Declaring Religious Tithes as a Tax Free Donation

[Acitnoids]

I know Christianity so I can say that most Christians believe that they are required to pay a tithe to their Church (Num. 18:21-38; Mal. 3:7-10). Now, without getting into a debate over Old Testament law and New Testament law I want to know if it is ethically, morally or legally acceptable for a (Christian) to expect a rebate on their tithing, from the federal government none the less, when their intention for giving was "ordained by God".
.
Put yourself into these shoes:
God expects you to give a tithe for the advancement of (its) will. Should you expect the federal government to compensate you for furthering God's will?
.
Now put yourself into these shoes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?

 

[Tiassa]

Render unto Caesar

Render unto Caesar .... (Mk. 12.17)

To the other, at first guess—and without having done any specific background research—I would suggest that tithes ought to be treated like any donation to a 501(c)3.

 

[Syzygys]

Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?

No. I always have a problem with large tax deductible donations. They are basicly taking money away from the government, thus ultimately, from the people.

So if your religious tithing is tax deductible, than the people are getting less money because of your religious beliefs. Is that fair???

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by Tiassa
Render unto Caesar .... (Mk. 12.17)
.
To the other, at first glance - and without having done any specific background research - I would suggest that tithes ought to be treated like any donation to a 501(c)3.

...., and to God the things that are God's (Mk. 12:17)
.
501(c)3 outlines the legal requirements for a tax exempt entity. It lists "churches" (as defined by IRS Publication 1828: Tax guide for churches and religious organizations) as automatically tax exempt charities. That in itself is B.S. because a religious establishment's main focus is to foster the establishment of religion. That being said, an argument can be made that the omission of "churches" from 501(c)3 would hinder or even prohibit their free exercise thereof.
.
My main concern is the tax-deductable contribution status of "churches" as outlined in Code 170. An argument can be made that the inclusion of religious entities into this legislation serves to subsidize religious establishments thus making it unconstitutional. It is one thing to give a donation to Sister Jane's orphanage or Imam John's soup kitchen but, it doesn't work that way. The money that goes towards charity is indistinguishable from the money used to advance a religious agenda. Congress has to fix this discrepancy and I see two ways of doing this.
.
1) Omit "churches" from Code 170. This will eliminate the government subsidy of religious establishments.
2) Have "churches" and their donors itemize their use/intent for giving so that the money used to run a religious institution remains separate from the money used to operate charitable contributions to society.
.
This post scurries around the legality of inserting religious establishments into legislation. There are still the ethical and moral consequences to having the government compensate an individual's requirement to tithe (Mk. 12:18).

 

[Michael]

I don't have a problem with taking money from the government, the less it gets the better. However, tithing is a donation that in my opinion should not be tax deductible as it puts people into groups that can and can not get that reduction.

What we need are a lot less taxes period.

Interesting, tithes used to be the means by which society had that bit of money to take care of the poor. The ultra wealthy felt it was an honour to God(s) to build public works projects - usually churches. How times have changed......

 

[Sarkus]

In the UK donations to charities are tax-deductible.
If you are paying out of earned income, on which tax has already been paid, you can sign a "gift aid" form that allows the charity to claim back the tax that you have paid - so it helps them get more for the money you actually give.

So given that charitable donations are tax-deductible, there are 2 ways of looking at it...
1) the amount you are giving is already Net of tax, so that the charity can claim the extra (gift-aid); or
2) the amount you give is gross of tax... so you deliberately give more knowing that you can recover a % through tax-relief.

Ultimately the charity gets the money, and ideally it would be the same amount under either option.

And I would think the reason that charitable donations are tax-deductible is because charities help do work that otherwise the government would have to do - so by giving to the charity you are saving the government money. Which is also the reason they don't pay tax on their profits.

 

[Syzygys]

I don't have a problem with taking money from the government, the less it gets the better.

Of course you do realize that the government is the people. After all the roads you drive on are also maintained by the government, federal or local. So more tax deductible money for others, more potholes for you.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by Michael
I don't have a problem with taking money from the government, ...

