Camping et al.

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Do so few people realize that Camping (and all big-money church leaders, really) is living the life on the back of the taxpayer? To me, this is one of the most outrageous aspects of religion as a business.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation: the church pays no tax, the bleever gives, say, $2,000.* Mr. Bleever then files his taxes, declaring the donation. Uncle Sam then reimburses Mr. Bleever to the tune of 100%? I don't know the law and probably won't research it, but even if the tax return is only 10%, which I doubt, that's a lot of taxpayers' money. I for one would love to keep my money away from this "rent-a-dream" business.


*(I bet a lot fall for the "10% of income" scam.)

\end rant.

 

[Beerina]

We, The People, decided to separate religion from government. Seems there were problems with it historically.

You can feel better, though, because the reimbursed money is not yours. It belongs to Mr. Bleever, who chose to donate it. The government refusing to tax something does not mean they are spending your money on it. They're just not taxing it.


If you have a problem with lavish lifestyles of certain religious figures, talk to your congressman.

 

[theprestige]

Do so few people realize that Camping (and all big-money church leaders, really) is living the life on the back of the taxpayer? To me, this is one of the most outrageous aspects of religion as a business.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation: the church pays no tax, the bleever gives, say, $2,000.* Mr. Bleever then files his taxes, declaring the donation. Uncle Sam then reimburses Mr. Bleever to the tune of 100%? I don't know the law and probably won't research it, but even if the tax return is only 10%, which I doubt, that's a lot of taxpayers' money. I for one would love to keep my money away from this "rent-a-dream" business.


*(I bet a lot fall for the "10% of income" scam.)

\end rant.

I think you misunderstand how taxation, and tax exemptions, work.

A taxpayer owes money to the state, nominally so the state can buy social benefits.

Optionally, the taxpayer can choose to pay that money to some other organization that the state recognizes as providing social benefits. When they do this, they owe less money to the state (since they've already spent some of their money on social benefits).

If the taxpayer has already paid money to the state in advance (say, through witholdings on their income), then the state may need to return some of that money to them.

The state never reimburses charitable donors for any money that didn't already belong to the donor in the first place. No donor receives another taxpayer's money back, in exchange for their charitable donation.

If they owe $100 the state, and they donate $50 to charity, then they only owe another $50 to the state. If they already paid $100 to the state, then the state has to give them $50 back. This is obvious, and fair, and doesn't involve anybody else's money.















All of this, of course, completely ignores the entirely separate question of whether or not the state should consider religious organizations as providing social benefits. (Not to mention the question of whether the state really is all that good at spending your money on social benefits anyway.)

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

The money IS mine. Mr. Bleever is just the middle man.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

If they owe $100 the state, and they donate $50 to charity, then they only owe another $50 to the state. If they already paid $100 to the state, then the state has to give them $50 back. This is obvious, and fair, and doesn't involve anybody else's money.

Basically, what I'm saying is: If I owe the gov. money, and then have a choice between paying it to the gov. or giving it to a church, the gov. is in fact giving me money to give the church (indirectly subsidizing the church). If I tell you you don't have to pay me what you owe, I am indeed giving you this money.

I pay taxes to build schools and roads and to have helpful social programs and whatnonot. I don't want to pay taxes so that they can be doled out to Mr. Bleever just because he happened to give it to an idiot who promised the rapture.

 

[RussDill]

So, if I can choose to work 60hr a week or 40hr a week, by choosing to work 40hr a week, I'm taking money from the government?

 

[Scott Haley]

Family Radio is not a church. Harold Camping does not run or own a church.

 

[MG1962]

IAll of this, of course, completely ignores the entirely separate question of whether or not the state should consider religious organizations as providing social benefits. (Not to mention the question of whether the state really is all that good at spending your money on social benefits anyway.)

And this the core of the matter who is going to do most good with the money. Some Churchs do offer extensive social benefits as part of their brief. Some seem to have pastors driving very nice cars

 

[SezMe]

The government refusing to tax something does not mean they are spending your money on it. They're just not taxing it.

