|
|
The federal government spent $550 billion on Medicare last year and $250 billion on Medicaid.
Page 10: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...-corrected.pdf
The paragraph on the OP claims $70 billion would provide universal health coverage.
Edit: There were 47.5 million people on Medicare in 2010. There are over 300 million Americans.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0146.pdf
Originally Posted by Sooner5030
Yes, that isn't a bad idea. Obviously there are great charities as well but there are quite a few bad ones too. Tax any and all entities just as we do for profit entities. According to Snopes:
The worst offender was yet again for the 11th year in a row is, UNICEF - CEO, receives $1,200,000 per year, (plus use of a Royal Royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumored to be well over $150,000.) Only pennies from the actual donations goes to the UNICEF cause (less than $0.14 per dollar of income).
The second worst offender this year is Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross...for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks - fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to related charity causes.
The third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary (U.S. funds), plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in Canada, and 1 in the U.S.A.), 2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership, 3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses...and so on. This equates to about $0.51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.
Also go to page 11 and 12 on this: http://www.charitynavigator.org/__as...tudy_Final.pdf
Makes a strong case for it.
Read the title.The federal government spent $550 billion on Medicare last year and $250 billion on Medicaid.
Page 10: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/c...-corrected.pdf
The paragraph on the OP claims $70 billion would provide universal health coverage.
Edit: There were 47.5 million people on Medicare in 2010. There are over 300 million Americans.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0146.pdf
If your argument is to do away with non-profit status, I understand your argument and don't see a reason to contest it, because I think your position is rational and consistent.
However I can't agree with your argument because the base premise is something I and (I ****ume) many others in this thread simply can't ****ent to.
And thats fine. We aren't making policies here, just discussing ideas rational at times and irrational at times. You are (ofcourse) entitled to your opinion but I do feel that we could be a better country with more rational, consistent tax code where churches and non profits are taxed just like any other entity while at the same time taxing Facebook and GM as well so they cant get away with millions of dollars in unpaid taxes/rebates or whatever that was.
What do you not understand? We do not directly tax churches because it offends notions of freedom of religion. The United States has long held that individuals can be taxed by the federal government. It's not a consistency thing. Apples and oranges.
Why do you hate the First Amendment?
i guess my problem with URNS idea is that churches/not for profits aren't businesses...sure some pay extremely high salaries and many scoff at that notion and divert funds to more local charities but a business is in the game in order to make money whereas a charity is attempting to correct something or help and i see that as a fundamental difference in the equation...we can't just make everyone a for-profit entity and go forward and if your business is having too much taxes taken out become a 501(c)3 and go that direction but to just tax everyone doesn't seem logical due to the different nature of their purposes
The same reason some folks hate any "entitlement", I reckon...perceived abuse.
No reason to get snippy. This has been a fair thread so far. Just adding my $.02.
The biggest problem with the OP was, you singled out churches. When you do that, it immediately puts people on the defensive since our country was, more or less, founded on the principle of the government staying out of the church. You may not like it or the church, but our government DOES treat churches differently because of that.
If your OP wouldn't have been so specific to churches, it wouldn't have come off as being a shot at churches and faith-based organizations. Not saying that was your intention, but it's just how I see it.
Though people came over here originally to practice their religion freely, the US was far more founded on the principle that if you're going to be taxed, you ought to have representation.
...But therein lies a big problem. If you're going to tax churches, you have to allow their representation in your government (aka allow them to legislate their morality).
That's the most succinct way to put it.
True. I should have said ONE of the principles...sorry about that.
The voice of a logical atheist .. OK guys, don't fall out of the chair but I agree with many of the christians about the charity work. I even donate some of my time and items to churches that I know do this type of good, however I hate mega churches and their jets and fancy ****. There are not as many mega churches as small churches that work hard to get by. However I am a flat tax believer inner ... If we have to have tax at all flat tax it and perhaps for churches and non-profits make it one percent of anything left in their account after their one year's operating budgets. Only a few mega churches would probably have to pay because most churches don't have a year's worth of operating expenses on hand at on December 31. I would rather see local communities care for each other and a work for "welfare" program ran by churches than government because at this point the government is creating a bigger problem with welfare and food stamps than they are giving people a hand up. Churches in many small towns (particularly where I am from) do a lot to help people who just need to get by until they get it back together.
