IRS and the NAACP

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service is investigating whether a speech by NAACP Chairman Julian Bond last summer that criticized the Bush administration violated a federal law that prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations from engaging in most forms of political activity.

---

Ok..now it's attack the NAACP. You know, the organizationthat Bush has refused to talk to for 3 years or so? Bond did criticize Bush in his speech, but he didn't tell the listeners to go vote Kerry. (like the orations from some of the pulpits across the country).
what happened to the IRS going after the tax exempt status of religious institutions that outright endorse candidates, threaten an eternity of hellfire and brimstone if the parishoners don't vote for Bush?

I believe any charity, churches included should be taxed...let them claim deductables like any other business if they use money for charitable causes.... make them show it

Are they not already taxed if they don't meet the strict criteria of being a charity, like having a very low profit compared with turnover.

Are the employees of the Church taxed if they earn money (wages) from the Church.

That is how it works in the UK. It would surprise me if it differed significantly in the US. What are the IRS rules there that govern charities and their tax-free status?

Here if you donate to the Church or a registered charity through the proper channels then you pay the tax on this but they can claim it back, swelling your donation to it's gross amount. This seems fine to me provided that the Charity uses it legitimately i.e. a donation to a worthy cause or other allowable expense. Is this different in the U.S.?

If not then I see no reason for Churches and Charitable organisations to lose their 'tax-free' status.

Donating to church via collections... how do you pay tax on that?. Uk laws allow tax relief for charitable donations up to a certain amount i believe, for personal and comercial donations.

I feel that ALL tax free status as "status" should be removed and as i said any money raised used for charitable causes can then be written off in the tax return. If all monies raised are shown to be used for such reasons then no tax will be paid.

Yes church employees pay income tax if they earn enough as far as i am aware...just as an employee of any other business. The charity is tax exempt..not it's workers (unless someone knows better)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Donating to church via collections... how do you pay tax on that?. Uk laws allow tax relief for charitable donations up to a certain amount i believe, for personal and comercial donations.

I feel that ALL tax free status as "status" should be removed and as i said any money raised used for charitable causes can then be written off in the tax return. If all monies raised are shown to be used for such reasons then no tax will be paid.

Yes church employees pay income tax if they earn enough as far as i am aware...just as an employee of any other business. The charity is tax exempt..not it's workers (unless someone knows better)

---

If it's money in your pocket going to the Church collection then presumably you've already paid tax on it. No? However, this is a different thing entirely.

I was talking about money being paid by charitable covenant and yes there is a limit to this. It is one of the limitations of the 'tax free' status that they enjoy. The profit level they are allowed is so small that if they are going to maintain their 'tax-free' status that they literally have to donate any surplus to good causes to reduce their profits to this level.

This small surplus is then an asset of the church, it cannot be enjoyed by it's employees lest it be taxed, so what happens to it? It may well go toward the funding of capital items, the total value of which cannot be claimed in the year of aquisition.

Of course the employees of the Church and Charities pay tax as normal.

So you see to strip the Church of it's 'tax-free' status is pointless. In the UK.

I was enquiring if it was different in the US such that it would cause your ire. I cannot see how this would be so. Provided the Charity or Church is legitimate then the few benefits it receives from it's status are transferred to the worthy causes.

well yes there are rules they must follow but as pointed out often they don't....such as canvasing for a candidate from the pulpit. But in having their tax free status it is assumed that what they do is "charitable" and not everyone agrees with that.

Ok running a soup kitchen for example...yes charitable.

But what about distributing free bibles?.... is that a charitable act?..as a non believer i think not. To me it is a work of fiction.
What about those leaflets i get through the door if i am not in when they call ? To assume this is charity is to assume god actually exists....and i don't believe he does.


If i wanted to set up a "charity" to distribute a michael moore book for example i doubt i would be granted charity status and would have to prove i made no money before not paying tax...but then i doubt it would be allowed as a tax write off either.

You may see change as pointless but the original post of this thread pointed to abuse of the rules and they are getting away with it... so if charities had to make the same write off claims as other business concerns do then they would have nothing to worry about as long as they play by the rules.

I read a lot of post from people complaining that homosexuals what "preferencial treatment" when all they want is equal rights, and those people wish to deny those rights because of their religious beliefs...well why should they get preferencial treatment themselves because of those beliefs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr JP Fugley

What's NAACP.

---

national association for the advancement of colored people...they have a website


NAACP


edit:....so you looked it up

There are loads of loopholes that get used by the "Clergy" of recognised religions.

