How to save local governments big money

[JDMFantasy2k]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

everyone who attends a church pays taxes, churches don't make a profit

yeah i forgot to mention that, good point.

[GT40FIED]

Well Will, I'm not going to quote your post because it'd be like *BAM*...half a page. Needless to say most of that is your business and yours alone. I don't really know that I can comment on your beliefs because...well...they're yours. No one's coming after you for them, certainly not me. Everyone has a reason for believing whatever it is they believe and that's cool. But creating a tax free environment for religious purposes is dangerous (to me) for a few reasons.

First of all, many churches have practices that discriminate against people/things. The catholic church won't allow women to become priests. Just about any church condemns gays no matter how devout their faith is. Many churches still preach against things like interracial dating. I'm not sure the government should condone let alone help support things like that. There's a laundry list of things that many churches rail against that are perfectly legal and indeed part of our freedom (of course not all churches rock it so hardcore, but you get the idea). I'm not saying that people shouldn't believe whatever they want, I'm saying that maybe it's not a good idea for the government to support it by giving them a free ride (unless the government wants to take a stance against these things as well...but fat chance).

Secondly, who gets to decide who is and who isn't a church? Contrary to popular belief, not all churches are christian and not all churches do good works, but they still retain the benefits allowed by the government. Take Scientology for example. It's recognized as a religious institution which thereby gives it tax exempt status regardless of the fact that it threatens violence against those who leave it (through the "fair game doctorine") and publicly humiliates anyone who tries to help others leave the cult. Oops...did I say cult? Anyway, the point is that scientology rakes in huge amounts of cash as people try to become a "clear" or an "OT" and none of it has any clear benefit to anyone...regardless of what Tom Cruise says. For fuck's sake, they locked a girl in a closet for 17 days until she starved to death just to keep her quiet. Yes, this is an extreme case, but I don't think that the churches who don't provide community services should reap the same rewards as those that do. I mean any crazy asshole can make their own religion.

As for other NPOs...don't even get me started. The Red Cross is probably the biggest...and it's pathetically mismanaged. The amount of money they take in versus the money they give out is phenominally unbalanced. They've even been the subject of federal inquiries and public scrutiny but no one will ever speak against them because...well...they're The Red Cross. I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the tax exempt status for EVERYONE. I do, however, think it's very important to take a closer look at what exactly the organization gives back for what it takes in. Ideally a NPO would break even...taking in enough money to employ it's people and do whatever it is that it does (with maybe a little left over for possible expansion or some kind of emergency). But that's often not the case. Many NPOs take in large sums of money and just hang onto it even if there's work to be done.

I can only speak of churches in respect to catholic churches since that's where I got my theological education. I realize other churches are structured MUCH differently, but I take particular exception with the catholic church. In my opinion it doesn't qualify as a NPO. They do profit since, much like The Red Cross, they often take in much more money than they give back. That's known as profit. A lot of that money goes into the arch diocese and god only knows what they do with it.

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

I can only speak of churches in respect to catholic churches since that's where I got my theological education.

that could be the problem right there.

[JDMFantasy2k]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

Well Will, I'm not going to quote your post because it'd be like *BAM*...half a page. Needless to say most of that is your business and yours alone. I don't really know that I can comment on your beliefs because...well...they're yours. No one's coming after you for them, certainly not me. Everyone has a reason for believing whatever it is they believe and that's cool. But creating a tax free environment for religious purposes is dangerous (to me) for a few reasons.

First of all, many churches have practices that discriminate against people/things. The catholic church won't allow women to become priests. Just about any church condemns gays no matter how devout their faith is. Many churches still preach against help supportthings like interracial dating. I'm not sure the government should condone let alone things like that. There's a laundry list of things that many churches rail against that are perfectly legal and indeed part of our freedom (of course not all churches rock it so hardcore, but you get the idea). I'm not saying that people shouldn't believe whatever they want, I'm saying that maybe it's not a good idea for the government to support it by giving them a free ride (unless the government wants to take a stance against these things as well...but fat chance).

Secondly, who gets to decide who is and who isn't a church? Contrary to popular belief, not all churches are christian and not all churches do good works, but they still retain the benefits allowed by the government. Take Scientology for example. It's recognized as a religious institution which thereby gives it tax exempt status regardless of the fact that it threatens violence against those who leave it (through the "fair game doctorine") and publicly humiliates anyone who tries to help others leave the cult. Oops...did I say cult? Anyway, the point is that scientology rakes in huge amounts of cash as people try to become a "clear" or an "OT" and none of it has any clear benefit to anyone...regardless of what Tom Cruise says. For fuck's sake, they locked a girl in a closet for 17 days until she starved to death just to keep her quiet. Yes, this is an extreme case, but I don't think that the churches who don't provide community services should reap the same rewards as those that do. I mean any crazy asshole can make their own religion.

As for other NPOs...don't even get me started. The Red Cross is probably the biggest...and it's pathetically mismanaged. The amount of money they take in versus the money they give out is phenominally unbalanced. They've even been the subject of federal inquiries and public scrutiny but no one will ever speak against them because...well...they're The Red Cross. I don't think it's necessary to eliminate the tax exempt status for EVERYONE. I do, however, think it's very important to take a closer look at what exactly the organization gives back for what it takes in. Ideally a NPO would break even...taking in enough money to employ it's people and do whatever it is that it does (with maybe a little left over for possible expansion or some kind of emergency). But that's often not the case. Many NPOs take in large sums of money and just hang onto it even if there's work to be done.

