60 Minutes Australia: "Cooking the Book of Mormon"

[Amulek]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

However, giving favorable tax treatment to a group because they are a religion is problematic, at best.

I disagree. Not taxing churches because they are a religion is one of the best ways to uphold the separation of church and state embodied by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

 

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. Not taxing churches because they are a religion is one of the best ways to uphold the separation of church and state embodied by the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

 

Not true for two points. First, giving tax breaks to religion is the government subsidizing religion. Second, giving "churches" these tax breaks forces the government to be in the business of deciding what is and is not a "church." How can there be a separation of church and state if the government gets to decide what a "church" is?

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Not true for two points. First, giving tax breaks to religion is the government subsidizing religion. Second, giving "churches" these tax breaks forces the government to be in the business of deciding what is and is not a "church." How can there be a separation of church and state if the government gets to decide what a "church" is?

As the Supreme Court has held, "[t]he tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

And I think that's a pretty salient point. If the administrative task of recognizing churches for the purposes of tax law threatens the separation of church and state in your mind, then certainly you must be opposed to the government's active involvement in taxing them directly. Right? 

 

[Analytics]

52 minutes ago, Amulek said:

As the Supreme Court has held, "[t]he tax exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, far less than taxation of churches would entail, and it restricts the fiscal relationship between them, thus tending to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

And I think that's a pretty salient point. If the administrative task of recognizing churches for the purposes of tax law threatens the separation of church and state in your mind, then certainly you must be opposed to the government's active involvement in taxing them directly. Right? 

 

I disagree with the Court's decision. It isn't about minimizing the "involvement between church and state," it is about removing the subsidies that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions a year.

On your second point, it isn't merely an "administrative task." It is the government actively deciding which organizations are "real" (read government-approved) churches that deserve government subsidy, and which ones are not.

I don't believe churches deserve favored status in our society--just as you and I don't have some imagined right to be free of "government involvement" and are subject to taxation, churches have no such right, either.

[helix]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The one that says, "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things"?

That's the neat part, it's not your job to tell a religion how they should run their finances according to their beliefs.

Quote

However, giving favorable tax treatment to a group because they are a religion is problematic, at best.

Nah, we're just following the same rules that other non-profits follow. 

Tell me, when you fill out your taxes, and the tax preparer says "You can save more money if you structure your taxes this way".  How many of you respond with "I want to be ethical and pay more taxes instead, the government needs my money, please don't use that tax approach you suggested."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Rather, it has the goal of perpetually keeping expenses down to about 85% of tithing revenue, and investing the rest in for-profit businesses

As a side note, that 85% figure probably higher, probably into the 90% range.   Nobody knows the exact income figure.  Your 85% suggests $1 billion savings and $7 total income.  The $7 billion is making the rounds because one critic said he remembers hearing someone else guess that figure, and that other person had no access to the actual data.  And now the $7 billion guess which you cited has somehow become fact.  But extrapolating from last known income, as a recent Interpreter Foundation article did, suggests church income is much more than that.

Quote

My second point is that the reserve has blasted past 7 years of expenses and is now somewhere near 15-20 years of expenses.

You don't know number either.

Consider if the church is heading toward becoming fully sustainable via a perpetual fund.  Perhaps the church looks at long term demographics and sees that poorer areas will grow dramatically and richer areas will shrink, but they want to keep the same level of services.  A perpetual fund makes sense.  Perpetual funds have been done or are being attempted by many other larger groups  (numerous universities with their $10+ billion funds, Utah's education fund, Finland's $1.1 trillion perpetual fund for a targeted group  much smaller than this church, etc.)  Suppose the church has about $15 billion in yearly expenses.  How large of a fund do you need to give you a safe perpetual fund if your expenses are $15 billion?  It would require more money than the church currently has.

Quote

if Pharaoh starved his own people now because he wanted to save up food for himself for a hypothetical 20-year famine sometime in the distant future then yes, that would be wrong.

  ????   How many members is the church starving right now!?

Quote

it should be required to pay taxes on its income, just like any other hedge fund. 

