If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KATU)   Oregon passes law to take away charitable tax deductions for charities that devote less that 70% of funds towards actual charity work   (katu.com) divider line 121
    More: Hero, funds, Oregon, itemized deduction, tax breaks, local taxes, Oregon Department of Justice  
•       •       •

5467 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jun 2013 at 5:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-30 10:54:58 PM  

lack of warmth: the places really doing good work shouldn't be taxed so they can't help those in need.
/obvious, I know


Sadly, not for some......
 
2013-06-30 11:00:25 PM  

LiberalEastCoastElitist: HeadLever: LiberalEastCoastElitist: How is paying rent on a building which is occupied 9:00am - 1:00pm Sunday and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Wednesday charity? How is paying a sky wizard priest to present a single hour of instruction per week 50k per year charity?

So that is what you think that is the extent of churches do? Is this what the athiest really belive?

Actually, I was brought up in a Christian fundamentalist house. Six siblings all together. Home schooled. I know that's all they do. Thanks for playing.


No funerals, births, baptisisms, sunday school, bereavement counseling, etc.?  Your church sucks
 
2013-06-30 11:10:47 PM  

buzzcut73: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.


I guess you can distribute funds to have some of your campaign expenses in a charitable form. Hiring homeless people to be sign wavers, leaflitterers.
 
2013-06-30 11:23:37 PM  
Dan Pollotta pretty much nailed this misconception of charity overhead / administrative costs in this TED talk:  http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM

Give it a watch before throwing a percentage out and arbitrarily saying "No charity should ever exceed THAT."
 
2013-06-30 11:31:40 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: Most charities are just another form of business, not actual "charity'. Collect money, provide jobs, pay big salaries to 'Executives'. Make people feel good as you scam them out of their money.


Yup.
 
2013-06-30 11:36:11 PM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-06-30 11:38:13 PM  
They'll just move to Delaware!
 
2013-07-01 12:15:23 AM  

HeadLever: JesusJuice: I don't believe it's impossible to tax religious institutions while retaining a secular government.

That is correct.  However, if you do tax religious institutions and these contributions, you need to know that much of this giving will decrease.

The tax codes in this regard is nothing but a social engineering via the wallet.


I don't see how less giving to churches is a bad thing. Sure, they do some charitable work, but most of the money goes toward convincing poor people to believe crazy shiat.
 
2013-07-01 01:23:41 AM  

JesusJuice: I don't see how less giving to churches is a bad thing.


So you don't see any issues when they give less to a church that provides the following:
Sandwiches served (usually in front of church; see schedule above)
• Socks (available year-round); hats & gloves (October-April)

• Personal care items (soap, razors, shampoo, toothbrushes, etc.)

• $$ for work tools/shoes (must have regular employment)

• $$ for vital records (birth, death, and marriage certificates)

• $$ for Colorado I.D. cards and driver's licenses
• Assistance filling out forms

Yep, no issues at all so long as you don't like the poor.
 
2013-07-01 01:46:47 AM  

HeadLever: JesusJuice: I don't see how less giving to churches is a bad thing.

So you don't see any issues when they give less to a church that provides the following:
Sandwiches served (usually in front of church; see schedule above)
• Socks (available year-round); hats & gloves (October-April)

• Personal care items (soap, razors, shampoo, toothbrushes, etc.)

• $$ for work tools/shoes (must have regular employment)

• $$ for vital records (birth, death, and marriage certificates)

• $$ for Colorado I.D. cards and driver's licenses
• Assistance filling out forms

Yep, no issues at all so long as you don't like the poor.


All those services could be more efficiently provided by the state. We could fund the programs by taxing churches.
 
2013-07-01 01:56:23 AM  

Beerguy: "In related news, the Mormon church has announced they are pulling out of Oregon, citing "unspecified reasons.""


I don't think Mormons pull out.
 
2013-07-01 02:33:24 AM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: I love Charity Navigator.

for myself, but also the non-profit I work for has 3/4.  Which is fair, there's definitely room for improvement.  But it's incredibly helpful to be able to point (justifiably) skeptical people to the site.


The problem is that there are issues with how charities do the accounting.

For example, money paid to me (as a contractor for a 501c(3)) is considered overhead, despite the fact that a large part of what I do could be categorized as support costs for various charitable endeavors (monitoring offshore water quality, etc.). There's no easy way to separate the work and other costs (servers, maintenance, etc) of actual charitable work from the stuff like maintaining donation websites, so it all gets lumped together as "overhead".
 
2013-07-01 03:45:15 AM  
I almost got into a chocolate pudding wrestling for charity business once. I thought I'd do okay until I found out that in some states could keep 95% of the money I raised. Needless to say I got out before I got in because I have a soul.
 
2013-07-01 07:06:13 AM  

buzzcut73: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.


All those expenses you just listed they will claim ARE charity work. LOL.
 
2013-07-01 08:59:41 AM  
This applies to the law and subby's use of the Hero tag.
www.davart.net
 
2013-07-01 09:38:12 AM  
Interestingly enough something similar has been happening to (at least some) health insurance carriers... I was notified that mine was required to spend at least 80% of their income on paying health care costs and if they didn't they'd have to pay out the difference to their subscribers.

Great idea, right?

Yes, it's the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obama care...  dang, those evil liberals are at it again.
 
2013-07-01 11:25:47 AM  

JesusJuice: All those services could be more efficiently provided by the state.


[citation needed]

If the fraud in Medicare is any indication of the efficiency of this program, I'll have to kindly disagree with you there.

We could fund the programs by taxing churches.

But then it stops being charity.  As anyone knows, forced charity is not charity at all. It just becomes another bureaucratic social program.
 
2013-07-01 12:04:39 PM  

legion_of_doo: JesusJuice: Good. Next, churches.

Why are you against the separation of church & state?


What part of separation of Church and State means that churches should operate on different rules than everyone else?

Any exceptions for churches/religions should be removed.
 
2013-07-01 03:17:44 PM  

buzzcut73: phillydrifter: Even charities have operating costs.

I don't think anybody disputes that. However, when operating costs, the CEO's salary, marketing and 'awareness' campaigns (which is just marketing under a different cost code) take up 70% of the budget, there is a problem.


Added something for you
 
2013-07-01 03:51:32 PM  

HeadLever: JesusJuice: All those services could be more efficiently provided by the state.

[citation needed]

If the fraud in Medicare is any indication of the efficiency of this program, I'll have to kindly disagree with you there.

We could fund the programs by taxing churches.

But then it stops being charity.  As anyone knows, forced charity is not charity at all. It just becomes another bureaucratic social program.


Why do you hate social programs?
 
2013-07-01 05:19:07 PM  

Odd Bird: This applies to the law and subby's use of the Hero tag.
[www.davart.net image 350x350]


Unless it's a limbo contest.
 
Displayed 21 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report