I'll bet that Senator knows a lot more of his fellow politicians who do this than evangelists. Sounds like he's trying to steal some liberal/democratic votes.
So she wants a 23K crapper; so what? Sounds like some stories I heard about Sadaam Hussein, a little weird, but does this mean the govt should be involved if I want to drink Heineken instead of Schlitz? If she has ANY tax exempt rights at all, why should she be limited to generic toilets or generic anything? It's not like she's declaring bankruptcy.
You could give them TWI's name and number, but nothing would happen.
This is nothing but grandstanding politicians. The targets chosen are selected based on public name recognition.
I am in favor of financial transparency to church members, but keep the government out of regulating the church. I realize this separation of church and state has made it difficult to prosecute some wrong doings in TWI and else where, but the alternative is not better. You do not want the government running your church.
Let these grandstanders clean up their own sphere and crack down on inappropriate spending by politicians.
These churches have declared themselves not-for-profit and tax exempt. By definition, their funds have to go into furthering the purpose of the organization. By law, they have to file federal tax form 990 to account for where their tax-free money gets spent. The reason they are allowed to operate like this is that their purposes have been deemed by We The People to be worth the tax break. We are willing to pay our share of taxes to make up for what they don't pay.
They are NOT a private corporation, and we are NOT "invading their privacy." They are a public entity that is fulfilling a public service that some of us support with our donations, and the rest of support with our share of taxes.
Now, if Joyce Meyer gets paid a certain salary by the organization to preach, and she pays taxes from that salary, and she wants to buy herself a $20K toilet, fine. But I might be checking to know under what criteria she merits such a big salary that a $20K toilet seat is affordable for her. Because if it can be determined that a 501 ( c)(3) is in business mainly to make money for someone, they can lose their non-profit status.
However, if Meyer deeded her home over to the corporation, and that non-profit corporation is buying said toilet for her private use, now we have a bigger problem. And so does she. And by extension, if the BOD of The Way International is living high on the hog out of proportion to the service they provide, they should be answerable to all of us.
The short 'splanation: this is not about their doctrine, this is about squandering the public trust.
Sounds good to me. Hey! ex-wayers you can write to your congressman and lobby to put the TWI under investagation. If that happens how many of you would go to washington and testify? After everything I have read here about what the TWI had done, how many of you would like to see all the board members roasted alive for what they have done to all of you?
This is from today's edition of The Chronicle of Philanthropy:
By Ben Gose
Dana Point, Calif.
The Internal Revenue Service may need to take further steps to better help the public identify inefficient and ineffective nonprofit organizations, Steven T. Miller, the commissioner of the agency’s tax-exempt and government-entities division, told a group of foundation officials and donors here on Saturday.
“Efficiency and effectiveness have obvious implications when you consider the level of subsidy being provided here,” Mr. Miller said. “Should the public be able to rely on the Internal Revenue Service and the states to be sure when they make a contribution to an organization that the contribution is put to good use and not squandered?”
Mr. Miller’s remarks, made during a session on the IRS at the annual meeting of the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of grant makers, led to sharp rebuttals from other speakers and members of the audience who said the IRS may be overstepping its basic charge of ensuring compliance with the tax code.
Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who is himself a former commissioner of the IRS’s tax-exempt division, urged the IRS to be cautious before stepping into new areas. He said state prosecutors have far greater powers to tackle issues related to governance and effectiveness than does the IRS.
“I would urge the IRS, as it begins to contemplate the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness, and of good governance, to keep in mind that some of those words are not found in the Internal Revenue Code,” he said. (End of Quote)
While the dishonest handling of donated funds, as cited in previous posts, frosts me, I think that it's not something that should be handled in the arena of IRS regulation. Once the line has been crossed to give a Federal Agency the jurisdiction to affect the governance of an organization, it would be very hard to reverse. Typically, though the jurisdiction may have been granted for a good reason, say, in response to mishandling of funds, the power granted can and probably will escalate into a gross erosion of freedoms.
The issue is much bigger than the 6 mega-churches indulging in questionable spending, and has been heating up for a while. It touches the whole community of Philanthropy, which includes hospitals, scientific research, outfits like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, as well as education, museums, and missions, to name a few.
While financial transparency in a charitable organization is desireable and should be effective in keeping it honest, there's probably no sure way to mandate that. Still, the closer to home that it's dealt with, the better, IMO.
I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"
I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"
What they hey makes an excellent point - $**T stinks, wherever it comes from.
Having a politician blow the whistle on misappropriated funds and spending - isn't that a little like Howdy Doody calling George Bush a dumb puppet?
