In the spirit of openness and transparency--

[_charity]

Subsidized by the fact that the church doesn't pay taxes. I have to pay taxes. You do. Businesses do. But churches don't.

What you say above about churches doing more good than costing in revenues - I agree with that. That's partially the rationale for them being non-taxable. However, my big beef, is that there's no external/independent oversight to ensure that what you say, is occurring. If I'm going to subsidize a religion, I should have a right to know what's going on.

LDS church in the US is about 6 million. There are about 127 million in the various Christian denominations, plus another non-Christian religious adherents estimated at 41 million. In my math, LDS is about 3% of the total religious membership of the US. So, doyou think this miniscule proportion of all those subdizied religions is worth thinking about?

[_skippy the dead]

Subsidized by the fact that the church doesn't pay taxes. I have to pay taxes. You do. Businesses do. But churches don't.

What you say above about churches doing more good than costing in revenues - I agree with that. That's partially the rationale for them being non-taxable. However, my big beef, is that there's no external/independent oversight to ensure that what you say, is occurring. If I'm going to subsidize a religion, I should have a right to know what's going on.

LDS church in the US is about 6 million. There are about 127 million in the various Christian denominations, plus another non-Christian religious adherents estimated at 41 million. In my math, LDS is about 3% of the total religious membership of the US. So, doyou think this miniscule proportion of all those subdizied religions is worth thinking about?

I'd like to get away from the concept of religions being "subsidized" in any way. In reality, the tax code exempts certain organizations, including churches, from having to pay taxes. This is not a subsidy. It's an exemption. The government does not contribute any cash to a religion (to a religion's outreach program on occasion, but not to a religion). I don't think we even need to consider the relative size of the LDS church in this equation. There's no government entanglement with the church, and no reason for a person to be entitled to external oversight. Do we think that because a private corporation gets a tax break that suddenly their books become public? No. Same with churches. It's a very simple concept.

[_Who Knows]

I'd like to get away from the concept of religions being "subsidized" in any way. In reality, the tax code exempts certain organizations, including churches, from having to pay taxes. This is not a subsidy. It's an exemption. The government does not contribute any cash to a religion (to a religion's outreach program on occasion, but not to a religion). I don't think we even need to consider the relative size of the LDS church in this equation. There's no government entanglement with the church, and no reason for a person to be entitled to external oversight. Do we think that because a private corporation gets a tax break that suddenly their books become public? No. Same with churches. It's a very simple concept.

I couldn't disagree more.

Example:

I own a home. I have to pay real estate taxes on the property I own. Just down the block, the church owns a nice sized chunk of land. Guess how much in property taxes the church pays on that land? ZERO!

Do you have any idea how much real estate the church owns? I don't know for sure, but I've heard they're one of the biggest land-owners in the US.

Give me a break. We are subsidizing the LDS church's (and any other religion's) growth.

As for your last comment, any organization or industry that gets certain tax breaks, SHOULD be subject to oversight.

edit - and you have to remember skippy, that those corporations ARE subject to audits by the IRS. Those companies have to file a tax return, and the IRS can elect to audit them. Not so for religions.

[_moksha]

is going.
The members who contribute tithing are not "investing." They are giving money to God.

Actually the money goes to the Church rather than God. Even Zions Bank does not list an exchange rate with Heavenly currency.

Charity, could you not suggest to the right people that the More Good Foundation buy some Google ad space to forward clicks to their sites? If the Calvary Chapel in Salt Lake can do it, why not the Mormons? Having 'temple' as one of the key words would make sense.

[_skippy the dead]

I'd like to get away from the concept of religions being "subsidized" in any way. In reality, the tax code exempts certain organizations, including churches, from having to pay taxes. This is not a subsidy. It's an exemption. The government does not contribute any cash to a religion (to a religion's outreach program on occasion, but not to a religion). I don't think we even need to consider the relative size of the LDS church in this equation. There's no government entanglement with the church, and no reason for a person to be entitled to external oversight. Do we think that because a private corporation gets a tax break that suddenly their books become public? No. Same with churches. It's a very simple concept.

I couldn't disagree more.

Example:

I own a home. I have to pay real estate taxes on the property I own. Just down the block, the church owns a nice sized chunk of land. Guess how much in property taxes the church pays on that land? ZERO!

Do you have any idea how much real estate the church owns? I don't know for sure, but I've heard they're one of the biggest land-owners in the US.

Give me a break. We are subsidizing the LDS church's (and any other religion's) growth.