The church pays taxes on for-profit businesses.  The church doesn't pay taxes on non-profit businesses.  No problem here.  No need to tax a religion just for the sake of sticking it to a religion. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by helix

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, helix said:

That's the neat part, it's not your job to tell a religion how they should run their finances according to their beliefs.

Nah, we're just following the same rules that other non-profits follow. 

Tell me, when you fill out your taxes, and the tax preparer says "You can save more money if you structure your taxes this way".  How many of you respond with "I want to be ethical and pay more taxes instead, the government needs my money, please don't use that tax approach you suggested."

As a side note, that 85% figure probably higher, probably into the 90% range.   Nobody knows the exact income figure.  The $7 billion is making the rounds because one critic said he remembers hearing someone else guess that figure, and that other person had no access to the actual data.  And now the $7 billion guess which you cited has somehow become fact.  But extrapolating from last known income, as a recent Interpreter Foundation article did, suggests church income is much more than that.

You don't know number either.

Consider if the church is heading toward becoming fully sustainable via a perpetual fund.  Perhaps the church looks at long term demographics and sees that poorer areas will grow dramatically and richer areas will shrink, but they want to keep the same level of services.  A perpetual fund makes sense.  Perpetual funds have been done or are being attempted by many other larger groups  (numerous universities with their $10+ billion funds, Utah's education fund, Finland's $1.1 trillion pension fund for a population much smaller than this church.)  Suppose the church has about $15 billion in yearly expenses.  How large of a fund do you need to give you a safe perpetual fund if your expenses are $15 billion?  It would require more money than the church currently has.

  ????   How many members is the church starving right now!?

The church pays taxes on for-profit businesses.  The church doesn't pay taxes on non-profit businesses.  No problem here.  No need to tax a religion just for the sake of sticking it to a religion. 

Finally someone who understands the structure of charitable giving taxation!

[helix]

37 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I disagree with the Court's decision.

It was an 8-1 decision.  You're in the 1 camp.  We're in the 8 camp. 

[Analytics]

58 minutes ago, helix said:

Tell me, when you fill out your taxes, and the tax preparer says "You can save more money if you structure your taxes this way".  How many of you respond with "I want to be ethical and pay more taxes instead, the government needs my money, please don't use that tax approach you suggested."

Since you asked, an advisor did tell me that my company qualified for one of Donald Trump's small business PPP "loans," where we wouldn't have to pay the loan back if we didn't reduce payroll over the next year or two. It would have legally put tens of thousands of dollars in our pocket from the government. We decided not to do it because, wait for it, it didn't seem ethical.

58 minutes ago, helix said:

Consider if the church is heading toward becoming fully sustainable via a perpetual fund.

I have a feeling it's already there. But in any case, what are you thinking? That they are going to revoke the law of tithing because they are suddenly going to admit they don't need the money? 

58 minutes ago, helix said:

As a side note, that 85% figure probably higher, probably into the 90% range.   Nobody knows the exact income figure.  Your 85% suggests $1 billion savings and $7 total income.  The $7 billion is making the rounds because one critic said he remembers hearing someone else guess that figure, and that other person had no access to the actual data.  And now the $7 billion guess which you cited has somehow become fact.  But extrapolating from last known income, as a recent Interpreter Foundation article did, suggests church income is much more than that.

"A recent Interpreter Foundation article"? Are you sure you aren't thinking of D. Michael Quinn's book Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power? The number I'm using is based on recent, first-hand knowledge that David Nielsen had from his experience working at EPA. Quinn's extrapolations are laughable--he looked at $78.1 million in 1960 and decided that tithing revenue grows by 12.9% per year, ad infinitum. Do you agree with Quinn that even though the membership increases by about 3% per year, tithing revenue increases by 12.9%? 

58 minutes ago, helix said:

Perhaps the church looks at long term demographics and sees that poorer areas will grow dramatically and richer areas will shrink, but they want to keep the same level of services...

