Religion

• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1399995 wrote:You sound a lot like the establishment Republicans I know, then.

  Great way to bring in revenue from the derelicts and lower rungs of society who don't pay any federal income tax because our tax code is a joke.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1399913 wrote:Huh ... never figured you to be big on taxes.
  
  I'd be all for more thorough bookkeeping requirements to retain non-profit status ... ensuring that "not-for-profit" indeed means "not-for-profit."

  Not for profits can profit all they want....so long as that amount is distributed to some charitable activity.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1400069 wrote:Not for profits can profit all they want....so long as that amount is distributed to some charitable activity.

  If it is distributed, it is no longer "profit" to them.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1400066 wrote:Great way to bring in revenue from the derelicts and lower rungs of society who don't pay any federal income tax because our tax code is a joke.

  We shouldn't need any more "revenue." The derelicts that don't pay any taxes aren't going to get hit if you tax a church entity.
  
  I agree that our tax code is laughable, but raising taxes on anyone certainly isn't going to fix it.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1400086 wrote:We shouldn't need any more "revenue." The derelicts that don't pay any taxes aren't going to get hit if you tax a church entity.
  
  I agree that our tax code is laughable, but raising taxes on anyone certainly isn't going to fix it.

  The church will have to charge something when their excess profits are taxed at 50%. The church will pass it down to their customer and affect the derelict.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1400089 wrote:... when their excess profits are taxed at 50%. The church will pass it down to their customer and affect the derelict.

  Proof that all churches have "excess profits?"
  
  And no church will charge. All you'll do will be to drive churches to become "unofficial" gatherings.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1400091 wrote:Proof that all churches have "excess profits?"
  
  And no church will charge. All you'll do will be to drive churches to become "unofficial" gatherings.

  Someone's gotta pay for the building; it ain't free.
• Con_Alma

  O-Trap;1400084 wrote:If it is distributed, it is no longer "profit" to them.

  They have to calculate excess after expenses or profit to determine what value needs to ultimately be distributed to maintain their taxe status.
  
  Creative ones can find expenses or inflate them to minimize the required distribution.
  
  Another way of looking at it in general is you either pay the amount in tax or pay it in charitable activity,....that's not a 100% accurate but it gives a general insight.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1400095 wrote:Someone's gotta pay for the building; it ain't free.

  
  So I suppose the way Rod Parsley does it is better, then: When the pastor owns the building and he just lets church chill in there on Sunday mornings.
  

  Con_Alma;1400112 wrote:They have to calculate excess after expenses or profit to determine what value needs to ultimately be distributed to maintain their taxe status.
  
  Creative ones can find expenses or inflate them to minimize the required distribution.
  
  Another way of looking at it in general is you either pay the amount in tax or pay it in charitable activity,....that's not a 100% accurate but it gives a general insight.

  I know how it works. That was why I put "profit" in parantheses. I know a lot of the "profit" seems to be able to be hidden in operating costs that function almost as personal property but that techincally get written off as church expenses. And there is indeed some wiggle room in salaries, as well, as I recall (from doing fundraising for the ACLJ).
• Con_Alma

  Sorry, I didn't catch the " ". Guess I glossed right over it.
  
  I've always found it an interesting term when considering what not-for-profits do to realize their "profit".
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1400138 wrote:Sorry, I didn't catch the " ". Guess I glossed right over it.
  
  I've always found it an interesting term when considering what not-for-profits do to realize their "profit".

  One of the first things I was told when I went to work in non-profit fundraising:
  
  "The biggest lie you'll ever hear is that non-profits don't care about money."
• Con_Alma

  Don't confuse non-profits with not-for-profits. They are a little different.
  
