rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (10/05/85)
> References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <dciem.1673> <2127@burdvax.UUCP> > > > >I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax > > >money. Aren't they tax-exempt, which is the same thing as paying > > >the proper tax and then being given it back. The taxes on some of > > >those churches would be pretty high, if they were based on the same > > >rules as for other properties. > > >[mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)] > > > > Oh, c'mon! That's the old, tired, liberal notion that all wealth > > belongs to the government and the IRS, in it beneficence, let's us poor > > taxpayers keep some of it. > > > > Neither your taxes nor my taxes goes to support any church. > > [TOM ALBRECHT] > > I don't need to apply notions of whether the government does or > doesn't have a "right" to my money to know that if I didn't have > to pay any taxes, I would be a lot better off financially. The > fact is that churches do not have to pay taxes on facilities any > other organization in society would have to pay heavily for. > > Michael McNeil Reguarless of whether you consider that the government (IRS) has the "Right" to tax us. If religeous contributions result in a significant loss in tax revenue, then, simply for the sake of the "appearance of fiscal responsibility", the government has to raise taxes, induce inflation (to trigger tax bracket creep), or borrow money. Let's say you are in the 50% bracket, tithe, make "donations" to the church school so your son can attend, make "donations" to the church nursing home so they can take care of your aging parent or grandparent... (some "church sponsored nursing homes collect medicare, donations of SSI income, and life insurance as well). You could deduct 20% of your $50,000 income, maybe more. That would be offset by raising taxes, but it's the guys who are in lower income brackets who have less to itemize that feel the pinch. I get to pay (along with 4 others) for your $5,000 refund. If I use a "private" facility for these things, I get less of a deduction. Interesting point of history. The "Moral Majority" movement started in 1976-7 as a result of a succesfully prosecuted fraud case against a minester in Denver Colorado. He solicited "Investors" using a "Prospectus" naming his church as "Underwriter", and agreed to pay a percentage of the "Profits" to his "Shareholders". He was capitalizing a large Nursing Home/Hospital which required "Residents" to make "Compulsory Donations" including a percentage of their estate when they died, all tax deductable of course. The venture was extremely profitable, due in part to volunteer labor, donations from outside sources (including a few corporations), and tax exempt status for all (underpaid) employees. Well, when the conviction came, the minister admitted that what he did was wrong, made no attempt to appeal, and agreed to pay back all investors and incorporate the company as a taxable enterprize. The minister was not a crook, just badly informed. Of course, this set a legal precedent on which the IRS, SEC, and other agencies could go "Hunting" for other "Charitable Corporations". Just based on the books they have examined: If organized religeon posted quarterly results based on SEC accounting standards, many would be at the top of the Fortune 500. If they were to actually declare there increase in capital according to standard practices, many would be showing a 50% retained earnings profit (Pre-tax, of course). Many NPO's [Non Profit Organizations] buy lots of property, collectables, and "Investments". Less than 10% of the income paid to professionals in NPO's is ever declared. Examples of this are things like paying for travel (tax exempt of course), usage of homes, cars, and other NPO property for personal use. A minister, for example, can preach a 15 minute sermon to a congregation on a sunday morning, and all expenses are considered "church oriented", including thing like SKI lift tickets to very expensive resorts 200 miles from the "Church". Much of the revenue collected by NPO's is from "Dues and Fees". Keep in mind this includes NPO's such as Community Theaters, Art Galleries. That even in cases of "Voluntary contributions", those who "met a quota" (Tithes?) were often given preferential treatment. Some organizations used tactics amounting to extortion, blackmail, fraud, and libel as collection techniques for both mandatory, and voluntary quotas. Similar crimes are committed to enforce "specific beliefs" as well. An example cited was a car dealer in a small town (in Oregon) who was forced into bankruptcy because he married "an adultress" (devorced woman). He by the way, was not a member of the church, the lady's ex-husband was (he won the lawsuit by the way). I wish that I could get more specific figures, I got this info from a politician in Denver (4 years ago) who did not want to go on record. Does anyone have actual numbers? Does separation between Church and State include immunity from criminal and civil liability? Does CBN have the right to declare advertizing revenues as tax-exempt donations? [Note: It is deductable to the advertiser either way, but as advertizing, CBN would have to pay tax, or prove that it was spent on legitimate, deductable expenses] Is a Corporation head who "tithes" 10% of his corporations revenue to an organized religeon a Philanthraper, or an Embezzler? These are the real issues of the "Moral Majority", not "Prayer In Schools", or "Right to Life". These are clever diversions. The last attempt to legislate morality was prohibition, there may be more leniency toward "Voluntary Religous Activity on Public (School) Property, but neither congress, nor the Supreme Court will allow public schools to force your child to say the "Lords Prayer" at the beginning of each class. In fact, there are some benefits to these issues. For example, "Right to Life" advocates were successful in getting Pennsylvania to allow "Baby Buying Law" (I was offered $50,000 for my son, but turned it down) as an alternative to abortions. Work on "premie delivery" has advanced to the point where live babies can be delivered at 4 months with a 50% chance of survival. Someday abortion will be academic, the "Right to Bear Children" may be threatened, but that's yet another issue. Attempts to legislate morality are a "diversion" to prevent people from seeing and discussing the real issues. There are many "Jim Jones" types out there, but they don't get coverage because of the "Morality Smoke Screen". What the "Moral Majority" and Reverend Falwell really want is "Legal Immunity for Religeon". Should they get it? (Where's Webster when you need him). These are my personal opinions/expriences/observations, they are not in any way associated with my employer. I have tried to preserve the anonymity of those situations which could be damaging to the particapants or others. If you wish to name the examples in their defence, please feel free to do so.