snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Politics » [ALERT] Stop Congress from Penalizing Church Donations

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: [ALERT] Stop Congress from Penalizing Church Donations
just Lisa
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 504 posted      Profile for just Lisa   Author's Homepage   E-mail just Lisa   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If it is somewhere on snopes, my apologies.
quote:
This CONSERVATIVE ALERT is a special message from RightMarch.com:
ALERT: We just received an e-mail from an attorney friend (JimZeigler.com) that we were shocked at. We checked out what he told us - and we're convinced this is a BIG danger to churches and their donors all over the country.
Congress is set to vote THIS WEEK on a rule which would RESTRICT donations to churches. The tithes and offerings of senior citizens would be curtailed by a bill expected to come up for a vote in the U.S. House on Feb. 1st or 2nd.
S. 1932, the "Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005," changes the rules for Medicaid nursing home eligibility. Under present rules, a senior can give a gift to his church and not make himself ineligible for nursing home coverage.
Under the NEW rule, every gift from a senior will be totaled for the five years preceding nursing home admission. The senior will then be ineligible for nursing home care and have to pay his own bill ($4,000 to $7,000 a month) until a "penalty period" is over.
This penalty would cause economic hardship for families of faithful givers. It would also cause many seniors to stop giving, hurting churches and charities.
The penalty affects all giving by seniors -- college tuition for grandchildren; emergency help for family; Christmas, birthday, wedding and graduation presents; charitable and church donations. All these will be totaled for five years, and then the senior will be penalized for every dollar gifted.
Grandma and Grandpa will not be able to give any more. For many churches, senior citizens are the lifeblood.
While the intent of the bill is to stop wealthy seniors from transferring assets and qualifying for Medicaid nursing home coverage, it does not do so. The affluent and their lawyers can still legally do "asset protection." Instead, the unintended consequences of the bill are to curtail normal giving by seniors -- and devastate churches across America.
Few church leaders know about this bill. We weren't even aware of the implications of this provision in it. It passed the U.S. Senate Dec. 21, 2005. The only chance to remove it is in the U.S. House... THIS WEEK.
TAKE ACTION: Time is short, and there are well-meaning Congressional staffers and others giving out wrong information. They say this provision is not in the bill. They are honestly, but dangerously, WRONG.
The standard Washington line is: "This bill is intended to stop millionaires from transfering assets and qualifying for Medicaid." That was indeed the intention. But the bill does not do so. The affluent and their lawyers will still be able to legally do "asset protection" even if the bill passes as is. The bill does nothing to stop that. What it instead does is penalize faithful church givers and normal gifting -- Christmas, birthdays, grandchildren, college 529 plans, family emergencies, etc.
We need to take action QUICKLY to stop this gutting of church budgets. Click below NOW to urge your Congressman to vote NO on S. 1932 UNLESS this change in the "penalty start date" is removed:
http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=8431871&type=CO
NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know -- including all active church members -- who want to help STOP Congress from penalizing church donations by seniors! Thank you!
Links for more information:
Actual Bill: http://www.rightmarch.com/media/s1932passed.pdf
(The version of S. 1932 which passed the US Senate Dec. 21, 2005 and will be voted on by the US House around Feb. 1-2, 2006 is 482 pages long. The penalty start provision causing the problem for seniors, churches, and charities is on pages 154-155.)
A meeting was held on Friday, Jan. 13 of the Section on ElderLaw of the Alabama Bar Association. They agree 100% with the devastating effects of S. 1932 on gifting by seniors, and they sent Jim Zeigler's warning e-mail to all elderlaw attorneys in the state.
Here is an investigative piece about S. 1932: http://shurl.org/s1932
Here is a national radio newscast about S. 1932 from National Public Radio (with whom we obviously disagree on most things!): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5081528
Sincerely,

William Greene, President
RightMarch.com



--------------------
Never make fun of a man's fish, especially if it is 40 feet tall and aluminum.

Posts: 949 | From: Central California | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 


--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Seaboe Muffinchucker
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 206 posted      Profile for Seaboe Muffinchucker     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Jason, your searches died.

For those who would like to actually look up the bill as Jason did, go to Thomas and search by the bill number: SB1932.

Seaboe

--------------------
Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me

Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
windyman
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for windyman   E-mail windyman   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I believe churches should be taxed.
Posts: 6 | From: Fort Davis, TX | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RubyMoon
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RubyMoon   E-mail RubyMoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I have a solution -- let the seniors donate all they want to the church, and let the church pay their nursing home care.
Posts: 280 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mickey Blue
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mickey Blue     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by windyman:
I believe churches should be taxed.

