Church taxes

[WWWTT]

Remember, I'm an atheist. However, there is social value to Churches and their work.

I agree.

The current formula used in Canada with churches should continue.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Most every corporation provides valuable services or valuable products to the community. Think of the value of the contributions computer and internet companies have made to allow everyone to have a voice online, to talk to people from around the world, to always be in touch with their loved ones at the click of a button, to shed light on information that could once have been kept hidden. These services are of enormous value to society. Certainly the least we can do is allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc, to exist tax free?

These corporations already receive handsome compensation!

They are called monthly phone bills and internet/cable bills!

Maybe you have heard of them,say perhaps every month?

WWWTT

[Sleipnir]

Churches will remain to be protected by the Charter of Rights. Get used to it. The Charter works for the right wing sometimes too.

Now I think about it further, if all churches are supposely protected by the Charter of Rights - but not all churches in Canada are protected, therefore it not in the Charter of Rights for churches to be protected?

And I'm assuming by 'protected' you're referring not being taxed.

[cybercoma]

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Most every corporation provides valuable services or valuable products to the community. Think of the value of the contributions computer and internet companies have made to allow everyone to have a voice online, to talk to people from around the world, to always be in touch with their loved ones at the click of a button, to shed light on information that could once have been kept hidden. These services are of enormous value to society. Certainly the least we can do is allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc, to exist tax free?

Those corporations receive valuable profits for their products and services. We're talking about non-profit social services that make up our social safety net here. Churches make up a plank in the safety net that protects corporations from a society that becomes miserable enough that the working-class revolts against them. They do this without a profit motive.

[bleeding heart]

Most every corporation provides valuable services or valuable products to the community. Think of the value of the contributions computer and internet companies have made to allow everyone to have a voice online, to talk to people from around the world, to always be in touch with their loved ones at the click of a button, to shed light on information that could once have been kept hidden. These services are of enormous value to society. Certainly the least we can do is allow Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc, to exist tax free?

I think cybercoma's response is dead on, in that we're talking about profitable versus non-profitble, at least in a general sense.

But even aside from that: without the initial outlay by the public sector--the costs of research and development on the public dime--there wouldn't be internet, email, et al. In other words, we already gave de facto tax breaks to the corporations which have profited from public monies.

Edited November 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

Part of what I'm saying is if there isn't a Church providing food, clothing, and shelter for the homeless, helping the unemployed find jobs, counselling families, etc., then the government will need to pay for these things, spending taxpayers money on offices, staff, and services. Churches take a portion of the social welfare burden off the government. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the cost of the tax break is probably far less than the cost of making up the lost assistance to the government that they provide. In other words, I think we're probably getting a pretty good deal the way things are right now. Having said that however, we need to be cognizant of the fact that far fewer people are religious today than they were in the past. Again, I don't know for sure, but I suspect this could be part of the reason our social welfare system is taxed (that is to say strained) more than it has been in the past. Instead of turning to religious communities, people are turning to secular government institutions as we progressively become less religious in advanced industrial societies. I want to make perfectly clear that these are just hunches of mine. I haven't done any research nor read any research into this and I suspect the literature on it is sparse.

[segnosaur]

Part of what I'm saying is if there isn't a Church providing food, clothing, and shelter for the homeless, helping the unemployed find jobs, counselling families, etc., then the government will need to pay for these things

Not necessarily. Its also possible that secular charities could step up and fill the gap.

I don't understand your argument. I"m saying they save the taxpayers money by providing valuable social services to their congregation

First of all, keep in mind that not all churches are known for their delivery of "social services". While you may have some traditional services that run soup kitchens, etc., you also have things like televangilst-run mega churches. One provides "valuable social services". The other does not. Yet both can get the same charitable deductions.Secondly, while it is possible that your local church provides actual social services, whatever benefits they provide must be compared with more secular charities. If you give to something like the Red Cross, you can assume >80% will be used to help people in need. (Their books are audited.) If you donate to your church, how much do you think goes to help the needy, as opposed to (for example) running the church for the regular parisioners to receive mass, listen to sermons, etc. I suspect its rather less than 80%, and the time spent doing those "non-help the needy" activities shouldn't be considered charity.