The portfolio managers at EPA repeatedly asked the Presiding Bishopric what the money was for. They needed this information to be able to know how to invest it. The Presiding Bishopric always responded that they didn't know. That is why they invented the cynical joke that they were saving the money for the Second Coming.

58 minutes ago, helix said:

Perpetual funds have been done or are being attempted by many other larger groups  (numerous universities with their $10+ billion funds, Utah's education fund, Finland's $1.1 trillion perpetual fund for a targeted group  much smaller than this church, etc.)  Suppose the church has about $15 billion in yearly expenses.  How large of a fund do you need to give you a safe perpetual fund if your expenses are $15 billion?  It would require more money than the church currently has.

Could you explain what you mean by "perpetual fund" is in this context?

58 minutes ago, helix said:

  ????   How many members is the church starving right now!?

I thought we were talking about a hypothetical question involving a character from fiction.

58 minutes ago, helix said:

The church pays taxes on for-profit businesses.  The church doesn't pay taxes on non-profit businesses.  No problem here. 

There is a problem there, because it claims that EPA is a public charity and is an integrated auxiliary of the Church. I don't think that is true. I think it is actually a private foundation and ought to be taxed as such.

58 minutes ago, helix said:

No need to tax a religion just for the sake of sticking it to a religion. 

It isn't about sticking it to religion. It is about ceasing the government's practice of unconstitutionally subsidizing organizations based on whether the IRS decides they are churches "for federal tax purposes."

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, helix said:

It was an 8-1 decision.  You're in the 1 camp.  We're in the 8 camp. 

Yes. That is the same court that decided 7-2 against Dred Scott. My view isn't popular, but it is right.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I disagree with the Court's decision.

As you like. 

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It isn't about minimizing the "involvement between church and state," it is about removing the subsidies that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions a year.

Look, unless we turn churches into thousands (millions?) of little embassies, separate and independent of US control, there is always going to be some amount of involvement between church and state. It's unavoidable. And the deminimis level of involvement which goes into identifying churches for administrative purposes pales in comparison to the intrusiveness which would be caused by direct taxation.

Also, I disagree with your characterization of tax exemption as being a subsidy. Perhaps in a purely economic sense one can talk about it that way, but for purposes of tax law that isn't what is going on. 

Just like with other charities, to the extent that churches receive donations, those are considered nontaxable gifts under longstanding IRS rules (see, e.g., Section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code). And since charities are prohibited from distributing profits to their members, taxing those contributions would equate to double taxation - hardly the sort of thing that seems fair for a country committed to the separation of church and state.

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

On your second point, it isn't merely an "administrative task." It is the government actively deciding which organizations are "real" (read government-approved) churches that deserve government subsidy, and which ones are not.

If by "actively deciding" you mean, taking a cursory look over their filings and making a determination about whether or not the organization in question really looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc., then...okay. I'm not sure what the problem with that is though. Are you concerned that there are groups out there purporting to be churches which are not recognized as such by the government for tax purposes? Can you name some?

 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don't believe churches deserve favored status in our society--just as you and I don't have some imagined right to be free of "government involvement" and are subject to taxation, churches have no such right, either.

Believe what you like. I don't see this ever becoming a mainstream position within my lifetime. 

 

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes. That is the same court that decided 7-2 against Dred Scott. My view isn't popular, but it is right.

I think you meant, "my view isn't popular, but it is mine". 

Because just declaring yourself "right" doesn't actually mean anything.  Helix could easily do the same and it would be equally valid.

Edited November 11, 2022 by bluebell

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And the deminimis level of involvement which goes into identifying churches for administrative purposes pales in comparison to the intrusiveness which would be caused by direct taxation.

Treating all organizations the same, whether they are a "church" or not isn't a form of intrusiveness.

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Also, I disagree with your characterization of tax exemption as being a subsidy. Perhaps in a purely economic sense one can talk about it that way, but for purposes of tax law that isn't what is going on. 

Having your tax bill lowered through a tax exemption has an equivalent effect on your bottom line as being paid a check. The mechanics are different. The dollars-and-cents effect on all parties is identical. Claiming that a direct subsidy is bad but a tax break is acceptable is semantics.

