-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The concept of charity most people have in mind is “serving the people’s physical needs.” How do religions stack up in performing this work? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), which touts its charitable work, spent 0.7% of it overall revenue on charitable causes. Compare that figure with the American Red Cross which spends 92.1% of its revenue on the physical needs of those it helps.
The other side of this coin is the estimated $71 billion in annual government subsidies that are granted to religious establishments.
The $71 billion doesn’t include property taxes from which religious institutions are exempt. States are estimated to subsidize religion to the tune of $26.2 billion per year on property worth $600 billion.
The $71 billion doesn’t include religions’s exemption from investment taxes (such as capital gains taxes) on their investment portfolios. For example, the Presbyterian Foundation manages $1.9 billion in assets.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the exemption from sales tax when religions purchase goods and services.
The $71 billion doesn’t include the “parsonage exemption.” That’s where ministers are allowed to deduct mortgage or rent, utilities, furnishings, upkeep, etc. from their taxable income.
The best of the worst appears to be the United Methodist Church which allocated about 29% of its revenues to charitable causes in 2010. Any secular charity that posted a 29% rate would be given a score of “F” by CharityWatch.
Religions are quick to point to their “spiritual charity” that addresses the spiritual needs of their parishioners. However, “charity is the giving of something, not the exchange of something for something else.” Addressing spiritual needs is what religious functionaries are paid to do. The fundamental nature of a priest’s or preacher’s job is to provide the spiritual services in exchange for pay and benefits.
These tax breaks are laws and clearly directed at religious institutions and establishments in violation of the First Amendment.
H/T: Council for Secular Humanism, Pharyngula, CharityWatch.
The real estate and income of churches should be taxed. Then we are making no law respecting an establishment of religion. Why’s that so hard to understand?
If churches want tax deductions for charitable contributions, fine. Just like the rest of us.
“Does Woosty include the right of contraception and to abortion in those rights the church will defend???
But some are rightfully, I feel, irritated at the churchs’ attempting to take over legislation to achieve certain goals, and this was discussed earlier.”
———————————————————-
I missed something about the church trying to take over legislation…the church I belong to is pro-choice and views states attempts to control abortion and contraception as an incursion on womens and families rights of privacy, dignity and freedom of conscience and choice.
Darren S, you nailed it.
A few charities are good examples to teach the principles of “De facto” vs “De jure”
Mission Statement
De Jure: “To provide the unfortunate a ______”
De facto: “To Provide our Management with Six Figure Salaries.”
Gene H.
1, July 1, 2012 at 2:52 pm
…..
.”Government needs to stay out of religion and religion needs to stay out of government.”
—————————————————————————-
I agree with that statement. But you also made the statement:
“What I’m suggesting is simply a regulation of all charities that imposes an equal constraint on their actions a business – X% goes to operational expenses, Y% must be spent on actual charitable expenditures. It’s no different than the mandated profit margins banks had to operate under before they used lobbyists to remove any substantive restraints from their industry (and which need to be reinstated if we are ever going to put a leash on the abuses of Wall St. but that’s a totally different topic altogether)”
If you are including ‘Churches’ as ‘Charities’ then I do disagree with that for the very reason that Blouise already mentioned. Most people who do the work of any given church are volunteers and while hospitals and other for profit industries have become very clever at using volunteers to effect a better profit margin, for churches, there would not be a way to exist without them. Charities operate differently, and I’m not a lawyer or an accountant but I’m guessing that they are very good at loopholing thier overheads to remain within the legal parameters. And (also guessing) that those legal parameters are not the same for a Charity as for a Church. Correct if necessary…
Also, I understand that governance of the Country is currently at a stellar zenith and with little need to correct or enhance there may be a need for new worlds to conquer, still I wonder why the Church always becomes vulnerable to these ideas by government when there is so much by way of human rights abuses and issues like torture and terror and economic abuses and corruptions and all those other buttery challenges afoot…
monty:
Look at the sources linked to in the post.
Month,
It could’ve been any religious based one…… Take the RCC, they take in more and send it up the chain….. At least when the Mormons build a meeting place….. It’s usually debt free…… Generally no lines of credit floating….. I am not a Obama supporter….. But ill be damned if ill vote for current curmudgeons of the GOP…….
As to David having an axe to grind….. I don’t think so……
Who said churches are in the work of only providing charity or welfare? This is only a small part of what they do and where their money goes. Comparing charitable organizations like the Red Cross to any religious group is a false comparison. Why chose the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints? Does David Drumm have a vendetta against this particular church because Mitt Romeny happens to be a member of this church and who will win the presidential election in November?
Where does David Drumm get his figures from? Since religious groups are private they are not required to give an accounting of their revenue or expenses. In addition charity work doesn’t always equate into how much money is given away.
True charity or the love of God lies also in the service of ones labor. See Matthew 25:40 “And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Jesus wasn’t talking about just money which is given but actual physical service to help others with not just their physical needs but their spiritual needs as well.
I think charitable groups should be accountable for their costs to benefits ratio but to attack one religion by a false comparison is not only uncharitable but is inaccurate.
Even thresholds WILL be loopholed
How does one dissasociated profit making from church activities: The spaghetti dinner (loved the choir director point) versus the printing business, non taxed.
Everybody “cheats” on taxes, so involving churches in taxes is dumb.
Even thresholds will not be loopholed.
Thanks fo Woosty for mentioning Agape. And I understood dict. meaning 1) before he wrote it.
But he also said:
“The Church can not support a political party as such but is a pillar of supporting human rights everywhere.”
Does Woosty include the right of contraception and to abortion in those rights the church will defend???
