micatala wrote:
First, you are conflating two different things here. Engaging in activities that are perceived to provide a service is different than engaging in an activity in an efficient manner. I might be very efficient at counting blades of grass. It is not likely anyone will consider this a service.
I certainly understand the difference and don't see why you think I wouldn't.
My point is that if you are providing a service, that you should do it efficiently.
Let's put our money to effective means.
Who is "our?" Who is "us?"
Society.
You seem to be implying we as a society should be imposing rules on non-profits who are using "our money." The problem is, not all of the money non-profits take in is from taxes. Tax money could be considered "our money."
Sure, which is the point. Taxes - our money - go to supporting churches that do very little for the community.
Donations that private citizens give to non-profits is not "our money" unless "our" is redefined to mean only those contributing to that non-profit.
Contributing to a non-profit is one way non-profits get financial aid. Other ways are through tax breaks.
If you are giving your money to a non-profit and the non-profit has nothing to show for it except the Director/Pastor has a nice house, then I think that non-profit should be shut down.
I agree a non-profit should be able to keep the "lights on" and the building warm, and so upkeep to a church would be tax exempt, but not capital improvements that are intended for aethstetic improvement.
Those should be offered for free by contractors or artists - just as they did in the old days.
The money for a church should go to the upkeep of the church, some savings and the rest for community aid.
Now, if you want to advocate that those giving to non-profits should seek to have their money used efficiently, that is one thing.
Yes, it is one thing and I am for it.
If you are seeking to have the government intervene to tell them how to have their money spent in a way that you deem efficient or worthwhile, that is another matter.
No, they can spend their money on anything they want.
If a church wants to blow their money on hookers and coke, then go ahead, but that portion should be taxed (er...or prosecuted).
Please clarify.
Done and done.
I understand many churches provide some things that are hard to quantify, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Again, especially given the lack of clarity above, this is opening a huge can of worms. Are you going to open this can for all non-profits or just churches?
All Non-profits.
Note the word "try". I understand the difficulty, but if a NP says it wants to feed children, and they take in $1,000,000 and only spend $500 on food, but the rest is in eating air,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ously.html
, then I think there is a breach of the idea of a NP. I think the actual service should be shown to have a demonstrable effect for what the NP claims.
Personally, I'd like Churches that make supernatural claims to be taxed and allow the ones who operate community aid functions to get the big tax breaks.
Please explain how such a criteria would be even remotely constitutional.
Change the Constitution? Would that do it?
Seriously, you wouldn't have to change the Constitution. We aren't talking about stopping churches, only redefining the tax code to favor demonstrable results.
Ooberman wrote:
I don't mind if the head of a N-P makes a decent living, if he is doing a decent job. But being a pastor in a wealthy area, or someone who has learned to make more money from his flock is not what we expect of our religious leaders.
Religious leaders, like police, politicians, etc. are held to a different standard.
Again, we need some clarification. You seem to be implying the government should be involved in determining when the head of a N-P is doing a decent job. I don't think you have thought through the details of how this would work to any great extent. I'll grant that if the government grants a tax exemption, they have a right to set out rules for those getting the exemption.
Yes, rules for getting those exemptions. That is my point - to focus on those rules: demonstrate your NP is doing what you claim it does.
However, the rules have to be fair, and they should also be feasible to enforce. If you make only churches follow certain rules while classifying them within the larger group of non-profits, fairness is going to be an issue.
I think it's eminently fair that our tax laws are fair; that scheisters and con men don't get to bilk the system.
You speak of holding people in certain roles to a different standard. Is the government doing that in your view? How are they going to do it?
Society determines the government. I think most people understand what is an appropriate standard for our civic leaders.
Let me use an example.
A. Let's say I open a church in my house. I have 13 followers and after a few tweaks, I obtain status as a NP. The money I take in is used to pay my expenses, and what I offer them in return is a tongue lashing. (In this particular scenario I yell at them for being horrible people and tell them God hates what they are doing. Just to add color to the example. Think of Calvin in his early days...).
Because I am now a church, my house no longer is taxed, nor my income from the poor 13 bast*#ds who show up at my door every week.
B. Another guy down the street opens a NP to give food to the needy by having people give him cans. He takes 10% of the cans for his own food, for the trouble of collecting and dispersing them.
I think option B is a demonstrable, and valuable service. Option A is not.
Explain to me how option A is not like a majority of churches in America?
Also, if you go here:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
You can sort through all the charities and see which are performing better. There are ways to judge effectiveness.
Also, obviously, I take no stock in one church gaining more converts for God, thus providing the "valuable" service of saving their souls.
This is where the State should step away and tax the Hell out of people who claim to have "saved" people.
Thinking about God's opinions and thinking about your own opinions uses an identical thought process. - Tomas Rees
