Public financial benefits should imply public financial disclosure for non-profit entities. Agree or disagree?

[Five Solas]

Non-profit entities including churches get to use public services (e.g., roads, police, fire protection) without fully paying for them (because they pay less taxes, generally speaking).  That means they enjoy a benefit at the general public’s expense. 

Since they receive a public financial benefit, do they not have some ethical (if not legal) obligation to disclose something about themselves back to the public?  It could look something like this (published by my church, jump to page 23 for the financial disclosures): http://www.downtowncornerstone.org/prospectus

In the UK, such disclosure is a legal requirement.  The LDS Church must disclose (perhaps to the chagrin of some LDS).  I suspect eventually that will be the case in the US.  But between here and there, don’t you think such information should be disclosed voluntarily? 

For the sake of this poll, let’s say “basic financial information” consists of two numbers: Gross Revenue and Gross Assets.  No individual salary information, nothing that would compromise personal privacy—just two numbers, that’s it.

If not, why not?

--Erik

PS.  And please don’t say “because the critics will never be satisfied”—that’s a pretty lame excuse and in any event, I doubt critics are the ones driving policy in the CoB.  Slippery-slope arguments are pretty lame too. 

;0)

_________________________________________________________

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed,
and nothing concealed that will not be known
or brought out into the open.

--Luke 8:17

[The Nehor]

No, I do not see an ethical obligation.

I could not answer your poll truthfully as none of the options were “This poll is stupid”. Sorry.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Non-profit entities including churches get to use public services (e.g., roads, police, fire protection) without fully paying for them (because they pay less taxes, generally speaking).  That means they enjoy a benefit at the general public’s expense. 

Since they receive a public financial benefit, do they not have some ethical (if not legal) obligation to disclose something about themselves back to the public?  It could look something like this (published by my church, jump to page 23 for the financial disclosures): http://www.downtowncornerstone.org/prospectus

In the UK, such disclosure is a legal requirement.  The LDS Church must disclose (perhaps to the chagrin of some LDS).  I suspect eventually that will be the case in the US.  But between here and there, don’t you think such information should be disclosed voluntarily? 

For the sake of this poll, let’s say “basic financial information” consists of two numbers: Gross Revenue and Gross Assets.  No individual salary information, nothing that would compromise personal privacy—just two numbers, that’s it.

If not, why not?

--Erik

PS.  And please don’t say “because the critics will never be satisfied”—that’s a pretty lame excuse and in any event, I doubt critics are the ones driving policy in the CoB.  Slippery-slope arguments are pretty lame too. 

;0)

_________________________________________________________

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed,
and nothing concealed that will not be known
or brought out into the open.

--Luke 8:17

I've been arguing for this in another thread, and yes I would support this kind of a change and I think they have an obligation to this on basic moral grounds.  I also think that the basic financial information is a good starting point, but I think this should be expanded depending on the size of the institution, and greater disclosures ought to be required for larger institutions.  

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Non-profit entities including churches get to use public services (e.g., roads, police, fire protection) without fully paying for them (because they pay less taxes, generally speaking).  That means they enjoy a benefit at the general public’s expense. 

The same can be said for anyone (individuals or entities) that claim any deduction in their taxes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The same can be said for anyone (individuals or entities) that claim any deduction in their taxes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

A very sneaky roundabout way to force Trump to share his tax forms?

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A very sneaky roundabout way to force Trump to share his tax forms?

Nah.  But the "I should get to intrude into the financial affairs of private individuals and groups, particularly religious groups I personally dislike, because in some absurdly abstract way they are not 'paying their fair share' of taxes"-style justification is fairly lame.  There is no limiting principle here.  People like Erik could use this justification as a pretext against virtually any individual or group who pays taxes and claims any nonzero amount of deductions.

And to be clear, this is nothing but a pretext.  A targeted pretext.  Against an unpopular (in some quarters) religious group.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2017 by smac97

[ksfisher]

44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I've been arguing for this in another thread, and yes I would support this kind of a change and I think they have an obligation to this on basic moral grounds.  I also think that the basic financial information is a good starting point, but I think this should be expanded depending on the size of the institution, and greater disclosures ought to be required for larger institutions.  

