Why in the world is money that's given to charity taxed?
-
I'm not sure when I'd get to watch it before late next week, but when I am home, I would gladly watch it and comment. You'll note I did do some research, however.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Here in Canada, as long as it is a registered charitable organization, then my donations to them are tax deductable. There are minimum and maximum annual amounts, based upon your income, and unused deductions can be carried forward for several years. You can also group or save up your deductions and claim all of them in one year even though they occurred over several years. But that's just us backwards thinking Canadians and our silly social sytems at work. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
Socialist !!! :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I have to ask this question to those of you that like taxation and wealth transfer. I realize your reasons for doing it are justifiable to some extent. But this should really throw you off... If you want to help those in need, you say you should be for minimum wages, social security programs and the like. But why is it that if someone wants to donate to a charity, that the money is taxed? Why would that be justifiable? In this case at the very least, if money is being donated to a charity, it's going to help those in need. The government should get out of the way.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.Donating to an international charity is bad for the economy. You would be importing "the feeling that you did something good". They get money, you get nothing but a feeling. The country you live in loses the money, because You lose it. It's only natural that they'd try to slow that flow.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Unfortunately those rules also apply to religious organisations.
Who, no matter their other failings, are behind the vast bulk of charity work that occurs in our country.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Who, no matter their other failings, are behind the vast bulk of charity work that occurs in our country.
And I'd be happy for them to be exempt from tax for all monies used for charitable works. How much money has the Catholic church accumulated? They own more property in our country than any other group or organisation. There are also people in our country living in third world conditions without access to health care or eduction due to lack of funding. The Franciscan monks from the church opposite my parents place built an 18 room monastery for the two of them.
-
I'm not trying to label the whole world here. And I am implying that there are those here that do believe in wealth transfer. Because that's precisely what socializing anything does. In order to pay the poor, taxes must be taken. From whom? Everyone else, whether they're rich or middle class. Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
are those here that do believe in wealth transfer
It'd be hard to get paid without wealth transfer so yes I believe in it. As per usual you are attaching meaning to that term that is not there.
josda1000 wrote:
Because that's precisely what socializing anything does
That is not correct.
josda1000 wrote:
Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works.
I like taxes, I'd rather not pay them but I like a free car too. I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in.
-
Expects is the wrong word. We collect tithes, yes. There's no pressure or 'expectation' though. Can I claim it ? No, the fact that it's given anonymously kills that, as much as anything. If I could, I would. Are you blaming the government or the church for this ? I guess the idea is more traditional than anything, there was a time when most people belonged to a church, and the government supported the existing social structure. It would not surprise me if tax exemption for churches would start to fade away, or we'd be required to show what % went to missions and charities, and to just claim that. Given the existence of megachurches like Hillsong, I'm not sure I'd disagree - they've got a huge facility, why should anyone but the people who go there, pay for that ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Are you blaming the government or the church for this ? I guess the idea is more traditional than anything, there was a time when most people belonged to a church, and the government supported the existing social structure. It would not surprise me if tax exemption for churches would start to fade away, or we'd be required to show what % went to missions and charities, and to just claim that. Given the existence of megachurches like Hillsong, I'm not sure I'd disagree - they've got a huge facility, why should anyone but the people who go there, pay for that ?
See my reply to you below.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Who, no matter their other failings, are behind the vast bulk of charity work that occurs in our country.
And I'd be happy for them to be exempt from tax for all monies used for charitable works. How much money has the Catholic church accumulated? They own more property in our country than any other group or organisation. There are also people in our country living in third world conditions without access to health care or eduction due to lack of funding. The Franciscan monks from the church opposite my parents place built an 18 room monastery for the two of them.
Well, like I said, I think it's an historical blip that does not reflect the wishes of the majority at this point. I have no problem with it being withdrawn. I think the churches that accurately reflect the wishes of Jesus are not accumulating wealth and certainly I think that if a church builds something, they will own it, and they should build in proportion to the degree to which their members are willing to pay for it, with no tax benefits. So long as the tax exemption continues for charity, because if it doesn't, the poor are the ones who will lose out, imagine in the Salvos had to pay tax on donations ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Socialist !!! :P
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Hey, you know, sometimes when the shoe fits, you just got to wear it. And proudly. :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
josda1000 wrote:
are those here that do believe in wealth transfer
It'd be hard to get paid without wealth transfer so yes I believe in it. As per usual you are attaching meaning to that term that is not there.
josda1000 wrote:
Because that's precisely what socializing anything does
That is not correct.
josda1000 wrote:
Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works.
I like taxes, I'd rather not pay them but I like a free car too. I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in.
Josh Gray wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Because that's precisely what socializing anything does That is not correct.
How is this not correct?
Josh Gray wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works. I like taxes, I'd rather not pay them but I like a free car too. I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in.
Ah.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
Well, like I said, I think it's an historical blip that does not reflect the wishes of the majority at this point. I have no problem with it being withdrawn. I think the churches that accurately reflect the wishes of Jesus are not accumulating wealth and certainly I think that if a church builds something, they will own it, and they should build in proportion to the degree to which their members are willing to pay for it, with no tax benefits. So long as the tax exemption continues for charity, because if it doesn't, the poor are the ones who will lose out, imagine in the Salvos had to pay tax on donations ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
So long as the tax exemption continues for charity, because if it doesn't, the poor are the ones who will lose out, imagine in the Salvos had to pay tax on donations ?
