Church sued again over how it uses tithing contributions from members

[carbon dioxide]

7 hours ago, Teancum said:

But for me the LDS Church no longer gets any $$ from me. I give to organisations  that actually do put the majority of the resources they receive to relieve human suffering.

Why do I get the feeling that you have not given money to the LDS Church in years and even if the Church was giving 80% of the tiths to relieve human suffering your overall position about the Church would not change and you still would not be paying tithing today?  Maybe I am wrong but I just get that impression. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by carbon dioxide

[Teancum]

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

Why do I get the feeling that you have not given money to the LDS Church in years

Well you should not get the feeling. I have not given in a number of years. Probably 7 for tithing and 3 or 4 for other. But I have given well into the six figures over my active days.  So what?

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

 

 

and even if the Church was giving 80% of the tiths to relieve human suffering your overall position about the Church would not change and you still would not be paying tithing today?

Well you would be wrong and I have never proposes such a thing. Really your post is just a personal attack and a whiny one at that.

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

 

  Maybe I am wrong but I just get that impression. 

Well you are wrong.

[The Nehor]

Life Hack: If you are burned at the Lord’s coming you don’t have to worry about your investment portfolio.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

A few posts up, I believe @Teancum mentions that he gave more to charity percentage wise than the church did for humanitarian needs. That's a big red flag IMO. I just think the church can do much better with the fourth mission statement. His quote below:

"Whatever.  You really are just trying to be snarky.  But guess what?  I can do better.  But given my income and assets, as a %, I do more than the church does to relieve human suffering. It is actually quite humorous for you to play this game.  I don't claim to be the Church of Jesus Christ.  But the LDS Church does.  If that does not mean something to you when it comes the the resources the church has and continues to amass. I thought blessing the poor wa the fourth mission of the church, at least under President Monson.  Apparently this has take second seat to accumulating wealth.  If you are fine with that so be it. I have opinions about that.  But for me the LDS Church no longer gets any $$ from me. I give to organisations  that actually do put the majority of the resources they receive to relieve human suffering."

The 2022 church's report of humanitarian funds spent, which for the most part cam from members donations/volunteer work etc. It never comes from the Ensign Peak fund, in my estimation, sadly: https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2023/6/11/23754413/caring-for-those-in-need-humanitarian-welfare-self-reliance-numbers#:~:text=In 2022%2C as stated in,to help those in need.

 

Considering that the church believes all four of its missions to be a part of relieving human suffering, I don't think that Teancum is correct.  Neither do I think it fair to hold the church accountable to a narrow definition of what it means to relieve human suffering when the church's definition is much more broad.

From my perspective, that red flag is made out of the threads of a flawed understanding of what Christ's church is mandated to do on the earth and how their humanitarian mission is not more important in helping humankind find peace and support than the other missions are.

When we think of Christ's earthly ministry as we read about it in the NT, what percentage was spent helping the poor and the needy with money and food and shelter, and what percentage was spent teaching the gospel, calling people to repentance, and offering spiritual healing?  Christ's own example of where He spent His time and His resources seems to also match a broader understanding of "relieving human suffering" than the understanding some want to hold the church to.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

More wealth?  Well as noted, they could triple or quadruple what they do to relive human suffering and still have their massive wealth accumulation program continue.  But hey whatever.  Jesus said where you treasure is, there will be your heart also.

 

The church could buy a heck of a lot more real estate tomorrow given they have over 100 billion of stocks,etc. And they already are one of the largest landowners in the USA.

 

They do that now.

As noted, if the apocalypse happens the way Mormonism teaches the only thing the church has that will likely be beneficial is the land.

 

No. They turn the assets into tangible currency and buy even more land, or other necessary commodities, food, etc.

Not your fault, I didn't say that, because that would be only one actual sub-strategy within the more general paradigm I gave

I know of real estate both buyers and sellers, who will accept only gold bullion in their transactions.

You got a million dollars in bullion, buying a million in real estate.  You give the owner the bullion instead of dollars, now you own the land.

The land appreciates in value.

Some other guy will pay you 1.1 in bullion, so you sell for the prophet. (Intended )

No dollars involved, presumably gold is a currency that may not devalue much if at all. Typically in a crisis it goes through the roof though, so you end up even better with the arbitrage.