So it's immoral for a private organization to keep it's finances private?  I'm not sure I understand that.

Your suggestion would also mean more government regulation and interference in the affairs of private organizations. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

“because the critics will never be satisfied”

I’m LDS and I think non-profit entities including the LDS Church have an ethical obligation to disclose SOME basic financial information in compliance with the constitutional laws of the respective governments within which they are incorporated and operate.

Americans enjoy special constitutional protection for freedom of religion so they have the advantage for non-profit religious organizations to share according to their religious convictions and strategic priorities that uphold and perpetuate those convictions. This protection is well worth the general public’s expense; in a sense and on principle, the public is getting far more than what it pays for.

In the US, the separation of church and state is strongly related to religious freedom as well in that there is no state church that has special protections, rights and considerations over other churches.

A non-profit religious organization should be able to voluntary share whatever it wants, but in most free societies, imposing one’s druthers upon it would be a violation of the two principles mentioned above.

Edited October 19, 2017 by CV75

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Your suggestion would also mean more government regulation and interference in the affairs of private organizations. 

Which, I think, is the underlying objective of critics who are calling for such measures against the LDS Church.

I'm even willing to go a bit further and speculate that the endgame is not merely "more government regulation and interference."  Rather, the ultimate objective is to use those means to not only regulate and interfere with, but to punish the LDS Church because of its exercise of its constitutional rights (to speak, to vote, to exist).

By way of evidence, I offer Fred Karger as Exibit A.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2017 by smac97

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which, I think, is the underlying objective of critics who are calling for such measures against the LDS Church.

I'm even willing to go a bit further and speculate that the endgame is not merely "more government regulation and interference."  Rather, the ultimate objective is to use those means to not only regulate and interfere with, but to punish the LDS Church because of its exercise of its constitutional rights (to speak, to vote, to exist).

By way of evidence, I offer Fred Karger as Exibit A.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm reminded of this passage from the Book of Mormon

34 And after he was slain I saw the multitudes of the earth, that they were gathered together to fight against the apostles of the Lamb; for thus were the twelve called by the angel of the Lord.

35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

(1 Nephi 11)

 

[RevTestament]

I’m LDS and I think non-profit entities including the LDS Church have an ethical obligation to disclose basic financial information 

- to the sources of those finances if those sources so choose.

So yes, if BYU receives federal dollars and the feds want financial disclosure, then BYU is so obligated. Arguing that use of city or state roads by those who are Already paying for them through their private taxes is some kind of additional benefit to non-profits by which they should be forced to disclose to those private individuals makes no sense. If those individuals wish that entity to disclose, they can make it an obligation. LDS I imagine could vote on it if they want to know where their tithe dollars are going. Governments are and should stay out of the loop.... iirc there is something in the constitution about feds not passing any laws governing religions.

[Jane_Doe]

Providing a public service == the public has a right to dig through every inch of your finances?    NO!

For all those Americans complaining about a non-profit not having transparent books, may I suggest that you're missing complaining about the real elephant in the room (the lack of transparency in US government finances).  

[Stargazer]

As a libertarian, I find it disgusting that I have to disclose my financial information to the US government.  Who the hell do they think they are, anyway?

Yes, yes, I know who they are. Don't get into a lather, I don't want to fight about taxation. I just wanted to register my opinion on the matter.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Non-profit entities including churches get to use public services (e.g., roads, police, fire protection) without fully paying for them (because they pay less taxes, generally speaking).  That means they enjoy a benefit at the general public’s expense. 

Since they receive a public financial benefit, do they not have some ethical (if not legal) obligation to disclose something about themselves back to the public?  It could look something like this (published by my church, jump to page 23 for the financial disclosures): http://www.downtowncornerstone.org/prospectus

In the UK, such disclosure is a legal requirement.  The LDS Church must disclose (perhaps to the chagrin of some LDS).  I suspect eventually that will be the case in the US.  But between here and there, don’t you think such information should be disclosed voluntarily? 

For the sake of this poll, let’s say “basic financial information” consists of two numbers: Gross Revenue and Gross Assets.  No individual salary information, nothing that would compromise personal privacy—just two numbers, that’s it.

If not, why not?

