Religious Tax Exemption

[Michael Hardner]

Thats... not an analogy. At best that's a rather transparent attempt to tarnish my argument by linking it with racism.

No, it's an analogy. How could anybody take your views to be racist ? That's nonsensical.

Now, if you really do want to go that route... if someone said "keep immigrants out because they're bad for the country" they'd have to give a reason why they're bad... do they increase crime? Do they put more strain on our social services? And whatever reasons were given could be debunked.

I've given a rational argument why churches should have their tax exempt statuses removed. You're responded with hysteria and bizarre accusations (OMG They want to ban religion!!!!)

No, I'm offering you ADVICE to HELP you ban religion. There is a difference.

Your reasons are circular - you think that some charities help society and some don't - and whatever "help" means - well that's defined by you.

Actually, the arguments in the opening post were:

- Churches may not help the community at large

- Churches don't have to "open their books"

- If they are to be considered "charities" they should apply for charitable status just as any other organization would

What is 'the community at large' ? How does it compare to the community ? If I help some of the community am I helping the community or not ?

msj's note covers your other points.

At no point in the opening post was it suggested that churches should be eliminated.

No, but it's about reducing the power of religions.

Actually, no you haven't. Or at least any attempt you've made to make a point has been debunked. You've last posts have been largley involving attacks against the arguer rather than the argument.

You stated that churches don't follow the dictionary definition of charity - but how does documenting historic architecture satisfy it ?

I already said it, it's subjective.

Once again, its not completely subjective because I'm smart enough to know when I benefit as opposed to when someone else benefits.

Whether or not you benefit is beside the point. The point is: it's a subjective opinion as to whether someone else benefits or not.

You see, this is why many hold religious people in such low regard.

What makes you think I'm a religious person ?

You make bad assumptions throughout - and this is another one.

Doesn't whatever religious book you follow have some sort of rule against lying? Yet here you are... lying away.

First of all, I never made any comment about whether reading old people scripture was charitible or helpful. So you're lying right then and there.

Secondly, your comment about how I consider "recording old architecutre" to be helpful ignores the part where I actually put it into context... its only helpful (charitable) if its done for selfless reasons.

Even if it's done for 'selfless reasons' - the idea that it's helping society somehow is your own value judgement, which you're applying for all of us.

If you do think reading scripture to people is charity, then why are we having this discussion ? Reading scripture, holding religious services, and helping people - that's a major part of what churches do so...

Removal of charity status probably would not require a constitutional change. (After all the net result would be the church would be treated as all other organizations... true equality, rather than the situation now where your particular religious beliefs are subsidized by people who have no such beliefs.)

Except... any religion, or (I suspect) athiesm is allowed so you would need to BAN religions from registering as charities. This, of course, assumes that your dictionary definition idea wouldn't work, and I say it wouldn't because it's subjective.

Does this make sense ?

[Mighty AC]

I am missing the point - there is only one difference in said rules outlined so far on this thread - and that difference is for religious practitioners.

What are you looking to change, then ?

As it turns out, not much. I was under the misconception that organizations deemed religious qualified as for a separate class of charity-like exemptions. I was opposed to governments having to determine what qualifies as religion which is more of a US problem.

The act of advancing religion qualifies as a charitable activity and that still requires a government agency to decide what qualifies as religion. I would like to see the guidelines for what qualifies as charitable reviewed across the board. I would also like to see the existing rules applied equally. The Harper regime is at war with environmental groups because opposing oil industry activities is deemed a political act, yet churches seem to get a pass on this.

[msj]

I thought that Canada Revenue did random audits of registered charities. (Not all of them would be examined, but some would.)

See: http://www.cra-arc.g...8/t4118-08e.pdf

Yes they do.

I don't know how many they do in a year but it is probably a small percentage of the actual charities out there. Probably less than 1%.

CRA often revokes charities registrations but that is usually for not filing the charity return on time (six months to file, plus 90 days notice given, then another 90 days is given and then registration is finally revoked).

[msj]

Well, the OP talked about Income Tax I think but... we're in the same boat here. Other organizations have property tax exemptions - which I think is handled by the province.

In BC these are handled at the municipal level - although it is likely legislated by the province to allow a municipality to make such exceptions.

Every once in a while you can see a notice in the local paper naming each group, each property, and the estimated value of the property taxes being exempted.

Often it is churches, the scout hall, the rotary house, the chamber of commerce property, etc... that get exempted each year.

[dre]

You stated that churches don't follow the dictionary definition of charity - but how does documenting historic architecture satisfy it ?

Well thats non profit work. I suppose we can exempt that, as long as everyone else doing similar things can do the same.

Seems pretty simple. The church can claim the expenses it has related with this activity and claim them as deductions, just like you and I do with our own deductions.