I don't believe churches, or any other not-for-profit organization should be taxed..

However I do think that far more attention must be paid to preventing such organizations from taking up political causes. This last election was sickening (maybe just in my area) with church billboards (or whatever you call those signs out front) with pro-[candidate] (ok lets be fair, most were probobly Bush).

I don't personally like organized religion, but they should have the same freedom as any other not for profit organization, but they should not be used for obvious political support.

--------------------
"All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do"

Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
NobbyNobbs
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for NobbyNobbs   E-mail NobbyNobbs   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that churches should be allowed to take a political stance....but if they do, they should be not be tax-exempt. Each church should be able to make its own decision: put up billboards, for a price, or remain neutral for free.

--------------------
Back in the days before electricity, we were forced to watch TV by candlelight.

Posts: 229 | From: Paoli, PA | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mickey Blue
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mickey Blue     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobbyNobbs:
I think that churches should be allowed to take a political stance....but if they do, they should be not be tax-exempt. Each church should be able to make its own decision: put up billboards, for a price, or remain neutral for free.

Thats what I was saying, although I suppose I could have been more clear about it.

Federal money for churches is (if I'm not mistaken) linked to them remaining politically neutral. Now I know that most churches are probobly more conservitive then liberal, but it should still be against the rules for them to formally support one party (or worse, one candidate) over another, particularly when they use their influence to convince others to ("Its a sin to vote for Kerry")

--------------------
"All people are responsible for the good that they didn't do"

Posts: 4774 | From: Virginia | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Goombah
I'll Be Home for After Christmas Sales


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Goombah     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mickey Blue:
[QUOTE] I don't believe churches, or any other not-for-profit organization should be taxed..

I have absolutely no problem taxing churches on their real estate holdings. What valid reason is there for not taxing the land that a church owns and forcing me to pick up the slack? Taxing the donations they receive is OK by me but I can agree that it would be considerably more problemtatic and possibly not viable.

--------------------
Ok guys, try to remember this time. It's pillage first, then burn.

Posts: 179 | From: Holdrege, NE | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RubyMoon
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RubyMoon   E-mail RubyMoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't really care if they tax churches or not, but I do greatly care that by allowing seniors to donate to the church and after they have donated all their money to have the tax payers pick up the bill for nursing home care bothers me greatly, indirectly making me support the church.
Posts: 280 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RubyMoon
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RubyMoon   E-mail RubyMoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't really care if they tax churches or not, but I do greatly care that by allowing seniors to donate to the church and after they have donated all their money to have the tax payers pick up the bill for nursing home care bothers me greatly, indirectly making me support the church.
Posts: 280 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BeachLife
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 211 posted      Profile for BeachLife   Author's Homepage   E-mail BeachLife   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RubyMoon:
I don't really care if they tax churches or not, but I do greatly care that by allowing seniors to donate to the church and after they have donated all their money to have the tax payers pick up the bill for nursing home care bothers me greatly, indirectly making me support the church.

Do you have evidence that this happens often?

--------------------
Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.
Jack Dragon, On Being a Dragon
Confessions of a Dragon's scribe
Diary of my Heart Surgery

Posts: 12094 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
beaver_slayer
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for beaver_slayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
BeachLife

If it doesn't happen often, what's the point of protesting the bill then?

Posts: 246 | From: Toronto, ON / Kyiv, Ukraine | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Richard W   E-mail Richard W   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Are churches being treated differently from any other charity in this case? I don't know how it works in the US, but this makes most sense in the context of a change in the law on accountability of charitable donations in general.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ULTRAGLORIA
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ULTRAGLORIA     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, it's charitable donations in general.

Once again, pCms are beating their breasts about being singled out, when they're not being singled out.

--------------------
A Lie can run around the world before the Truth can get its boots on. - Terry Pratchett

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Posts: 2495 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GrandMal de Caesar
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GrandMal de Caesar   E-mail GrandMal de Caesar   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
"Federal money for churches is (if I'm not mistaken) linked to them remaining politically neutral. Now I know that most churches are probobly more conservitive then liberal, but it should still be against the rules for them to formally support one party (or worse, one candidate) over another, particularly when they use their influence to convince others to ("Its a sin to vote for Kerry")"


No direct federal money goes to churches, but they are tax-exempt meaning that they normally do not pay local property taxes or income taxes from their enterprise. Their big advantage is that donations given to them give the donor the opportunity to claim the gift against their own tax liability. Private foundations,etc, restrict their donations to such entities.

That said, the issue seems blown out of proportion. Few churches, at least in the past, have received donations from living donors compared to gifts from estates i.e. the dead.