I can only speak of churches in respect to catholic churches since that's where I got my theological education. I realize other churches are structured MUCH differently, but I take particular exception with the catholic church. In my opinion it doesn't qualify as a NPO. They do profit since, much like The Red Cross, they often take in much more money than they give back. That's known as profit. A lot of that money goes into the arch diocese and god only knows what they do with it.

Some good points. Just trying to give you some insight to my experiences and possibly some inspiration. However churches are like people, none of them are perfect. And like you said there are many religions and whatnot. However i feel that christianity as a whole does not "condemn" gays or interracial marrige or the like. For the most part they do not support homosexuality and gay marriage because the bible says that man and woman will be wed, and feel that it's against gods will. As for interracial marriage i feel that most christians support that as they believe god created one race (humans). The misconception is in denomination. God didn't create denomonations (catholocism, judeasm, prostants, baptists etc), the people did. This started back when a ruler would come to power, and would decided to change the guidelines of the religion to his liking. Chrisianity in it's purist form is usually defined as following god through his word.

The second part of you post is absolutely correct. The bittersweet thing, is that this is america. Our country was founded on the belief of god, and freedom (of religion and basically everything else). Therefore you have millions of christians screaming to put the church back into the state, and the other people saying that it deny's (or intrudes) on peoples freedoms, which relates to scientolism (or whatever it's called). Which brings me to my point, you could consider a group like the KKK a religion (not sure if they do or not) if you wanted to, and could probably file it as a church because of our country's enermous religious freedoms. Now i think that the government would rather not get involved at all, and just say fuck it, don't tax any of them. Rather than deciding which ones are true NPO's and legimitately give back to society, which would also run the risk of discriminating groups and intertwining the government with religion and opening up a whole can of shit.

[ChrisCantSkate]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

They do profit since, much like The Red Cross, they often take in much more money than they give back. That's known as profit. A lot of that money goes into the arch diocese and god only knows what they do with it.

Profit - (prft) - The return received on a business undertaking after all operating expenses have been met.
1. The return received on an investment after all charges have been paid. Often used in the plural.
2. The rate of increase in the net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period.
3. Income received from investments or property.
4. The amount received for a commodity or service in excess of the original cost.

now by those definitions you can take in money and use it to pay your staff, pay your bills, pay for your building, hold "activities" for your parish, and then give the remainder to charity or whatever other organization that needs the money and still be a non-profit.

they are not "turning" a profit just because they have to pay employees and the bills, now if they ran it like a business, minimized costs, held onto and invested the money for the purpous of increasing the stockholders share, then they are a for-profit org. since churches have no business value, do not build net worth, and dont pay their CEO/CFO/chairman/president/etc equvilient in % earnings then by definition they are a NPO... correct?

by building huge churches worht millions of dollars you at least see where a chunck of the money is going. and some people want to have a nice church instead of a hole in the wall, so they donate money to their church to help them pay the bills... just cause they are tax-exempt dosnt mean that they get everything for free. they still operate with that good old dollar.


as for who is and isnt a church... the gov decides. if your an established religion, opposed to a cult, which is basically a religion that dosnt get the gov benefits, then you apply to the government for your tax-exempt status. its really simple, and with alittle research into the business of NPOs you'd understand alot better how it all works. we touched this in a few of my accounting classes, how NPOs work and all, but im a little rusty so im not going to try and explane any more than i did.

NPOs being mismanaged is not very supprising. they are not for profit, so there is no modivation from a business standpoint to be economical in their decisions. they use what they have for what they need at that moment. corperations work so well because they think long term about the pros and cons of spending money to increase company value, a NPO such as the red cross may send and pay 100 people to go somewhere that is in need of help, then dump money on the supplies they can use not thinking of well are we spending too much so our stock dosnt drop or are we doing this or that.... no they think demand says we need 45 widgets today for all 45 people who want one, so we will buy them today. a corperation will think how many are we going to see the biggest return on, and if we buy less we can charge more than X amount. how can we minimize our labor costs.. ect. qa whole slurry of new issues that a NPO dosnt even consider

its all different ways of doing business. you wana make money then your efficient. you want to help people your gonna spend as you see fit at that moment. thats my theory on how tons is wasted through NPOs... but no one else would do it

[GT40FIED]

Haha. You said widgets. Reminds me of that Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back To School". Anyway...yeah...back to the thing.

My point is basically thus...NPOs can exist and it's great that they do so long as they're held accountable. I forget which branch of the government hands out the tax status, but I'm sure the process is pretty well flawed. If I turned in two applications...one for "Brotherhood Of Christ Pet Hospital" and another for "Stupid Unwed Mothers Get Abortions For Free", I'm sure one would be looked at a whole helluva lot closer than the other (name oddities not withstanding). I really think that NPOs...ANY of them...should be subject to a yearly audit to prove what they're doing with the money. If they don't meet a standard, they lose their status.

And Will...the Klan actually did used to enjoy trying to apply for tax exempt status but kept getting rejected. They're a white protestant group and in their hay day (in the way back machine) they actually did community works projects. Scientology too was originally granted NPO status then lost it when it became clear they were all fucking nuts. Then somewhere along the way (in the '80s or early '90s) they were granted said status again despite making no changes. Government stupidity:1, common sense:0.

[JDMFantasy2k]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

And Will...the Klan actually did used to enjoy trying to apply for tax exempt status but kept getting rejected. They're a white protestant group and in their hay day (in the way back machine) they actually did community works projects. Scientology too was originally granted NPO status then lost it when it became clear they were all fucking nuts. Then somewhere along the way (in the '80s or early '90s) they were granted said status again despite making no changes. Government stupidity:1, common sense:0.

yeah that's what i was trying to get at is that the government doesn't want to play the "who is, and who isnt" of religion, so if you have a legit org the they'd do it. Doesn't surprise me at all.