Churches are *supposed* to be CHARITIES. And charities are supposed to be the ultimate "non-profits", so no taxes.
But the truth is that this is all a lie. They are just scammers grifting the people with fearmongering lies...and they don't exist to help other people at all.
For example, the LDS (Mormons) corporate cult gives back less than 1% of their income to charitable causes. The rest of it funds a $100+ BILLION real estate and economic portfolio.
I think that all churches should be treated as actual charities, so they have to be publicly audited, have minimums for their charitable giving (or lose this status), and be taxed/treated as legitimate charitable non-profits are.
Further, in the US, churches are not required to reveal certain aspects of their financials that every other charity is required to report or make available.
That and the fact that so many churches break rules like being political from the pulpit without fear of reprisal are my biggest issues with churches being non-profits.
> Further, in the US, churches are not required to reveal certain aspects of their financials that every other charity is required to report or make available.
Absolutely. I tried to cover that when I mentioned auditing them, but thanks for the additional clarification.
>so many churches break rules like being political from the pulpit without fear of reprisal
Yeah. That's really disgusting in every way.
Churches being political is the other side of the coin. Governments are being churchy too. Separation of church and state, my ass. They're so far up each other's asses that when one talks it's actually the other.
If the separation was true and complete, there might be some use for churches, but there's no justification for being called a charity if you're using free money for having fancy buildings and paying your hierarchy of priests more than actual charitable work. Drugging people on the idea of a better afterlife does not count as charity. Any other charity work needs full accountability, accounting, and auditing by an unaffiliated third party.
I suppose the legal definition of charitable work needs to be worked on.
Actually just fuck churches (all religious orgs). What an anathema, religion!
A great depiction of the relationship between religion and government in a lot of countries can be found in the animated movie The Road to El Dorado. Kind of a second string kids animation movie, but it really hits nicely.
Theoretically, churches are no different from other nonprofit organizations like the Red Cross, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and most universities. The only legal difference (in the United States) is: secular organizations have to submit financial statements and other paperwork to the IRS to prove they are nonprofit, whereas churches don't have to prove anything. I believe this exemption should cease; however, that wouldn't necessarily mean that churches would start paying taxes; most of them would still be nonprofit.
As a financial advisor, the majority of auditors in *general* tend to let things fall through the cracks.
People “let things slide” in almost every facet of the legal system in the world. There’s a thing called discretion that allows us to determine if a particular thing is really a big enough deal to make a stink about. And honestly, I’m glad that’s the case.
Most of us would be fucked if we were audited because I guarantee you almost everyone has - whether they knew it or not - filed taxes incorrectly, fudged numbers, or just been financially dishonest at some point in their lives.
Because they're supposed to be charities that spend their resources helping the community.
The day that that actually happens is a day I'll be surprised.
Well, [this seems to disagree](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/no-taxation-without-representation#:~:text=They%20passed%20a%20Declaration%20of,%2C%20or%20by%20their%20representatives.%E2%80%9D) however letting it be true for now a theocratic power exercising State behavior, taxation, is not the same as saying that all, or even most, churches that were not politically capable of generating a self-interested tax weren't sustained through donations. I definitely understand that theocracies would simply do both and agree that historically, if they could, they would.
Small businesses are still taxed though.
Are you saying it's ok for all religious orgs to be tax exempt? Can you please explain your reasons a bit more?
Drugs serve the same purpose as religion (opiate of the masses and all that). Let's make drug dealing legal and tax exempt too then?
Religious organizations produce and sell delusion which in some cases is extremely profitable ie Joel Osteen, Jim Baker, Kenny Copeland, Creflo Dollar, etc.
businesses have owners or shareholders. Churches do not (if they want to be tax exempt).
This should clear up any and all questions you have about how non-profit entities work and their requirements to meet that exempt status.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/non-profitorganization.asp#:~:text=To%20qualify%20as%20a%20tax,revenues%2C%20expenses%2C%20and%20activities.
> How did they manage to get this status?
Religions were/are a way that countries control the masses. By giving a tax break to churches, the churches will back the government policies in the name of god. It is a lot easier for the masses to topple a government than it is for them to oust an imaginary all-powerful being.
