-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.
Bob K: “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.”
Yes, but this may cut down on the number of red Prada slippers sold in the free market.
Frankly,
Enjoyed your put down.
Do you think it changed her or the other wing nuts?
But if you feel better thats OK with me.
I am not an attorney but I have thght the same thing, Idealist, It is law meant to give religion special dispensation.
GeneH,
Won’t question your logic. Let me point out that the emphasis was on WILL since I had left it out mistakenly in my original comment.
Now you can play the logic all you wish, but I will stick with probability. That seems more or less certain considering the mess we have now.
Corporations have been using loopholes as long as there have been laws and lawyers and accountants and tax consultants, etc. So will “some” churches if taxed, with a high probability—likely in relation to how much they push up the hierarchy.
I thought the comment someone made, that Congress was to make NO law as to religion—with the meaning that giving them tax exemption by law was a violation of the Constitution.
What do you make of that???
Blouise, No but we have OCWM
leejcaroll
Then you know all about the American Missionary Association (AMA).
I admit to using hyperbola and bombast as well as sarcasm and snark often when I post. Personally I am tired of the wingnuts constant stream of ill will and have decided to meet them with the tools I find appropriate. But people expecting to hear back from poor ol Pi are probably going to be disappointed. I don’t think the poor dear is capable of better because there is so little there there.
I thought I’d dredge through the sludge & see if I could reply to any actual statements of fact. I think the posters who suggested PI had some points worth discussing are quite wrong.
“consistent with your overall communist tendencies.”
I’d like you to quote some examples. I am probably the closest thing to a commie here & Nal is not even close.
“First, LDS is 1.7 percent of the population, which is hardly a good sample group.”
The size of the group does not matter. if it was only two people & they both kicked in $10 but gave a total of 34 cents to actual charity that would be significant for that group. That they are only a few million but still only give 1.7 cents of the dollar says how highly they rate actual charity no matter the size of the group. Congrats to the Methodists for putting out more than a quarter of every dollar but thats still pretty weak tea.
“Secondly, LDS has provided some money to charity, but their primary purpose is conversion to a religion, not charity. Third, most religious institutions collect donations from members for the primary purpose of maintaining facilities and salaries for employees, not for charity, and I have seen no christian faiths that claim otherwise.”
If you have not heard this claim than you are not listening very well. In fact it has become much more common recently when many churches claim they can do a better job of charity than even the government. Saying that a charity has huge overhead it has to maintain may not be an argument in favor of it, just to let you know. Saying that your charity spends a great deal just trying to get more people to give more money probably borders on fraud.
“Not taxing someone is not subsiding them. Period.”
Ah, yes it is. See if the government taxed the churches on their income (and for the sake of argument lets say only their investment income, which is quite a lot of money) they would have considerably less to spend. If you built a resort (and some church have) or owned a $2billion portfolio(as some churches) have the government would tax you on these gains. Since it does not tax the church that is financial support or subsidizing.
“The laws do not violate the First Amendment. Taxing them would.”
Again, you are wrong on fact. The first amendment only states that the government can’t ban nor endorse any religion. The originators goal was to prevent the sort of sectarian violence they had fled in Europe and saw in the early days here. Taxing the churches, as long as we did it the same with each religion would not violate any first amendment clause in any way.
“Notice that there hasn’t been a whole lot of Supreme Court Justices agreeing with your position.”
Thats not saying much as I bet you cannot name a single case brought before the USSC. And if you could I’d point out that the USSC once ruled that there was no right a black person could have that a white person could not take away if they felt like it – not. a. single. right. Like the Constitution the USSC is often a product of its time and can make mistakes that take decades to correct.
Now the snarky bit – in the Bible PI is 3, in the real world it is not and if you tried to build great structures using 3 instead of 3.14 they will not last. So in a way PI fits you nicely. You really need to up your game if you want to play in the arena with educated adults. I’m an admittedly weak contributor on this blog and I can pown you are every one of your weak arguments without raising a sweat.
Gene,
The optometrist made the coupon.
Blouise, would that it was alwayds like that. (I am also UCC and there is a diff betweensay RCC and ‘us”)
As long as the church (and I can only relate RCC since that I know about and other denominations I do not) can hide funds and declare bankruptcy to keep from doing what is right, charitable and just (like helping the victims of pedophilia by priests, they should not be allowed tax deductions.
We see now more and more pastors and churches advocating for political positions contrary to my understanding of what they are permirred to do and still receive the deductions. Maybe the best thing to do is have them pay their taxes like the rest of society. I am sure they would still be able to do charitable works.
