eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) (08/15/86)
>In article <3365@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_alal@jhunix.UUCP (cloudbuster) writes: >> Also, either no religion should be tax-free or all religions should be >> tax-free. Personally, I say the former. I was given to understand that >> a bill sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms last year was passed into law; a >> bill that excluded from exemption such religions as Wicca and Satanism. > >What is a religion? I could worship cats, invite people with cats to my >home, call my home the House of Cat Worship, and not pay any >property taxes. Is this what you want? There are religions and then there >are organizations who pass themselves off as a religion. Some organizations >can, CAN, WITH OUT A DOUBT, no matter what they consider themselves, be far >from the tax-free status of a religious organization. Charles Mansion had >a cult following, not a religious following. But there are those nuts out >there who would have said back then, and even now, that if the Catholic >church gets tax free status, why don't cults like Mansion's? A small nit to pick here (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a tax lawyer): I thought that to gain tax free status you had to be a non-profit organization, and that all religions automatically got that status. I don't see why Mansion's cult should not have tax free status IF 1 they abide by the laws (which clearly he didn't) and 2 they are running a truely non-profit organization. A religious sect should not be discrimminated against because it is small and not popular with the mainstream religions. They (and probably the larger religions too ) should only have to prove that they are a non-profit organization. Personally I would be infavor of taxing all religions. I wonder if the Catholic Church could show that it is truely a non-profit organization. Which brings up another point, what is the legal definition of non-profit? If say EXXON plowed all thier profits back into their own organization instead of distributing it to share holders would that make it non-profit? It seems that a large organization like the Catholic church (my apologies to the catholics, I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation) has billions in assets all over the world most of which go to running sugh a large organization. While the C. church runs massive charities so do several large organizations (like the ATT Foundation). >YOU kind of >people scare the hell out of me even worse than the cults you are trying >to protect. Luckily you are in the minority and always will be, but like >an undisciplined child, you make an awful lot of noise and waste an awful >lot of energy. Now, where did I put those ear plugs. Why is she like an undisciplined child because she makes noise about preserving freedom of religion? You're making at least as much noise, and not being as nice about it. Why does freedom of religion scare you? Afraid if you have other choices you might convert? (or worse yet your childern might) > >> What's next? After we are rid of all the "evil cults," >> maybe we'll hit on Islam, and then Judiasm. Pretty soon it'll be so >> that there's only one government approved religion. >> > >Yea, and be careful a meteor doesn't fall on your house just because you >are out star gazing, after all, they are related events aren't they? > >ray Ray now you are getting ridiculous. Its easy to lose freedoms alittle bit at a time, they slowly get erroded away. Remember, Hitler was an elected official and the Germany government voted away their democracy for a dictatorship. Alittle paranoia about our freedoms keeps us alert. We are the ones who are the checks on our government. -Beth Eades
ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) (08/15/86)
In article <2041@mtgzz.UUCP>, eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > > Ray now you are getting ridiculous. Its easy to lose freedoms alittle bit > at a time, they slowly get erroded away. Remember, Hitler was an elected > official and the Germany government voted away their democracy for a > dictatorship. Alittle paranoia about our freedoms keeps us alert. We > are the ones who are the checks on our government. > > -Beth Eades A little paranoia is good. Too bad we don't have just a little paranoia. What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped people. Sounds like selective, self serving paranoia to me. I can sound just as paranoid as some of these other people, ie, eliminating prayers in school will lead to children becoming atheists, or the use of sexually oriented television programming will lead our children in promiscuity, or the use of violence in movies and television will lead to a greater crime rate, etc. ray
ecl@mtgzy.UUCP (e.c.leeper) (08/15/86)
> large organization like the Catholic church (my apologies to the catholics, > I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion > that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation) Let's not forget the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. the Mormons). Evelyn C. Leeper (201) 957-2070 ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu Celestial navigation is based on the premise that the Earth is the center of the universe. The premise is wrong, but the navigation works. An incorrect model can be a useful tool. --Kelvin Throop III
cc@pegasus.cs.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (08/16/86)
