Not at all car related.

"Dsscats" (dsscats) 04/20/2014 at 23:40 • Filed to: None

10

14

Well when you put it that way...

Axial > Dsscats 04/20/2014 at 23:44

11

Hate to be "that guy, but the picture is wrong because politicians don't know how to properly use the tax money they do have in the first place and, if you gave them more, they would just squander the extra, too. :(

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Dsscats 04/20/2014 at 23:51

2

Now, I'm not really that religious, but the amount of help the average church does for the community is pretty huge. A bunch of the local church's in my area run one of the only homeless shelters in the county.

Mega Church's are a different story though...

HammerheadFistpunch > Dsscats 04/20/2014 at 23:54

0

Working for a not for profit has made me realize there is a difference between being a subsided entity simply not being charged for something. Churches are a not for profit, like, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations. Why aren't they taxed?

midengineer > Dsscats 04/21/2014 at 00:12

0

Utah is actually setting a good example; and I'd assume that they would have a considerable amount of churches: http://www.trueactivist.com/utah-is-ending…

(Found on /nottheonion)

AthomSfere > Dsscats 04/21/2014 at 00:12

0

This "factoid" is a little unfair I think. I say this as an all-out-atheist too.

First, we have NO idea what churches actually earn, they aren't required to, or for that matter able to report their earnings to the IRS. So projections here are really just guesses.

It does ignore local and international good that some do, homeless shelters, donations, good will and charity events. Some churches, who knows how many, might not be able to pay taxes and provide public goods (Shelters for battered woman, subsidized child care, food donations)

Where I think this poster (And those like it with different numbers) falls apart is the assumption that 83.5 billion would be recoverable. All churches are tax exempt, not all make enough money to pay taxes even if tax exemptions were eliminated. As someone else mentioned, 501(c)3 is for other charitable exemptions as well. So as long as the church makes less than X dollars, and donates Y amount they would still be tax free. I would venture to bet most churches would qualify.

I do think all churches should have to go through the same obstacles as any other 501c organization and show they aren't running earning millions (or billions) in revenue annually. If they are genuinely not for profit and helping society, it changes nothing. If they are a huge business disguised as a church, where the pastor is able to buy a multi-million dollar home in cash tax free... then they should pay their taxes!

All in all, I just think those figures are dis-honest and probably a little too optimistic.

samssun > Dsscats 04/21/2014 at 00:13

1

With 5 months of my year go straight to politicians, "leaders" of my bankrupt, One Party Rule city going on about how despite record-high tax receipts they need "new sources of revenue", and watching the Federal + State governments spend away 40+% of the economy, I'm a little tired of all the "just think if we taxed _____ to death".

They'd spend every last penny encouraging more Dependency and Entitlement, and immediately move on to the next crisis & tax grab.

Tom McParland > Axial 04/21/2014 at 00:14

1

This is true...and it is not Democrat or Republican thing, it is just a politician thing.

Axial > Tom McParland 04/21/2014 at 00:15

2

Yeah. It is my opinion that there is something fundamentally wrong with your government if you are forced to vote for the lesser of two evils.

wiffleballtony > Dsscats 04/21/2014 at 00:44

2

I would be willing to bet if you started taxing churches (who get their funding from donations, that have already been taxed) many of them would cease to operate. As such any potential gain in the taxation to be applied to government social programs would be a zero sum gain since the churches already providing shelters, meals, therapy, assistance would no longer be there. Instead you would have the government which has proven itself to be at best inept and at worst corrupt handling a bunch of extra cash.

As a counter point I think a better solution would be to have th government cancel their social programs and give the money to the churches to administer locally. But that likely flies in the face of the original author of the factoid who likely doesnt like organized religion.

wkiernan > Dsscats 04/21/2014 at 05:58

0

"Government spending is always wasteful! I'm against it!" said the car enthusiasts , posting on the Internet .

BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires > AthomSfere 04/21/2014 at 07:47

0

This.

AthomSfere > wiffleballtony 04/21/2014 at 10:06

0

Donations aren't taxed, in fact donations can be claimed on taxes and written off...

And, some churches do give a considerable amount to local and international goodwill causes, but to think for a second that it would be a zero sum game is every bit as lazy and dishonest as that likely inflated figure above.

Vatican city is paid for in part thanks to America, we sends billions of profit there each year.

?6

This is a pastors 1.7 million dollar home in North Carolina. This house was tax-free. Steve Furtick was able to build this house as a parsonage, and this isn't a unique situation. Look at the mega churches all over and you will see similar abuse.

The flyer above isn't correct, see my thoughts above . But to think every church is beneficial to society and not corrupt is just dishonest and not helpful to anything. Churches should run the risk of losing tax exemption if they are earning significantly more than they are spending. Earnings should be reported.

wiffleballtony > AthomSfere 04/21/2014 at 11:23

0

Donations are after tax money, its only a tax deduction if you itemize which most people don't. Even so its a deduction not credits.

As far as corrupt religious leaders, there are plenty but the people who donate and tithe to them do so willingly, unlike the government which will take the money with any means necessary. Good luck taxing the Vatican anyway.

AthomSfere > wiffleballtony 04/21/2014 at 11:31

0

We don't have to tax the Vatican, it was an example. But we do send plenty of American money to the Vatican, and that can/ should be taxed.