[cybercoma]

Not necessarily. Its also possible that secular charities could step up and fill the gap.

Possible, but you're talking about an alternate reality. The fact is historically churches have provided a lot of social services for their followers. In any case, the point is that churches receive a tax break, but I believe they probably more than make up for it with the relief they provide to the government in the form of social services.

First of all, keep in mind that not all churches are known for their delivery of "social services". While you may have some traditional services that run soup kitchens, etc., you also have things like televangilst-run mega churches. One provides "valuable social services". The other does not.

I beg to differ. Even the televangelist-run mega-churches still provide daycare for kids and after school programs, as well as counselling services amongst other things, just to give a couple examples. Those mega-churches provide a lot of social services to their congregations. They're not so different. In fact, the amount of money they have, it's possible for them to provide even more services than the church at the end of the street that is struggling just to run weekly services.

Secondly, while it is possible that your local church provides actual social services, whatever benefits they provide must be compared with more secular charities. If you give to something like the Red Cross, you can assume >80% will be used to help people in need. (Their books are audited.) If you donate to your church, how much do you think goes to help the needy, as opposed to (for example) running the church for the regular parisioners to receive mass, listen to sermons, etc. I suspect its rather less than 80%, and the time spent doing those "non-help the needy" activities shouldn't be considered charity.

The entire function of the church is social service. Charity is not specifically handouts to those in need. It's the services provided by the churches and charities as well.

I can't stand religion. I think it has done some terrible things. However, I can't deny the fact that they are a pillar in our social service infrastructure. If they were banned tomorrow, the government or secular organizations would have to take up the slack and I don't believe they would be capable of handling the increased demand.

[segnosaur]

Possible, but you're talking about an alternate reality. The fact is historically churches have provided a lot of social services for their followers.

First of all, the fact that they've been of assistance historically does not mean that they should be considered a primary channel for charity in the future.

Secondly, you also seem to be assuming that people are donating just because they are in the church. I believe that willingness to donate stems from values learned at home, which is independent of whether an individual goes to church or even believes in a god.

I beg to differ. Even the televangelist-run mega-churches still provide daycare for kids and after school programs, as well as counselling services amongst other things, just to give a couple examples.

When I speak of "televangilst mega-churches", I'm referring to churches involving people like Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson and the like... individuals who are better known for their corruption than for running day cares.

They're not so different. In fact, the amount of money they have, it's possible for them to provide even more services than the church at the end of the street that is struggling just to run weekly services.

The issue is not "total amount of money", the issue is "What proportion is used for benevolent purposes".

If I collect$1 billion and use $1million to (for example) help the poor, that is being less charitable than collecting $1000 and using $500 to help the poor.

Those mega-churches provide a lot of social services to their congregations.

...

The entire function of the church is social service. Charity is not specifically handouts to those in need. It's the services provided by the churches and charities as well.

You see, here's the problem (and its one that has been brought up before)... you seem to be redefining "charity" and "social services" to mean something that it does not.

If I go to a bar and complain to my bartender about "my horrible wife", the bartender is not providing charity/social services, since he is in effect getting paid for his services by me purchasing drinks/tiping. Similarly, if I decide to spend money to go see (for example) Tony Robins so I can feel good about myself, I would not classify Robins to be a "charity". I'm paying for a service and I'm receiving it.

Now, when a priest/minister in charge of a church does something stricktly to benefit the patrons/donors of that church (deliver a sermon, hear confession, visit church members in the hospital, etc.) then what he is doing should not be classified as charity. After all, its the donors who are benefiting. They're paying for (through their donations to the church) and receiving a service (the sermon, etc.) If you're going to consider a priest preaching to his own donors a "charity" then you'll have to consider Tony Robins and the bartender at the local pub a "charity" as well since they're doing basically the same thing... charging a fee and administerig a service.

To be a "charity" it has to benefit people from outside the church.

[cybercoma]

First of all, the fact that they've been of assistance historically does not mean that they should be considered a primary channel for charity in the future.