Great post, Ad...I think some "non-believers" get SOOOO caught up in their disdain for all things Jesus, they want to cut off their nose to spite their face. I'm not sure URNS was making that implication, but it just comes off that way when one "charity" is singled out.
The following users like this post: Aurora
Not sure I can agree. Churches aren't supposed to be businesses... but many are very much in it to make money.
well i wouldn't consider them Churches...i think that the gov needs to crack down on a lot of places that hide behind the label "Church" because it hurts the rest of them...i also think churches needs to be more careful with their politcal talk because it's not a place for stating reb/dem/ind ideas and too often it is
Couldn't agree more. The government should start smacking them around by suspending their tax-exempt status and then we'll see how it goes.
Hell, they even PLAN to preach from the pulpit. Right wingers had a big preach-in recently, if I remember correctly. They were planning a specific Sunday to intentionally give political rhetoric.
So, from your statement, I would ****ume that you would agree the government should suspend the non-profit status and "start smacking around" other 501(c) non-profits that engage in political activities?
Absolutely. Any non-taxed entity that engages in political activities should be taxed, churches or otherwise, IMO. Don't you? Who DOESN'T agree with that idea in general?
Then you agree that if churches should lose their tax exempt status for political speak, so should groups like ACORN and Organizing for Action? This would be a serious blow the Democratic fund raising machine.
Bottom line for me is that as long as these other political organizations are allowed to exist as non-profits, then churches should also retain their non-profit status and be able to say what they want when it comes to the politics.
Such a good idea, it's already a law.
Some churches had a "tax free sunday" where they endorsed a candidate which should have gotten their tax exempt status pulled...the ch isn't a social organization in that that isn't its main function but far too many believe it is
I know; I thought I was missing something here? I'm not well-versed on political speech v. tax free orgs.
Like I said, I'm not well-versed on specifics on tax free status of political groups. But I agree with you generally, except in no case should a non-taxable entity be allowed to be political. Snuff all their tax-free-statuses out.
I think groups like MM pose as neutral, as do the ACORNs of the world.
I’m certainly no expert on the finer points of NP political groups either. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that the majority of non-profit groups are politically active. IMHO, the ability of so-called non-profit organizations to raise money and use it to lobby for their special interests is one of the greatest cons in American politics. Both parties ruthlessly abuse the system, but I think the dems have lately gotten a little better at it than the pubs. The main problem I have with the current law is the fact that the names of donors to non-profits are allowed to be kept anonymous. Big money donors can spend millions to get a candidate elected and no one is the wiser. As I understand it, NP’s are not allowed to directly endorse a specific candidate, but instead they sponsor ads and commercials that support or refute the political stance or policies of a specific candidate. What it boils down to is that it’s just a huge money laundering game and there’s more than a handful of politicians who are beholding to these “anonymous” donors.
But to get back to the original point of this thread, I believe that if you are going to tax churches, you need to tax all no-profits equally.
Here’s a good article on the NP money laundering game (long read, but very informative)
Link to the IRS page on requirements of 501(c) organizations
Oh, I understand. I just do not agree that it offends the notions of freedom of religion. Just like taxing me and my businesses does not offend the notions of pursuing happiness. I am not asking them to tax just the churches but all tax exempt entities and that includes churches, temples, mosques, not for profit institutions, etc.
The constitution only allows for US to tax any entity on their income, nothing else. But we do have state income taxes, sales tax, property tax, occupancy tax, luxury tax, value added tax, excise duty, custom duty, etc. The United States for long has expanded on taxing individuals and organizations based on their needs and there generally has been acceptance because people understand thats how it works. The Govt needs money to function to provide roads, water, police, firemen etc. which the churches utilize just as much as anyone else.
The question should be, why do you hate logic?
Exactly.
The most ardent of conservatives that have an issue with the Govt being a proxy for them and making decisions on where their money should be spent have absolutely no problems with the church being a proxy for them doing the same thing.
Kinda ironic, dont you think?
Churches are so interested in politics and public policy and social decisions yet they pay no taxes. As Carlin said: "Let them pay their ****ing admission price like the rest of us."
