TAO Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) I must say, this is a very poorly written article. They try and make it come off as informative, but it's pretty obvious they are assuming and guessing a lot. There is also way too much implying going on - if you are going to critique the church on finances, come out and say it, don't use indirect statements please. =p*Rant off* Edited July 12, 2012 by TAO
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I think you would be surprised at how little waste there is in this organization. I reject your logic when applied to religious organizations in general and support it when talking about for-profit corporations.Hey ya'll, I was only responding when I read Storm Rider's comment above when he said there is little waste in the organization. It made me think about the Christmas set that cost over 100 grand. And I ask you... does the church need to be so extravagant? Yes, I'm one of those that think we might be able to save alot of people in other countries with that kind of money. I want my tithing to go somewhere like that. I think the Savior would feel the same. And if you're wondering, I have paid 100% tithing, usually on gross, for over 40 years.
nettie Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Why not build a university and admit those who have no education or financial prospects? Wouldn't providing an education be a great use of $5 billion dollars?nettie
selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Why not build a university and admit those who have no education or financial prospects? Wouldn't providing an education be a great use of $5 billion dollars? The billions sent to the University of California aren't enough? Edited July 12, 2012 by selek1
Calm Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Why not build a university and admit those who have no education or financial prospects? Wouldn't providing an education be a great use of $5 billion dollars?nettiePerpetual Education Fund
Calm Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Hey ya'll, I was only responding when I read Storm Rider's comment above when he said there is little waste in the organization. It made me think about the Christmas set that cost over 100 grand. And I ask you... does the church need to be so extravagant? Yes, I'm one of those that think we might be able to save alot of people in other countries with that kind of money. I want my tithing to go somewhere like that. I think the Savior would feel the same. And if you're wondering, I have paid 100% tithing, usually on gross, for over 40 years.It is not as if the $100,000 was simply thrown on the fire and burned. There is a reason why it cost that much. It was a benefit to those who were employed to build it as well as those who enjoyed the program itself, both the participants and the watchers. It is a wonderful thing to be able to participate in something surrounded by beauty.
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Keep throwing them out there folks and we will keep hitting them out of the park.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 ... And if you're wondering, I have paid 100% tithing, usually on gross, for over 40 years.A hundred percent! Wow! I'm ashamed to admit, I only pay a measly ten percent. I think it's great that you're so committed and all but ... what do you live on? (Sorry; couldn't resist!) 1
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 News flash- THEY DO.Less than one-tenth of one percent of the Church's holdings are exempted from property taxes. The Church pays the appropriate taxes on all the rest.The Church's for-profit arms all pay their local state, and Federal taxes as required by law.The Church pays the appropriate taxes on the profits from it's for-profit enterprises.How do you know that is true (the less than one-tenth of one percent part). Can you provide a reference? I'm thrilled if that is true. I'm happy to exempt temples and chapels from property taxes as long as ranches, the church office building, and other entities are paying their property tax
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Especially when Caesar Obama's ventures are controlled by exactly the same sort of blind trust as are Romney's.In point of fact, that arrangement is required by Federal law.The double standard is simply staggering.When "the beautiful people" do something it's either :business as usual" or "just the way things are done".When Mormons do the same thing, it's "sinister", "nefarious", and "shady".no comment on Romney's double standard on blind trusts?
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Perpetual Education Fundis it really charity if we expect them to pay it back?
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Keep throwing them out there folks and we will keep hitting them out of the park.really? I think you might be over estimating your arguments
selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) How do you know that is true (the less than one-tenth of one percent part). Can you provide a reference? I'm thrilled if that is true. I'm happy to exempt temples and chapels from property taxes as long as ranches, the church office building, and other entities are paying their property tax I already showed my math above.Considering the following:1) that the IRS has been stepping up enforcement activities2) the incessant drumbeat of ignorant and malicious rumor mongering vis-a-vis the Church's finances and3) the utter lack of prosecutions, complaints, or even credible allegations of such,one can logically conclude that the Church and its subsidiary organizations appear to be in complete compliance with their legal tax obligations.In other words, unless you can provide clear evidence that the Church or its subsidiaries are in violation of the law, it is safe to assume they are not. Edited July 12, 2012 by selek1
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 really? I think you might be over estimating your argumentsNah. Most of the objections are asked and answered. Ex. we pay taxes on for profit activities and properties. Some actual research and a little less conspiracy thinking would help. The interwebz are really useful for finding information. 1
selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 no comment on Romney's double standard on blind trusts?Asked and answered in Post #68.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Nah. Most of the objections are asked and answered. Ex. we pay taxes on for profit activities and properties. Some actual research and a little less conspiracy thinking would help. The interwebz are really useful for finding information.I don't care about the distinction between for-profit and non-profit. If I had my way only temples and chapels would be exempt from property tax.
selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Some actual research and a little less conspiracy thinking would help. Amen and amen,Of course facts and reason aren't as much fun as trolling and blind demagoguery, 1
KevinG Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I don't care about the distinction between for-profit and non-profit. If I had my way only temples and chapels would be exempt from property tax.So the welfare canneries should be taxed?Or the church office building?Or the Tabernacle?What church properties that aren't chapels or temples are you referring to being taxed?
selek1 Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I don't care about the distinction between for-profit and non-profit. If I had my way only temples and chapels would be exempt from property tax.Can we assume, then, that you would like to see the DNC, PETA, the NEA, the Teamsters taxed at the full corporate rate as well?
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 I already showed my math above.Considering the following:1) that the IRS has been stepping up enforcement activities2) the incessant drumbeat of ignorant and malicious rumor mongering vis-a-vis the Church's finances and3) the utter lack of prosecutions, complaints, or even credible allegations of such,one can logically conclude that the Church and its subsidiary organizations appear to be in complete compliance with their legal tax obligations.In other words, unless you can provide clear evidence that the Church or its subsidiaries are in violation of the law, it is safe to assume they are not.I never said they weren't in compliance. My opinion is that the law should change.Also, unless you can provide a legitimate source for your 1/10th of percent I'm going to assume you are making stuff up. We don't know enough about church finances to make that calculation.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Asked and answered in Post #68.It may be required by law but that doesn't take away Romney's double standard. He is using the defence he once criticized.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Can we assume, then, that you would like to see the DNC, PETA, the NEA, the Teamsters taxed at the full corporate rate as well?I would like to see them pay property taxes yes.
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 Yeah Selek prove the negative! Yeah Selek, prove the very specific claim you made
sjdawg Posted July 12, 2012 Posted July 12, 2012 So the welfare canneries should be taxed?Or the church office building?Or the Tabernacle?What church properties that aren't chapels or temples are you referring to being taxed?Yes, I think canneries, and the church office building should be taxed. I don't think the tabernacle should be as I would think that falls under places of worship.
Recommended Posts