You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: If Churches Paid Taxes We Could End World Hunger
What would a church even pay taxes on? I don't get it.
The pastors personal salary is already taxed.
Are you saying that the money collected for missions and for church rent or mortgage, should be taxed before the rent or mortgage or is paid or before any is given to help the needy?
How would that help anything?
And why would you think that if the government took extra taxes that they would give any of that to feed the hungry of the world anyways?
Personally, I have always attended churches where nobody collects a salary at all, and after the rent is paid, everything is given to programs around the world to help the poor.
The post isn't meant to be literal. I'm not saying we should tax the churches. I don't think more taxes is the answer for anything. What I am saying is that we give far more to churches than it would cost to end world hunger. And if they were taxed, as we are, and that money went towards feeding the poor, it could be done. However, that doesn't mean that the government should steal their money like they steal it from hard working people. Really, no one should have to make them. They should do it on their own. Instead of having expensive buildings, or spending the money on whatever, if even a small % went towards ending world hunger it could be done. I'm just putting it in perspective. Unless those #s, are inaccurate, they speak for themselves.
Okay. Good to know that you don't want the government taking even more taxes.
I would think that more than "a small %" of money donated to churches is ALREADY being used to end world hunger or help the impoverished in some way.
I found this quote about that study:
So that number involves a lot more than actual churches. It even includes people who make products for the religious, like food and companies who print bibles and books. I'm sure that those companies are already being taxed.
Another quote from an article on that study:
So the number that should have been used in this meme you included is actually 378 Billion -- not over a Trillion, as you can't tax "market value" but only Revenue (less expenses.)
Right. I guess I could have/should have spent more time on this post for clarification. A lot of my posts are much more thorough. This one is just meant to be thought-provoking. It started as a Facebook meme :)
But keep in mind, that # of revenue is just in the US. I'm sure if they were taxed on their income it could feed the poor in the US. And the rest of the churches worldwide could feed the rest of the world. For that much $ to be circulating in their hands and there still being starving homeless people, that says a lot.
The $1.2 trillion is for goods and services provided. Sales tax of 6.5% would end world hunger. Any way you slice it up, that's a lot of money to involved for there still to be kids dying of starvation or lack of drinking water.
OK. I understand that you are trying to call people's attention to a problem and how it could be solved if we all resolved to do something about it.
However, the meme is implying that churches are not helping the poor,
when in fact I believe that they are already doing more towards this goal than general society is. Could they do more? Probably, yes.
Churches don't have "income" per se -- they have donations. People who have already paid taxes, are donating their hard-earned money in order to allow churches to help the needy, provide a building to hold services, and to pay the people who do the work running things.
What would be interesting to see would be statistics that show how much money churches DO give away to other causes. That could shed some real light on this.
Perhaps the question should be,
if we removed all the aid that churches/religious organizations are doing to help the poor around the world,
how much GREATER would the problem of world hunger be?
Would it perhaps be 60 Billion needed rather than the 30 Billion that is needed today?
Who knows? We don't have the stats on that.
I welcome critic of churches and where they could improve, as I am sure that there are many areas in which a lot of them are failing. I don't think that they are perfect and not deserving of criticism. I just don't understand this meme being targeted at churches when from what I can tell pretty much all of them are giving to the poor and needy already. Could some of them get by with smaller and less fancy buildings? Probably, but that is a different topic.
Well if our tithing went to feeding the poor instead of churches we could easily feed the poor. Not that that's the perfect scenario. But if we took away the aid from churches (as you said) that doesn't necessarily mean that the cost to end world hunger would increase, because it could in fact decrease or be non existent if money went towards that instead.
Why does God need so much money to operate? I've spent the last 9 years researching topics because i'm passionate about researching the truth on a variety of subjects. I've managed to spend thousands of hours on it without donations. Why can't preachers? Of course, I need sales and donations to keep on doing this. It's been rough. But preachers don't need a full time income or fancy house. They could do it on the side. One of the nicesst houses I've ever been in was preacher's house.
When we tithe, we tithe based on our income, without expenses being factored in. Most people spend all their income. So they'd have no money left to tighte with.
I know churches do a lot for needy people. They give food, and much more. I even volunteered for our church a long time ago and we practically built a whole new house for a new widow.
But the churches DO use the money to feed the poor.
That's my point!
If a church doesn't do that,
than don't donate your hard-earned money to them!
Or give them just enough to help out with the rent and give the rest directly to the needy or a reputable charity.
There may be some churches that don't do this,
but I thought that most do.
If a church is really more like a Country Club where people are giving money for posh seats and fancy decor, than YES -- go ahead and tax those churches because they are not non-profit and should not qualify as a church.
As to that preacher with a super nice house,
it may not have been from his church salary.
The pastor that I grew up with had a GORGEOUS and amazing home -- but he had built it with the proceeds of his successful businesses. And he even built a small church and donated it. And he pastored for years and years not taking any salary at all.
In fact, my own father co-pastored that same church in my teen years and at that time we had a very large home, but this was because my dad had sold his cereal business to Kelloggs and had become a millionaire because of it. My dad never took any salary from the church, and in fact gave enough money to build a church building in Jamaica.
I've known several men with their own businesses that also pastor, because the businesses supplement their low or absent salary as a minister.
Or that nice home could have been because of smart investments or an inheritance.
I do agree that if a church salary alone was giving him enough to own a much nicer home than an average family, that he is probably being paid too much. We just need to be careful that we aren't making assumptions when we see how well off a person is.
Yes. We are on the same page here. But it looks like there's enough money going to churches, yet the job isn't getting done. Maybe we should donate to end world hunger, then after that's done we donate what ever else we can to the churches. If church donations only came after people were fed, they'd all be fed! And the churches would make sure of it :)