Charity Discussion

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

http://blogs.hbr.org/pallotta/2009/0...-ask-abou.html

Note to Dan Pallota: When trying to persuade others, don't include this in your opening paragraph:

Whatever you call it, itʼs hopelessly flawed, widely abused, utterly useless, a pathetic substitute for meaningful information about a nonprofitʼs work, inept at exposing fraud, and a danger to human life. In my next few posts Iʼll deconstruct these many failings.

Hyperbole and self-anointed visions of clarity rarely makes others want to continue reading--regardless of how valuable your information and perspective is.

[kinch]

Dan Pallota is hopelessly ignorant, widely abusive, utterly useless in bed, gives a pathetic substitute for meaningful discourse about a nonprofitʼs work, inept at exposing fraud, and a danger to sea otters. In my next few posts Iʼll deconstruct these many failings.

[BUCKYLE]

Charity is alright, but I prefer my strippers to have ironic names like "Destiny" or "Chastity".

[Bucky Katt]

Originally Posted by BUCKYLE

Charity is alright, but I prefer my strippers to have ironic names like "Destiny" or "Chastity".

What's ironic about Destiny?

I prefer "Virginia".......Virgin for short.....but not for long!

[PlanetFrnd]

http://www.economist.com/node/21556570

...maybe I should report for the Economist

This is a printer friendly version of the page. Go back to the website version ?

Charity and taxation
Sweetened charity
The idea that the state should subsidise giving to good causes is resilient, but not easily justified

Jun 9th 2012 | LONDON AND NEW YORK | from the print edition



"IT MUST be borne in mind," Britain's chancellor of the exchequer told the House of Commons in his budget speech, "that in every case exemption means a relief to A at the charge of B." This was, indeed, the heart of his case for taking away a tax break that benefited charities. "It is not fair", he went on, to impose the cost of the exemption, in the form of higher taxes, on "the fathers of families, men labouring to support their wives and children." This was all the more important because the gifts encouraged by the exemption were largely designed to bring a wealthy donor "credit and notoriety" which "otherwise he might not have enjoyed."

William Gladstone failed in this attempt to end the exemption of charities from income tax in 1863. He would not have been surprised when his successor, George Osborne, last week backed down on a more modest attempt towards the same ends. In his March budget Mr Osborne proposed a cap on the sum that rich people can deduct from their taxes thanks to their charitable donations, framing it as part of a strategy to crack down on wealthy tax dodgers. Britain's charities took up their cudgels, arguing that reducing the tax break would diminish donations and thus their ability to do good works. Charities are, by and large, more popular than chancellors. On this occasion, they protected their privileges, as they did in the 1860s (when, though the Times thundered at Gladstone for his "perverse boldness", The Economist approved of his plan: see footnote).

But the British government is not the only one that charities have to worry about. In America historically generous tax incentives to donation are being questioned in a way not seen before.

"I'm expecting a big fight in Congress over charitable deductions and over the definition of charity. I?m very concerned," says Diana Aviv, the head of Independent Sector, an American trade association for charities. President Barack Obama has made a number of attempts to limit the amount of giving that the rich can deduct from their taxable income. And Ms Aviv says state and local governments are going further than that in attacking charitable tax breaks. There has been a sharp rise in demands from charities for so-called PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes), which involve local governments threatening to withhold certain services from charities unless they "volunteer" to pay something into the government coffers (as they do, increasingly). According to the Lincoln Institute, a think-tank, such schemes have been introduced by municipal or other governments in at least 18 states...

video: http://www.economist.com/node/215567...=1678999828001

[AKAK]

Originally Posted by BusNative

...maybe I should report for the Economist

Geez man, I gotta have something to read on the [Mark May]ter.

Far from a critical analysis of all the math in there, I think the one thing that bothered me was this idea that it would be more, well, something, if it was less donation to religious groups, and more to those working to reduce poverty. (Then couple that with an additional mention earlier about this idea of a requirement that those moneys be spent inside the country, which I think was a requirement in France)

If we take the math and put it aside for a moment.... (ie, what's more fair to high income earners vs. regular folks in regard to the tax code and all that stuff... )

These sorts of things bother me in the sheer myopia of the argument.