But I also agree with shazthedancer - it's about accountability.
Why should it be okay for any of these geezers?
Religion is the best deal going though - just ask the Pope. Money, freebies, no-taxes. It's the best definition of "vow of poverty" you can get. You don't actually OWN anything, you just have the ACCESS to anything you need.
Plus, you get to be a Big Cheese, make people happy, laugh, feel good! What's not to like?
I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people who decide that their "Christian calling" is to form a corporation that rakes in millions of dollars and provides them with a lavish lifestyle...all in the name of God...but that's just me.
I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"
Shaz, very good topic, thanks for the post.
i agree, they are both full of crap, and as far as im concerened these are two prime examples of why our country is having financial problems(the debt).
and as far as im concerened, a church IS a business. and should be taxed accordingly, and people that go to churches are customers.
We have enough problems without the Senate sticking their noses in this particular can of worms. If there is a problem, let IRS check it out first. As far as I know, questionable spending is still their bailiwick. I would not waste time giving them TWI's name. It would just mean more ABS going into that bottomless pit called the attorneys' pockets.
The church bulletin shows how much is collected and what it went for.
No one can find Mother Theresa or Padre Pio did any opulent living with the money entrusted to their care.
Personal accountability is what each of us lives by. (as opposed to keeping one's nose in the next person's business)
Each of us shall give account to the Lord for how we lived and how we spent the money He entrusted to our care.
My prayer is that I may be found acceptable in His sight.
I try not to worry about how Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer are spending their money, but I do worry that I do not squander the funds He gives me to take care of because I am the only one I can affect. I am the only one I can change. Even my husband and my children are their own, with their own fistful of dollars.
I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"
Meanwhile,
I DON'T wonder why some people are swift to change the subject from
"corrupt religious leaders who should be in jail"
to
"corrupt political figures who should be in jail"
and pretend that some people hold corrupt politicians blameless,
then claim outrage at the imaginary people who never said that.
When someone has an agenda, it can affect all their posts.
Corrupt people of both types are wrong and should be in prison.
NEITHER should get a free pass.
What's so problematic about saying exactly that?
Wow, you guys just don't get it. Let me 'splain.
These churches have declared themselves not-for-profit and tax exempt. By definition, their funds have to go into furthering the purpose of the organization. By law, they have to file federal tax form 990 to account for where their tax-free money gets spent. The reason they are allowed to operate like this is that their purposes have been deemed by We The People to be worth the tax break. We are willing to pay our share of taxes to make up for what they don't pay.
They are NOT a private corporation, and we are NOT "invading their privacy." They are a public entity that is fulfilling a public service that some of us support with our donations, and the rest of support with our share of taxes.
Now, if Joyce Meyer gets paid a certain salary by the organization to preach, and she pays taxes from that salary, and she wants to buy herself a $20K toilet, fine. But I might be checking to know under what criteria she merits such a big salary that a $20K toilet seat is affordable for her. Because if it can be determined that a 501 ( c)(3) is in business mainly to make money for someone, they can lose their non-profit status.
However, if Meyer deeded her home over to the corporation, and that non-profit corporation is buying said toilet for her private use, now we have a bigger problem. And so does she. And by extension, if the BOD of The Way International is living high on the hog out of proportion to the service they provide, they should be answerable to all of us.
The short 'splanation: this is not about their doctrine, this is about squandering the public trust.
People who supposedly represent God are supposed to be examples of good conduct
and what God wants.
Therefore, it's more reprehensible that such a person be corrupt.
To a degree, we know, on the other hand, that political elections are often
between selecting one from 2 disgusting choices (or more), and that political
interests and corruption are not that surprising to find together.
WTH, I'm more than willing to call government corrupt, too. But right now, I'm talkin' about religion, specifically TWI.
Sox, as always, priceless. Allow me to rephrase you for this "About the Way" thread...
"Religion is the best deal going though - just ask The Way BOD (and it began with Wierwille). Money, freebies, no-taxes....You don't actually OWN anything, you just have the ACCESS to anything you need. Plus, you get to be a Big Cheese, make people happy, laugh, feel good! What's not to like?"
Would a 10k Toilet be acceptable? No, how about a 5K toilet then? Who will be given the right to decide what the acceptable standard is? Joyce Meyers a corrupt evangelist? Bet that is news to her supporters here.
Where are all the screams of separation of church and state? The "church" is denied public signs on government buildings built by the tax dollars of a majority that attends said church; but the free exercise of religion never seems to get attention.