I never said they should be considered the primary channel for charity.

Secondly, you also seem to be assuming that people are donating just because they are in the church. I believe that willingness to donate stems from values learned at home, which is independent of whether an individual goes to church or even believes in a god.

That's odd. I didn't say anything about the donations people make.

When I speak of "televangilst mega-churches", I'm referring to churches involving people like Benny Hinn, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson and the like... individuals who are better known for their corruption than for running day cares.

They're also exceptions. Even so, their actual facilities do provide services for people in those communities. Regardless, they're American, so I'm not sure what that has to do with Canada or its tax codes.

The issue is not "total amount of money", the issue is "What proportion is used for benevolent purposes".

The entire function of the church is for benevolent purposes. So the proportion is 100%.

You see, here's the problem (and its one that has been brought up before)... you seem to be redefining "charity" and "social services" to mean something that it does not.

I'm not redefining anything. I'm saying that churches return to the government and society something in return for what we give them in tax breaks.

If I go to a bar and complain to my bartender about "my horrible wife", the bartender is not providing charity/social services, since he is in effect getting paid for his services by me purchasing drinks/tiping. Similarly, if I decide to spend money to go see (for example) Tony Robins so I can feel good about myself, I would not classify Robins to be a "charity". I'm paying for a service and I'm receiving it.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I'm saying. Are you suggesting that churches do not provide social services to their communities that would otherwise have to be picked up by the government or secular third-sector organizations?

Now, when a priest/minister in charge of a church does something stricktly to benefit the patrons/donors of that church (deliver a sermon, hear confession, visit church members in the hospital, etc.) then what he is doing should not be classified as charity. After all, its the donors who are benefiting. They're paying for (through their donations to the church) and receiving a service (the sermon, etc.) If you're going to consider a priest preaching to his own donors a "charity" then you'll have to consider Tony Robins and the bartender at the local pub a "charity" as well since they're doing basically the same thing... charging a fee and administerig a service.

To be a "charity" it has to benefit people from outside the church.

I've already told you how they benefit people outside the church. They provide soup kitchens. They get coats for kids in the winter. They house AA meetings. They offer community dinners. They get gifts for kids in poverty over the holidays. They do mission work in developing countries. All of these things help people regardless of their religious affiliations or lack thereof.

You need to be clear what you're arguing here because I'm saying churches provide social services that would otherwise be the responsibility of the government. So the money that we give them in the form of tax breaks (which isn't really giving them money anyway) is more than made up for by the service they provide to the community. Otherwise, the government would have to collect even more revenues to provide those services instead.

What is your argument? That churches do not in fact provide social services? That they're all Pat Robertson-esque fraud artists?

While those people certainly exist, I don't think this is at all a realistic picture of what churches do more generally.

[segnosaur]

I never said they should be considered the primary channel for charity.

And I never said you were making that claim either.

Your comment was that they "provided a lot of social services". I replied by saying that they should (not) be considered a primary channel for charity in the future..

Notice your use of "a lot" and my use of the phrase "a primary" (rather than "the primary") channel for charity?

Secondly, you also seem to be assuming that people are donating just because they are in the church. I believe that willingness to donate stems from values learned at home, which is independent of whether an individual goes to church or even believes in a god.

That's odd. I didn't say anything about the donations people make.

Ummm... all churches and charities function by donations (whether its in the form of cash, goods, or time spent).

Re: "scummy" preachers like Bakker and Pat Robertson...

They're also exceptions.

The fact that they're exceptions does not invalidate my rule.

The entire function of the church is for benevolent purposes. So the proportion is 100%.

Once again... .no it is not.

The main function of the church is to cater to its attendents and donors. In that way, it is no more benevolent than Tony Robins is when he holds his self-help workshops.

Its only benevolent when the church provides assistance to those outside the church population.

I'm not redefining anything.

Yes you are, even if you don't recognize it.

Definititon of charity: Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. Something given to help the needy; alms.

You know what's not part of that definition? People paying for a service and receiving it (such as: making a donation to a church so you can in turn get a weekly sermon/receive mass/etc.)