  "Except for the distinguishing feature that a not for profit organizations does not distribute profits to it owners, many non-profits have much in common with for-profit organizations. For example, while some not for profit organizations use only volunteer labor, any sufficiently large non-profit is likely to require a staff of paid full-time employees, managers, and directors. Indeed, since not for profit enterprises wish to accomplish their objectives in the same way as for profit enterprises, business tactics and management techniques honed in the for-profit world often work well in not for profit organizations as well. "
  
  Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/not-for-profit.asp#ixzz2Md0oCKTP
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1400134 wrote:So I suppose the way Rod Parsley does it is better, then: When the pastor owns the building and he just lets church chill in there on Sunday mornings.
  
  
  
  I know how it works. That was why I put "profit" in parantheses. I know a lot of the "profit" seems to be able to be hidden in operating costs that function almost as personal property but that techincally get written off as church expenses. And there is indeed some wiggle room in salaries, as well, as I recall (from doing fundraising for the ACLJ).

  Seems like the kind of ethics that a corrupt institution would perform to pad their cult-like pockets.
• O-Trap

  

  sleeper;1400184 wrote:Seems like the kind of ethics that a corrupt institution would perform to pad their cult-like pockets.

  I agree. Those are certainly the kinds of things I would have no problem going after.
• sleeper

  

  O-Trap;1400214 wrote:I agree. Those are certainly the kinds of things I would have no problem going after.

  Then you would have no problem with taxing churches like the businesses that they are.
• OSH

  

  Con_Alma;1400069 wrote:Not for profits can profit all they want....so long as that amount is distributed to some charitable activity.

  No "distributed to some charitable activity" is needed. The "not for profit" only means there is not one single owner that is raking in the money. They can keep around money in a bank account for "operating costs." That doesn't mean it is a profit.
  

  sleeper;1400326 wrote:Then you would have no problem with taxing churches like the businesses that they are.

  If you treat churches like ALL other non-profits, then so be it. Higher education institutions should do the same. There's no need for Ohio State to have an endowment of over $2.1 billion and charge $10,000+ ($25,000+ non-resident) for tuition AND $10,000+ for room and board. Oh, at the same time, typically give out less-than-stellar financial aid.
  
  Same can be said for MANY other institutions. Other non-profits operate similarly.
• sleeper

  

  OSH;1400387 wrote:No "distributed to some charitable activity" is needed. The "not for profit" only means there is not one single owner that is raking in the money. They can keep around money in a bank account for "operating costs." That doesn't mean it is a profit.
  
  
  
  If you treat churches like ALL other non-profits, then so be it. Higher education institutions should do the same. There's no need for Ohio State to have an endowment of over $2.1 billion and charge $10,000+ ($25,000+ non-resident) for tuition AND $10,000+ for room and board. Oh, at the same time, typically give out less-than-stellar financial aid.
  
  Same can be said for MANY other institutions. Other non-profits operate similarly.

  I agree. An education from Ohio State is too cheap for the value you get out of it. Raise tuition until it hits the proper balance of supply and demand.
• sleeper

  

  Also, churches should not be labeled as non-profits. They are money making machines that sell a fraudulent service to its uneducated mentally handicapped customers. Only in religion can a business take advantage of handicapped people and get away with it. :thumbdown:
• Con_Alma

  OSH;1400387 wrote:No "distributed to some charitable activity" is needed. The "not for profit" only means there is not one single owner that is raking in the money. They can keep around money in a bank account for "operating costs." That doesn't mean it is a profit.
  
  
  ....

  See my follow up post to O-Trap when he responded with the same sentiment.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  OSH;1400387 wrote:There's no need for Ohio State to have an endowment of over $2.1 billion and charge $10,000+ ($25,000+ non-resident) for tuition AND $10,000+ for room and board. Oh, at the same time, typically give out less-than-stellar financial aid.

  Very well stated. Ohio State and many other public schools have lost the plot. The typical undergraduate education at OSU is worth pennies on the dollar. That is unless you value a 150+ lecture hall being led by a GA who has poor command of the language. Public schools are a wonderful racket. They don't get too much scrutiny because people are distracted by the wonderful football and basketball teams that make us all feel so good about ourselves. Meanwhile guys like Gordon Gee are out glad handing the big shots to fill up the endowment coffers even though those funds will do nothing for the paying customers. Guys like Les Wexner are given carte blanche to make a school just how they want it if they keep giving it their dough and plastering up their name all over the place.
  