--Erik

I certainly tire of people asserting an "ethical" obligation against the Church, or anybody.  Where may I read some sort of "ethical" restraint which governs U.S. Churches?  I look to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids such restraints, and to the Bible, which says nothing about financial disclosure and indeed, with the story of Anna and her husband in Acts, suggests that there is no such rule.

And, certainly, there is no "law."   Otherwise we'd see it.

It is certainly that case that we all, including churches, enjoy the benefits of roads, the military and otherwise.  But Congress does not require some people to pay taxes.   The Church certainly pays taxes on earned income, but I think it offensive to think the Church ought to pay taxes on charitable donations and bequests.  Do you consider charitable donations and bequests part of "Gross Revenue."  The IRS Code does not.   If I want to give $1000 to the Red Cross, I would be much less inclined to do so knowing it would be taxed at a marginal rate of 35%.  Congress has decided there are marked benefits in trying to get charities and churches to carry the load of overall welfare support.

Really, if you're a critic of the Church and don't pay tithing, you have no standing to complain about the Church's disclosures or lack thereof.  If you do pay tithing, you can go to your bishop and ask him to make arrangements to meet with church auditors and accountants to learn more.  As I have indicated on another post, such a request was granted for a friend of mine and he came away satisfied.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[rpn]

I think churches that collect faithful members' donations have an ethical and moral obligation to honor that sacrifice by spending those funds the way they believe fits God's wishes.     To require that they pay for tax exemptions by requiring public disclosure interferes with the US Constitution First Amendment that prohibits laws that either establish religion or interfere with it.   And that is because the US founding fathers knew that God is who established unalienable rights for humans, and law in the USS is about protecting and furthering those unalienable rights, which means protecting religious faith as fundamental to freedom.

In the US in particularly recent years, we are pretty easy to demand from others personal information that they'd rather not share and have no legal obligation to share.  We say it is because we are entitled to know everything because they are in the public eye, as though our public servants must give up all their rights as part of that service.   We follow celebrities to the point that they get killed or humiliated or bullied.    None of this is part of fair disclosure but an insatiable desire for gossip and comparing people.    

I don't think that just because we live in a world without much privacy, we are benefitted in any way by demanding personal disclosure in the name of public good.   None of this is really the public good.   It is pure entitlement.

(NOTE, I am not talking about what govermentd does and is ---- all of that absolutely needs to be transparent to the citizens.)

[mnn727]

6 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Non-profit entities including churches get to use public services (e.g., roads, police, fire protection) without fully paying for them (because they pay less taxes, generally speaking).  That means they enjoy a benefit at the general public’s expense. 

 

If they paid taxes then the people that donate to them already pay taxes so you'd be double taxing the same money, likewise, once the money is given its no longer your money. 

I trust my Church leaders to spend the money freely given and believe the audit reports every year. I've seen at a Ward and Stake level how they treat the moneys and they are extremely tight about spending.

Edited October 19, 2017 by mnn727

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Providing a public service == the public has a right to dig through every inch of your finances?    NO!

For all those Americans complaining about a non-profit not having transparent books, may I suggest that you're missing complaining about the real elephant in the room (the lack of transparency in US government finances).  

The Federal Budget, with limited black operations, is open to anyone wanting to see it.

[Meerkat]

Why public disclosure?  If they comply with the tax code with private audited disclosure, which they do every year, what's the problem?  Your question strikes me as a political witch hunt, no offense intended.  Society benefits from non profits.  They are accountable to the people through the taxing authority.  We saw what happened to conservative groups seeking tax exempt status.  IRS Director Lois Lerner pled the 5th amendment twice over allegations that the IRS had “targeted conservative nonprofit groups for additional scrutiny of their applications for tax-exempt status.”  She was finally removed, with pay.   I'm not saying the Church is conservative.  It"s a mixed bag, as I see it.  When private information gets into the hands of people with an agenda, rights are trampled. We saw what happened to Prop. 8 contributors when their contributions were illegally revealed.  Bad people used private information to do criminal things.  I say leave it alone.   The Church is already accountable to the IRS.  Move on to something productive like tax reform, tax simplification, etc. and let currently law abiding citizens and organizations alone.

