501c3 at risk due to opposition to sodomite ceremonies

[Tinark]

Good. No religious organization should be tax exempt. Make 'em all pay in--temples, mosques, synagogues, churches, the works.

These are all non-profit organizations. There is no income to tax. The money is taxed once spent (such as on personnell salary). The question is whether donors should be allowed a tax writeoff for their donations. If not, then any secular community organization such as the Rotary Club, Lions, or even things like Boys and Girls club etc. Wouldn't be elgible either. Are we wanting to get rid of all charitable donation writeoffs all together?

 

[Granite]

These are all non-profit organizations. There is no income to tax. The money is taxed once spent (such as on personnell salary). The question is whether donors should be allowed a tax writeoff for their donations. If not, then any secular community organization such as the Rotary Club, Lions, or even things like Boys and Girls club etc. Wouldn't be elgible either. Are we wanting to get rid of all charitable donation writeoffs all together?

Not so when it comes to property taxes, including parsonages. I'm not primarily interested in write offs. For what it's worth in my time in the faith I never encountered a single person who ever claimed their tithe as a write off come tax time. Not saying it didn't happen, but in the circles I moved in this would've be considered somewhat poor form.

 

[rexlunae]

Donations to a super PAC are not a tax writeoff.

Donations may not be tax deductible, but, if organized under 501(c)(4), they are themselves tax exempt, considered a "civic organization". Of course, when Congress created this category, there was no notion that the funds would be used to direct elections, or that every candidate would have a Super PAC. That was a consequence of the courts interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to these things, and oddly, I think, just to these types of organizations. Which means that they can take in a basically unlimited amount of money, and never pay any tax on it, and with fairly limited restrictions or reporting requirements. They aren't allowed to coordinate with candidates, but they can walk right up to the edge of coordination.

Donations to a homeless shelter are.

Because, as a 501(c)(3), they are considered charities, and not only tax exempt, but donations to them are deductible. In a sense, it's like a double-exemption. But they are prohibited from engaging in political activities.

In both cases, my objection is that these organizations are given their statuses because of what they are rather than what they are doing at any moment. I think it would be fairer, rather than categorizing types of organizations, to base any tax privilege on the action being done rather than who is doing it.

To clarify, when I was referring to "poor people" before, I mean that we make poor people pay taxes, not that the programs that help them pay. Many of those organizations are 501(c)(3)s, and thus have the "double-exemption" noted above.

 

[kmoney]

In both cases, my objection is that these organizations are given their statuses because of what they are rather than what they are doing at any moment. I think it would be fairer, rather than categorizing types of organizations, to base any tax privilege on the action being done rather than who is doing it.

Can you expand on that?

 

[rexlunae]

Can you expand on that?

Well, the tax code recognizes types of organizations, and treats them differently based on how it categorizes them. I think it's fairer, if we're going to make some activities untaxable, that we make that dependent on the activity directly rather than the category of organization that is doing it.

 

[rougueone]

That's right. Don't be a 501c3. Isa 5:20, Re 13:17, Mt 16:18

See:

Marriage

AMEN Serpantdove !!!! The sanctity of Gods church is so violated by the merger of a 501C3 contract. It is the alignment-merger of God and Government ( Beast ) . I want our brethren to understand that:

" Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?

23But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

24Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.

25And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.
LUKE 20: 22-25

Mark 12:16-17.


Also what is NEVER spoke of is :

2And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.
Luke 23 1-5.

Our fellowship, in our church and the money therein is "GOD'S". The whole assembly and everything contained is for GOD. Not Caesar.
Yet the majority use Romans 13, and will, in these last day's, to justify their obedience to Caesar. Not God. Romans 13 is the most mis-understood and mis-quoted Scripture I know of.
Further people "Tithe" then write it off. So what did they "Tithe" ?

 

[Tinark]

Donations may not be tax deductible, but, if organized under 501(c)(4), they are themselves tax exempt, considered a "civic organization".

Tax exemption is not all that it is cracked up to be without the tax deductible donation. If you are a non-profit organization, what is there to tax, being that there are no profits/income? All the money paid to personnel, when they are paid, gets taxed as wages. All the money spent on political advertisements gets counted as taxable revenue to the advertising agency.

Of course, when Congress created this category, there was no notion that the funds would be used to direct elections, or that every candidate would have a Super PAC. That was a consequence of the courts interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to these things, and oddly, I think, just to these types of organizations. Which means that they can take in a basically unlimited amount of money, and never pay any tax on it, and with fairly limited restrictions or reporting requirements.

The money is taxed once it is spent. If you and I want to open a joint bank account together, should we be taxed on the money that is deposited into the account? Of course not. Similarly, if a hundred people want to put their money into a joint "Super PAC" bank account, that money shouldn't be taxed when it is put into the account, either.

Because, as a 501(c)(3), they are considered charities, and not only tax exempt, but donations to them are deductible. In a sense, it's like a double-exemption. But they are prohibited from engaging in political activities.

To clarify, when I was referring to "poor people" before, I mean that we make poor people pay taxes, not that the programs that help them pay. Many of those organizations are 501(c)(3)s, and thus have the "double-exemption" noted above.

Only the tax deduction on the donation is relevant due to the joint bank account analogy discussed above.

By the way, the poor receive far more government transfers than they have to pay in tax:

 

[rexlunae]

Tax exemption is not all that it is cracked up to be without the tax deductible donation. If you are a non-profit organization, what is there to tax, being that there are no profits/income?

That's a bit of a misconception. A 501(c)(4) can be profitable. What it can't do is give a return to an individual investor. It can, however, have employees, who earn a salary, and it can pay money for services from other businesses, which are supposed to be at fair market value, but which the IRS can't really keep very close tabs on and can be with organizations closely associated with the 501(c)(4). So, there are ways of getting money out of the thing. Just not the normal investment ways.

