Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

montreal.ctvnews.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 335 posts

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#251

Post by james412 »

jacquesm wrote: post #235
gscott wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been on a budget committee for a Methodist church. There is no profit, no money left over the next year, the largest expense is the pastor who is an employee (50k per yr in this case). Mega-churches might have money left over but by law they are supposed to spend their money as their nonprofit charter says or they could get audited by the State and fined or have their charter terminated.

I'll just leave this here as one sample of many: https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/1/1366/0/uploads/posts... Let's just say that not every church is the same as your Methodist church.

What are we supposed to be looking at here?

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#252

Post by Barrin92 »

vowelless wrote: post #241
Barrin92 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China aside given that it's an authoritarian state I much prefer the control the state has over the church here in Germany, because it eliminates virtually all religious sectarianism and has led to the church having adopted teaching and a curriculum that is largely in line with the basic constitutional law and secular values rather than existing outside of it. Same in the UK or Scandinavia. One of the reasons Islamic…

The First Amendment strongly prevents something like this in the US. There is no way the state can control a religious organization here and that’s a good thing. Americans secularism >> European “secularism”. Islamic extremism in your country is not due to lack of state control of their mosques. It’s how you have treated generations of Islamic immigrants (Turks on work visas, no citizenships, open borders with lots o…

Most Turks in Germany are citizens (requirements are if anything laxer than in the US), and there's practically no religious extremism among Turks, so that's just a wrong claim.

And actually extremism among Turks is absent for the very reason I outlined above. In Turkey there's a long tradition of either religious integration in the state in the Ottoman era which had a strong scholastic tradition, or laicism under Atatürk, so there was very little room for sectarianism.

And yes, a lot of extremism is present among refugees, but that just proves the point, where do refugees originate from? Countries with failing state authority.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#253

Post by busterarm »

seesawtron wrote: post #108
mmglr wrote: post #72

IMO this post should not be on HN. Per the guidelines [1] "stories about politics" are off-topic. I would consider this political for obvious reasons. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Here's the complete guideline: "Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" Did you purposefully leave out the full sentence? I would argue it is/was a new phenomenon. Nevertheless, would like to hear why you think HN should be exempt from political discussion anyways? We see thought-provoking discussions here each day. This is one of the positive aspe…

Yes, hackernews will never pass up the opportunity to discuss highly divisive content that will cause community drama.

Let's post about rent control while we're at it and really set off some flamewars.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#254

Post by watwut »

Bayart wrote: post #126
ranman wrote: post #97

Everyone commenting about how great churches are? You’re absolutely delusional. The gross majority of these organizations are bigoted and racist. I grew up in the southern United States and experienced all manner of churches. I don’t care how great your church is. Give me 20 minutes with your congregation and I’ll find the racists and bigots. These assholes promote terrible mental and physical health. They don’t beli…

>I grew up in the southern United States That explains it. Your only experience with Christianity is with the oddest strains of it. I see that stuff pretty often with American "atheists". What they refer to as church feels like a fever dream, or something entirely alien. >Anyone who thinks, believes, or sells otherwise? You’re a lunatic. I disagree. You disagree with me, so you're insane.

I don't live in America and Catholic priests are leading the mini movement against lgbt and feminism. And by opposition to feminism I mean stuff like claiming that male should be head of household and keep her in line via yelling and hitting table with fist.

Even in case of domestic violence they focus on getting couple together and about how woman should be nice.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#255

Post by nulbyte »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #69
ars wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sounds fair but why can't these things just be a not for profit? They are. There is no difference tax-wise for a non-profit and church.

Afaik churches in the US doesn't even have to report anything, so there's no way to know where the money is from and what they are being used for. That's a pretty big difference

While they aren't required to report, many register voluntarily for fundraising and discounts. AmazonSmile, Kroger Community Rewards, and similar programs often outsource basic eligibility to GuideStar. GuideStar will not add you without proof of exempt determination by the IRS.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#256

Post by heavenlyblue »

paulie_a wrote: post #203
iso947 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s sounds like corruption could easily happen, what’s the justification?

Do you want to be the one to persecute churches? That's what you will be perceived as.

Maybe we just need an equivalent of liberally-minded Trump who could just do that.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#257

Post by cableshaft »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #114
stormdennis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have secular alternatives, state welfare in many countries. A worse value for money system would be hard to imagine, populated with clock watching, work-to-rule types who actively use bureaucracy to avoid work.

So your telling me that churches are value for money? Could you give an example of one of these state welfare alternatives?

If it becomes a government service, it will instantly become a political target for budget cuts and regulations that will exclude people from getting help.

As an example, I have someone in my extended family that works for one of the state governments for employment services, and from the stories they've told me about how the department has been slashed and burned and forced to work with a skeleton staff, I'm not surprised at all that when the pandemic hit that everyone was having a hell of a time signing up for unemployment or getting the money they're supposed to be getting, and desperately need right now, or even just reaching a live person to talk to.

And of course that just makes the department look badly run, in people's eyes, which makes the average citizen even more likely to allow more money to be cut from them, because they just assume it's well funded already and "they suck at their jobs, what are we even paying their salaries with our tax dollars for? They should be fired!"

Whereas churches have a bit of a shield from that, at least, especially from the GOP in the US, who aggressively and consistently fight against social programs and non-defense government services otherwise, but their voter-base tends to be very religious, so they have an incentive not to hurt churches in any way.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#258

Post by scollet »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #230
hbarka wrote: post #48

I acknowledge this is anecdotal but in the Bay Area CA I drive by many churches (of different faiths) occupying large areas of land on prime hilltop real estate. I’m astonished by this.

I am astonished by your astonishment: churches were one of the first buildings to create a nucleus of a new city, so you can say they created the value of that estate out of an empty hilltop in the middle of nowhere.

A binding agent?

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#259

Post by heavenlyblue »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #96
jsmeaton wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you only tax profits? If a church isn't making any, then there'd be nothing to tax?

>> Don't you only tax profits? If a church isn't making any, then there'd be nothing to tax? Land and buildings for one could be taxed. Churches bought or were given land ages ago, before there was a Manhattan or Boston, as we today know it. Go ahead and pay property tax on land worth $250 Million when you barely make income to keep the lights on.

Or you could just build a huge multi-apartment building instead having a church on the first floor (maybe several floors) and actually resolve some of the housing issues in the area at the same time.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#260

Post by zajio1am »

hypersoar wrote: post #41

Some commenters are pointing out that all nonprofits are tax-exempt in the United States. This is true, but religious organizations enjoy an extra benefit. Secular non-profits have to apply for 501(c)3 status and then file an annual return. Churches and the like are presumed to be 501(c)3 organizations and have no filing or disclosure requirements, and the IRS is loath to investigate them.

Where i live, secular non-profits has tax excemptions (almost similar to churches) without need to apply for them. While disguised business enterprise may happen, that is something that has to be proven by state. This seems to me reasonable.

So perhaps US should loose the rules for secular non-profits to be on the same level as churches?

Post reply on HN