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Just like with other charities, to the extent that churches receive donations, those are considered nontaxable gifts under longstanding IRS rules (see, e.g., Section 102 of the Internal Revenue Code). And since charities are prohibited from distributing profits to their members, taxing those contributions would equate to double taxation - hardly the sort of thing that seems fair for a country committed to the separation of church and state.

Jon Huntsman Sr. said, "People who put money in the church basket and people who go to church and pay the pastor: that isn’t real philanthropy, that’s just like you belong to a country club." He's exactly right, and Australia understands this. If a charity uses its resources to benefit society, then a rational argument can be made for the government to subsidize it. An organization being a "church" is too low of a bar to merit such subsidization.   

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If by "actively deciding" you mean, taking a cursory look over their filings and making a determination about whether or not the organization in question really looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc., then...okay. I'm not sure what the problem with that is though. Are you concerned that there are groups out there purporting to be churches which are not recognized as such by the government for tax purposes? Can you name some?

There are all sorts of cases about whether or not a group is a "Church" and therefore merits being subsidized by the government. For example, see When is a ‘church’ not really a church? Only when defined by the IRS. 

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Believe what you like. I don't see this ever becoming a mainstream position within my lifetime. 

I don't either. But I'm still right.

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Because just declaring yourself "right" doesn't actually mean anything.  Helix could easily do the same and it would be equally valid.

It was a statement of fact, not an actual argument. I've laid out my arguments on these points pretty succinctly. Just because it's popular for the government to subsidize IRS-preferred churches doesn't make it Constitutional.

[helix]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yes. That is the same court that decided 7-2 against Dred Scott. My view isn't popular, but it is right.

That's the 1857 court.  The 1969 court was the 8-1 decision.  Calling them the "same court" is disingenuous.  One court made a racist decision.  Another court ruling a full century later on a separation of church and state issue is an entirely different matter.

Hand-waving away the entire Supreme Court, as you have done, as a bunch of racists who make wrong rulings, and that you are the one who is the final arbiter of constitutional truth, is an awfully, awfully arrogant position.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But in any case, what are you thinking? That they are going to revoke the law of tithing because they are suddenly going to admit they don't need the money? 

I already gave one scenario: Years from now the church in poor areas has grown.  The church in places like Europe has shrunk.  The church starts drawing off of the fund to pay for it.

Eventually, the fund is perpetual.  Suppose it grows on average 5% a year.  The church on average draws 5% of it per year.  What a fantastic use of tithing money!

Another scenario is the church could change the definition of tithing as it should be applied for us today.  Instead of being straight income, it could go back to a different formula, perhaps like the formula used in 1830s: https://kutv.com/news/local/new-historical-information-reveals-original-meaning-of-lds-tithing

There could be other scenarios.  Perhaps the church wants to heavily expand BYU and make all tuition free.  Perhaps the church wants to subsidize families with children because birth rates have fallen below replacement values.  Who knows.  There could be dozens of scenarios I can't imagine.  It's not my business to demand the church provide a justification why.  The church has various ways it can use a large fund.  Just as many other respected institutions have a proportionally larger fund for a smaller group. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

"A recent Interpreter Foundation article"? Are you sure you aren't thinking of D. Michael Quinn's book 

I'm sure I am thinking correctly.  It's not from Quinn.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/through-a-glass-darkly-examining-church-finances/

Quoting from that paper: "If those lower rates of tithing receipts are accurate, they imply that tithing in 2010 may have been closer to $12 billion"

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The number I'm using is based on recent, first-hand knowledge that David Nielsen had from his experience working at EPA.

On one hand, you treat $7 billion income as fact, describing it as "recent, first-hand knowledge" from "experience working at the EPA".  On the other hand, you say the EPA knows so little that even the Presiding Bishopric doesn't know. 

What a contradiction!  You can't have everyone at the EPA not knowing anything while David knows it all.