Corrupt church officials should be tried and found guilty and sentenced by the wallets and pocket books of the congregations. Some are all up in arms declaring what a slippery slope we are on when WBC is told where they can't express their opinions and some scream loss of freedom of speech. I see this a much more slippery slope and would like to see the people wake up rather than hand over yet more freedom to the great nanny government.
I wonder what's happening, I'm agreeing with Wordwolf and Groucho in the same thread :)
Here's the point folks, nobody cares how much Joyce Meyers spends on her toilet as long as she does it with *after* tax dollars. She wants to take $250,000 out of the collection plate and spend it on herself, fine, pay the 30% tax rate then buy what she wants. And BTW, be sure to tell the congregation how much she's drawing down. The purpose of not-for-profit status is so that the organization can exist without government interference, not so the leaders can have an oppulant lifestyle.
The really sad thing is that just like TWI, she's probably being supported by the very people that can least afford it. People living paycheck to paycheck and just scraping by.
I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"
So, are you saying that since the government wastes money, that for profit organizitions masquerading as churches should be allowed to operate tax free?
I wonder why "some people" miss the point so often.
Whay are religious institutions tax-free in the first place?
I suppose the reasons that churches are tax free institutions has something to do with their original purpose of providing spiritual food for their congregation and involving themselves with charitable works...it was never supposed to be a money making business...don't get me wrong, I don't think that Christian organizations need to take a vow of poverty...I'm all in favor of a prosperous church...where they have enough money to expand their church programs and construct a new building...but there's a difference between a prosperous church and a church that is involved with multiple mass marketing schemes.
It should be noted that most local churches operate "properly"...the trouble comes from the mega churches that have television contracts and celebrity "preachers"...these institutions are a hybrid. They have all the same mechanisms as money making corporations do...large overheads and massive profits...they are in the business of making money...tapes, books, classes, conventions, seminars, retreats, water slides...you name it.
I think that the tax free pass for "churches" should be revisited by our law makers...there should be a line of demarcation drawn between churches, based on their "financial activities"...especially those churches with political agendas.
I think that the tax free pass for "churches" should be revisited by our law makers...there should be a line of demarcation drawn between churches, based on their "financial activities"...especially those churches with political agendas.
I agree with Groucho. ... with an expansion.
I think tax exemptions of this kind should be reworded to apply _only_ to organizations (be it churches, charities, educational facilities, etc.) that provide something of substantial, material benefit to the people it serves. Ie., simply because a church provides 'spiritual' benefit just doesn't cut it. 'Spiritual' benefits can be defined every which way but loose. Kinda like anything else labeled 'spiritual'. Hell, TWI was really good at manipulating this vague characteristic like nobody's business.
Recommended Posts
johniam
I'll bet that Senator knows a lot more of his fellow politicians who do this than evangelists. Sounds like he's trying to steal some liberal/democratic votes.
So she wants a 23K crapper; so what? Sounds like some stories I heard about Sadaam Hussein, a little weird, but does this mean the govt should be involved if I want to drink Heineken instead of Schlitz? If she has ANY tax exempt rights at all, why should she be limited to generic toilets or generic anything? It's not like she's declaring bankruptcy.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
shortfuse
You could give them TWI's name and number, but nothing would happen.
This is nothing but grandstanding politicians. The targets chosen are selected based on public name recognition.
I am in favor of financial transparency to church members, but keep the government out of regulating the church. I realize this separation of church and state has made it difficult to prosecute some wrong doings in TWI and else where, but the alternative is not better. You do not want the government running your church.
Let these grandstanders clean up their own sphere and crack down on inappropriate spending by politicians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Wow, you guys just don't get it. Let me 'splain.
These churches have declared themselves not-for-profit and tax exempt. By definition, their funds have to go into furthering the purpose of the organization. By law, they have to file federal tax form 990 to account for where their tax-free money gets spent. The reason they are allowed to operate like this is that their purposes have been deemed by We The People to be worth the tax break. We are willing to pay our share of taxes to make up for what they don't pay.
They are NOT a private corporation, and we are NOT "invading their privacy." They are a public entity that is fulfilling a public service that some of us support with our donations, and the rest of support with our share of taxes.
Now, if Joyce Meyer gets paid a certain salary by the organization to preach, and she pays taxes from that salary, and she wants to buy herself a $20K toilet, fine. But I might be checking to know under what criteria she merits such a big salary that a $20K toilet seat is affordable for her. Because if it can be determined that a 501 ( c)(3) is in business mainly to make money for someone, they can lose their non-profit status.