In article <20170@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >A little paranoia is good. Too bad we don't have just a little paranoia. >What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about >other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will >be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be >worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped >people. I see SOMEONE bought Steven Rice's bullshit line! "But it's killing a *baby*!" "Where will the killing stop?" "There is no such thing as a life not worth living!..." You want to discuss abortion? Do it in net.abortion! You want to support deformed and mentally defective? You can donate money to a thousand different charity organisations and keep them alive and miserable -- you can debate morality of euthenasia and social Darvinism in net.philosophy. Mean while, we will ignore religious and racial discriminations, human rights violations, invasion of privacy and restrictions of freedom of speech -- so that Ray can go save an unwanted, unneeded fetus and pat himself on the back ever after, while the kid possibly grows up hungry, unloved, unwanted, to breed more unwanted babies.... Where will the feeding lines stop? HASA, "A" division member, Oleg Kiselev
ins_aame@jhunix.UUCP (Andrew Marti Elizaga) (08/16/86)
In article <2041@mtgzz.UUCP> eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: > I thought that to gain tax free status you had to be a non-profit >organization, and that all religions automatically got that status. Let me make a few statements about "non-profit" corporations. (Note: I am not a lawyer -- this information comes from a time when I helped establish a non-profit organization in the state of Idaho. Laws will be slightly different in your state.) A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay money to the stockholders. (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends, that would make it a non-profit corporation. And a darn poor investment. That's why they don't do it....) They are usually established for a definite (if vague) purpose, such as charity (the Salvation Army), research (American Cancer Society), religion (First Church of Christ - Computer Programmers 8-), or education, general do-gooding, etc. Note that only the *owners* of the corporation are not paid. Since employee salaries are not traditionally part of the profits, owners can (and do, in some cases) make out like bandits from the salary(ies) they pay themselves as president, prelate, chief council, or grand poo-bah. This is the usual method for fraud involving non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations are still taxed, with the exception of religions. This makes sense, if they actually *are* making profits, that they should pay taxes on it. Most show no or a minimal profit. Most of them survive on donations, which are encouraged by our tax system (deductions for "charitable contributions.") Of course, there are a few groups out there who take advantage of the tax laws by depositing all their salaries with a group and having the group as a huge checking acct, but that's normal business $ethics.... Now, why should religions not be taxed when the Red Cross is? I can only offer one real justification -- the power to tax is the power to destroy. How many of you have ever filled out the *real man's* tax form, the one with eight thousand schedules that comes complete with a glossary 8-) Probably all of the little lines in there were put in to encourage or discourage putting your money in one place or another. (IRA's? They encourage saving, not consuming. Long term capital gains? Put it in the stock market! And so on....) You notice you can't deduct gambling losses (unless you win, in which case they can't exceed your winnings....)? Guess who doesn't approve of gambling! I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if religions were taxed, some dimwit Congress(wo)man (is there any other kind?) would introduce a change in the tax code that would affect some religions more than others. I don't think it's unreasonable that he/she/it would do it deliberately, since his voters are all redneck funnymentalists. (Example : Taxing church real estate at half its market value. Kind of hurts the churches that don't own much real property, doesn't it? Gives a *huge* break to the Catholics, since there aren't many Moslem mosques about to take advantage of it.) Take this to any extreme, and the only religion that can *afford* to practice is the official, state-sponsored one. You can't even hold services in your basement -- that violates the zoning regulations.... Theocracies scare me.... >A religious sect should not be discrimminated >against because it is small and not popular with the mainstream religions. Definitely. >I wonder if the Catholic Church could show >that it is truely a non-profit organization. Which brings up another >point, what is the legal definition of non-profit? If say EXXON plowed >all thier profits back into their own organization instead of distributing >it to share holders would that make it non-profit? It seems that a >large organization like the Catholic church (my apologies to the catholics, >I'm only picking on the Catholic church because it is the only religion >that comes to mind that could compare to a international corporation) >has billions in assets all over the world most of which go to running >sugh a large organization. While the C. church runs massive charities >so do several large organizations (like the ATT Foundation). I'm almost sure that the ATT foundation is a separate company from Ma Bell, that "just happens" to be owned by AT&T. If not, the tax lawyers have found a better loophole to funnel their profits through. The point is that the Pope doesn't make money from "owning" the Catholic church. Heck, I own a bit of AT&T myself, and I enjoy the dividend checks. -- seismo!umcp-cs \ Pat Juola ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_apmj Hopkins Maths allegra!hopkins / When in doubt, lead trump.
