's a fair point. The Church of England certainly used to be the biggest land owner in the UK, probably still is.

The one good thing I'll say about churches being property tax exempt is that it allows them to set up in areas with high land value. It allows people who live in the downtown core of their city to have a church a few blocks away from them, instead of having to drive out to the suburbs where land is cheaper. Some churches can afford the property taxes in high-density areas, but many can't, especially if their congregation is poor.

[bunnyboy]

That's all organizations, not just religious ones.
Get a group of people together, and greed will win out.

Personally I don't like tax exempt status for any religious organization. Every business, and that's what they are, should pay taxes.


I agree with that, but the point I was trying to make is that yes they would suddenly have that revelation, and fly in the face of previous revelations because they were about to lose it... buuuuuuut they'd still do it in theory rather than practice (try to find one of the few "sons of cain" (for those who aren't an ex-mo, read person of African descent) and see what the highest position they hold, or ask them which tribe they are...)

To put it bluntly, I agree all religions should be taxed like everyone else, hell most would pay nothing due to the fact that they are humanitarian and donate quite a bit of resources.

And as for the sons of cain thing, guess what led me down the road to first doubting ANY sort of truth of a certain church...

[smileyeagle1021]

(for those who aren't an ex-mo,
.

as a complete off topic, that just reminded me of a very active member of the church I used to know who always complained that there were too many no-mos, ex-mos, and ho-mos in Salt Lake LOL

[bunnyboy]

as a complete off topic, that just reminded me of a very active member of the church I used to know who always complained that there were too many no-mos, ex-mos, and ho-mos in Salt Lake LOL

mmmm ho-mos....


and wow, reminded you of that from just saying ex-mo? *facepalm*

[Fryk]

Here's a thought about all these churches closing...

Why do they even need buildings like that in the first place? I don't remember anything mentioned anywhere in the Book of Acts along the lines of...

"And, Lo, the believers did come together and build a church building with pretty windows and hard wooden benches that were uncomfortable on the ass..."

Nope, the early churches just met in their homes or in open areas. If a church BUILDING has to close, why does that mean that the group of believers HAS to evaporate?

And if the churches want to dabble in politics, I dyslexically tell them "No representation without taxation."