But some are rightfully, I feel, irritated at the churchs’ attempting to take over legislation to achieve certain goals, and this was discussed earlier.
Whatever is “right” I see no solution via taxes. These personal contributions, avoiding the issue of practicing business, are voluntary contributions.
If contributions are fraudulently extracted. then there are laws for that.
Hopefully, no churchs are paying 85 percent of their intake to a collecting organization as some charity organizations here have done.
W=^..^
How can you protect Freedom of Religion if you give government the power to favor and/or destroy a given faith? Be that through taxation or more direct regulation? You can’t.
I’m not alluding to any kind of control over religion via taxation. The promotion or hindrance of any religious sect is an anathema to the 1st Amendment (hence what I said about Bush’s initiative). Government needs to stay out of religion and religion needs to stay out of government.
I’m suggesting an operational constraint to be put on all charitable organizations no matter their religious or secular origin as either a matter of charter or regulation; a solution that would be religiously neutral. This presents no problem legally speaking. It is no different than applying EMTALA to both Catholic and secular hospitals. The regulation is of a type of enterprise, not a particular denomination.
For those eventual ones who liked the video, the pic is available here, warning usd75.
imaginaryfoundation (dot) com/store/art/the-beginning-is-near-art-print.html
“Simply put the power to tax something is the power to control something; to either destroy it by taxing it out of existence or to give favor to one player over another to the point that competition is impossible”.~Gene
———————————-
I’m not sure that I agree with this regarding the Church. As Pi points out….Freedom of Religion is a cornerstone of this society. There is also a social contract (and you have argued for this in the past when discussing over-reaches of Goverment…) . I think there would be unseen and certainly unacceptable consequences if the State were to try to establish the kind of control that I THINK (mayt be wrong…) you are alluding to….
The Church can not support a political party as such but is a pillar of supporting human rights everywhere. One of the first targets in times of political over-reaching is towards the Church who will stand up for those rights…
Gene,
“Then the answer might be including a threshold for size of the organization. ”
That’s a possibility.
Blouise,
Then the answer might be including a threshold for size of the organization. Keeping in mind that optimum solutions are rarely attainable and that optimal solutions given a set of facts are attainable.
Gene,
“Do any of those reasons have to do with ego and/or greed?”
What?! No!
They all have to do with bookkeeping and the flow of money/material donations. Keep in mind that all local church board members are volunteers and answerable to a Board of Trustees and the Congregation. Maybe, if a Congregation is lucky, there is a member who is an accountant and agrees to serve as treasurer on an Outreach Board for a couple of years … otherwise it’s Ms, Mrs, or Mr. Smith – retired bus driver or working 3rd grade teacher, or homemaker who accepts the responsibility.
“Mandating a ceiling for operating expenses if you ignore the politics of a board …”
Politics of a Mission/Outreach Board?!
Good lord Gene, the only politics on a local Mission/Outreach Board is debating whether or not the choir director will get pissed if the Board holds a spaghetti dinner fund raiser on choir practice night.
My point is that in attempting to regulate the big guys, you will be creating mammoth problems for the millions of little guys across the country and effectively shutting them down because no retired bus driver is going want to be responsible for making a bookkeeping error that sends his/her whole board to Federal court … especially when that error had to do with donated cans of food for the Food Bank drive. (What is the monetary figure for a can of green beans and should it be the same as a can of ravioli and is that offset by the $10 the Cub Scout troop donated …)
raff,
I don’t think so, but then again, I’m not sure I understand the nature of your objection. I don’t think the Feds should be giving any money to religious institutions for any reason and that Bush’s move as President to create an Office of Faith Based Initiatives was a blatant disregard and violation of the Establish Clause to begin with. What I’m suggesting is simply a regulation of all charities that imposes an equal constraint on their actions a business – X% goes to operational expenses, Y% must be spent on actual charitable expenditures. It’s no different than the mandated profit margins banks had to operate under before they used lobbyists to remove any substantive restraints from their industry (and which need to be reinstated if we are ever going to put a leash on the abuses of Wall St. but that’s a totally different topic altogether).
Blouise,
“Not workable on any of the Mission/Charity/Outreach Church Boards I’ve served for reasons far too many to go into here.”
Do any of those reasons have to do with ego and/or greed? If so, I don’t see the problem with regulation of a maximum percentage on operating expenses as the rest of your statement revolves around situational bookkeeping. Mandating a ceiling for operating expenses if you ignore the politics of a board is no different than mandating cleanliness standards for restaurants or setting a minimum age for alcohol purchases. It becomes simply a parameter of the charter in doing business. How the money gets in to the charity is not as key to the determination as how it goes out is. I think what you point to could also be mitigated by allowing X as acceptable reserves for a charitable organization and stipulation that expenditures of reserves must either meet the operating expense threshold directly or be provable as a one time expenditure in furtherance of the goal of meeting that threshold (for example, purchasing computers for logistics that may exceed the threshold for a given period but amortized over time are designed to improve efficiency).
Gene,
if a restriction is put on all charitable organizations, doesn’t that get the government into even more control over our organizations and lives? When I responded to Pi, I was merely correcting his/her idea that not taxing someone or an organization like a church, is not giving them monetary benefits.
I am in favor of making all churches pay the same real estate taxes as any other land owner and I am not in favor of the Feds having a Faith based department to dole out millions of tax dollars to churches.
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, July 1, 2012 at 1:29 pm
in Faith based systems, the other word for ‘charity’ is ‘love’. It is not of the prurient variety….but Agape…it is the thing that is worth protecting.
===============================
Well said.