For example; empty domestic Property in the UK is exempt from Council Tax, if its owned by a recognised church/religion and its next use is likely to be that of accomodation for "Clergy".

As an example... all male members of The Church of Latter Day Saints are classed as the priesthood... So in effect, they can claim exemption if its likely to be sold to or used by other Church Members, including renting the accomodation out.

For Business Rates, all that is required is an Implied Public Invitation to worship and a certificate that you send off for saying the property is to be used for Religious Worship (unless Anglican, in which case its automatic exemption).. that implied invitation is all the evidence needed.. abracadabra.. its exempt. We have a few shops around here using that loophole :dry:

Alternatively, for recognised Religions (which includes Jedi Knight now remember)... all you have to do is show that what is happening on the premises are within the publicly disclosed doctrines of your religion... That means, in effect, any property owned by a religious organisation can claim exemption, if they have the correct arguments to use with the Valuation Office.

You are, of course, correct.

In my opinion, they should.

it's not the loss of charitable status more the loss of tax exempt status... Absolutetly they should lose it if the don't abide by the rules. The religious side was raised by Ruthie because the IRS is going after the NAACP but seem to be ignoring religious groups that are openly breaking the rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

it's not the loss of charitable status more the loss of tax exempt status... Absolutetly they should lose it if the don't abide by the rules. The religious side was raised by Ruthie because the IRS is going after the NAACP but seem to be ignoring religious groups that are openly breaking the rules

---

Thanks, vidcc. It just seems to me that there has been more enthusiasm of government agencies to go after anything not pro-Bush, and ignore the rest. They might give lip service to churches and such, but it goes no further..with the churches.

Well said, JP

Quote:

---

I also am uncomfortable with the whole thing. I suspect that a group dedicated to the advancement of White Americans would not be considered politically correct. Or perhaps I have misunderstood their raison d'etre.

---

You mean like the Church Of The Creator; 14 Word Press; Aryan Nations (Church Of Jesus Christ Christian); Mountain Church; The Identity Church Movement; Aryan Preservation Society; Carolinian Lords of The Caucasus; Knights Of The Ku Klux Klan; Posse Comitatus ("power of the county); Volksfront; The Covenant Sword, Arm Of The Lord; Christian Patriots Defense League; Skinheads; The Order; National Association For The Advancement Of White People; White Aryan Resistance (WAR); Christian National Socialist; Neo Supreme White Power....?

These groups claim to be for the advancement of white Americans. Most of them are also tax exempt, except for the Skinheads and a few others I'm not sure of.

Just a comment... a point of interest if you will...

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was). But on the flip side if said group was for the advancement of blacks, latinos, koreans, cubans, ect, ect, they would be praised for their work.

the theory behind the term "advancement" is to advance to "equality" although it also it a group that likes to aid those that are disadvantaged because of circumstances... poor families etc. that can't afford futher education.
they are not touting "supremacy"

I don't agree with positive discrimination as i think one should advance on merit not race or gender

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was). But on the flip side if said group was for the advancement of blacks, latinos, koreans, cubans, ect, ect, they would be praised for their work.

---

well. thing is, people who posit such an idea seem to be implying that the founding of an explicitly pro-caucasian group in the u.s. is equivalent to the founding of the NAACP. it certainly is not. one could argue that starting the NAACP would be less necessary in 2004 than it was in the early 20th century. but the fact of the matter is that the group was started in 1909 when there was not --by ANY stretch of the imagination-- even a pretense of equal rights in the laws, institutions and society of the u.s.

perhaps the NAACP is growing less useful with each passing year. at one time it had been quite a necessary and reasonable thing because the u.s. had such ridiculous views on race scratched into its foundations. but do you realize what it sounds like, to hear white americans complain about such a thing? it's not a flattering picture and often involves absurd reasoning, as is the case with what you've said in your post: "if Group A must form a club to achieve equal rights, then all groups should do the same. therefore Group B should have a club to seek more rights for itself, even though said group already has more than equal rights."

so, no, if there were a group for the advancement of whites that started in 1909 and still existed today, i would not praise their work nor would i hold them in the same regard as the NAACP... as arbitrary as that may sound. i just don't think one is the ethical equivalent of the other. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

perhaps the NAACP is growing less useful with each passing year. at one time it had been quite a necessary and reasonable thing because the u.s. had such ridiculous views on race scratched into its foundations. but do you realize what it sounds like, to hear white americans complain about such a thing? it's not a flattering picture and often involves absurd reasoning, as is the case with what you've said in your post: "if Group A must form a club to achieve equal rights, then all groups should do the same. therefore Group B should have a club to seek more rights for itself, even though said group already has more than equal rights."