The $7 billion guess comes from this statement on page 20 of Lars writing about David who recalls this:  "The COP is famously tight lipped about what its total tithes and donations are, but one EPA senior leader suspected in 2019 that they are $6–$7 billion annually with maybe $5–$6 billion in expenses."  That's it.  That's the entirety of his evidence.  Lars or David doesn't name who suspected this, or how it was heard, or how the leader arrived at that figure.  Lars gives a footnote for this statement, but the footnote is a rant, with no more evidence.  None of the PDF slides discuss anything which church income because EPA isn't told anything about church income. 

$7 billion is a second hand anonymous guess without any evidence or reasoning supplied.  It should be treated with skepticism, not as fact.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

because it claims that EPA is a public charity and is an integrated auxiliary of the Church. I don't think that is true. I think it is actually a private foundation and ought to be taxed as such.

Frankly, I don't care what you think.  What matters is what the law says and what courts say.  The church doesn't need to run its finances to please cranky folks from online peanut galleries.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

. It is about ceasing the government's practice of unconstitutionally subsidizing

As we've pointed out repeatedly, you aren't the law and you aren't the courts.  What the church is doing isn't isn't unconstitutional according to the courts, isn't illegal according to the law, and isn't immoral as it's a church using its own money according to the tenets of its own faith to prepare for the future.

Edited November 11, 2022 by helix

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It was a statement of fact, not an actual argument. I've laid out my arguments on these points pretty succinctly. Just because it's popular for the government to subsidize IRS-preferred churches doesn't make it Constitutional.

Just because you don’t agree doesn’t make it unconstitutional. Your statement of fact is an opinion and nothing more.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

42 minutes ago, helix said:

It's a church using its own money according to the tenets of its own faith to prepare for the future.

Not a happy prospect for those who want the Church to have no future … or at least not the one we believe it will have. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

Lars gives a footnote for this statement, but the footnote is a rant, with no more evidence. 

That paper was so frustrating. I found several footnotes documenting “facts” to be useless as they just referred back to guesses. 
 

Thank you for providing details showing why using it as evidence is highly problematic. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Calm

[Stormin' Mormon]

What would a tax-the-churches tax code look like anyways? What kinds of activities would be taxed and which would be exempt? What activities would earn a church tax credits and which would not? 

Most importantly, how do you craft a tax code for churches that doesn't have the government coercing favored beliefs and behaviors? Keeping in mind that that's exactly how the current tax code is already being used, what would prevent a government from using the same tool for the same purposes when it comes to religion?

I find it a little short-sighted to think that the thousands of pages in the current tax code are any kind of model for maintaining an appropriate separation between church and state.

Edited November 11, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Treating all organizations the same, whether they are a "church" or not isn't a form of intrusiveness.

If you were advocating for all organizations to be treated the same (i.e., no tax exemptions for any organization whatsoever) that would be one thing.

Only it doesn't sound like that's what you want. Because later you seem to intimate that you're okay with not taxing groups who use their resources to "benefit society." And since religion doesn't make the grade, the government ought to be free to double dip into those coffers. Sorry, but that's not okay with me.  

If the legislature - or the IRS or whoever - can give or withhold tax exemptions from nonprofit organizations on the basis of its interpretation of what "benefit[s] society," then we are all in trouble.

 

Quote

Having your tax bill lowered through a tax exemption has an equivalent effect on your bottom line as being paid a check. The mechanics are different. The dollars-and-cents effect on all parties is identical. Claiming that a direct subsidy is bad but a tax break is acceptable is semantics.

Good thing none of that really matters because churches (like other charities and non-profits) generally have no net income and, as such, are not subject to taxation in the first place. 

 

Quote

Jon Huntsman Sr. said, "People who put money in the church basket and people who go to church and pay the pastor: that isn’t real philanthropy, that’s just like you belong to a country club." He's exactly right, and Australia understands this.

Just like a country club? Exactly right you say? Hmm...here's a simple thought experiment for you: Imagine for a moment that you are a member of both a church and a country club. You decide to stop paying "dues" to each. I'll give you three guesses as to which building is going to let you in come Sunday. 

