should the LDS church lose it's tax excempt status

[smileyeagle1021]

So, there has been a lot of talk recently about the LDS church's vocal support of Prop 8 in California and also it's financial support. Political contributions are not tax excempt as charitable contributions are. So, considering the church's activity in politics should it lose it's tax excepmt status, and taking it further should the donations to it be no longer tax deductible?

I'm split on whether or not donations to the church should lose their tax deductions sense most people who donate to the LDS church do so with the intention of that money being spent on legitimate charitable causes, but I do believe the church's choice to become involved in politics should lose them their tax excempt status. Anyone want to disagree or agree?

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

Absolutely not.

The Church does mostly wonderful things with the money it is given. If there is an entity that deserves tax exempt status, for the MOST part, it is the LDS church. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were to be denied their tax exempt status, it would open up a lot of doors for other entities to have their status revoked as well.

We might as well not have anyone receive that status at all.




As a side note, I don't think the official support of Prop 8 would have happened if President Hinckley was still around. I truly believe he was a strong, but wise prophet who would not have publicly supported a SPECIFIC political item. President Monson creeped me out before he became the president, back when I was learning names in Primary. Proves my gut was right.

[smileyeagle1021]

Sorryisgoodenough, I have to agree with you on the comment about President Hinckley. The church has gone downhill fast under Monson. It may be hard to believe now, but there was a time when I was an active member of the LDS church. Not coincidently I became less and less active after Monson became the President. Sadly I think Prop 8 is the first in a new trend. Unless the Church goes back to how it operated under Hinckley I don't think I can support it anymore.

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

Unfortunately, that is exactly how I feel. I was actually looking into finding my local Singles ward and contacting my new bishop when I heard about the Church's support of Prop 8.

Sadly, my sister doesn't understand. She's very active. I told her I think I'm going to wait until Monson is gone and the new president shows that he's truly inspired, and she went around telling all our LDS friends that I said I wanted President Monson to die.

-_-

Get it? I don't want him to be president and being the prophet is a life term?

Yeah, whatever.

But I don't think it's the CHURCH, necessarily, because under Hinckley, this didn't happen. It's the current presidency. Which is really hard to accept because the prophet is supposed to be called of God to divine prophecy. And in President Monson's case, I don't think that's how it's working.

So, no, I don't think their tax exempt status should be revoked...unless President Monson makes supporting specific legislative agendas a habit. Then...well....

[smileyeagle1021]

So, no, I don't think their tax exempt status should be revoked...unless President Monson makes supporting specific legislative agendas a habit. Then...well....

which unfortunately I get the feeling that he is going to do.

*sigh* it was so much easier being a gay mormon under Hinckley than Monson... with Hinckley I actually wanted to follow the teachers, chose celebacy and thought of finding a woman I could make it work with... Monson's tactic is to tell me I"m going to hell.

[SorryIsGoodEnough]

Well, as for that, I don't believe you should have to choose to settle for anyone than someone you love.

But Hinckley did give the impression that he understood the struggle, at least, for gay individuals to reconcile their orientation with their faith. Monson just gives the impression that it's dirty, and something to be dealt with with discrimination and force.

Which is so, so wrong.

[Slytovhand]

Bacccckkk to the original topic....

If we're going to bring this argument in, then it should be about any religious entity that gets involved in politics.. and in that respect, the Catholics and Protestant churches have a lot to answer for in this regard. Also, a lot of money will go to activist groups (eg Pro-Life stuff).

Personally, I'm not inclined for religions to have a tax exempt status in the first place. Not unless said donations actually go to a good cause.. and putting up another big building for all your worshippers to go to isn't one of them. After all, am I going to get tax exempt status if I put up a hall for heavy metal musos to gig at?? Even if it is for free?? Nope... so what's the relevant difference? (not talking about... open up said hall, and then give away free food etc to kids normally left on the streets, and then let them sleep in the hall... that'd be a different argument!)


Back off topic.. Smiley - love someone you love, cos you can't love someone you don't.

[anriana]

At the very least they should be taxed for the amount of money they donated to the Prop 8 campaign.