It's actually [censored]ing stunning sometimes to be honest. I often rail on this board about Progressives actually clinging to the past and Conservatives having a twisted view of history.

If indeed, Riech's argument is the "Progressive view" and of course this is a move to raise government revenue, and of course government can spend it better than, well, not the government...

And, I hope this doesn't sound anecdotal, but, I cringe when I hear some [censored]ing idiot, whether that be the author or Riech in this case implying that religious bodies don't do very important, very expansive work to reduce poverty, both domestically and internationally. Why don't you just go punch mother Teresa in the face, next time.

Further, I would submit, that whatever it is you think of the particular tactics that missionary organizations, while tasked with the spread of the gospel, do so in the thrid world by the very work of providing relief from poverty and the tools to move out of that poverty through not only direct giving but the expansion of infrastructure and the advancement of education. Indeed in some countries, especially in the past, and in Asia, the missionary presence provided the only outlet for girls and women to recieve and sort of education in some places, and I imagine that to continue to be the case in some isolated instances...

Further, American Missionaries since the 1800's (at least) have been an important soft power component of US Foreign relations and a real influnce on the ground opening new markets and creating prosperity in places that might not otherwise have had those kinds of opportunities both for American business and foreign ones. In fact, it is this kind of missionary work in the 3rd world that provided the model for most of what is considered Wilsonian Interventionist Foreign Policy (Hello Progressives, I hear the boys at TNR moaning) and as such the later UN direct relief organizations that grew out of that school of thought.

These people are on the [censored]ing front line of fighting poverty, educating the poor and creating goodwill for America. [censored] Rob Reich. Whoever the [censored] he is.

And I'm a [censored]ing Atheist.

[buckeyegrad]

Originally Posted by AKAK

Why don't you just go punch mother Teresa in the face, next time.

Christopher Hitchens meets Mother Teresa in the afterlife?

[AKAK]

Originally Posted by buckeyegrad

Christopher Hitchens meets Mother Teresa in the afterlife?

Quite a shock for all involved.

[PlanetFrnd]

This is obviously an extreme example (link below), and I know the LDS community does a lot of missionary work, but I also feel that its missionary work and missionary work of many churches is largely self-serving insomuch that they are trying to build their own congregations. Or, as maybe shown here, creating a capital base for enterprise (or far-reaching political control if we're thinking of state churches or the catholic church of old). I don't have a philosophical problem with any of this per se, but I still think its questionably "charity" to give to a one's own church

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ons-make-money

How the Mormons Make Money
By Caroline Winter
July 10, 2012 6:00 AM EDT

Late last March the Mormon Church completed an ambitious project: a megamall. Built for roughly $2 billion, the City Creek Center stands directly across the street from the church?s iconic neo-Gothic temple in Salt Lake City. The mall includes a retractable glass roof, 5,000 underground parking spots, and nearly 100 stores and restaurants, ranging from Tiffany's to Forever 21. Walkways link the open-air emporium with the church's perfectly manicured headquarters on Temple Square. Macy's is a stone's throw from the offices of the church's president, Thomas S. Monson, whom Mormons believe to be a living prophet.

On the morning of its grand opening, thousands of shoppers thronged downtown Salt Lake, eager to elbow their way into the stores. The national anthem played, and Henry B. Eyring, one of Monson?s top counselors, told the crowds, "Everything that we see around us is evidence of the long-standing commitment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Salt Lake City." When it came time to cut the mall's flouncy pink ribbon, Monson, flanked by Utah dignitaries, cheered, "One, two, three - let's go shopping!...

[AKAK]

Originally Posted by BusNative

This is obviously an extreme example (link below), and I know the LDS community does a lot of missionary work, but I also feel that its missionary work and missionary work of many churches is largely self-serving insomuch that they are trying to build their own congregations. Or, as maybe shown here, creating a capital base for enterprise (or far-reaching political control if we're thinking of state churches or the catholic church of old). I don't have a philosophical problem with any of this per se, but I still think its questionably "charity" to give to a one's own church

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ons-make-money

Well, missionary work is self serving, somewhat by definition.