I'm saying that churches return to the government and society something in return for what we give them in tax breaks.

And Tony Robins returns something to society in the form of whatever self-help claptrap he's providing to his paying people. Should you also claim tickets you buy yourself to see Tony Robins as a 'charitable expense'?

If I go to a bar and complain to my bartender about "my horrible wife", the bartender is not providing charity/social services, since he is in effect getting paid for his services by me purchasing drinks/tiping. Similarly, if I decide to spend money to go see (for example) Tony Robins so I can feel good about myself, I would not classify Robins to be a "charity". I'm paying for a service and I'm receiving it.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I'm saying. Are you suggesting that churches do not provide social services to their communities that would otherwise have to be picked up by the government or secular third-sector organizations?

I really don't know how to make it any clearer. I've done my best to provide useful parallels between what a priest does in "preaching to his flock" and what Tony Robbins does.

I've already told you how they benefit people outside the church. They provide soup kitchens. They get coats for kids in the winter. They house AA meetings...

Yes, some churches do this. I never denied that they did.

But here's the point... Such services are only a small part of what a church does. If a priest spends 6 days of the work serving in a purely religious function (giving sermons, listing to confession, etc.) and only 1 day running a soup kitchen, then what he is doing is not 100% charity. (Since the people donating to the church are usually the ones receiving the benefit.) What he's doing is only 1/7 of a charity.

Similarly, even if they do run an AA meeting in their basement, that's only a small faction of the church's property. Most of the church is used for the church membership itself during their religioius functions.

What is your argument? That churches do not in fact provide social services? That they're all Pat Robertson-esque fraud artists?

No, that even if a church provides "social services", it is not the primary goal of the church. The primary goal is to serve its donors (the people that pay for and receive whatever religious service they desire). That is not charity... that is the equivelent of paying for a self-help seminar from Tony Robins.

Whatever 'social services' it provides (i.e. things that benefit people outside the church's member population) are at best a small fraction of what the church actually does.

[cybercoma]

Your comment was that they "provided a lot of social services". I replied by saying that they should (not) be considered a primary channel for charity in the future..

I never said anything about primary, secondary, or anything. I said they are one plank in the broader platform of social services provided to Canadians. Period.

If you would like to remove that plank, how exactly to you plan on filling the gap?

Notice your use of "a lot" and my use of the phrase "a primary" (rather than "the primary") channel for charity?

The main function of the church is to cater to its attendents and donors. In that way, it is no more benevolent than Tony Robins is when he holds his self-help workshops.

Tony Robbins is running a for profit business. It's inappropriate to use case-to-case translation between Tony Robbins and churches.

Its only benevolent when the church provides assistance to those outside the church population.

What exactly does benevolence have to do with anything? I never said they were being benevolent. I said they provide support to the government by providing social services as third-sector organizations.

Definititon of charity: Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. Something given to help the needy; alms.

That is the definition of charity, as in giving charity. The argument earlier in the thread is about charities, as in organizations. The definition you provided is not what is being talked about by "charities" here. The United Way is one of the largest charities in Canada. The United way is not a thing that is given to help the needed. They are an organization that arrange for the giving of charity to those in need.

You know what's not part of that definition? People paying for a service and receiving it (such as: making a donation to a church so you can in turn get a weekly sermon/receive mass/etc.)

You don't have to pay to go to church. I'm not sure why you continue to make this argument. They do not require you to give them money and the church provides not only for people that need assistance in their own community, but also they provide for others in need regardless of whether they are members of their church or not. The weekly sermon or mass is a tiny fraction of the work that churches do.

And Tony Robins returns something to society in the form of whatever self-help claptrap he's providing to his paying people. Should you also claim tickets you buy yourself to see Tony Robins as a 'charitable expense'?

Again with the Tony Robbins comparison, which for obvious reasons does not fit.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer. I've done my best to provide useful parallels between what a priest does in "preaching to his flock" and what Tony Robbins does.

Right. And it's an inappropriate comparison. A priest does not just "preach to his flock." Have you really misunderstood everything that I've written that you continue to think that I'm talking simply about churches having masses?