I agree completely. I used the Catholic church as an example because the contradictions between their actions and their stated beliefs are so obvious. The Savlos are obviously at the other end of the spectrum but I would imagine most religious charitable organisations fall somewhere between the two. Dont Wesley Mission have a bit of a questionable track record? I think most people would question the motives of an organisation that offers charity with another message that they dont necessarily agree with.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Because that's precisely what socializing anything does That is not correct.
How is this not correct?
Josh Gray wrote:
josda1000 wrote: Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works. I like taxes, I'd rather not pay them but I like a free car too. I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in.
Ah.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.josda1000 wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: josda1000 wrote: Because that's precisely what socializing anything does That is not correct. How is this not correct?
I knew you'd say that. You made the claim, I think you have the responsibility to be able to back it up.
josda1000 wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: josda1000 wrote: Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works. I like taxes, I'd rather not pay them but I like a free car too. I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in. Ah.
Yeah common sense over useless rhetoric.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So long as the tax exemption continues for charity, because if it doesn't, the poor are the ones who will lose out, imagine in the Salvos had to pay tax on donations ?
I agree completely. I used the Catholic church as an example because the contradictions between their actions and their stated beliefs are so obvious. The Savlos are obviously at the other end of the spectrum but I would imagine most religious charitable organisations fall somewhere between the two. Dont Wesley Mission have a bit of a questionable track record? I think most people would question the motives of an organisation that offers charity with another message that they dont necessarily agree with.
Josh Gray wrote:
I used the Catholic church as an example because the contradictions between their actions and their stated beliefs are so obvious. The Savlos are obviously at the other end of the spectrum but I would imagine most religious charitable organisations fall somewhere between the two. Dont Wesley Mission have a bit of a questionable track record?
Yeah, we both chose an obvious extreme to support what we were saying :-) I have no idea, to be honest, wrt the Wesley Mission. I don't church watch. I tend not to give much to local charities, I figure even the worst off here should be able to survive, at least in cities. I give to World Vision and Save the Children, who I do believe do some work in our outback communities.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: josda1000 wrote: Because that's precisely what socializing anything does That is not correct. How is this not correct?
I knew you'd say that. You made the claim, I think you have the responsibility to be able to back it up.
josda1000 wrote:
Josh Gray wrote: josda1000 wrote: Nobody likes taxes, however, it's the only way it works. I like taxes, I'd rather not pay them but I like a free car too. I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in. Ah.
Yeah common sense over useless rhetoric.
You made the claim that it's not correct. So I asked it. And I've been backing it up for the last couple days, maybe you're the one that needs to do research. Are you just here to give me a hard time? It really seems that way. If that's the case, I'm not laughing.
Josh Gray wrote:
I think they're a good thing and necessary for the kind of society I like to live in.
Josh Gray wrote:
useless rhetoric.
Damned right.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
I have to ask this question to those of you that like taxation and wealth transfer. I realize your reasons for doing it are justifiable to some extent. But this should really throw you off... If you want to help those in need, you say you should be for minimum wages, social security programs and the like. But why is it that if someone wants to donate to a charity, that the money is taxed? Why would that be justifiable? In this case at the very least, if money is being donated to a charity, it's going to help those in need. The government should get out of the way.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
UK taxation of charities. http://news.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-046.pdf[^]
-
I have to ask this question to those of you that like taxation and wealth transfer. I realize your reasons for doing it are justifiable to some extent. But this should really throw you off... If you want to help those in need, you say you should be for minimum wages, social security programs and the like. But why is it that if someone wants to donate to a charity, that the money is taxed? Why would that be justifiable? In this case at the very least, if money is being donated to a charity, it's going to help those in need. The government should get out of the way.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.In the UK it works slightly differently. If you wish to give money to charity then you will have to donate from your net income, i.e. the tax has already been deducted. However you can also give the charity your name and address and they are then allowed to reclaim the basic rate tax on that donation from the government, thus increasing the value of the donation. Also if you are a higher rate (40% or above) taxpayer you can reclaim the higher rate amount via your annual tax return. So you see the UK government is a very generous and benign organisation.
It's time for a new signature.
-
I have to ask this question to those of you that like taxation and wealth transfer. I realize your reasons for doing it are justifiable to some extent. But this should really throw you off... If you want to help those in need, you say you should be for minimum wages, social security programs and the like. But why is it that if someone wants to donate to a charity, that the money is taxed? Why would that be justifiable? In this case at the very least, if money is being donated to a charity, it's going to help those in need. The government should get out of the way.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two.In the US, if you donate to a registered non-profit, it's not taxed. Or more accurately, you just need to get a record of the donation, and then you can list that on your next tax return. Basically, every dollar you donate to a non-profit is deducted from your gross income. If you make $50,000 and you donate $10,000 to a registered charity, then as far as the IRS is concerned, you only made $40,000 this year.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
In the US, if you donate to a registered non-profit, it's not taxed. Or more accurately, you just need to get a record of the donation, and then you can list that on your next tax return. Basically, every dollar you donate to a non-profit is deducted from your gross income. If you make $50,000 and you donate $10,000 to a registered charity, then as far as the IRS is concerned, you only made $40,000 this year.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
If you make $50,000 and you donate $10,000 to a registered charity
Wooo big charity right there lol Anyway, yes I think for the most part that you're right, but I've seen some weird circumstances where it's not. I have to go find them again.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
This is good info, thanks.
Josh Davis
Always looking for blackjack. Or maybe White Frank. One of the two. -
That document I referenced is quite a few years old, so may have since been updated. But why do you need this info - your next show?