I just wanted to say that I've heard this comment before. Most Christians I've discussed this topic with say the same thing - "If the money is there then I'm going to take it". To that I say - isn't that the same attitude as habitual welfare recipients? Let's face it; members of religious establishments are going to tithe whether they can write it off or not.

 

[Michael]

Of course you do realize that the government is the people. After all the roads you drive on are also maintained by the government, federal or local. So more tax deductible money for others, more potholes for you.

People who used the roads could be charged for their use? Say, 0.05 a mile? Or whatever if costs so that there's no excess profit but the roads are kept up :shrug:

Maybe you'd end up paying less?

 

[Syzygys]

and people could be charged to use schools too...

 

[Michael]

and people could be charged to use schools too...

People are charged to use schools - schooling isn't for free. We all pay for it in our taxes. Usually property tax, but, that depends on the country.

The question to me would be how do we provide the best educational service. If you've ever been to public schools, well, you can see what a complete sham that's turned out to be :shrug:School in the USA is set up like a factory pumping out sausages. It's more a process of socializing than it is education IMO.

Also, one would hope everyone would want their children to be educated. If that's not the case, then we really have a serious social problem that needs to be addressed, not swept under the rug as is the case now. How best to educate children and how best to efficiently pay for that education? I know when I was growing up I learned to read from my mother :shrug: I know a LOT of Asian families who pay for their children to go to private school AFTER public school to learn math and other skills like literacy in a foreign language. Asians are crushing other ethnicities (scholastically) - at least where I live. Not because they're any smarter, but because their families greatly value education. The single biggest factor in how educated a child is, is the degree to which parents value education. I've even seen it within a family where one child is pushed and other isn't. The one who is pushed is successful and reasonable educated where the other is simple and, well, not really all that clever.


See, I personally think a lot of people are just plain lazy. They like the idea of shoveling their kids off to "School" so they don't have to take any further personally responsibility for their own children's education. It's all left up to the State, which inherently screws everything up.

You need some skin in the game... that's been my experience.



Lastly, everyone should like all children to receive a good education. I think, most people would agree public school in the USA is pretty poor quality for the most part. We need to change something and I don't think growing the public service is the answer.

 

[Michael]

As a last spiel, I guess it comes down to the way things get done.

Imagine this. Imagine the entire world's educational system was run by the US Dept of Education. So, in Nordic European countries such a Finland (where the primary teachers remains with their cohort through multiple years - which is an excellent system) this would be replaced by the sausage factory schooling of the USA.

I'm sure no one would want THAT. The US Public School option to some people SEEMS to be ideal: it's more efficient, cheaper, seems to get pupils out the other end. But, what we really have is a McDonald's like product. Cheap, easy, kind of shitty.

If you were forced to send your children to a US style Educational System - I don't think you'd like it. Which is kind of what I'm getting at. The public school system (like other government run institutions) is overpriced, wasteful and pretty crap.


The next thing to think about is the role of government. See, when you have public school, you're using the violence of the State though taxation to support an institution. Imagine if you had that extra $25000 a year in your pocket and not in the governments? Maybe you'd have more than enough to afford a well run private school. I mean, even poor inner-city youth can afford to buy an iPhone4S. Isn't THAT interesting? DO you think that's be possible if all mobile phones were ONLY made through tax subsidized government run mobile phone companies? I can only imagine the $5000 radioactive two pound brick the US government would create for a phone.

IMO it's the same with education .... which is just something to consider.

 

[Syzygys]

I don't know what the fuck you are arguing, government money is ultimately the people's money, end of story...

If you pay less taxes, you take away money from the people.

 

[Michael]

I don't know what the fuck you are arguing, government money is ultimately the people's money, end of story...

If you pay less taxes, you take away money from the people.

Firstly: What do you mean "The People's" money?

Why is your hard-work and your-ingenuity someone else's?

If you wanted to give you wealth to someone, you're free to do so. But, it seems a little disingenuous to suggest you're trying to help The People, by employing the violence of the State against the people to take take their money, to use to help them. That's the argument you're making here.