Personally I don't think churches should be exempt from any taxes except maybe money for established charity endeavors like soup kitchens or food pantries.

[Barbiegirl]

Not being in california I wasn't really paying that much attention to everything going on with this vote.
So my question is, Is there proof that The Church itself donated money to the campaign or was it donated by individuals in the church?

Also, From what I've glanced at it looks like the church can state their opinion on issues affecting the community but cannot endorse a candidate. If that is correct and the Church itself did not donate money then I don't think they should lose tax exempt status.


And a quote that I like "The Church is perfect but the people aren't" Don't know who said it.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well, as for that, I don't believe you should have to choose to settle for anyone than someone you love.

But Hinckley did give the impression that he understood the struggle, at least, for gay individuals to reconcile their orientation with their faith. Monson just gives the impression that it's dirty, and something to be dealt with with discrimination and force.

Which is so, so wrong.

thank you... I'm glad I'm not the only one who had noticed that... I was afraid maybe I was imagining it... nope.

and coming back on topic again... I think I have to agree with Slyt, churches are being run way too much like businesses now. I think that a building for the sole purpose of worship should be taxed unless it serves some other charitable purpose in the community... as Slyt pointed out, someone who opens up a hall for free concerts doesn't get a tax break unless they perform some other charitable activity there, so why do churches get that tax break?

[ThePhoneGoddess]

I don't agree with automatic tax exemptions for churches period. First of all, smaller religions and those without a cohesive clergy or structure often don't get these benefits. Second, non-religious organizations which apply for tax exempt status have to go through much more rigorous application and approval process than religious organizations do.

Charitable trusts under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code technically have to make their financial records available to the IRS for inspection, but it is rare that such a review ever occurs with a church because of the possibility that it might result in an entanglement between church and state. Other organizations which receive direct subsidies from the government are not so free to keep their finances secret from the general public. An automatic tax exemption seems to be nothing more than a permanent subsidy.

Giving churches automatic tax exempt status is assuming that they are spending their money benefitting the community they are in---this is the purpose of tax exempt status, to encourage people to donate money to organizations which use the money to benefit the local community. But there are no checks or balances to make sure that that is what churches are doing with their money---it is simply assumed.

It is estimated that there may be as much as $100 billion dollars in untaxed church property in the United States. For every dollar which the government can't collect on church property, it makes up for by collecting it from citizens. So basically, all citizens are forced to indirectly support churches, even those they do not belong to and may even oppose.

This quote by President James Garfield sums it up pretty well:

"The divorce between Church and State ought to be absolute. It ought to be so absolute that no Church property anywhere, in any state or in the nation, should be exempt for equal taxation; for if you exempt the property of any church organization to that extent you impose a tax upon the whole community."

James A Garfield, 20th U.S. President (1881)

[Amethyst Hunter]

Absolutely, they should have that exempt status yanked out from under them like the proverbial rug - and so should every other church as far as I'm concerned. (The one possible exception maybe being things like food pantries and soup kitchens - but there should be some way of verifying that money goes to where it's supposed to) This would also go a loooooong way towards taking the bite out of a lot of these dominionist-based churches, since they rely heavily on money to fund a lot of their little nasties.

[Boozy]

Why not make churches pay taxes, but remove the charitable donation deduction limit for all individuals and organizations?

If a church or religious group can provide receipts showing that everything they brought in went to pay for charitable acts, then they remain tax-free. If they used it to install expensive stained-glass windows, or send their choir on a tour of Europe, or buy ads in California during a political campaign, then they pay taxes on that amount.

[smileyeagle1021]

stop it Boozy... you're making way too much sense

[Boozy]

Well, sort of...

There are a few major flaws in my plan. For example, there are currently (to my knowledge) no exemptions available for property taxes. And if there were, you'd need to be careful that those donations actually benefited the community, as property taxes fund local programs like schools. A donation to Rwandan relief, while admirable, isn't going to pay a local teacher's salary. And a no-limit deduction for everyone (not just churches) could reduce tax revenue to the point where it's difficult to fund necessary programs like waste management and water treatment for which there are no charities.