ins_aame@jhunix.UUCP (Andrew Marti Elizaga) (08/16/86)
In article <20170@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >A little paranoia is good. Too bad we don't have just a little paranoia. >What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about >other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will >be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be >worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped >people. I thought you had been flamed into submission in net.abortion. When you can come up with an argument that doesn't look like a classic case of "Coincidence implies causation," mail it to me and I'll rebut it. >Sounds like selective, self serving paranoia to me. I can sound just >as paranoid as some of these other people, ie, eliminating prayers in school >will lead to children becoming atheists, And putting Hebrew prayers in school will lead to them becoming lawyers! With big noses and a taste for bagels with lox! Which is worse? >or [more random flames deleted].... > >ray Wonderful! I just *love* all you people who are out to save me from myself.... Ignore this man, folks... -- seismo!umcp-cs \ Pat Juola ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_apmj Hopkins Maths allegra!hopkins / When in doubt, lead trump.
ded@aplvax.UUCP (Don E. Davis) (08/18/86)
> >>or [more random flames deleted].... >> >>ray > >Wonderful! I just *love* all you people who are out to save me from myself.... > >Ignore this man, folks... In my experience there are people who PRACTICE religion (they are usually very nice people; many of my friends fall in this category) and people who PREACH religion. The latter think freedom of religion means the freedom to worship their god, not yours. They want to shove their god down our throats, the Ultimate Sodomy. Such people are dangerous. Ignore them at your peril. P.S. I wonder if this ray is the same homosexual hater that splashed across the network a couple of years back. Sounds like him. -- Don Davis JHU/APL ...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!aplvax!ded ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplcen!aplvax!ded
ir708@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir708) (08/19/86)
In article <20170@rochester.ARPA> ray@rochester.ARPA (Ray Frank) writes: >In article <2041@mtgzz.UUCP>, eme@mtgzz.UUCP (e.m.eades) writes: >> >> Ray now you are getting ridiculous. Its easy to lose freedoms alittle bit >> at a time, they slowly get erroded away. Remember, Hitler was an elected >> official and the Germany government voted away their democracy for a >> dictatorship. Alittle paranoia about our freedoms keeps us alert. We >> are the ones who are the checks on our government. >> >> -Beth Eades > >A little paranoia is good. Too bad we don't have just a little paranoia. >What we do have is a lot of paranoia. Why aren't people paranoid about >other things such as abortions? Killing an unborn child or a child that will >be born deformed could lead to societies killing of what they deem to be >worthless lives such as old people or mentally or physically handicapped >people. Sounds like selective, self serving paranoia to me. I can sound just >as paranoid as some of these other people, ie, eliminating prayers in school >will lead to children becoming atheists, or the use of sexually oriented >television programming will lead our children in promiscuity, or the use >of violence in movies and television will lead to a greater crime rate, etc. > >ray These are circular arguments. The anti-abortion argument claims the fetus is a human being. The pro-choice argument claims the mother is a human being. The pro-prayer in school argument claims it is necessary to have prayer in child's daily life for moral fortitude. The anti prayer in school argument claims prayer belongs in the home and church. The anti-sexually-oriented media argument claims moral degeneration of our children, the anti-anti-sexually-oriented media argument claims first amendment/anti-censorship, same for the violence issue. One side yells "look out for the lightning," the other says "the thunder can make you go deaf." There's no direct point to point argument here. In the end, we each know our own values of human lives, and the qualities of life and live/vote by them. We raise our children to think as we do, and similarly find friends who support our ideas. Gut reactions aren't going to change. I have never known anyone to change sides without it coming from inside/personal life experiences in matters such as these unless there was an external motivation involved. Finally, I know, I'll flame myself: This doesn't belong in net.taxes, does it? It belongs in net.abortion, net.religion, and net.tv-violence (or whatever!)
