Some Evangelical Non Profits Trying New Strategy To Hide Salaries

[Dana7360]

If someone wants to start a non profit to help people the organization should not pay some taxes. If they want to pay their executives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they have that right.

However they don't have the right to call themselves a church when they aren't just to be able to hide how much they are paid. If they want to not pay some taxes then they really should disclose expenses.

We all know they won't stay out of politics and legislation even though it's required by law.

It's just too bad that rules don't apply to everyone equally.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS that allows them to hide their salaries

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Daily Observation
The Nottzees hate Jews.
The Democrats hate Evangelicals.
It is the same sort of sickness.

 

[Penelope]

1.5 million nonprofit

According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations are registered in the U.S. This number includes public charities, private foundations, and other types of nonprofit organizations, including chambers of commerce, fraternal organizations and civic leagues.
grantspace.org › knowledge-base › number-of-nonprofits-in-the-u-s

How many nonprofit organizations are there in the U.S. ...
----------------------------------------------
Way to many.

I have to admit, I hate Evangelicals, religious zealots, I don't want them by me.

 

[DOTR]

Daily Observation
The Nottzees hate Jews.
The Democrats hate Evangelicals.
It is the same sort of sickness.

Democrats hate Christians. Evangelicals are just what their parents were and so they conflate the two. Daddy issues.

 

[Penelope]

Daily Observation
The Nottzees hate Jews.
The Democrats hate Evangelicals.
It is the same sort of sickness.

Democrats hate Christians. Evangelicals are just what their parents were and so they conflate the two. Daddy issues.

Most democrats are Christians, but not evangelicals. I admit I do not like any evangelicals.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Jesus was a libertarian......

 

[Penelope]

Jesus was a libertarian......

Jesus didn't have any money, he got the taxes from fish.

 

[progressive hunter]

If someone wants to start a non profit to help people the organization should not pay some taxes. If they want to pay their executives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they have that right.

However they don't have the right to call themselves a church when they aren't just to be able to hide how much they are paid. If they want to not pay some taxes then they really should disclose expenses.

We all know they won't stay out of politics and legislation even though it's required by law.

It's just too bad that rules don't apply to everyone equally.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS that allows them to hide their salaries

well this is good to hear,,,
anytime a person or company keeps more of its own money and the blood sucking dems and repubes get less is a good thing,,,

 

[Rambunctious]

I can't speak to why they would want to "hide salaries"....but Charitable nonprofit organizations often use many volunteers to carry out their mission. However, a nonprofit is also a business and must have qualified paid staff who will commit to operating and maintaining the business side of the operation and deliver its services...

 

[Rambunctious]

Jesus was a libertarian......

OMG...

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

We all know they won't stay out of politics and legislation even though it's required by law

The Johnson Amendment is 100% unconstitutional

 

[RodISHI]

If someone wants to start a non profit to help people the organization should not pay some taxes. If they want to pay their executives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they have that right.

However they don't have the right to call themselves a church when they aren't just to be able to hide how much they are paid. If they want to not pay some taxes then they really should disclose expenses.

We all know they won't stay out of politics and legislation even though it's required by law.

It's just too bad that rules don't apply to everyone equally.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS that allows them to hide their salaries

Why would it matter to you if you don't pay into their group? They have to pay taxes on their income just like everyone else. I would think that would make the "we wanna tax your ass off" crowd happy since the charity isn't taxed but the individuals are.

 

[Andylusion]

If someone wants to start a non profit to help people the organization should not pay some taxes. If they want to pay their executives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, they have that right.

However they don't have the right to call themselves a church when they aren't just to be able to hide how much they are paid. If they want to not pay some taxes then they really should disclose expenses.

We all know they won't stay out of politics and legislation even though it's required by law.

It's just too bad that rules don't apply to everyone equally.

Major evangelical nonprofits are trying a new strategy with the IRS that allows them to hide their salaries

I disagree with the idea that Churches should stay out of politics, depending on what you mean by that.

If you mean that Churches should not be lobbying and influence politicians directly, through government channels, then I agree.

If you mean that churches should not be promoting their values to the public, and giving advice or score cards on who they recommend to vote for.... then no. Churches have every right to involve themselves in public discourse, as do all Americans.

Yes, I know the IRS says this and that, but the IRS is wrong.

As far as tax exempt status, I think those of you on the left-wing, and those who you who wish to keep the church out of influencing the government, need to really consider what the long-term effects of removing tax exempt status.

If you think it's bad when Churches influence society which can indirectly influence government, imagine what will happen when government starts collecting a source of revenue from churches. How much influence will they have when government needs the financial support of churches?

Money yields influence. There will never be any time in human society where money does not yield influence. The amount of money that would come from just the Catholic church alone, into government, will result in direct influence over government. Government for example, can afford to ignore the Catholic church on abortion for example, because they have no revenue from the Catholic church. What happens when that is changed?

As for the pay of the people who run these organizations, and being called a church....

So there are two different organizations being talked about in your article, and they are not the same.

The first, is the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. BGEA, is a ministry. These are ministries, like any other. It's preaching, teaching, praying, and evangelizing. When you go to a typical BGEA, you are teaching and preaching, praising, singing, and worshiping.

Many are held in church buildings. Others in other venues. It's about as much of a church organization, as any other. When our church was formed, it was meeting in a school. Another church I know, met in a movie theater.

So really, what is the difference? None. Therefore, I think it is fair to be called a church.

The other side, is the charity organization Samaritan's purse. So that's a little different because there is a difference between a ministry organization, and a charity organization.

When you give to a ministry, I am giving my money because I want that guy to keep doing what he is doing. So I have no problem with him having some of the money I give him. Or even most of the money. The whole point is that I want him to keep evangelizing.

But when I give to a charity, I am giving that money, not to support some guy specifically, but rather to help people in need with charity. So I want most of my money going to the charity.

In this case, I am less concerned with how much money individuals in the organization make, than how effective they are with my money.

So the financial statements of Samaritan's Purse:
$710 Million in revenue.
88% goes directly to charity actions.
<5% goes to administration.

Now the revenue we see, is important because naturally larger revenues would mean lower percentages to administration. For example the United Way, has a $3 Billion dollar revenue stream, and only <3% goes to administration. So we need to find a charity of similar size to have a comparison.

The financial statements of the American Heart Association:
$880 Million in revenue.
8% goes to administration.

So my point here is this.... I don't see any problem with the money given to people running either of the charities in question. The money is generally going to what it is supposed to be going to. Samaritan's purse, isn't out of line with other charity organizations.

Honestly, this is just another attempt to drum up greed and envy at others income. I had these people called "parents" when I was young, and they taught me morals like "Mind your own business... nonya". That's why they were good parents. It's sad that so few people had good parents.