Another way to look at is if the government requires a given amount of money to operate (the budget) then that amount of money comes from taxes (a simplification, but ok for our purposes here). But if, for example, Camping gets an exemption then others (you and me) have to pay more to make up for what he did not pay. Hence, Camping's religious exemption costs all us non-bleevers money.

 

[Ray Brady]

I don't want to pay taxes so that they can be doled out to Mr. Bleever just because he happened to give it to an idiot who promised the rapture.

This is the wrong argument. Your tax money is not being "doled out" to Mr. Bleever. It would be more accurate to complain that, by subsidizing a worthless charity, Mr. Bleever is ducking out of paying his fair share.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Relax

Eh, I was just ranting. I am okay with small churches who work on a small budget and try to help the community as much as they can. I should have emphasized "big-money" churches. I also know Mr. Camping isn't running a church.

I got worked up because I was looking at Camping's latest stunt and the size of the business, and that's the angle I saw it from: a subsidized money grubbing scam.

Bonus opinion: In my neighbourhood, the poorest are crackheads and they're getting more help from secular methadone clinics and outreach centers and whatnot. Some religious folks run soup kitchens and free meal nights but that's because a lot of christians are rather nice folks.

 

[autumn1971]

My problem with churches being tax exempt is that the government staying out of the way of the religions isn't always reciprocated.
The Catholic Church and the LDS church should have long-ago given up any sort of tax exempt status. Camping, and many other weird little cults, may only contribute to the total crazy in the world, but as long as they stay out of politics, they should be tax exempt.

 

[Pup]

If they owe $100 the state, and they donate $50 to charity, then they only owe another $50 to the state. If they already paid $100 to the state, then the state has to give them $50 back. This is obvious, and fair, and doesn't involve anybody else's money.

We're talking about U.S. law, right, because Camping and most of his followers are in the U.S.? Am I totally misunderstanding this?

It seems that both you and Maurice Ledifficile are talking about a situation where there's a 100% marginal tax rate, something that has never existed in the U.S., as far as I know. Right now, marginal tax rates range from 10% to 35%.

So if a person itemizes his deductions (which he'd only do if his deductions total more than the standard deduction), and he donated $100 to a church as in the OP's example, he'd owe $10 to $35 less in taxes, depending on his tax bracket.

Or, in the example above, if he would have owed $100 tax to the government without making a donation, but he donated $50 to charity, he'd still owe between $82.50 and $95 to the government in taxes, because his taxes would drop by 10% to 35% of the $50.

The donation would also save him a much smaller amount in state taxes, probably a few dollars, varying by the state he lived in.

All of this, of course, completely ignores the entirely separate question of whether or not the state should consider religious organizations as providing social benefits. (Not to mention the question of whether the state really is all that good at spending your money on social benefits anyway.)

Agreed. But there's no sense making up exaggerated marginal tax rates to give examples that couldn't happen under current tax laws. Most of the charitable donation will still come out of the individual's pocket.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Another way to look at is if the government requires a given amount of money to operate (the budget) then that amount of money comes from taxes (a simplification, but ok for our purposes here). But if, for example, Camping gets an exemption then others (you and me) have to pay more to make up for what he did not pay. Hence, Camping's religious exemption costs all us non-bleevers money.

That. Also, this untaxed income came from Mr. Bleever. Had he not given it, it would have gone entirely toward the budget, in your simplified example. I'd rather see the taxes go to science and education or something.
#$%^ Camping. There. (I'll still go camping)

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

It seems that both you and Maurice Ledifficile are talking about a situation where there's a 100% marginal tax rate, something that has never existed in the U.S., as far as I know. Right now, marginal tax rates range from 10% to 35%.

I did have a caveat in the OP about the percentage. Even at 10%, I find it to be a questionable allocation of funds.

Sometimes I forget where I am here and forget to dot the t's and cross the i's.

 

[Mister Agenda]

I know Camping's radio outfit is big business, but how much of the money is he keeping for himself? If he's living it up, that would support the contention he's a conman. If he's living modestly and plowing the bulk of the profits into spreading the word, that would support the contention he is sincerely deluded. Caveat: not all conmen are in it for the money, some are in it for the attention.