People are doing that NOW.

More assets for the poor when the dollar goes ....

There are also some tax advantages of a distinctly shady nature. 🤫

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

By Roger's reasoning, anyone who claims any tax deduction, or otherwise takes any action to reduce his tax obligation, is being "subsidized."

"Roger's reasoning" on this matter is nothing more nor less than mainstream thought on tax subsidies in the fields of economics, finance, and taxation. 

It really isn't controversial. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

And it sure seems difficult for people like Analytics, who has spent years and untold hours railing against "a disliked church," to claim they they are not "target{ing}" that church, or even churches in general.

Oh look. Smac97 responds to my reasoned arguments with a personal attack. How strange. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.  Roger, do you think the State should eliminate all non-taxed organizations?  Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

In general, I'm in favor of a simple tax system with low, equitable taxes for all people and organizations. I'm also in favor of freedom of religion--religions shouldn't be singled out for special punishment or special privileges. And I'm also in favor of tax subsidies being recognized for what they are. We can have a reasoned discussion about whether the government should subsidize the United Way or the Metropolitan Opera or whatever. However, the U.S. Constitution doesn't have an establishment clause that prohibits the government from subsidizing those things. In contrast, the Constitution does have an establishment clause saying it won't establish religion.

I'm not proposing some sort of punitive taxes against churches. I'm merely pointing out that tax subsidies really are subsidies. This isn't controversial. Quoting Wikipedia:

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CBA) defines tax expenditures as "those revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability".^[2]

The term was coined in 1967 by Stanley S. Surrey, a renowned tax scholar and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. Surrey created the term to characterize the political use of tax breaks to enact social policies that would ordinarily be accomplished through direct expenditures. He claimed that Congress were utilitising the policies as "vast subsidy apparatus to reward favored constituencies or subsidize narrow policy areas."^[3]

Your position is starting to make sense. You seem to recognize that the government providing direct subsidizations to churches would in fact be Constitutionally problematic. Therefore, you are forced to argue that "passive" subsidies are qualitatively different than "outright" subsidies, despite their financial equivalence. 

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am very grateful that we live in America, and that our system of laws protect people like us from people who, in the end, wish to use the vast and coercive power of the State to punish religious groups in their capacity as religious groups.  

Would you be in favor of changing the Establishment Clause of the Constitution to more closely say what you actually believe? Would you be in favor of it saying something like the following?

Congress shall have the power to define what is and what is not a church, and shall have the power to give financial benefits to churches qua churches.

[Analytics]

20 hours ago, helix said:

Two fundamental issues are at play. 1) Your belief that tax benefits are tax subsidies, and 2) Taxing churches ultimately contradicts the First Amendment.

#2 wins against #1.

Just to be sure I understand your point, you think that the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) means that the government should be in the business of deciding what is and what is not a "church," so that the government can tax organizations that aren't government-recognized churches and be prohibited from taxing government-recognized churches. Right?

20 hours ago, helix said:

The First Amendment trumps and reigns supreme.

That's why I think it is unconstitutional for the government to establish what are approved "churches" and then give those government-approved religions tax advantages.

 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.  Roger, do you think the State should eliminate all non-taxed organizations?  Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

In general, I'm in favor of a simple tax system with low, equitable taxes for all people and organizations. I'm also in favor of freedom of religion--religions shouldn't be singled out for special punishment or special privileges. And I'm also in favor of tax subsidies being recognized for what they are. We can have a reasoned discussion about whether the government should subsidize the United Way or the Metropolitan Opera or whatever. However, the U.S. Constitution doesn't have an establishment clause that prohibits the government from subsidizing those things. In contrast, the Constitution does have an establishment clause saying it won't establish religion.

I know that "{w}e can have a reasoned discussion" about this stuff.  Hence my question to you: Do you think the State should eliminate all non-taxed organizations?

Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your position is starting to make sense. You seem to recognize that the government providing direct subsidizations to churches would in fact be Constitutionally problematic. Therefore, you are forced to argue that "passive" subsidies are qualitatively different than "outright" subsidies, despite their financial equivalence. 

Nope.

I am saying what the Supreme Court said, namely, that the State not taxing X is not a "subsidy" of X.

