Equality run amok!

[manker]

If the Church is treated as a charity or a non profit organisation then the employees of the church are still taxed. At least they are in the UK via Pay As You Earn.

I've not brushed up on the conceptual framework recently but I would imagine that a similar system is operated in the U.S. Therefore the wages that these TV preachers earn would be taxed as they are profiting directly from their activities. However, I imagine that in congruence with our taxation laws here their expenses would not be taxable, this could feasibly include a multitude of luxuries.

So, in essence those charities that wish to pay their employees vast sums of money for their services do actually get taxed, leaving the charities which actually use their funds for the purposes the donors would appreciate the most, tax free.

I think this is fair in concept although as I've hinted there are many ways to abuse the system. Of course, such abuses are evident throughout entire sphere of tax collection.

[spinningfreemanny]

This is all for moot though... If you want to open up the idea of taxing churches, prepare for the line between church and state to be abolished, because then churches would need representation in government. (as vid has stated).

[spinningfreemanny]

If the Church is treated as a charity or a non profit organisation then the employees of the church are still taxed. At least they are in the UK via Pay As You Earn.

I've not brushed up on the conceptual framework recently but I would imagine that a similar system is operated in the U.S. Therefore the wages that these TV preachers earn would be taxed as they are profiting directly from their activities. However, I imagine that in congruence with our taxation laws here their expenses would not be taxable, this could feasibly include a multitude of luxuries.

So, in essence those charities that wish to pay their employees vast sums of money for their services do actually get taxed, leaving the charities which actually use their funds for the purposes the donors would appreciate the most, tax free.

I think this is fair in concept although as I've hinted there are many ways to abuse the system. Of course, such abuses are evident throughout entire sphere of tax collection.

wow...good point manker...thats what happends...(my father is a minister)

[Rat Faced]

This is all for moot though... If you want to open up the idea of taxing churches, prepare for the line between church and state to be abolished, because then churches would need representation in government. (as vid has stated).

Correction.

They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.

If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.

[spinningfreemanny]

Correction.

They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.

If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.

anybody or person has the right to lobby government...

but if they are to make campaign contributions and the such, then they should be taxed.

[vidcc]

@ j2
By not being a political activist i don't go on marches and i don't go to court to "make policy"
I don't sit at my computer writing my congress "person" /senator.

but i do

On the odd occasions i have had contact with people in politics (at various levels) i do put them on the spot if the opportunity arises.

I've been to both the republican and the democrat campaign offices in my town and given them a hard time.... after all the only time a politician is interested in mine or your views is when he/she needs your vote.

I don't spend my life lobbying because i don't have any particular "special interests" or agenda that i feel i have the right to force upon others.

Non commercial lobbyists often appear to be groups that want to stop someone elses freedoms

[manker]

Correction.

They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.

If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.

RF, They have to adhere to strict guidelines in order to maintain their non-profit status. This often includes paying tax via other channels.

If their profit level is either 'substantial' or above 10% of their income then they lose their 'special status' and have to pay tax. Investing in property and gold candlesticks does not affect this as they are examples of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.

Again, this is subject to abuse via creative accounting and plain fraud, but the point is that the system is in place such that these charities cannot make vast sums of money without paying the taxman.

[Rat Faced]

RF, They have to adhere to strict guidelines in order to maintain their non-profit status. This often includes paying tax via other channels.

If their profit level is either 'substantial' or above 10% of their income then they lose their 'special status' and have to pay tax. Investing in property and gold candlesticks does not affect this as they are examples of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.

Again, this is subject to abuse via creative accounting and plain fraud, but the point is that the system is in place such that these charities cannot make vast sums of money without paying the taxman.

Isnt that what ive been saying should happen?




The Tax Free position being argued is that in the US...

I know our tax rules...i work for em

[manker]

Isnt that what ive been saying should happen?




The Tax Free position being argued is that in the US...

I know our tax rules...i work for em

It would be very similar in the US.

That's my point. It probably is happening as you'd wish it - to a certain extent. I don't know the US tax rules on this particular point but in general ours and their tax system is based on the same principles. Some people laugh at the conceptual framework but it has had the effect of a certain amount of homogenisation with the UK and US tax systems in the past 10 years or more.

I'd be really surprised if the TV preachers weren't taxed, likewise the charities not having to adhere to certain rules to maintain their status. Plus the candlesticks and property investments could never be used to lower the profits in a revenue sense in any western country that I'm aware of.

[scroff]

Just my two cents, since I'm here reading ruthies brilliance...

The Catholic Church is worth over $100,000,000,000... They should be taxed, at least property tax. About fifteen years ago the property the Church owned along the Hudson River in Upstate New York in just my area was worth over $9,000,000. That should be taxed. It would lower the local tax burden on all the people in the surrounding towns, a very charitable action, if you ask me. A priests minimal "income" shouldn't.

...and, as RF has already pointed out, they do have representation. Every Christian religion in the US does. Half the country thinks the US is some kind of divine intervention. Every other major speech includes some reference to god. God bless America, In god we trust.

Jerry Falwell Ministries is classified by the IRS as a non-profit organization, making it exempt from paying federal income taxes on the money they collect from followers... reported at $12.4 million for the year ending June 30, 2003. That, even more than the Catholic Church's holdings, should be taxed. Especially since Falwell, in his Falwell Confidential, expresses unabashed support for Bush and extols his sheep to follow his lead.

To take it even further (perhaps I can steal the liberal loonie crown from RF and Ruthie) religion is a farce and all "churches" should be taxed. What ever happened to rich men and eyes of needles and all that shit? Matthew 19:24