Secondly: Why not give the government ALL of your wage as tax? I mean, it's "The People's" money - not yours, The People's. You just made the argument that the fruits of your hard labor... is not yours at all. It's "The People's". Which is to say "The State's". OK, how about 100% of it? Why not ALL of it then?

Thirdly: Why do you think that the State is going to efficiently spend money, more so than YOU? Doesn't sound like the State I know of. Think about how much thought you put into every dollar you spend. Why would you think that some bureaucrat would ever put that much thought into spending your money?
Just try it.
Give ALL of your disposable income to someone you hardly know and ask them to spend it for you wisely.


Look, I'm not trying to piss you off, or be facetious. The fact is those BIG wealthy corrupt elite, they're using the State against you, not to protect you. And more often it's your very own taxes that they use. Didn't you post the link to EBS and their lightening fast rise through securing State funded contracts???

Just try and remember, the wealthy elite USE the State for their benefit - not yours.

 

[Michael]

I don't know what the fuck you are arguing, government money is ultimately the people's money, end of story...

And when the State uses that money to create an agency to harass The People? The TSA for example? Or what about when a politicians uses the People's Money to give free handouts to the tune of Trillions to the Banksters?

Those are some clear examples of the State using tax money against the Citizens - whether they know it or not.

If you pay less taxes, you take away money from the people.

Now this doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, if you take away LESS money from the people, you take away MORE money from the People. That makes absolutely no sense.

If you let people keep their money, they'll invest it in such a way as to provide The People with a service OR they'll spend it into the economy providing a company with patronage. The last thing people do with money is let it sit somewhere doing nothing.

Now, I am sure we both ultimately want the same thing. A comfortable safe, prosperous society. What you may want to ask yourself is ARE we getting that? It doesn't seem like it to me. I don't know about where you live. OK, do we think MORE government is going to get the private enterprise to create this society or is LESS government going to get private enterprise to create this society?

I think less government. Not NO government, but limited government. Remember government IS the reason WHY we're going into this sever depression. AND how it did so is through the Central Banks. The same banks that are trying to turn most of the Western world into debt slaves.

I know it's frustrating, and hard to conceptualize, but the problem IS the government - and in particular the monopoly the Central Banks have over our store of wealth. That's what we need to deal with. But, I'm afraid we're not going to. What we're going to get is more and more government. So, we'll see where that takes us.:shrug:

 

[RichW9090]

As long as the church is a 501 c 3, then making a donation is certainly eligible for tax credit. Note that the goverment doesn't really compensate you on a 100% basis, it just reduces your income, so your return is less than your outlay. That is certainly true with cash donations; where the problem comes in is with non-cash donations, where the value is often gorssly inflated, so that the taxpayer's return is much more than his or her outlay.

Another problem is that many so-called churches with a 501 c 3 status are nothing of the sort, and are just a scam set up to reap certain tax benefits, such as the fact that the church itself is not subject to paying taxes.

Rich

 

[Asguard]

And when the State uses that money to create an agency to harass The People? The TSA for example? Or what about when a politicians uses the People's Money to give free handouts to the tune of Trillions to the Banksters?

Those are some clear examples of the State using tax money against the Citizens - whether they know it or not.

Now this doesn't make any sense. It's like saying, if you take away LESS money from the people, you take away MORE money from the People. That makes absolutely no sense.

If you let people keep their money, they'll invest it in such a way as to provide The People with a service OR they'll spend it into the economy providing a company with patronage. The last thing people do with money is let it sit somewhere doing nothing.

Now, I am sure we both ultimately want the same thing. A comfortable safe, prosperous society. What you may want to ask yourself is ARE we getting that? It doesn't seem like it to me. I don't know about where you live. OK, do we think MORE government is going to get the private enterprise to create this society or is LESS government going to get private enterprise to create this society?

I think less government. Not NO government, but limited government. Remember government IS the reason WHY we're going into this sever depression. AND how it did so is through the Central Banks. The same banks that are trying to turn most of the Western world into debt slaves.