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I am very grateful that we live in America, and that our system of laws protect people like us from people who, in the end, wish to use the vast and coercive power of the State to punish religious groups in their capacity as religious groups.  

Would you be in favor of changing the Establishment Clause of the Constitution to more closely say what you actually believe?

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Just to be sure I understand your point, you think that the establishment clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...) means that the government should be in the business of deciding what is and what is not a "church," so that the government can tax organizations that aren't government-recognized churches and be prohibited from taxing government-recognized churches. Right?

The Federal Government is already "in the business of deciding what is and what is not a 'church.'"  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I know that "{w}e can have a reasoned discussion" about this stuff.  Hence my question to you: Do you think the State should eliminate all non-taxed organizations?

I don't think the government should "eliminate" any non-taxed organization. The idea of the government going around and eliminating organizations is horrific to me.

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

As a matter of principle, the government has "the power to tax" just about everything. Just because it might choose to subsidize having children (child tax credit), interest on student loans, health insurance, contributions to 401(k)s, solar panels, and interest on mortgages doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to revoke those subsidies. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" implies that the government has full and complete power to destroy just about all personal freedom and all economic activity.

The assertion that government-approved Churches should be the one-and-only sanctuary from this "power to destroy" is strange to me. A book seller pays property tax on the store front, warehouses, corporate offices, and printing facilities. The publishers and retailers have to pay corporate income tax. And not only is the money I spend on books not exempt from my personal income taxes, I actually have to pay sales tax on the book. If the "power to tax is the power to destroy," is a useful heuristic for what should be exempt from taxes, wouldn't that mean that "freedom of the press" guarantees that everything related to the publishing industry must be tax free?

Edited November 10, 2023 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

 

Politics = religion iff religion is what you believe religiously.

I mean politics sure ain't science.

So if we only believe science can be true, why argue over politics?

It's all as irrelevant as religion then, right, all you secularists out there?

PROOF to me that politics is a collection of "religious" views.

It MUST be seen as a religion.

What is "freedom" without unscientific / religious reasoning?

What is a "right" if secular reasoning is NOT religion?

"All humans are created equal"

Where and when?

Edited November 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Federal Government is already "in the business of deciding what is and what is not a 'church.'"  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. That's the problem. Before the government can grant special privileges to churches, it must first establish what a church is. The establishment clause prohibits this.

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

" implies that the government has full and complete power to destroy just about all personal freedom and all economic activity.

Please show how this is true if one does not use religious reasoning to determine what "freedom" is.

Just looking for consistency in reasoning. Do we worship freedom?

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes. That's the problem. Before the government can grant special privileges to churches, it must first establish what a church is. The establishment clause prohibits this.

You seem to be falling prey to the equivocation fallacy.  The "Establishment Clause" pertains to (that is, prohibits) both religious abuse of government and political control of religion.  That the United States recognizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "church" does not mean that it (the U.S.) has "established" the Church as that term is used in constitutional jurisprudence.

Disputes about the First Amendment requires the State to establish parameters for what does, and does not, constitute "speech" or "the press," yet in doing so the State is not creating or "establishing" these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Do you think the State should eliminate all non-taxed organizations?

I don't think the government should "eliminate" any non-taxed organization. The idea of the government going around and eliminating organizations is horrific to me.

Oh, brother.

Okay, I will clarify: Do you think the government should eliminate the tax-free status of all organizations that currently have it?  Should all not-for-profit, nonprofit, etc. organizations be taxed?  Eliminate the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(7), etc. categories?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

As a matter of principle, the government has "the power to tax" just about everything.

I would characterize that as a principle of law.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Just because it might choose to subsidize having children (child tax credit), interest on student loans, health insurance, contributions to 401(k)s, solar panels, and interest on mortgages doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to revoke those subsidies. "The power to tax is the power to destroy" implies that the government has full and complete power to destroy just about all personal freedom and all economic activity.

Yes, yes.  You can beg the question all day long by using the word "subsidy" in this idiosyncratic, loaded, stacked-deck, thumb-on-the-scale kind of way, but it won't advance the discussion.

Please stop dancing around the issue.  Are you advocating for the abolition of all tax exempt statuses?  

Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The assertion that government-approved Churches should be the one-and-only sanctuary from this "power to destroy" is strange to me.