 

Quote

I don't either. But I'm still right.

No, I'm right. Glad we finally got that settled.  

 

[Amulek]

41 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What would a tax-the-churches tax code look like anyways?

It probably wouldn't matter because once the restrictions against political participation vanish, religionists throughout the country would begin to organize and turn our country into a giant balkanized theocracy. /shudder

 

[Tacenda]

Interesting side by side of pros and cons of church tax exemptions courtesy of google.

https://churchesandtaxes.procon.org/

[PeaceKeeper]

I really can't believe people are mad about the Church being responsible with the Lord's money and demanding that they give it over to the government who have proven to be incompetent with the People's money.

Church with almost 17 million members giving private donations: $100 Billion + in savings

US Government with about 333 million citizens with forced taxes: -$31 Trillion + debt (in national public debt outstanding which represents the face amount or principal amount of marketable and non-marketable securities currently outstanding; U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (usdebtclock.org)

Australia with about 25 million citizens with forced taxes: -$779 Billion + debt (Australia’s national debt is counted as the debts of the government of the Commonwealth of Australia. The debts of Australia’s states are not included. The account of debts is limited to loans and financial instruments undertaken by the government. Read more at: https://commodity.com/data/australia/debt-clock/)

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

If you were advocating for all organizations to be treated the same (i.e., no tax exemptions for any organization whatsoever) that would be one thing.

Only it doesn't sound like that's what you want. Because later you seem to intimate that you're okay with not taxing groups who use their resources to "benefit society." And since religion doesn't make the grade, the government ought to be free to double dip into those coffers. Sorry, but that's not okay with me.  

I don't understand this "double dipping" you are talking about. Is the government "double dipping" by taxing the investment income of private foundations that hoard their money?

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

If the legislature - or the IRS or whoever - can give or withhold tax exemptions from nonprofit organizations on the basis of its interpretation of what "benefit[s] society," then we are all in trouble.

Sorry to break it to you, but this is already the case. America seems to be addicted to using tax law to incentivize behavior that "benefits society." The government thinks solar panels "benefit society," so I get a tax break if I install them on my roof. If I donate money to the local food bank that's tax deductible because that "benefits society." If I donate to the opera so snobs can gather and feel cultured, that is tax deductible too because it "benefits society." All of these perks for behavior the government thinks "benefit society" adds up to over a trillion dollars a year, which increases the tax burden on everybody else. 

Personally, I'd be in favor of closing all of these loopholes, thereby lowering the tax rates of everybody, atheist and devout religionist alike. But regardless, the fact remains that the government giving huge subsidies and favored treatment to the organizations that meet the IRS's definition of "church" is a clear violation of the establishment clause. 

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

Good thing none of that really matters because churches (like other charities and non-profits) generally have no net income and, as such, are not subject to taxation in the first place. 

That's true for most churches and charities. There are some, however, like the self-declared "public charity" Ensign Peak Advisors, which annually receives about a billion dollars in tax-deductible donations every year, and make another five to ten billion a year in tax free investment income, but then spend literally zero on anything that is charity or religious in nature.

17 hours ago, Amulek said:

Just like a country club? Exactly right you say? Hmm...here's a simple thought experiment for you: Imagine for a moment that you are a member of both a church and a country club. You decide to stop paying "dues" to each. I'll give you three guesses as to which building is going to let you in come Sunday. 

If you stop paying your tithing, you aren't going to the temple. That's for sure.

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What would a tax-the-churches tax code look like anyways? What kinds of activities would be taxed and which would be exempt? What activities would earn a church tax credits and which would not? 

It would be quite simple. 

One: Donating money to a Church would be just like spending money for a golf club membership. You spend the money and don't go through the hassle of saving receipts, calculating deductions, and so on.

Two: Like the gold club, if the organization makes a profit, it pays money on that profit. If there is no profit, there is no corporate income tax.