[The Nehor]

If you want more rigorous screening of non-profit organizations support increased funding of the IRS. In addition to catching organizations abusing non-profit status multiple studies show that funding the IRS makes more money for the government than the increase in funding cost and it is a net profit. The only losers in this scenario are tax cheats who will start getting caught. Such a simple solution to so many budget woes that would not require raising taxes or curtailing spending. Yet no one supports the idea. A suspicious person would wonder why.......

[Stargazer]

17 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Federal Budget, with limited black operations, is open to anyone wanting to see it.

And they're not hiding it from us, either!

https://www.usa.gov/budget

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 10/19/2017 at 11:30 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Providing a public service == the public has a right to dig through every inch of your finances?    NO!

For all those Americans complaining about a non-profit not having transparent books, may I suggest that you're missing complaining about the real elephant in the room (the lack of transparency in US government finances).  

For 2017, I suggest you have a look at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2017-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2017-BUD.pdf

For 2018 there's this: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/budget.pdf

There's plenty of transparency, actually. The problem is complexity. And size.  Even clear glass, when sufficiently thick, appears murky.

[Freedom]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:05 AM, RevTestament said:

I’m LDS and I think non-profit entities including the LDS Church have an ethical obligation to disclose basic financial information 

- to the sources of those finances if those sources so choose.

 

What is the source of this ethic? You are suggesting that there is a predetermined standard that the church is somehow compelled to follow but is not. Is there some link you could provide?

[Freedom]

17 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The Federal Budget, with limited black operations, is open to anyone wanting to see it.

Just to be devils advocate, there is a significant difference between a budget and an expense ledger. 

[Amulek]

On 10/19/2017 at 10:25 AM, Five Solas said:

Non-profit entities including churches get to use public services (e.g., roads, police, fire protection) without fully paying for them (because they pay less taxes, generally speaking).  That means they enjoy a benefit at the general public’s expense. 

As has been pointed out by others, churches are made up of members of the general public (i.e., taxpayers) who are paying for all of those public services. 

And let's not pretend that this is a one-way street either. Churches minister to the poor and needy in their area; they encourage parishioners to be good citizens and to be active in their community which, in turn, results in other social benefits like reduced crime. 

There are four units that meet in my building (in Texas), and as the finance clerk I can say with confidence that our unit alone has outlaid more cash this year to provide aid for people in our community than what our city would be able to collect from us in taxes on our property. And that's not even counting all of the other work we do (e.g., community service programs, ESL classes, and the thousands and thousands of man-hours which we contributed to hurricane relief just recently). Churches are usually net-givers in this equation - not takers.

Plus, as a matter of first principles, let's not forget that our country was founded on the notion of separation of church and state. Making churches and other religious organizations tax exempt is the cleanest way to accomplish that. Just look at how political parties use the tax code to favor certain groups over others. Removing the ability to tax churches helps remove the temptation for bureaucrats to prop up churches they like and punish the ones they don't. 

 

Quote

Since they receive a public financial benefit, do they not have some ethical (if not legal) obligation to disclose something about themselves back to the public? 

We do disclose information about ourselves to the public, and the institution which we (the public) have established to review and monitor this kind of information is called the IRS. 

Why is that not good enough? 

 

Quote

For the sake of this poll, let’s say “basic financial information” consists of two numbers: Gross Revenue and Gross Assets.  No individual salary information, nothing that would compromise personal privacy—just two numbers, that’s it.

If not, why not?

Mostly because I haven't ever been presented with a compelling argument for why someone else really needs to have that information. In the other thread somebody linked to a rather humorous post by an accountant which went into a bit of detail about why these sorts of reporting requirements are essentially meaningless. There won't be enough detail for you to know anything useful, and if there isn't anything useful to be gained, then why on earth should we make people jump through the hoops of creating it in the first place?

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Amulek
Missing word

[Amulek]

On 10/19/2017 at 11:46 AM, smac97 said:

I'm even willing to go a bit further and speculate that the endgame is not merely "more government regulation and interference."  Rather, the ultimate objective is to use those means to not only regulate and interfere with, but to punish the LDS Church because of its exercise of its constitutional rights (to speak, to vote, to exist).

By way of evidence, I offer Fred Karger as Exibit A.

I think that's probably right. People are already calling for churches and other religious organizations to be taxed and regulated now. It's hard not to take them at their word.