It's not an "assertion."  It's a well-established and well-explained principle of First Amendment law.  That you may disagree with the rationale is understandable, but it would be better for you to address and critique it in a substantive way rather than just branding it "strange."  What is your position on Waltz?  Bob Jones University v. United States?  Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock?  Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.?  Corp. of Presiding Bishop v. Amos?  

The "Press" enjoys particularized First Amendment rights, but I suspect you don't object to those.  Am I correct on that point?  Or do you think this is also "strange"?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

A book seller pays property tax on the store front, warehouses, corporate offices, and printing facilities. The publishers and retailers have to pay corporate income tax. And not only is the money I spend on books not exempt from my personal income taxes, I actually have to pay sales tax on the book. If the "power to tax is the power to destroy," is a useful heuristic for what should be exempt from taxes, wouldn't that mean that "freedom of the press" guarantees that everything related to the publishing industry must be tax free?

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You seem to be falling prey to the equivocation fallacy.  The "Establishment Clause" pertains to (that is, prohibits) both religious abuse of government and political control of religion.  That the United States recognizes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "church" does not mean that it (the U.S.) has "established" the Church as that term is used in constitutional jurisprudence.

Disputes about the First Amendment requires the State to establish parameters for what does, and does not, constitute "speech" or "the press," yet in doing so the State is not creating or "establishing" these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not equivocating.

My position is based on the following things:

1- I interpret the establishment clause broadly, in the same way that Thomas Jefferson did; the government should not use tax dollars to support this or that religion, neither directly nor indirectly.

2- I see subsidization in the way mainstream economists do: what economists call "tax subsidies" are in fact subsidies. 

3- When the government gives preferential treatment, tax breaks, and/or tax subsidies to "churches", it has to decide which churches are the "real" churches that will receive these special benefits, and which ones aren't. Of course. The fact that the IRS out of necessity must decide which churches will receive these financial benefits and which ones will not is a huge red flag. The Constitutional solution to this problem is obvious: if you don't provide tax subsidies to churches, you don't need to define what "churches" are real ones that get the subsidizations. And according to how Jefferson viewed the principle, that is the whole point of the establishment clause: to prevent the government from having official church(s) that are subsidized by the government.

 

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm not equivocating.

Yes, you are.  You are using "establish" and its derivative forms in ambiguous and incompatible ways.  The word as used in First Amendment jurisprudence (the second way you are using it) is readily distinguishable from "it must first establish what a church is" (the first way you are using it).

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My position is based on the following things:

1- I interpret the establishment clause broadly, in the same way that Thomas Jefferson did; the government should not use tax dollars to support this or that religion, neither directly nor indirectly.

Your private and idiosyncratic interpretation of the Establishment Clause has little bearing on or probative weight regarding how that Clause is actually interpreted.

If all you are doing is just talking out of your ear on matters of constitutional law, then I'll leave you to it.  

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

2- I see subsidization in the way mainstream economists do: what economists call "tax subsidies" are in fact subsidies.

Got it.  Clustering "tax exemptions" for religious groups in with tax credits, deductions, exclusions, etc. is a convenience for economic discussions, but it doesn't have much to do with First Amendment jurisprudence.

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

3- When the government gives preferential treatment, tax breaks, and/or tax subsidies to "churches", it has to decide which churches are the "real" churches that will receive these special benefits, and which ones aren't. Of course. The fact that the IRS out of necessity must decide which churches will receive these financial benefits and which ones will not is a huge red flag. The Constitutional solution to this problem is obvious: if you don't provide tax subsidies to churches, you don't need to define what "churches" are real ones that get the subsidizations. And according to how Jefferson viewed the principle, that is the whole point of the establishment clause: to prevent the government from having official church(s) that are subsidized by the government.

Feel free to quote, rather than paraphrase or broadly allude to, Jefferson's statements on the taxation of religious organizations.  I've spent years watching you paraphrase / characterize the Church, and often find such things to be unfair, inaccurate, and distorted.

On a related note: 

Are you advocating for the abolition of all tax exempt statuses?  

Or is it, as I suspect, just the "religious" ones that you want subjected to the "power to tax" Helix references above?