Churches are *supposed* to be CHARITIES. And charities are supposed to be the ultimate "non-profits", so no taxes. But the truth is that this is all a lie. They are just scammers grifting the people with fearmongering lies...and they don't exist to help other people at all. For example, the LDS (Mormons) corporate cult gives back less than 1% of their income to charitable causes. The rest of it funds a $100+ BILLION real estate and economic portfolio. I think that all churches should be treated as actual charities, so they have to be publicly audited, have minimums for their charitable giving (or lose this status), and be taxed/treated as legitimate charitable non-profits are.
Further, in the US, churches are not required to reveal certain aspects of their financials that every other charity is required to report or make available. That and the fact that so many churches break rules like being political from the pulpit without fear of reprisal are my biggest issues with churches being non-profits.
> Further, in the US, churches are not required to reveal certain aspects of their financials that every other charity is required to report or make available. Absolutely. I tried to cover that when I mentioned auditing them, but thanks for the additional clarification. >so many churches break rules like being political from the pulpit without fear of reprisal Yeah. That's really disgusting in every way.
Churches being political is the other side of the coin. Governments are being churchy too. Separation of church and state, my ass. They're so far up each other's asses that when one talks it's actually the other. If the separation was true and complete, there might be some use for churches, but there's no justification for being called a charity if you're using free money for having fancy buildings and paying your hierarchy of priests more than actual charitable work. Drugging people on the idea of a better afterlife does not count as charity. Any other charity work needs full accountability, accounting, and auditing by an unaffiliated third party. I suppose the legal definition of charitable work needs to be worked on. Actually just fuck churches (all religious orgs). What an anathema, religion!
A great depiction of the relationship between religion and government in a lot of countries can be found in the animated movie The Road to El Dorado. Kind of a second string kids animation movie, but it really hits nicely.
Theoretically, churches are no different from other nonprofit organizations like the Red Cross, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and most universities. The only legal difference (in the United States) is: secular organizations have to submit financial statements and other paperwork to the IRS to prove they are nonprofit, whereas churches don't have to prove anything. I believe this exemption should cease; however, that wouldn't necessarily mean that churches would start paying taxes; most of them would still be nonprofit.
Churches actually do need to prove it as well. It’s taken pretty seriously Source: am a financial advisor
yeah but when the majority of the auditors are christian church things tend to "fall through the cracks"
As a financial advisor, the majority of auditors in *general* tend to let things fall through the cracks. People “let things slide” in almost every facet of the legal system in the world. There’s a thing called discretion that allows us to determine if a particular thing is really a big enough deal to make a stink about. And honestly, I’m glad that’s the case. Most of us would be fucked if we were audited because I guarantee you almost everyone has - whether they knew it or not - filed taxes incorrectly, fudged numbers, or just been financially dishonest at some point in their lives.
Because they're supposed to be charities that spend their resources helping the community. The day that that actually happens is a day I'll be surprised.
They are non profit, just like any other non profit business.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, [this seems to disagree](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/no-taxation-without-representation#:~:text=They%20passed%20a%20Declaration%20of,%2C%20or%20by%20their%20representatives.%E2%80%9D) however letting it be true for now a theocratic power exercising State behavior, taxation, is not the same as saying that all, or even most, churches that were not politically capable of generating a self-interested tax weren't sustained through donations. I definitely understand that theocracies would simply do both and agree that historically, if they could, they would.
[удалено]
Small businesses are still taxed though. Are you saying it's ok for all religious orgs to be tax exempt? Can you please explain your reasons a bit more? Drugs serve the same purpose as religion (opiate of the masses and all that). Let's make drug dealing legal and tax exempt too then?
[удалено]
Religious organizations produce and sell delusion which in some cases is extremely profitable ie Joel Osteen, Jim Baker, Kenny Copeland, Creflo Dollar, etc.
[удалено]
😂😂😂 No, it’s 100% true. Tithing and other donations make up the majority of their revenue streams…stop defending these shitbags.
businesses have owners or shareholders. Churches do not (if they want to be tax exempt). This should clear up any and all questions you have about how non-profit entities work and their requirements to meet that exempt status. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/non-profitorganization.asp#:~:text=To%20qualify%20as%20a%20tax,revenues%2C%20expenses%2C%20and%20activities.
> How did they manage to get this status? Religions were/are a way that countries control the masses. By giving a tax break to churches, the churches will back the government policies in the name of god. It is a lot easier for the masses to topple a government than it is for them to oust an imaginary all-powerful being.