So if a church accepted a million dollars in donations, and it spent 500k providing food and shelter for the homeless and 500k on documenting historical architecture.... Then it would be tax exempt. But if it accepted a million dollars spent 100k on the homeless and another 100k on documenting architecure and just KEPT THE REST, then they oughta pay taxes on the ammount of new property/wealth they aquired.

And they could deduct even more than that. For example the physical church itself could be considered infrustructure to support the "architecture documenting" and "homeless helping" because its a fundraising venue, office, etc.. That would mean realestate could be partially exempt too, but not completely because a church is not used for this sole purpose. We would need to figure out a fair percentage... Im allowed to deduct 20% of the cost of my home (mortgage+bills) because I have a home office here.

Whether or not you benefit is beside the point. The point is: it's a subjective opinion as to whether someone else benefits or not.

You can take that subjectiveness right out of it, and let churches claim costs related to those activities as expenses. Just allow them all! Just tax capital/property gains.

Edited October 24, 2012 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Well thats non profit work. I suppose we can exempt that, as long as everyone else doing similar things can do the same.

They're all non-profit, though - the churches, the rotary clubs, the astrological societies...

Seems pretty simple. The church can claim the expenses it has related with this activity and claim them as deductions, just like you and I do with our own deductions.

So if a church accepted a million dollars in donations, and it spent 500k providing food and shelter for the homeless and 500k on documenting historical architecture.... Then it would be tax exempt. But if it accepted a million dollars spent 100k on the homeless and another 100k on documenting architecure and just KEPT THE REST, then they oughta pay taxes on the ammount of new property/wealth they aquired.

Ok. Now, you're getting close to something we can work with here. It's about how many assets non-profits and charities are allowed to accumulate, and I believe that's something that's monitored today.

Also, that's probably something you could look at across the board - not just at religions - but you have a lot of other non-profits that accumulate wealth and assets too. I think it would be easy for any of these to purchase assets that they can liquidate later - like land - claiming that they're needed for their work.

And they could deduct even more than that. For example the physical church itself could be considered infrustructure to support the "architecture documenting" and "homeless helping" because its a fundraising venue, office, etc.. That would mean realestate could be partially exempt too, but not completely because a church is not used for this sole purpose. We would need to figure out a fair percentage... Im allowed to deduct 20% of the cost of my home (mortgage+bills) because I have a home office here.

What you didn't say in that paragraph is what the other purposes of the physical church are, and why they wouldn't be deductable. I don't think there is any easy answer there.

You can take that subjectiveness right out of it, and let churches claim costs related to those activities as expenses. Just allow them all! Just tax capital/property gains.

Maybe so. Again, though, given the scale of this issue and the fact that these institutions do provide services to the needy - I question the priority of such a campaign, unless people are open about trying to attack religions. If that's the purpose, then I think you have come up with some good ways that you can reform charities to effectively reduce the power of religions.

However, we're looking at economic restructuring in our country right now, and that should really be taking more of our attention. I'd even argue that charities - whatever their motivation - need to flourish at this point in our history.

[guyser]

.

MADD has evolved into a prohibitionist Group. Even it's founding members have left because the initial purpose of the group have been bastardized. I bet if you let MADD create legislation there would be zero tolerance for driving with any alcohol in your system. That would create many more "criminals" of people that just had a glass of wine with dinner.

The people who overwhelmingly kill people behind the wheel are alcoholics that can't be appealed to by a charitable organization. MADD focuses much of its attention on criminalizing social drinkers.

Much of what you posted I agree with re MADD. I cannot stand MADD and let them know each time they try to talk to me.

But if MADD were honest they would go for the zero tolerance law since that would take all arbitrariness out of legal limits for drinking and driving. I would not love it per se, but lets be honest, it would let everyone know you cannot drive after a drink.

This BS law of 0.05-0.08 lose your licence and car for three days is a result of MADD's political process. Its merely a cash cow for the province , the tow yards and the cops. Either you are legal to drive or you are not.

They spend an obscene amount of money on admin , IIRC more than 80 cents on the dollar raised.

As far as support for people injured from impaired crashes, their own website it extremely thin on any info as to what they do and certainly seems void of any financial assistance to those in need.

F' MADD.

[cybercoma]

The purpose of a legal limit is so that someone can have a glass of wine with their dinner at a restaurant and not get arrested for driving home after a single drink.

[msj]

They spend an obscene amount of money on admin , IIRC more than 80 cents on the dollar raised.

I admit that I don't like MADD either.

But I also prefer people to use facts rather than vague memories.

According to their charity return they spent $4.26 million on charitable purposes, $443,000 on admin, and $1.75 million on fundraising in 2011.

This is, respectively, 65%, 7% and 27% of their revenue for that year.

[betsy]

You're kind of speculating here. I helped organize a non-profit and it's really all about the money. You can't retain profit or distribute profit to members of your organization. If people are paid, then they have to declare it.

However, established organization like MADD surely have employees. They've got admin expenses.