But here's the point... Such services are only a small part of what a church does. If a priest spends 6 days of the work serving in a purely religious function (giving sermons, listing to confession, etc.) and only 1 day running a soup kitchen, then what he is doing is not 100% charity. (Since the people donating to the church are usually the ones receiving the benefit.) What he's doing is only 1/7 of a charity.

I think you're completely mistaken about the division of labour for priests and ministers.

Similarly, even if they do run an AA meeting in their basement, that's only a small faction of the church's property. Most of the church is used for the church membership itself during their religioius functions.

You're taking a particular example of a larger theory that I'm trying to get across. Criticizing the premise does not invalidate the conclusion. The conclusion is that churches alleviate the burden of social services from the government without making a profit. Giving them a break on their taxes is the least the government can do for them in return.

No, that even if a church provides "social services", it is not the primary goal of the church.

You keep saying that, but it's clear now that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the work that churches do.

The primary goal is to serve its donors (the people that pay for and receive whatever religious service they desire). That is not charity... that is the equivelent of paying for a self-help seminar from Tony Robins.

Again, Tony Robbins's primary goal is to make money. That's it. Churches are non-profit organizations, if they are claiming charitable status. So you really need to stop making this ridiculous comparison.

Whatever 'social services' it provides (i.e. things that benefit people outside the church's member population) are at best a small fraction of what the church actually does.

Yes. It's clear that this is why you disagree with me. You don't have any clue whatsoever what churches do. You seem to think they preach to people and call it a day. No wonder you don't think they should get tax breaks. However, I've given countless examples in this thread of the ways in which churches without making a profit are part of the broader platform of social welfare providers in the country. For some reason, you seem to think the only social welfare they provide is preaching. Obviously, if that's all they did, there would be absolutely no reason for them to be tax exempt. Moreover, I wouldn't call them a integral component of Canada's social safety net.

In short, if you can't agree that churches are non-profits that provide social services to Canadians, then there's really no point in continuing to have this discussion with you. I have no idea why you would either completely ignore or be completely ignorant of the fact that churches do social work that would otherwise need to be done by the government, but if you can't even acknowledge that simple fact, the rest of my argument is completely lost on you.

[segnosaur]

I never said anything about primary, secondary, or anything. I said they are one plank in the broader platform of social services provided to Canadians. Period.

Yes you did. Don't really get what you're whining about.

My point was even if they helped people in the past, does not mean that they should be so tasked as to do so in the future.

If you would like to remove that plank, how exactly to you plan on filling the gap?

There are a lot of ways:

- With the elimination of church tax exemptions, the government would receive more revenue that could be directed at actual need

- Its possible that some people would redirect their religious donations/volunteer work to secular charities to provide the same benefit once the religious tax exemption was removed

- There's also no guarantee that the churches would stop whatever charity work they do if tax exemption were removed. After all, if their claim is that "we're doing gods work" many will continue to donate even if their donations are no longer tax exempt. (Do you really think that removing tax exemption will cause all donations to drop to 0 overnight?)

Notice your use of "a lot" and my use of the phrase "a primary" (rather than "the primary") channel for charity?

Actually it was you that used the phrase 'a lot'.

Tony Robbins is running a for profit business.

Irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.

It's inappropriate to use case-to-case translation between Tony Robbins and churches.

No, actually its quite relevant... despite the fact that Robbins is runnig a 'for profit' business, the point is:

- In both cases people give something (donations to the church/ticket sales to Robbins) and receive something in return (a sermon from the church/self help from Robbins). The fact that Robbins is a 'business' doesn't change the dynamics of paying for a service you receive.

What exactly does benevolence have to do with anything? I never said they were being benevolent. I said they provide support to the government by providing social services as third-sector organizations.

Ummm.... that's pretty much what 'benevolence' is...

Benevolence... definition (from the dictionary)... desire to do good to others; goodwill; charitableness.

That is the definition of charity, as in giving charity. The argument earlier in the thread is about charities, as in organizations. The definition you provided is not what is being talked about by "charities" here.

the fact that a church is classified as a "charity" does not mean that it should be classified as a charity. That is my argment.