  Research how many people on Ohio State's campus earn 250K or more per year. The fake administration to run the place is a total joke. Then cross reference how many of those "administrators" are former Limited employees. You'll see what a beer and circus racket it is.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1400474 wrote:Very well stated. Ohio State and many other public schools have lost the plot. The typical undergraduate education at OSU is worth pennies on the dollar. That is unless you value a 150+ lecture hall being led by a GA who has poor command of the language. Public schools are a wonderful racket. They don't get too much scrutiny because people are distracted by the wonderful football and basketball teams that make us all feel so good about ourselves. Meanwhile guys like Gordon Gee are out glad handing the big shots to fill up the endowment coffers even though those funds will do nothing for the paying customers. Guys like Les Wexner are given carte blanche to make a school just how they want it if they keep giving it their dough and plastering up their name all over the place.
  
  Research how many people on Ohio State's campus earn 250K or more per year. The fake administration to run the place is a total joke. Then cross reference how many of those "administrators" are former Limited employees. You'll see what a beer and circus racket it is.

  As an Ohio State graduate, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't care if Gordon Gee and Les Wexner are making $10 billion a year as long as they continue to make Ohio State the top University on the planet. The people that complain about 150+ lecture halls are the students that will end up working for an OSU grad one day and you can take that to the bank.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1400481 wrote:As an Ohio State graduate, I wouldn't have it any other way. I don't care if Gordon Gee and Les Wexner are making $10 billion a year as long as they continue to make Ohio State the top University on the planet. The people that complain about 150+ lecture halls are the students that will end up working for an OSU grad one day and you can take that to the bank.

  I hold an OSU master's degree and it has served me well. I am married to an OSU undergrad alum as well. The undergraduate education there, with the exception of some fields, is not worth the high admission standards nor the hefty tuition. Making a school hard to get into doesn't make the subsequent education meaningful. Fancy dorms, a fancy union and a fancy rec center don't make up for a generally lousy undergraduate offering. My wife graduated with a 3.9 GPA and her undergraduate curriculum and experience were both pathetic. Gee and Wexner have successfully made people believe that a fancy hospital and kick ass football equals an excellent university. Far from it. Ohio State is light years from being the "top university on the planet".
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1400491 wrote:I hold an OSU master's degree and it has served me well. I am married to an OSU undergrad alum as well. The undergraduate education there, with the exception of some fields, is not worth the high admission standards nor the hefty tuition. Making a school hard to get into doesn't make the subsequent education meaningful. Fancy dorms, a fancy union and a fancy rec center don't make up for a generally lousy undergraduate offering. My wife graduated with a 3.9 GPA and her undergraduate curriculum and experience were both pathetic. Gee and Wexner have successfully made people believe that a fancy hospital and kick ass football equals an excellent university. Far from it. Ohio State is light years from being the "top university on the planet".

  I'm sorry that you were not able to extract the full value of your master's degree from the greatest institution on the planet. Perhaps you should look inward when accounting for the "pathetic" education you received at OSU. Many others have benefited greatly for the university's strong academic reputation and many others have earned a solid education to allow them to be leaders in their respective fields. Thank you for your tuition money though; I enjoyed the nicest dorms, recreation centers, sports teams and a solid base of academic knowledge because of the money others have contributed before me.
• FatHobbit

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1400491 wrote:My wife graduated with a 3.9 GPA and her undergraduate curriculum and experience were both pathetic.

  I'm curious to know what was pathetic about her undergrad curriculum and experience?
• FatHobbit

  

  sleeper;1400496 wrote:I enjoyed the nicest dorms,

  Things must have changed dramatically since I was at OSU. lol