[Mr.Canada]

I admit that I don't like MADD either.

Yeah...crazy Mother's against drunk drivers! What's their problem with drunks anyhow?!

So msj, are you a drunk? a drunk driver? or both?

Why you hate on them? They do good work, I don't want drunks on my roadways. I'm sorry that you seem to.

[Michael Hardner]

However, established organization like MADD surely have employees. They've got admin expenses.

I think I said that, yes. The thread is about trying to de-list religions, which I maintain is due to a dislike (by some) of religions.

[msj]

However, established organization like MADD surely have employees. They've got admin expenses.

Sure, but not all staff are for admin.

According to their charity return they spent about 7% of their revenue on administration as mentioned above in post #84.

I audit a client that helps addicts. Would you consider all of their staff to be admin?

Sure, the CEO/ED can count. As does the accountant and the reception.

The other 16 employees?

All are counsellors.

Of course, without the CEO, the accountant and the reception then the 16 staff would not be doing what they are doing.

Nevertheless, these 3 people are considered, derisively (and extremely ignorantly, imo) as administration.

As if having such skills is somehow parasitic.

Edited October 26, 2012 by msj

[msj]

Yeah...crazy Mother's against drunk drivers! What's their problem with drunks anyhow?!

So msj, are you a drunk? a drunk driver? or both?

Why you hate on them? They do good work, I don't want drunks on my roadways. I'm sorry that you seem to.

IMV, they are not that far out from prohibitionists and have made prohibitionist noises in prior years.

I don't want drunks on the road either.

I also want people to have the right to consume alcohol and to be treated as adults.

[msj]

I think I said that, yes. The thread is about trying to de-list religions, which I maintain is due to a dislike (by some) of religions.

Partially, yes.

I also don't see why spreading the word of god, or humanism, or free marketism (Fraser Institute), or socialism (Cdn Centre of Policy Alternatives) is charitable.

Directly helping the poor through meal programs, or providing addiction services, or low income seniors housing are clearly charitiable.

Proselytizering, not so much (and, imo, not at all).

Edited October 26, 2012 by msj

[guyser]

I admit that I don't like MADD either.

But I also prefer people to use facts rather than vague memories.

According to their charity return they spent $4.26 million on charitable purposes, $443,000 on admin, and $1.75 million on fundraising in 2011.

This is, respectively, 65%, 7% and 27% of their revenue for that year.

Thanks for this.

Some things dont seem right and you are the one to ask.

Does the admin costs seem right? Salaries and admin costs are only $443G's?

Are they still counting costs paid for fundraising in charitable costs?

[Sleipnir]

Well a church can lose their charity status if they...

"show partisan (showing support or opposition toward any political party or candidate). For example, a church may not encourage members to vote for a particular party or candidate. They should also refrain from anything that even suggests partisanship, such as allowing a candidate to promote him or herself by distributing flyers in the church mailboxes. Second, even when it comes to non-partisan political activity, a charity may not devote more than 10-20% of its total resources to politics."

[msj]

Thanks for this.

Some things dont seem right and you are the one to ask.

Does the admin costs seem right? Salaries and admin costs are only $443G's?

Are they still counting costs paid for fundraising in charitable costs?

Presumably they have included any wages/salaries related to administration with the administration costs, any wages/salaries for fundraising in the fundraising costs, and the rest are related to charitable costs.

There is discretion here but it isn't exactly rocket science for those who have the details to break the expenditures apart into different categories.

As already stated, not all wages are for admin.

Perhaps all (or maybe some) of the CEO's, CFO, controller, reception wages/salaries would be included in admin. Likely with a portion of other expenses such as rent, audit costs, office expenses, etc....

But if MADD is paying other people who are doing charitable services (going out to schools, preparing stats and info, whatever they do...) then those expenses are charitable.

So, is $443,000 right for a $6 million per year organization?

Well, it certainly seems reasonable.

As for fundraising - are the costs of $1.7 million reasonable?

To the extent that that led to the receipt of the $2.9 million in non-tax receipted revenue from fundraising and likely a large portion of the $3.1 million in tax receipted revenue, I think it was money well spent.

Sometimes you have to spend money to earn money to then spend it on charitable services.

People often do not donate to an organization they have never heard of or are unaware of and the media rarely provides enough free advertising/promotion for charities not to pay professional fundraisers.

Edited October 26, 2012 by msj

[guyser]

Thanks msj, I appreciate your efforts.

Seems like some of my info was wrong to quote since it was so outdated.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, msj - you have indeed illuminated many of us here and reminded me of the value of a balanced discussion on here...

[betsy]

First off do churches even deserve tax exemptions and why do we grant them?

Isn't this in the constitution?

[Sleipnir]

Isn't this in the constitution?

Never heard of it in the constitution before.

[The_Squid]

Isn't this in the constitution?

No