You don't have to pay to go to church.

No, but people donate to the church. And the people who donate are overwhelmingly the people that receive the church services.

And without any donations the church would disappear.

So even if its not a defined "payment" for attendance, its functionally the same.

I'm not sure why you continue to make this argument. They do not require you to give them money...

They require that someone gives them money. Yes, there may be people who give nothing but still attend the church. Most do not.

...and the church provides not only for people that need assistance in their own community, but also they provide for others in need regardless of whether they are members of their church or not.

Never denied this.

The weekly sermon or mass is a tiny fraction of the work that churches do.

Preparing sermons takes time, as does planning services (Things like choir practice). Those things are not helping the "community at large" either.

And yes, the church may do more than just 'give sermons'... but many/most of those other activties are likewise directed at members of the church rather than the non-church population.

Yes. It's clear that this is why you disagree with me. You don't have any clue whatsoever what churches do.

No, actually I have a very good idea of what 'churches' do. I used to be a member of a church. Even taught Sunday school (before I became an atheist). My parents are still members of the same church.

Let me give a description... its a smaller church located in the suburbs of a small city. Fairly smaller congregation, and really only the Minister on staff. But, its one of the mainstream churches (so its not like I'm talking about a Pat Robertson-type ministry.)

- The church itself does not host AA meetings, food banks or soup kitchens on site. So, you can't argue that the church building itself is used "for social services". (Heck, there are actually 3 churches in that neighborhood and none of them host those type of activities.) The only thing the church is used for is, well, religious activity... church services, meetings involving members of the church (e.g. monthly "pancake breakfasts", etc.)

- The church allows people to specify where their donations go... either "church upkeep" (paying minister salary/building maintenance, etc.) or "mission and services" (i.e. things that actuall do help outside the church community). Very little (if I remember, I think it was less than 10%) was directed for "mission and services".

- Yes, the minister did more than "give a weekly sermon" (although with rehersals, preparation, etc. that would take a fairly substantial amount of time.)... some of the other activites were: visit church members outside the church, for example in hospital (again, that's somethig that's dealing with only church members themselves), run 'bible study' and similar classes (again, that's something that was directed at church members), have meetings with the ministers of other churches in the area. Notice something? None of those activties are ones that help the community outside that of the church itself.

- The only thing that the church did that could be considered "charitable" (i.e. something that was directed at people outside the church population) was that the Minister would work at a local food bank/soup kitchen for a couple of hours 2 days a week.

So, for all the money collected in donations (and all the tax deductions granted), the only benefit to society outside the church (i.e "social welfare) was... a half day work per week at the soup kitchen. Even if you assume it was a full day, the amount of "charity" (I'm defining as something that helps outside of the donating public) that would only be 20% of the minister's time.

I have no idea why you would either completely ignore or be completely ignorant of the fact that churches do social work that would otherwise need to be done by the government, but if you can't even acknowledge that simple fact, the rest of my argument is completely lost on you.

Once again, I never claimed that they didn't do "social work that would otherwise have to be done by the government". What I said was that very little of what the church does are things that the government would have a need to fill...

- The government would not have a need to give sermons

- The government would not have a need to give mass/hear confession

- The government would not have a need to visit sick paritioners

- The government would not have a need to maintain a large building (i.e. the church) for services. And even if things like AA meetings were held at the church, there is no reason the same function couldn't be done in other government buildings (e.g. schools)

[-TSS-]

But how exactly do protestant churches in North-America finance themselves? Tax-breaks is not an adequate explanation. Money still must come from somewhere.

[Sleipnir]

But how exactly do protestant churches in North-America finance themselves? Tax-breaks is not an adequate explanation. Money still must come from somewhere.

The mass, audience, followers, etc.

[segnosaur]

But how exactly do protestant churches in North-America finance themselves? Tax-breaks is not an adequate explanation. Money still must come from somewhere.

Primarily donations from members (source of 90% of funding), either from living members, or from their estate after death...

Some may donate because they will get an income tax deduction at the end, others may donate purely because they have a belief in what the church is doing. In other cases its a combination of the 2.