However, if Meyer deeded her home over to the corporation, and that non-profit corporation is buying said toilet for her private use, now we have a bigger problem. And so does she. And by extension, if the BOD of The Way International is living high on the hog out of proportion to the service they provide, they should be answerable to all of us.
The short 'splanation: this is not about their doctrine, this is about squandering the public trust.
Edited by shazdancerLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef
well said chaz!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyunknown
Sounds good to me. Hey! ex-wayers you can write to your congressman and lobby to put the TWI under investagation. If that happens how many of you would go to washington and testify? After everything I have read here about what the TWI had done, how many of you would like to see all the board members roasted alive for what they have done to all of you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washn'wear
I would go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cinderpelt
This is from today's edition of The Chronicle of Philanthropy:
By Ben Gose
Dana Point, Calif.
The Internal Revenue Service may need to take further steps to better help the public identify inefficient and ineffective nonprofit organizations, Steven T. Miller, the commissioner of the agency’s tax-exempt and government-entities division, told a group of foundation officials and donors here on Saturday.
“Efficiency and effectiveness have obvious implications when you consider the level of subsidy being provided here,” Mr. Miller said. “Should the public be able to rely on the Internal Revenue Service and the states to be sure when they make a contribution to an organization that the contribution is put to good use and not squandered?”
Mr. Miller’s remarks, made during a session on the IRS at the annual meeting of the Philanthropy Roundtable, an association of grant makers, led to sharp rebuttals from other speakers and members of the audience who said the IRS may be overstepping its basic charge of ensuring compliance with the tax code.
Marcus S. Owens, a Washington lawyer who is himself a former commissioner of the IRS’s tax-exempt division, urged the IRS to be cautious before stepping into new areas. He said state prosecutors have far greater powers to tackle issues related to governance and effectiveness than does the IRS.
“I would urge the IRS, as it begins to contemplate the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness, and of good governance, to keep in mind that some of those words are not found in the Internal Revenue Code,” he said. (End of Quote)
While the dishonest handling of donated funds, as cited in previous posts, frosts me, I think that it's not something that should be handled in the arena of IRS regulation. Once the line has been crossed to give a Federal Agency the jurisdiction to affect the governance of an organization, it would be very hard to reverse. Typically, though the jurisdiction may have been granted for a good reason, say, in response to mishandling of funds, the power granted can and probably will escalate into a gross erosion of freedoms.
The issue is much bigger than the 6 mega-churches indulging in questionable spending, and has been heating up for a while. It touches the whole community of Philanthropy, which includes hospitals, scientific research, outfits like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, as well as education, museums, and missions, to name a few.
While financial transparency in a charitable organization is desireable and should be effective in keeping it honest, there's probably no sure way to mandate that. Still, the closer to home that it's dealt with, the better, IMO.
~Cinder
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
I wonder why some people question the way the church spends money more than the way the government spends money. A church spends 20K for a toilet while the governent spend $3000 for a coffee pot and $500 for a hammer - and the government thinks a church's spending is "out of line?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
For once -- I agree with What the Hey. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
What they hey makes an excellent point - $**T stinks, wherever it comes from.
Having a politician blow the whistle on misappropriated funds and spending - isn't that a little like Howdy Doody calling George Bush a dumb puppet?
But I also agree with shazthedancer - it's about accountability.
Why should it be okay for any of these geezers?
Religion is the best deal going though - just ask the Pope. Money, freebies, no-taxes. It's the best definition of "vow of poverty" you can get. You don't actually OWN anything, you just have the ACCESS to anything you need.
Plus, you get to be a Big Cheese, make people happy, laugh, feel good! What's not to like?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I don't know about you, but I have a problem with people who decide that their "Christian calling" is to form a corporation that rakes in millions of dollars and provides them with a lavish lifestyle...all in the name of God...but that's just me.
...a pox on all of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It's a shame Flip Wilson died so young.
He could have taken "The Right Reverend Leroy" and "The Church of What's Happenin' Now" to a whole new level.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nandon
Shaz, very good topic, thanks for the post.
i agree, they are both full of crap, and as far as im concerened these are two prime examples of why our country is having financial problems(the debt).
and as far as im concerened, a church IS a business. and should be taxed accordingly, and people that go to churches are customers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
railroader II
We have enough problems without the Senate sticking their noses in this particular can of worms. If there is a problem, let IRS check it out first. As far as I know, questionable spending is still their bailiwick. I would not waste time giving them TWI's name. It would just mean more ABS going into that bottomless pit called the attorneys' pockets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kit Sober
Back to why I am so happy in the Catholic Church:
Each of us shall give account to the Lord for how we lived and how we spent the money He entrusted to our care.