As for your last comment, any organization or industry that gets certain tax breaks, SHOULD be subject to oversight.

edit - and you have to remember skippy, that those corporations ARE subject to audits by the IRS. Those companies have to file a tax return, and the IRS can elect to audit them. Not so for religions.

Not true. Typically, churches must file a Form 990 each year. And they could be subject to audit w.r.t their tax exempt status - from the IRS "Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations":

All tax-exempt organizations, including churches and
religious organizations (regardless of whether tax-exempt
status has been officially recognized by the IRS), are
required to maintain books of accounting and other
records necessary to justify their claim for exemption in
the event of an audit.

It's true that a church doesn't have to pay property taxes on the properties used for worship and worship-related activities (for instance, their great mall would not be exempt from property taxes), but that has been implemented from the beginnings of the nation as part of the "the power to tax is the power to destroy" line of thought and since then to ensure that the government cannot use that power to interfere with the free establishment clause. The US Supreme Court has determined that this is not a subsidy (I'd have to dig for the reference, and I'm admittedly too lazy to do so now).

Again, under your line of reasoning, we'd all have ample right to dig into every mom-and-pop business, our neighbor's finances, and even check the pockets of the homeless guy at the on-ramp to see how much he's making. It's illogical.

Tithe payers are voluntarily associating with their religious organization. Nobody is making them pay monies in (I don't hold to the guilt trips make them do it reasoning). If they don't like it, don't pay it.

[Guest]

Actually the money goes to the Church rather than God. Even Zions Bank does not list an exchange rate with Heavenly currency.

This reminds me of a joke. A Cathlic priest, a rabbit and a televangelist are talking about how they handle donations made to their churches. The priest says that he takes the money that come in, throw it up in the air and all the bills that end up face up he uses for charitiable purposes and all that call with the face side down, he keeps for his own support. The rabbi says he does the same, except that he keeps the bills that fall face up for his own support and the one that fall face down he uses for charitable purposes. They turn to the televangelist. He shrugs his shoulders and says, "I throw all the money up in the air, and I figure God can take what he wants."

I figure what I give in tithing is used in the way God wants it to be used. He doesn't have to reach out and grab the bills as they go by.

Charity, could you not suggest to the right people that the More Good Foundation buy some Google ad space to forward clicks to their sites? If the Calvary Chapel in Salt Lake can do it, why not the Mormons? Having 'temple' as one of the key words would make sense.

Why? So there would be yet another "look at how greedy the Church is" screeches?

[_moksha]

Why? So there would be yet another "look at how greedy the Church is" screeches?

For outreach purposes, like Calvary Chapel is doing.

[_skippy the dead]

[
Charity, could you not suggest to the right people that the More Good Foundation buy some Google ad space to forward clicks to their sites? If the Calvary Chapel in Salt Lake can do it, why not the Mormons? Having 'temple' as one of the key words would make sense.

Why? So there would be yet another "look at how greedy the Church is" screeches?

Actually, it would be the foundation paying for advertising to direct people to their site when church related content is noted, not necessarily as a money making venture. More of an informational thing.

[_the road to hana]

Subsidized by the fact that the church doesn't pay taxes. I have to pay taxes. You do. Businesses do. But churches don't.

What you say above about churches doing more good than costing in revenues - I agree with that. That's partially the rationale for them being non-taxable. However, my big beef, is that there's no external/independent oversight to ensure that what you say, is occurring. If I'm going to subsidize a religion, I should have a right to know what's going on.

LDS church in the US is about 6 million. There are about 127 million in the various Christian denominations, plus another non-Christian religious adherents estimated at 41 million. In my math, LDS is about 3% of the total religious membership of the US. So, doyou think this miniscule proportion of all those subdizied religions is worth thinking about?

Do you think the LDS Church's annual income amounts to only 3% of the total of all income that comes in to religious organizations, Christian and otherwise, in the U.S.?

[_charity]

Do you think the LDS Church's annual income amounts to only 3% of the total of all income that comes in to religious organizations, Christian and otherwise, in the U.S.?

Oh, my. Now we have to get into complicated stuff. Since the number of children per member is as high only in the Catholic Church, but considerably higher than members of other churches, there are probably fewer adults as proportion. Probably active LDS adults donate more than many other church members donate because of tithing. Except that in the Catholic, Anglican, and other major denominations the wealthier people pay fairly substantial amounts, but don't call it tithing.

So, say our 3% membership gives tithing double that of churches take in dontations on average, is that still something Who Knows should worry about?