All the money paid to personnel, when they are paid, gets taxed as wages.

If I were to personally hire a employee, using my personal post-tax income, I would pay, in addition, various taxes (payroll taxes, unemployement, etc.) related to the employment. A 501(c)(4) would pay the payroll taxes, but would not pay the tax that I paid on earning the money, nor any equivalent tax such as might be imposed on a business or other fictitious entity. It is thus tax privileged.

All the money spent on political advertisements gets counted as taxable revenue to the advertising agency.

That's someone else's taxes, because it's the income of whoever they paid for the advertisement. If I took out an advertisement, I would pay taxes on the money I used for that purpose.

The money is taxed once it is spent.

That's generally a tax on someone else's income and/or a sales tax. Most of the places that I spend money end up paying taxes on it despite the fact that I was already taxed on it when I earned it.

If you and I want to open a joint bank account together, should we be taxed on the money that is deposited into the account?

That depends on how we structure the account. If we merely put our two names on it, no, not generally, although potentially if it were a large cash transfer it could be taxed as a gift over the annual exclusion (http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small...oyed/Frequently-Asked-Questions-on-Gift-Taxes). However, if we set up a legal entity with a separate legal existence, then it could be taxed in some form. How exactly that occurs depends on how we set it up.

Of course not. Similarly, if a hundred people want to put their money into a joint "Super PAC" bank account, that money shouldn't be taxed when it is put into the account, either.

That's not really what's happening, though.

Only the tax deduction on the donation is relevant due to the joint bank account analogy discussed above.

I think you're mistaken there. Why do you think organizations categorize themselves as 501(c)(4)? It's not compulsory.

By the way, the poor receive far more government transfers than they have to pay in tax:

Spoiler

Well, without a real citation, I can't dig into it too deeply, but what I can tell you is that when I was earning in those second and third quintiles, I certainly wasn't making money off of the tax code. Many of the people who are likely in that category aren't poor at all, but retirees, disabled people, and the unemployed receiving government benefits like Social Security and unemployment, which they have earned.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49440

And this is only some of the tax that poor people end up paying.

 

[kmoney]

Well, the tax code recognizes types of organizations, and treats them differently based on how it categorizes them. I think it's fairer, if we're going to make some activities untaxable, that we make that dependent on the activity directly rather than the category of organization that is doing it.

So non-profits would work basically like anyone else, where they are taxed and file returns but can claim deductions based on what they do?

Are you afraid that would discourage non-profits from forming?

 

[rexlunae]

So non-profits would work basically like anyone else, where they are taxed and file returns but can claim deductions based on what they do?

Basically. Fewer types of organizations, perhaps just a single category for fictitious entities.

Are you afraid that would discourage non-profits from forming?

Not tremendously. I'm more worried about the abuse of tax privileged organizational categories.

 

[kmoney]

Basically. Fewer types of organizations, perhaps just a single category for fictitious entities.



Not tremendously. I'm more worried about the abuse of tax privileged organizational categories.

What types of actions are you thinking would be tax exempt for these non-profits?

 

[rexlunae]

What types of actions are you thinking would be tax exempt for these non-profits?

Feeding the poor, perhaps. The sorts of things that you might find listed as qualifications for being a 501(c)(3) currently.

 

[kmoney]

Feeding the poor, perhaps. The sorts of things that you might find listed as qualifications for being a 501(c)(3) currently.

So the food they buy can be exempt. Do they get exemptions to purchase a property in which to serve the poor?

I'm not absolutely opposed to what you're proposing, but if we exempt certain activities then it seems reasonable to exempt an organization whose purpose is to do those activities, even though, of course, not everything they do is directly connected with that purpose.

I do hate what happens with elections and super-PACs. I'd clamp down on politically focused groups. But I don't know about groups more focused on charity and the environment, etc.

 

[Donald Sterling]

"Sodomites"......really?

 

[bybee]

I would just love to see such a study.

I'll search for them.

 

[rexlunae]

So the food they buy can be exempt. Do they get exemptions to purchase a property in which to serve the poor?

I would think so.

I'm not absolutely opposed to what you're proposing, but if we exempt certain activities then it seems reasonable to exempt an organization whose purpose is to do those activities, even though, of course, not everything they do is directly connected with that purpose.

Here's one of the unintended consequences of the way that we categorize organizations. As a 501(c)(3), a church is forbidden from engaging in political activities. That is, bluntly, censorship, and I kinda understand why they would object to finding themselves unable to express to their members a political preference. However, it's also true that it would be unfair and unintended to support those types of activities with tax exemption based upon the category of organization. It seems to me like you could solve the problem by changing the exemption process to directly key off of the charitable activity, which would also have the harmonious effect of discouraging "charities" that abuse their payroll and contracting abilities to divert money into private hands.

I do hate what happens with elections and super-PACs. I'd clamp down on politically focused groups.

It's very hard to do, especially with the IRS as chronically underfunded as it is.

But I don't know about groups more focused on charity and the environment, etc.

The argument for me ultimately comes back to basic fairness. I don't think that one organization should have privilege simply because of how it is categorized regardless of activity.

 

[rexlunae]

And to my case for exempting activities and not organizations, I add this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...anford_endowments_is_it_time_to_tax_them.html

 

[Ktoyou]

Idaho city’s ordinance tells pastors to marry gays or go to jail

And that was in 2014, the gays have already been testing those waters and there will be no stopping them now. They dont want equality, they want to force those who disagree to cater to them.

Facists.

Wait and see. this is going to blow up in their faces!