There may be other streams of revenue:

- Rental of the church itself (for things like weddings)

- Investments (e.g. if a church had a surplus one year they may 'save' some of its extra money)

http://presbyterian.typepad.com/beyondordinary/2011/05/where-does-the-money-come-from-financing-the-local-church-.html

[Michael Hardner]

My point was even if they helped people in the past, does not mean that they should be so tasked as to do so in the future.

There are a lot of ways:

- With the elimination of church tax exemptions, the government would receive more revenue that could be directed at actual need

I guess you missed the discussion earlier in the thread.

The Church doesn't get much more than any other non-profit/charitable enterprise in terms of tax advantages. If you're going after the Church only, rather than say the BC Astrological Society, as a charitable society than you're only doing so because you resent religion IMO. They can't be doing less "good" for the money than the BCAS.

Also - the idea that paying the same amount of money that a church uses for charity to the government would result in an equal amount of 'good' is laughable. If you give $1000 to a church soup kitchen, or a food bank, most of it will go to the people in need. The government will eat up that $1000 on overhead pretty quickly.

[segnosaur]

<p>

I guess you missed the discussion earlier in the thread.

The Church doesn't get much more than any other non-profit/charitable enterprise in terms of tax advantages. If you're going after the Church only, rather than say the BC Astrological Society, as a charitable society than you're only doing so because you resent religion IMO. They can't be doing less "good" for the money than the BCAS.

I seem to remember you being infatuated with the BC Astrological Society in another thread.

Hey, if you want to start another thread where you condemn the BCAS, go right ahead. I promise I will post in it right away, agreeing how it shouldn't be considered a charity.

But the fact that one organization (and possibly more) are falsely considered charities doesn't mean that we should ignore other organizations that likewise are considered charities when they aren't. One unpunished mistake does not justify letting other mistakes go unpunished

Also - the idea that paying the same amount of money that a church uses for charity to the government would result in an equal amount of 'good' is laughable. If you give $1000 to a church soup kitchen, or a food bank, most of it will go to the people in need. The government will eat up that $1000 on overhead pretty quickly.

You see, this is where you seem to have problems with understanding.

People don't just give money to the church "for a soup kitchen/food bank". They tend to give money that ends up in general revenue. With that money, the church will end up:

- Paying for a minister to deliver sermons, run bible classes for members, handle church choir practice, etc. None of those activities are ones that feed or cloth the poor, or give them a place to live. (Things that are truly benevolent, helping people outside the church population. Things we should classify as charity. More importantly, they are not things that the government would have to replace.) Even if the priest/minister does some charity work, the strictly 'religious' part is a significant portion of what they do.

- Paying for an organist, church choir robes, etc. Again, these are not things that feed, cloth or otherwise help the people outside the church community, and thus are not things that the government would have to replace.

- Paying to heat and maintain a very large building, which in many (probably most) cases is used only for religious purposes. I pointed to 3 different churches in the city I grew up in, all 'mainstream' churches, none of which hosted soup kitchens, food banks, AA meetings, or anything similar. (So please don't give me any of that crap about "churches having food banks" and other such nonsense... the fact is, most churches do not host those things.) So yet another church "expense' that gets a tax deduction, even though in most cases does not help one poor person get fed, or give them a place to sleep for the night.

Now, notice something there? I've outlined 3 major expenses that we give tax deductions for when people donate to the church, but none of those expenses feed or cloth the poor or disadvantaged, nor help them find a place to sleep. And none of those expenses are used for anything that the government would have to replace.

In a previous post I described the church I used to attend and the one that my parents still do. (A very typical church, mainstream, in a typical small-to-moderate sized city.) Of all the money raised by the church, only a small percentage goes to non-religious activities that the government would have to replace if the church weren't there. (I estimated only about 10%). Compare that to a charity like the Red Cross, where the amount that actually goes to help the needy is on the order of 80-90%.

And that is why we should no longer consider a church to be a 'charity'. Because almost every dollar collected in donations is used for some fuzzy-wuzzy religious purpose, usually directed at the very same people making the donations.

Edited November 12, 2012 by segnosaur