( I do wish Nal had cited others aloing with Mormons, it may not have been meant this way but does seem like an allusion to Romney
Gene,
Exactly and … if the client wishes to take a charitable donation on his/her taxes he/she may as everything is thoroughly documented … thus one of the reasons for lawyer involvement when the fund is being established. You can probably guess some of the others. 😉
Blouise,
It might even show up as a minimal loss if you accounted for the office supplies used to make the coupon.
Blouise,
That would be a pass through the way you described it, with 100% of the donation going to charitable ends. It wouldn’t (shouldn’t) show up as a profit at all.
I have to be careful here … confidentiality etc.
Let’s say the church’s Outreach Board has a “Pastor’s Fund” in place complete with legal safeguards put in place by lawyers and the church’s board of Trustees.
One of the church’s members is an older woman living on a small fixed income and supplementing that income as a seamstress. One of her clients has noticed that she needs a new pair of glasses and knows that if the offer to buy them is made, the woman will either turn it down or accept it and then not charge the giver for any sewing.
The client goes to the seamstress’ pastor and offers to buy the glasses if the pastor can present it to the seamstress in a manner that will not result in free sewing and thus loss of income to the seamstress. The pastor accepts the donation through the Pastor’s Fund and makes arrangements with a local optometrist and presents the seamstress with a “donated” coupon that the pastor has determined she might be able to make use of. The seamstress accepts the gift from the pastor and is most grateful.
The optometrist made no charge for the exam which meant that the entire amount donated by the client could be spent on the glasses. The pastor, the optometrist, and the seamstress were all members of the same church. The client belonged to a different church.
How do you regulate that? Where would you put it on a profit sheet?
“Even thresholds WILL be loopholed”
The fallacy of appeal to probability (because something might happen doesn’t mean it will happen) and the Nirvana fallacy (rejecting a solution because it is imperfect; optimum and optimal don’t mean the same thing – when perfect isn’t possible, the next best solution is best).
Woosty,
You say your church does not. Fine, nice to hear.
But we have spent a great deal of time talking about the RCC bishops, and the evangelists (and dominionists were mentioned too).
You are surely not hiding that lot behind your church.
So it was obviously they, who have greater impact political wise, that I was referring to.
Quip: Those were the donkeys that had tails pinned on them.
So what’s the issue, oh yes I implied something about
all churches using the donkeys as an instrument. Quite right.
If we were to include all minor exceptions, we would have to mention the murdered priests, even a bishop, in Central America. And those who are reported to fight for human rights around the world.
But I thought it was clear that it was the RCC and evangelists’ meddiling in our lives via the ballot box that we jointly found disturbing.
Was it not?
yup, agreed
Blouise,
As we see here all the time, some people are simply incapable of thinking in terms other than profit or loss. Preferably their profit first. Are you really so surprised that some so called “religious” organizations operate in that manner? Or merely dismayed that they’d be so callously venal under the banner of religion?
bettykath
“Organized religions have the same goal as corporations: to grow and maximize profit. Profit may be defined differently depending on the particular sect. Many consider those they help as being part of their “profit”. They don’t show up in a traditional balance sheet, but are considered “profit” anyway. Most look at profit in the way of the traditional balance sheet.”
I have never belonged to a church that sought to maximize profit even under the particular definitions you have assigned to the word. The people a church seeks to help are people who need help of the most immediate kind … food, clothing, school supplies, housing, medical attention. Anyone who would refer to those individuals as profit would be excused from further service.
When a Board reports to a Congregation at the Annual Meeting, the amount of money spent in each category may be mentioned but the number of individuals helped as profit … never. A “Thrift Store” may account for the donations in material goods donated, the cost of overhead, the amount of money left and how it was allocated but the individuals who “shopped” there as part of the profit? No.
I have always belonged to the organized religion called Congregational and UCC … we’ve been around a long time. My God … people as profit on a balance sheet??!!
W=^..^
“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…”
I am including church run charities in that, yes, but I think the exemption for size mentioned to Blouise would cover your concerns. No charity, no matter who runs it, should be allowed to present themselves as (and as Darren points toward) a de jure charity and operate as a de facto charity. If it’s a charity? Then the bulk of the funds need to be expended in charitable actions, not padding the salary of executives. To allow that practice to continue is allowing in essence a fraud to be perpetrated on the contributing members of the public. If I contribute a dollar to a charity, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that .80 (or more) of that dollar go to the ends of helping the people that charity represents themselves as helping. When that ratio gets to the point of say .29 cents of every dollar (to use David’s example), the needy are not getting substantive benefit and I’m getting fleeced to pay some weasel’s salary. It’s hardly an equitable transaction at that point.
Organized religions have the same goal as corporations: to grow and maximize profit. Profit may be defined differently depending on the particular sect. Many consider those they help as being part of their “profit”. They don’t show up in a traditional balance sheet, but are considered “profit” anyway. Most look at profit in the way of the traditional balance sheet.