Thanks, 

-Smac

Edited November 10, 2023 by smac97

[Analytics]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, brother.

Okay, I will clarify: Do you think the government should eliminate the tax-free status of all organizations that currently have it?  Should all not-for-profit, nonprofit, etc. organizations be taxed?  Eliminate the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(7), etc. categories?

Would I eliminate 501(c)(3), 501(c)(7), etc. categories of the tax code? That's an interesting question and I don't really have an opinion on it.

But what should be kept in mind is that the Constitution doesn't forbid the government from subsidizing charitable organizations, only religious ones. 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, yes.  You can beg the question all day long by using the word "subsidy" in this idiosyncratic, loaded, stacked-deck, thumb-on-the-scale kind of way, but it won't advance the discussion.

I'm using the word "subsidy" in exactly the same way that mainstream economists do. There is nothing idiosyncratic about it. 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please stop dancing around the issue.  Are you advocating for the abolition of all tax exempt statuses?  

No, I'm not advocating for that. But I am advocating for the same thing that Stanley S. Surrey advocated for: acknowledging tax subsidies for what they are. 

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

 

Why not? If "the power to tax" is a serious argument, how come it applies to religion and not to the press? I don't think it is a serious argument but prove me wrong. If "the power to tax" is a serious argument for why tax policy should favor religion, why isn't it also a serious argument for providing the same tax advantages to the press? Why do you think it is okay for the government to have the power to destroy the press through taxation?

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Are you advocating for the abolition of all tax exempt statuses?  

No, I'm not advocating for that.

I figured as much.  As you said a few weeks ago: "I don't believe Churches should be tax exempt."

What other groups, besides religious ones, do you think should not be tax exempt?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Clustering "tax exemptions" in with tax credits, deductions, exclusions, etc. is a convenience for economic discussions, but it doesn't have much to do with First Amendment jurisprudence....

I disagree. According to First Amendment jurisprudence, as discussed by the Supreme Court, whether or not tax exemptions are subsidies are at the heart of the issue. I'm arguing nothing different than what Supreme Court Justice William Douglas argued.

In the Court's majority opinion of Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, Chief Justice Burger said, "Those who urge the exemptions' unconstitutionality argue that exemptions are the equivalent of governmental subsidy of churches. General subsidies of religious activities would, of course, constitute impermissible state involvement with religion."

Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II said: I agree with my Brother DOUGLAS that exemptions do not differ from subsidies as an economic matter. 

Supreme Court Justice William Douglas used my same reasoning and said:

I would suppose that, in common understanding, one of the best ways to "establish" one or more religions is to subsidize them, which a tax exemption does. The State may not do that any more than it may prefer "those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

A tax exemption is a subsidy....

The Brookings Institution, writing in 1933, before the application of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the States, said about tax exemptions of religious groups:

"Tax exemption, no matter what its form, is essentially a government grant or subsidy. Such grants would seem to be justified only if the purpose for which they are made is one for which the legislative body would be equally willing to make a direct appropriation from public funds equal to the amount of the exemption. This test would not be met except in the case where the exemption is granted to encourage certain activities of private interests which, if not thus performed, would have to be assumed by the government at an expenditure at least as great as the value of the exemption."

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Feel free to quote, rather than paraphrase or broadly allude to, Jefferson's statements on the taxation of religious organizations.  I've spent years watching you paraphrase / characterize the Church, and often find such things to be unfair, inaccurate, and distorted.

Oh look. Smac97 responds to my reasoned arguments with a personal attack. How strange. 

In any case, in Walz vs. Tax Commission of New York, Chief Justice Burger said, "In an essay written after he had left the presidency, Madison did argue against tax exemptions for churches." Jefferson's views can be read here: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/virginia-statute-religious-freedom/

 

[Analytics]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I figured as much.  As you said a few weeks ago: "I don't believe Churches should be tax exempt."

What other groups, besides religious ones, do you think should not be tax exempt?

Thanks,

-Smac

Lots of other groups. Why? What's your point? 

Are you going to answer this question: If "the power to tax" is a serious argument, how come it applies to religion and not to the press? I don't think it is a serious argument but prove me wrong. If "the power to tax" is a serious argument for why tax policy should favor religion, why isn't it also a serious argument for providing the same tax advantages to the press? Why do you think it is okay for the government to have the power to destroy the press through taxation?