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (08/20/86)
>A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay >money to the stockholders. (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends, >that would make it a non-profit corporation. And a darn poor investment. Not to knit picks, but I'm, still not satisfied with this definition. Many if not most of the corporations on the OTC don't pay dividends, but I don't think that makes them either non-profit (nor particularly poor investments, but that's a different issue.) I'm sincere, what *is* the definition of a non-profit organization? Surely not just one that operates at a loss? Unless the term is of little value (possibly.) Perhaps a promise not to make a profit (that is, to plow it back in.) I dunno, I'm confused, all start-ups do that. As far as taxing religious organizations, I have no love for any of them, but I still cannot help but wonder if we allow that there exists any entity that stands outside the power to tax. That is, one way to look at it is, it's not that the government gives special exemption to the churches and universities, it's that they have no right to tax them. Must they have absolute power to tax over everyone? Subtle I guess, but worth a thought. -Barry Shein, Boston University
ins_aame@jhunix.UUCP (Andrew Marti Elizaga) (08/21/86)
In article <1069@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: >>A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay >>money to the stockholders. (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends, >>that would make it a non-profit corporation. And a darn poor investment. > >Not to knit picks, but I'm, still not satisfied with this definition. Many >if not most of the corporations on the OTC don't pay dividends, but I don't >think that makes them non-profit.... A non-profit corporation is one that *will not* pay dividends. A company merely internalizing profits this year does not make it non-profit. However, once a company has promised never to pay dividends, the rest is red tape. (I.e. apply to the Secretary of State using Form F00-b-AR,...) Can you think of a better way to see if the owners are trying to make a profit on their companies? If you knew that Exxon (or the companies on the OTC) would *never* pay money to the stockholders, (it says in the articles of incorporation that it/they won't) they'd be pretty poor investments, unless you can count on their stock prices always going up. >One way to look at it is, it's not that the government gives >special exemption to the churches and universities, it's that they >have no right to tax them. Must they have absolute power to tax over >everyone? The government has whatever powers it claims to have. Who's going to overrule "the government"? If the American pee-pul (god bless their pointy little heads) decide that churches should be taxes, they'll be taxed. And I'll never return to Utah from that point on. >Subtle I guess, but worth a thought. Good point. > -Barry Shein, Boston University -- seismo!umcp-cs \ Pat Juola ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_apmj Hopkins Maths allegra!hopkins / When in doubt, lead trump.
ask@cbrma.UUCP (A.S.Kamlet) (08/22/86)
In article <1069@bu-cs.bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > >>A non-profit corporation is roughly defined as a corporation that does not pay >>money to the stockholders. (Yes, if Exxon stopped distributing its dividends, >>that would make it a non-profit corporation. And a darn poor investment. > >Not to knit picks, but I'm, still not satisfied with this definition. Many >if not most of the corporations on the OTC don't pay dividends, but I don't >think that makes them either non-profit (nor particularly poor investments, >but that's a different issue.) I'm sincere, what *is* the definition of >a non-profit organization? Surely not just one that operates at a loss? : : Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the following to be correct. Please don't take my comments as Truth; only as my best belief as to what the facts are: In order to qualify as a non-profit organization for which I can take tax deductions when I make a contribution, the organization must qualify under the appropriate section ( I think is is 403 ) of the IRS code. The organization must fill out the IRS forms and send a copy of its purpose, bylaws, etc to the IRS. The IRS may rule yes or no on whether the organization qualifies as a 403 (various subsections) organization. A 403() organization will not hesitate to tell you that it is a 403() organization, if you ask. Exxon would probably not qualify. Also, not all aspects of the organization automatically qualify. The general IRS rule on churches is that the religion parts of a church qualify, but the non-religion aspects don't. For example, a church land and building, used for religious purposes, would qualify, and the church would probably not pay taxes on this property. Contributions made for the upkeep of this property and to pay church employees, and for other "bona fide" religious purposes would probably be ruled as valid tax deductions. But if the church also owned, say, a computer manufacturing company which earned lots of money that was plowed back into the church, the IRS would probably rule that: 1) it's perfectly fine for the church to own and operate the company; 2) money that I give to the company, whether to buy its computers or as a donation to the company itself, would not be tax deductible; 3) the earnings of the company would be taxable, the same as for any similar manufacturing company; and 4) property taxes etc would be due from the company. Also, if a part of the church was engaged in what the IRS calls political lobbying or something like that, the IRS can rule that part of the church's activity to be non-tax exempt. If the church has not taken care to set up any such lobbying organization as a separate entity, the IRS could threaten to declare (at its peril :-) ) that the church itself is non-tax exempt!! -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {cbosgd | ihnp4}!cbrma!ask