---

Thank you for just assuming I am white........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was). But on the flip side if said group was for the advancement of blacks, latinos, koreans, cubans, ect, ect, they would be praised for their work.

---

Then we agree.

My points do relate to items mentioned further back in the thread but I feel that if this particular organisation has broken the rules set down by the IRS then it should lose any benefits it gets as a charity.

I still don't agree that all charities should not enjoy these benefits. It was cited earlier that current regulations are being abused by certain charitable organisations and that some 'official' religeons are little more than a joke, or an excuse to get around paying Business Rates.

I quite agree - but to strip the tax-free privileges from ALL charities looks like letting a few rotten apples spoil the barrel. There are mumerous small charitable organisations that depend on not having to pay rates or use the non-profit net profit threshold as a means to ensure all available funds go to worthy causes.

Also if charities were treated as normal businesses then how would one check to see if they were donating all available funds to the good causes? A family run charity could be making huge profits without having to disclose it. OK the income would be taxed but the donators would be none the wiser to what was going on.

If the organisers were already unscrupulous then they will continue to be so under the regular business rules - but this would be perpetuated as the charity would no longer be subject to such rigourous checks.

It's all well and good to cite a particular charity that shouldn't receive the benefits of tax free status but if this status was taken away from all charities then it could only mean that less money, overall, was going to the places the donators intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

Thank you for just assuming I am white........

---

you're welcome. :D

although, if you look carefully at the sentence, it doesn't say that the case with your post is that you are a complainy white american. it says that the case with your post is that you're using absurd reasoning in a manner akin to that of a complainy white american. if i'd meant that you are a complainy white american, i would've written "you are a complainy white american."

Can you please explain to me why my thinking is absurd exactly? Is it because you disagree with me? Is it because you suffer from the problem most white Americans have concerning racism, "if you ignore it the problem will go away"?

In a day and age when a dog who bites a black person can be accused of being racist, exactly why do you believe a group of people who promoting whites not run any risk of being racist?

BTW: I am not white, get it straight, cracker :-P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

Can you please explain to me why my thinking is absurd exactly? Is it because you disagree with me? Is it because you suffer from the problem most white Americans have concerning racism, "if you ignore it the problem will go away"?

In a day and age when a dog who bites a black person can be accused of being racist, exactly why do you believe a group of people who promoting whites not run any risk of being racist?

BTW: I am not white, get it straight, cracker :-P

---

.......because they are racist. DUH!!! :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

BTW: I am not white

---

Neither am I..

...more a sorta pinky baige colour, unless its sunny n hot, and then im Bright Red :rolleyes:

first you're saying that white pride groups are not necessarily racist:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

I feel that there never could be a group that worked to further the white race, as it would be immediatly be deemed racist (no matter how anti-racist the group was).

---

and now you're saying they are necessarily racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler

exactly why do you believe a group of people who promoting whites not run any risk of being racist?

---

WT...
http://img27.exs.cx/img27/3029/argexplode.gif
...F?

make up your mind. and i already explained why your reasoning was absurd. it's because your earlier post ignored relevant circumstances, to the point that you were telling a joke: "white pride groups get unfairly labelled as racists. but they're the same thing as minority pride groups!" no. they're not the same thing. as VidCC explains, two groups based on the advancement of their race are not the same if one seeks racial equality, while the other seeks to maintain/expand its race's dominance.

threads going a bit out there but here's my thought re white promoting groups.

there are racists in all societies, no matter what skin they have, white, black olive...etc. etc. No skin colour has a monopoly on racism.

What it depends on is location. I will say in the USA that a group promoting Black equality does have a valid reason to exist...but as time passes the reasons get fewer because things are getting better..... there is still work to be done.
The problem with white promoting groups is that white people in the US don't generally suffer from discrimination and many groups such as the KKK give a cause a bad name because they want supremacy, not equality.

personally i don't agree with any discrimination..positive or negative as i feel personal merit is what is important, however i do strongly support a level playing field and think that more should be done to help ALL disadvantaged get as much help with things like education to start with...including further education...after that they are on their own to make what they can of their lives.
I have never been able to understand why it matters what color a person is but i do understand that it somehow does to some and when that changes the world will be richer.