Douglas, by the way, made a point similar to mine when he said in Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York:

Churches, like newspapers also enjoying First Amendment rights, have no constitutional immunity from all taxes. As we said in Murdock:

"We do not mean to say that religious groups and the press are free from all financial burdens of government.  See Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233,  297 U. S. 250. We have here something quite different, for example, from a tax on the income of one who engages in religious activities or a tax on property used or employed in connection with those activities. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon."

I understand Douglas's position and agree with it. I also understand the position that neither should be taxed because "the power to tax" argument. But how do you split the difference? Why is it okay to tax the press but not to tax religion?

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

What other groups, besides religious ones, do you think should not be tax exempt?

Lots of other groups. Why? What's your point? 

I have previously been rather cynical in my assumptions about you on this point, and in hindsight I should not have been.  I retract my prior barbed and personal comments and apologize.

I am not presently trying to make a point.  I am trying to understand your position.

What "other groups" are you referencing here?  What other groups, besides religious ones, do you think should not be tax exempt?

What metrics do you use to differentiate groups which ought to be exempted from taxation and those which ought not be exempted? 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have previously been rather cynical in my assumptions about you on this point, and in hindsight I should not have been.  I retract my prior barbed and personal comments and apologize.

I am not presently trying to make a point.  I am trying to understand your position.

What "other groups" are you referencing here?  What other groups, besides religious ones, do you think should not be tax exempt?

What metrics do you use to differentiate groups which ought to be exempted from taxation and those which ought not be exempted? 

Thanks,

-Smac

That quote from the Brookings Institution that was used in the court case we've been discussing articulates my sensibilities on the issue well. It says:

Quote

"Tax exemption, no matter what its form, is essentially a government grant or subsidy. Such grants would seem to be justified only if the purpose for which they are made is one for which the legislative body would be equally willing to make a direct appropriation from public funds equal to the amount of the exemption. This test would not be met except in the case where the exemption is granted to encourage certain activities of private interests which, if not thus performed, would have to be assumed by the government at an expenditure at least as great as the value of the exemption."

Those are the metrics I'd use; is this something the government ought to subsidize? 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have previously been rather cynical in my assumptions about you on this point, and in hindsight I should not have been.  I retract my prior barbed and personal comments and apologize.

I am not presently trying to make a point.  I am trying to understand your position.

What "other groups" are you referencing here?  What other groups, besides religious ones, do you think should not be tax exempt?

What metrics do you use to differentiate groups which ought to be exempted from taxation and those which ought not be exempted? 

Thanks,

-Smac

I've been thinking more about this, and I'll give you a couple of examples.

The first example is John Dehlin's organization "Mormon Stories Foundation." While I have a lot of sympathy for what they are trying to do, I don't think it is the type of thing that ought to be subsidized by the government. If I were in charge, contributions to Mormon Stories wouldn't be tax deductible. I don't have a problem with it being organized as a non-profit, but if the organization started hoarding money, I'd wanted it to be taxed like a private foundation. For example, let's assume they spend $500,000 on what they do. I'd have no problem if they had a million bucks in a "rainy day fund." But if the rainy day fund grew to be 20 times annual expenditures (e.g. $10,000,000 that generated $500,000 per year in investment income), and if they were guilting people into making donations but then using the majority of their annual revenue to grow the size of this obscenely bloated rainy day fund, I'd have a huge problem with that. 

As another example, Harvesters is an amazing food bank that provides tremendous food security in the Kansas City area and gives away something like $150,000,000 in food annually in an efficient manner, no strings attached. Here are their financial statements. Harvesters is an absolute top-notch charity that is doing extremely important work in the world. It is entirely appropriate for the government to subsidize Harvesters, through tax deductions, and through direct grants.

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/10/2023 at 5:50 PM, Analytics said:

...  If I were in charge, contributions to Mormon Stories wouldn't be tax deductible. I don't have a problem with it being organized as a non-profit, but if the organization started hoarding money, I'd wanted it to be taxed like a private foundation. ...

Okay.  You're entitled to your [probably well-considered] opinion, but the question that, essentially, is at the center of this thread remains: One person's "hoard" is another person's "prudent stewardship."