Its ironic that you thought I was being snippy when I used the same exact tone, font and upper/lower case lettering in my sentences as you did.
Not sure i agree...church goers yes but churches (ie denominations/entire bodies of believers) are not so vocal...Christians have a right to voice their opinion but their pastor/priest/spiritual leader should never stand up in that capacity and endorse/promote/go against a political opponent...does it happen? sure, but that church should lose it's exempt status.
Whatever. Your post was meant to be snippy. Your post wasn't about the content of my post, but that it'd already been posted. Like I said, I thought you were being relatively fair, but now you're just being silly.
give more money to the govt.....now there's a brilliant idea if i ever heard one.....
The following users like this post: Sooner Bob
I can only speak for MY church, but we have very few employees (maybe 6) in our church. Our church membership is somewhere around 300 with average attendance each Sunday being around 200. Most church "jobs" are handled by volunteers within the congregation. I would almost contend that a church is similar to a town meeting hall in that the people that use it are already paying their fair share of the taxes you outlined. The congregation "owns" the church in all reality. The bills are paid by the congregation each month.
BTW, I can see why you think it's a double-standard, but I don't think you are considering that it really does pay it's fair share by doing the good deeds it does, just as most other non-profits/charities do. I will also say that your time would be better spent trying to eliminate the true injustices of our current government which are entitlements to people who do/want to do little of nothing and the elimination of huge tax loopholes, because what you are suggesting will NEVER happen...ever. Those things would help our country's financial situation much more than eliminating churches and charities - which is essentially what would happen. I'd bet an extremely high percentage of churches would close if you taxed them the same and, as has been pointed out many times, you'd get nothing in return to replace the good deeds they do.
ON EDIT: I can also tell you, the church we used to go to has 1 employee and is in a pretty rough part of OKC. If that church closed...and it most definitely would...you'd have a pretty decent chunk of land and building that would soon be condemned.
OK, show me the case law on "pursuing happiness" and I'll show you the case law on the First Amendment. You don't just get to make up a cause of action out of thin air for messageboard purposes. You're delving into the "dip****" portion of the Venn diagram.
How much do we lose each year under the auspices of foreign aid?
International affairs is 45 billion a year....21 of the 45 is international development and humanitarian ****istance....
Table 3.2 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
The following users like this post: Sooner Bob
That's a nice little chunk of change . . .
OH Phaaallleeeeeeaaassssseeee....Churches do more with 71 billion than our Government.
And you dont get to apply 'violation of first amendment' based on a whim of yours either. There are only certain religions that enjoy tax breaks and those are the religions that our govt deems legitimate. If I were to come up with say, Mallenism as a religion on this fine Saturday afternoon I will not enjoy the same tax exempt status that Hinduism enjoys. Is that a violation of my first amendment?
Tax exempt status is a privilege, not a right.
How do you know? Unlike 501 3(c) organizations the church's books even after affording the same tax breaks if not more are closed to you and me. What you're stating is opinion at best. What I am stating about them not paying taxes is a fact.
Incase you dont know, facts > opinions.
Great idea! Create your own thread about it.
The following users like this post: OUMallen
Just because other problems of funds mis management exist within the Govt branches does not mean that we should turn a blind eye towards this one. I ask you again, how would you or I know that this particular church is not mis handling the funds either? Non profits have to have their books open according to 990 requirement where they're subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny. Churches on the other hand are waived by the IRS on any and all such requirements.
Does your congregation have a building? What size is it? Does it need water? Electricity? Protection by police? How about fire? They then owe property taxes that they're not paying. If you had a second home, you'd still pay property taxes even though you already do on your first home.
It's not a whim, dip****. I didn't make it up out of thin air.
Again, the problem with using this "71 million dollar" logic is that, IMO, a LARGE number of these churches would simply go away. It sounds good to say, "hey we can take tax those entities like any other business/person...", until they close their doors. I'd venture to say that number would be 50% or higher. People of faith would simply do without a centrally owned building. So, what you've done is just made it harder for good churches to support their town (ie. feed/clothe the needy, help the homeless, get the addict help, etc). Sure they'll (we'll) still do all those things, but it won't be as effective. Again, this will NEVER happen...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