My prayer is that I may be found acceptable in His sight.
I try not to worry about how Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer are spending their money, but I do worry that I do not squander the funds He gives me to take care of because I am the only one I can affect. I am the only one I can change. Even my husband and my children are their own, with their own fistful of dollars.
In hope,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Meanwhile,
I DON'T wonder why some people are swift to change the subject from
"corrupt religious leaders who should be in jail"
to
"corrupt political figures who should be in jail"
and pretend that some people hold corrupt politicians blameless,
then claim outrage at the imaginary people who never said that.
When someone has an agenda, it can affect all their posts.
Corrupt people of both types are wrong and should be in prison.
NEITHER should get a free pass.
What's so problematic about saying exactly that?
People who supposedly represent God are supposed to be examples of good conduct
and what God wants.
Therefore, it's more reprehensible that such a person be corrupt.
To a degree, we know, on the other hand, that political elections are often
between selecting one from 2 disgusting choices (or more), and that political
interests and corruption are not that surprising to find together.
It's still WRONG, but less of a shock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
WTH, I'm more than willing to call government corrupt, too. But right now, I'm talkin' about religion, specifically TWI.
Sox, as always, priceless. Allow me to rephrase you for this "About the Way" thread...
"Religion is the best deal going though - just ask The Way BOD (and it began with Wierwille). Money, freebies, no-taxes....You don't actually OWN anything, you just have the ACCESS to anything you need. Plus, you get to be a Big Cheese, make people happy, laugh, feel good! What's not to like?"
-- Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Would a 10k Toilet be acceptable? No, how about a 5K toilet then? Who will be given the right to decide what the acceptable standard is? Joyce Meyers a corrupt evangelist? Bet that is news to her supporters here.
Where are all the screams of separation of church and state? The "church" is denied public signs on government buildings built by the tax dollars of a majority that attends said church; but the free exercise of religion never seems to get attention.
Corrupt church officials should be tried and found guilty and sentenced by the wallets and pocket books of the congregations. Some are all up in arms declaring what a slippery slope we are on when WBC is told where they can't express their opinions and some scream loss of freedom of speech. I see this a much more slippery slope and would like to see the people wake up rather than hand over yet more freedom to the great nanny government.
Edited by DuctapeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Whay are religious institutions tax-free in the first place?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Too bad more folks (these days) don't think like:
George Mueller did.
He wouldn't have a 20K toilet, OR a senate investigation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I wonder what's happening, I'm agreeing with Wordwolf and Groucho in the same thread :)
Here's the point folks, nobody cares how much Joyce Meyers spends on her toilet as long as she does it with *after* tax dollars. She wants to take $250,000 out of the collection plate and spend it on herself, fine, pay the 30% tax rate then buy what she wants. And BTW, be sure to tell the congregation how much she's drawing down. The purpose of not-for-profit status is so that the organization can exist without government interference, not so the leaders can have an oppulant lifestyle.
The really sad thing is that just like TWI, she's probably being supported by the very people that can least afford it. People living paycheck to paycheck and just scraping by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
So, are you saying that since the government wastes money, that for profit organizitions masquerading as churches should be allowed to operate tax free?
I wonder why "some people" miss the point so often.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
I suppose the reasons that churches are tax free institutions has something to do with their original purpose of providing spiritual food for their congregation and involving themselves with charitable works...it was never supposed to be a money making business...don't get me wrong, I don't think that Christian organizations need to take a vow of poverty...I'm all in favor of a prosperous church...where they have enough money to expand their church programs and construct a new building...but there's a difference between a prosperous church and a church that is involved with multiple mass marketing schemes.
It should be noted that most local churches operate "properly"...the trouble comes from the mega churches that have television contracts and celebrity "preachers"...these institutions are a hybrid. They have all the same mechanisms as money making corporations do...large overheads and massive profits...they are in the business of making money...tapes, books, classes, conventions, seminars, retreats, water slides...you name it.
I think that the tax free pass for "churches" should be revisited by our law makers...there should be a line of demarcation drawn between churches, based on their "financial activities"...especially those churches with political agendas.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I agree with Groucho. ... with an expansion.
I think tax exemptions of this kind should be reworded to apply _only_ to organizations (be it churches, charities, educational facilities, etc.) that provide something of substantial, material benefit to the people it serves. Ie., simply because a church provides 'spiritual' benefit just doesn't cut it. 'Spiritual' benefits can be defined every which way but loose. Kinda like anything else labeled 'spiritual'. Hell, TWI was really good at manipulating this vague characteristic like nobody's business.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.