Three: The self-declared "public charity" of Ensign Peak Advisors would no longer be considered an "integrated auxiliary" of the Church, and instead would have to meet the requirements of being either a public charity or a private foundation on its own merits. In this case, EPA would certainly be a private foundation. Therefore, it would be subject to the same tax requirements as other private foundations, such as Harvard's trust.

Four: Churches would have to pay property tax on the buildings they own, just like the rest of us.

I'm not talking about anything punitive. I'm merely asking for the government to honor the establishment clause and stop subsidizing the organizations that meet the IRS's definition of being "churches."

If those four things happened, everybody's tax burden would dramatically go down. Supporters of churches could use that personal windfall for whatever they want, including donating more to their churches.

What's wrong with having churches pull their own weight and not be subsidized by the government?

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, helix said:

That's the 1857 court.  The 1969 court was the 8-1 decision.  Calling them the "same court" is disingenuous. 

The Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. Nobody from 1969 is on the court today, either.

20 hours ago, helix said:

One court made a racist decision.  Another court ruling a full century later on a separation of church and state issue is an entirely different matter.

But there are similarities. One bad decision involves giving favored status to people who the government classifies as being "white." The other bad decision involves giving favored status to organizations the government classifies as being "churches." Both decisions are based upon the bigotry of the respective justices, and both go against the basic principles of the Constitution.

20 hours ago, helix said:

Hand-waving away the entire Supreme Court, as you have done, as a bunch of racists who make wrong rulings, and that you are the one who is the final arbiter of constitutional truth, is an awfully, awfully arrogant position.

I never said I was "the final arbiter of constitutional truth." My opinion doesn't matter. I know that. The fact remains that my arguments are sound. 

20 hours ago, helix said:

Eventually, the fund is perpetual.  Suppose it grows on average 5% a year.  The church on average draws 5% of it per year.  What a fantastic use of tithing money!

If Ensign Peak Advisors were classified as a private foundation (which is what it really is, it's self-declaration of being a public charity notwithstanding), if it did what you just said it wouldn't have to pay any taxes. I would have no problem with that.

The problem is that the Church isn't drawing on it anything, and has no plans to do so ever. Remember, the Church doesn't claim that EPA is an endowment it is building up. It claims that the EPA has the Churches "reserves." It is a "rainy day fund," which means it is savings that is never intended to be spent.

The only thing I'm arguing for is that the IRS rule EPA is a private foundation so that the tax code would incentivize it to operate exactly the way you think would be "fantastic"!

20 hours ago, helix said:

Another scenario is the church could change the definition of tithing...

Yes, there are lots of rationalizations for hoarding. That doesn't mean the U.S. government should subsidize hoarding with the tax code.

20 hours ago, helix said:

I'm sure I am thinking correctly.  It's not from Quinn.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/through-a-glass-darkly-examining-church-finances/

Quoting from that paper: "If those lower rates of tithing receipts are accurate, they imply that tithing in 2010 may have been closer to $12 billion"

Yes, if the truth is closer to $7 billion, he's right. $12 billion is closer to the truth than Quinn's $33 billion.

In any case, I stand corrected with my comment about the $7 billion being "first-hand knowledge." Thank you. However, the $7 billion estimate was made by somebody with a lot more information than Larry T. Willmer's estimate. It's still more credible.

20 hours ago, helix said:

On the other hand, you say the EPA knows so little that even the Presiding Bishopric doesn't know. 

What a contradiction!  You can't have everyone at the EPA not knowing anything while David knows it all.

I think you misunderstood the point. The point is that there is no purpose of the fund beyond saving it "for a rainy day." The fund doesn't exist because the Church has specific goals for $x hundred billion. Rather, the fund exists as an artifact of it operating as Smac above said it does: every year they set the budget equal to about 90% of current annual tithing, and then save the rest.

The eventual result of that tactic is an enormous hoard of money and no plan on what to do with it. My accusation isn't that EPA doesn't "know anything." My accusation is that the Chruch doesn't have a purpose or a plan for the money beyond saving it for a "rainy day."

20 hours ago, helix said:

Frankly, I don't care what you think. 

Then why are we having this conversation?

Edited November 12, 2022 by Analytics