I know it's frustrating, and hard to conceptualize, but the problem IS the government - and in particular the monopoly the Central Banks have over our store of wealth. That's what we need to deal with. But, I'm afraid we're not going to. What we're going to get is more and more government. So, we'll see where that takes us.:shrug:

No Michael, the real question is is government or "private enterprise" providing the most good for the most people and looking at the US its clear that private enterprise is the worst choice

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by RichW9090
As long as the church is a 501 c 3, then making a donation is certainly eligible for tax credit.

I agree but, being tax exempt is not the same as being tax deductable. While it is true that all 501(c)3 organizations are tax deductable, most nonprofits must file special documents with the IRS before they can qualify as a 501(c)3. However, "Churches" (and small charities with less than $5,000 anual income) are exempt from having to file for 501(c)3 status - it's automatic. Furthermore, the Internal Revenue Code continually uses the term Church yet it dose not specifically define what a Church is. It leaves that up to the IRS as stated in IRS Publication 1828. So, how was it possible for Congress to make a law favoring establishments of religon when the first amendment explicitly forbids it from doing so?
.
http://www.bbb.org/us/Charity-Tax-Deductions/
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

[Michael]

No Michael, the real question is is government or "private enterprise" providing the most good for the most people and looking at the US its clear that private enterprise is the worst choice

See, this SEEMS like the right answer. I think we instinctively want an alpha-male to protect us and tell what to think and do, the government fills this need. Which is why it's so hard to run a democracy and so easy to manipulate people. IMO.


Think of it like this. Suppose the people needed a mobile phone. Who do you think would deliver an extremely powerful and cheap iPhone at a small development cost? Government or Private Enterprise?

Even some of the poorest Australians have iPhones; which are equal to the richest of the rich. Yet, their education is no where the same. The richest Australians are trained in Mandarin (sometimes Greek and Latin) in the poshest schools on the North Shore. The poorest in Redfern get no where near the same level of education. How much is Government subsidizing those posh schools (one way or another; example: a PM on $600,000+ salary) AND are regulation preventing people from competing by creating similarly good schools in the poorest neighborhoods?

Of course things are so screwed up now that it's not like we can just flick a switch. But, I am positive private schooling with real competition not subsidized by the government would out-compete public on equal footing.


Yes, it'd be wonderful if there really were an all powerful benevolent Philosopher King (Plato's ideal).... but that's not what is happening or ever going to happen.

I can tell you, as you don't really understand it (but I do because I lived it) .... Australia is following along the exact same road as the USA. Almost to a T. It's so similar in AU that it's as if I'm reliving my childhood. Even in Japan, I can see how these incompetent politicians, who can't figure out dick, in the end just end up aping the USA. Which didn't used to be the case - it is now. But AU really is full on Aping the USA. I'm even seeing Americans financiers more and more in AU doing the same bullshit they did to the USA.

It's pretty sad IMO.


The government elite are sending THEIR children to posh private schools and the top Universities. You're being milked to pay for it :shrug:

 

[Asguard]

What a load of right wing pig swill, the only thing which protects the poor and sown troden from becoming the slaves to the ritch the way things were in the midle ages is democracy and the protection of goverment. already the top 1% hold 90% of the worlds wealth and you think taking the few protections the rest of have away is going to do what? i love reading the idocy inherent in views such as yours, its quite clear to everyone that either a) you have no concept of history or b) you dont actually belive what your saying. Anyone who knows anything about the middle ages and the start of the industrial revolution knows exactly what will happen if the protections of goverment evporate. Look at the agency you hold up as a waste, the transport saftey authority. what happens when you remove the stick which forces companies to act ethically? They cut corners and those who WISH to act ethically are undercut which leads to a race to the bottem where ethics and saftey are sacrificed for progits. Before goverment proection insted of OH&S laws to protect and workcover to provide for those injured or killed in there work, it was a case or work till you get injured and then you are replaced with someone else "life is cheep" was the ruling principle and this is your idea of an ideal world. How sickerning