And I know that the next time Hillary and/or other demosocialist pols go pandering for the black vote at their churches and give their campaign speech from the pulpit the NYT is going to run a front page, above the fold complaining about separation of church and state!
>Churches “enjoy an abundance of exemptions from regulations and taxes” and the result is “religious organizations of all faiths stand in a position that American businesses – and the thousands of nonprofit groups without that ‘religious’ label – can only envy,”
Entirely true.
> In a country where 92 percent say they believe in God or a higher power, according to a recent Baylor University study, Henriques never mentioned that members of all the religious organizations would also be taxpayers
Entirely irrelevant.
If churches are tax exempt, why not gun shops or book stores or internet providers or newspapers or Union organizers or lobbyists?
Kevin Boyer, a spokesman for Chicago Games Inc., the local non-profit that staged the event, said there is little chance the Chicago Games won't at least break even. He acknowledged that some bills have been paid a bit slowly but insisted there will be no financial losers when the final tally is done.
So, does the New York Times object to this? Nope. Our tax dollars should support the Gay Games, but not churches? Charming. (NOT)
Underlying most of the liberals' hatred for conservatism is their hatred for religion and God. I've known this for years. Most of the liberal agenda is an anti-religious one, abortion, homosexual 'rights', legalized lewdness and pornography..... all of these things fly in the face of Christianity and orthodox Judaism. What religion would deny the liberals, they seek to obtain through government policy. And if they can use the government to suppress religion, all the better for them.
The authors do a good job in pointing out how absurd this lady's arguments are, and what a nut she is.
Universities, colleges, and other non-profit organizations enjoy the same tax breaks.
" • “These organizations and their leaders still rely on public services – police and fire protection, street lights and storm drains, highway and bridge maintenance, food and drug inspections, national defense. But their tax exemptions shift the cost of providing those benefits onto other citizens. The total cost nationwide is not known, because no one keeps track.”
I don't think churches should be tax-exempt either. Not only has it resulted in their avoiding certain political activities as one means of expressing their faith, but it has also make nearly all churches (and other types of religious groups) utterly sheeplike when it comes to the ever-expanding socialist tax-and-spend government. Tell the churches they have to pay income tax on all the contributions they receive, and only get deductions for things the IRS approves of, and you'd get a tidal wave of "Cut taxes now!" preaching from pulpits across the land. That could only be beneficial.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1
With a $200,000 budget shortfall on an event organizers predicted would at least break even, everything must go.
By shedding these assets and soliciting donations, organizers who ran the Games on a $10 million cash budget say they will get back to zero or maybe even generate a slight surplus by the spring.
Either way, Gay Games leaders say they have proved the event doesn't need to be the notorious money loser it has been in recent years.
Kevin Boyer, a spokesman for Chicago Games Inc., the local non-profit that staged the event, said there is little chance the Chicago Games won't at least break even.
As I said earlier, given that thanks to shield laws and court decisions on defamation law (not to mention the First Amendment), the press has a rather extensive "benefit of clergy" of its very own, I find the Times' decision to go after religious organizations...droll, putting it mildly.
Right now, tax-exempts are subject to tax for UBTI (Unreleated business taxable income). Basically, this means that while tax-exempts can invest in companies, and get capital gains, dividends and interest (as long as the company isn't a pass through like an LLC). What a tax-exempt cannot do is operate a business directly, without a corporate shell (well, it can, but this becomes subject to income taxes according to the UBTI statutes).
The reason for this is suppose Harvard University decided it would opeate a computer company and compete with Dell. If it could do this on a tax-free basis, Dell couldn't compete. Dell needs to pay property tax, income tax, etc. So if the operation isn't central to your non-profit's mission, then you cannot operate outside of the UBTI statutes.
Some of the examples in the NYT article seemed like they should be subject to the UBTI, like a condo complex for wealthy seniors. But maybe not: it depends on who qualifies for the housing, etc. Perhaps the UBTI needs to be a bit more strongly adhered to...
The New York Times has been on an anti-religion jihad this week with three front page negative articles in a row.
Take away the ACLU tax exempt status and I would then care just a microgram about churches tax exempt status.