The question I have here, and is unclear to me, is if all this stuff is tax exempt. They mention "for-profit" and "not for profit" activities... but, I'm not sure how it all shakes out in the end. So, if LDS owns businesses, they operate in such a way as to have to pay tax on those activities, then donate profits to the church tax free, I suppose that's a bit "different" but, if there's tax revenue there from the for profit, I don't see it as a lot different than anything else.

[PlanetFrnd]

Originally Posted by AKAK

Well, missionary work is self serving, somewhat by definition.

I get that, and some Pope, I believe, maintained that getting joy from doing good works does not make them uncharitable. I guess I meant more of the congregtion-building-for-the-sake-of-congregatin-building(-and-(in-theory-)a-larger-pool-of-tithers) aspect of self-serving missionary work, not just getting joy from helping a village somewhere dig a clean well.

The question I have here, and is unclear to me, is if all this stuff is tax exempt. They mention "for-profit" and "not for profit" activities... but, I'm not sure how it all shakes out in the end. So, if LDS owns businesses, they operate in such a way as to have to pay tax on those activities, then donate profits to the church tax free, I suppose that's a bit "different" but, if there's tax revenue there from the for profit, I don't see it as a lot different than anything else.

No, they are not all tax-free; there are for-profit businesses. I don't think there is any problem with a business donating money to charity and 'deducting' that from taxable income, insomuch as charity would just be like any other business expense. What's unclear to me is if they capitalize these ventures with tax-free church tithes, which feels... like dancing along the yuck factor line to me. Tithing to support a church heirachical super-structure doesn't feel like charity to me in the first place, let alone tithing to support business ventures.

[muffler dragon]

Disclaimer: Side line.

I love the tithe doctrine.

One of the largest theological pieces of [Mark May] I've ever encountered.

[AKAK]

Originally Posted by BusNative

No, they are not all tax-free; there are for-profit businesses. I don't think there is any problem with a business donating money to charity and 'deducting' that from taxable income, insomuch as charity would just be like any other business expense. What's unclear to me is if they capitalize these ventures with tax-free church tithes, which feels... like dancing along the yuck factor line to me. Tithing to support a church heirachical super-structure doesn't feel like charity to me in the first place, let alone tithing to support business ventures.

Well, you'd think... generally they'd be using the profits from one business to generally support the next. Like your usual multinational corporation. Now, it strikes me that there would need to be an endgame here... there has to be a larger point than self perpetuating that. My guess would be that the businesses go more to support more of the above-mentioned missionary work.

Or, more likely, aiding the missionary work (the conversion part) by giving jobs to LDS members, and thus having more (and better adherents).

Hmm... bigger bureaucracy...more bureaucrats... more voters in favor of bigger bureaucracy... wait, what were we talking about again? I lost my train of thought.

[Deety]

Originally Posted by BusNative

This is obviously an extreme example (link below), and I know the LDS community does a lot of missionary work, but I also feel that its missionary work and missionary work of many churches is largely self-serving insomuch that they are trying to build their own congregations.

Well, that's also what you do if you have a message you want to share, right?

I worked basically across the street from the Salt Lake Temple for years and met quite a few church leaders. While you get the same distribution of personalities as within any group of people, I've never met a group on the whole as committed to serving God as these. Truly good folks.

So far as I've observed, the business end of the Church really is well aligned with its religious mission. It's worth noting that the funds received by the Church wind up going into new Temples and infrastructure, not into the pockets of clergy, since clergy are volunteers and tithers, not paid.

[AKAK]

Originally Posted by Deety

Well, that's also what you do if you have a message you want to share, right?

I worked basically across the street from the Salt Lake Temple for years and met quite a few church leaders. While you get the same distribution of personalities as within any group of people, I've never met a group on the whole as committed to serving God as these. Truly good folks.

So far as I've observed, the business end of the Church really is well aligned with its religious mission. It's worth noting that the funds received by the Church wind up going into new Temples and infrastructure, not into the pockets of clergy, since clergy are volunteers and tithers, not paid.

Oh, so they're different than Unions.

Strike my last post.