The compulsive use of certain churches to carry out a secular political agenda, like the Justice Sunday discussion aimed at influencing the judiciary come pretty damn close to partisan politics. Any non-profit can have a public policy mission and even spend a portion of their budget on it. When it crosses the line is with the endorsement of individual candidates or pieces of legislation. At that point, the tax-exemption plug should be pulled. Like that will happen in our theocracy.
[fish] [fish]

--------------------
Blinded by the lite

Posts: 89 | From: West Virginia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
musicgeek
Deck the Malls


Icon 14 posted      Profile for musicgeek   E-mail musicgeek   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Slight hijack to say that not all churches fall into line behind the present administration.

I agree that churches have no business endorsing candidates, parties or specific pieces of legislation. However, a church may be compelled to speak out on issues currently on the public politicla radar, if those same issues are addressed by church teachings or doctrine.

My pastor had the audacity to pray last week that "humanity might end its warring madness, and that our leaders might find other ways to resolve conflicts." In her sermon, she lamented the loss of lives on both sides, reading the names of several local service men and women who were killed overseas and alluding to the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by allied bombing runs. Several parishioners verbally attacked her, saying she should keep her politics out of the pulpit. Never mind that we've prayed for peace for centuries. Never mind that the "warring madness" line comes directly from a traditional hymn much loved by the old-timers. Has our nation's present state of confusion and comingling of politics and religion really gotten so bad that longtime self-proclaimed Christians won't pray for peace? Thank you, religious right. Mission accomplished. (If I go on any longer, this will have to get bounced to the Rantidote forum!)

--------------------
[God said] "I'll just sit back in the shade while everyone gets laid; that's what I call intelligent design." - Chris Smither, "Origin of the Species"

Posts: 411 | From: Fairfield, CT | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BlushingBride
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlushingBride     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
It's somewhat disingenuous to say that churches pay no taxes at all. Many churches do pay some taxes. For example, the church I work for pays property taxes for our offices. Churches that provide a parsonage for their pastor pay a great deal of tax money on that property. (Not to mention the pastor, who also has to pay taxes on it. I know of at least one parsonage family who pays more than 60% of their income to taxes every year.) Some churches own homes which they rent to low income families in the community, and they pay a lot of taxes on them as well. Other churches that have purchased land for future development, for recreational use, or for certain other uses pay taxes on that land. Generally, only land or buildings that are being demonstrably, primarily used for the purpose of worship or charity work are free of property taxes. This is the same as any other non-profit.

------------------------------------------------

I agree that churches should not be allowed to endorse a certain political candidate. But how do we enforce this? Where do we draw the line? Maybe we can all agree that churches that put up billboards have gone too far. Maybe we can even agree that it's too much if the pastor endorses a candidate from the pulpit. But what if there is more than one pastor, and, say, the youth pastor makes the endorsement without the prior knowledge or approval of the other two pastors? What if the pastor, on his afternoon off, goes and helps hang campaign posters for candidate X? Because he or she is a paid official of the church, can't we say that his or her actions are an endorsement by the church? So, do we bar clergy from all political activity? (Really, IMHO, the pastor is only the shepherd of the flock. It is the flock that is the church. If the pastor endorses a candidate, that's not necessarily the view of the church, and it seems unreasonable to me to penalize the church for the actions of one person, who they had no control over.)

What about non-clergy officials of the church? What if the chair of the board of trustees mentions in a meeting of this body that he will be voting for candidate X. Is that an endorsement? And the church, really, is made up of its members. What if a gathering of those members, say, a Sunday school class, decides that they all want to vote for candidate Y, and tell others in the church that they'll be doing so. Does that count as an endorsement? Does it count as an endorsement if, on their own, they decide to go campaign for candidate Y, and this makes local news coverage? Can we say that it was really an endorsement of the church, even though it was only an independent group from the church? If we accept that even the actions of a group from the church can be accepted as the actions of the church (since the church is its members, rather than its pastor or its building), then isn't it just a small step to saying that any individual member from that church that endorses a certain candidate is, in effect, the church endorsing the candidate? What you quickly end up with is a world where no member of a church can air their political views.

And then you have indirect endorsement. If a church makes known its preferences for certain sides of a subject--say, pro-universal health care, anti-war, anti-abortion--then, in effect, aren't they endorsing all politicians who share these views? So, indirectly they're endorsing candidate X. Is that sufficient to merit punitive action? If so, then we're saying that the church can never, ever speak out on issues that might be related to politics. Churches would no longer be allowed to make known any kind of moral viewpoint which could be construed as a political stance. Doesn't that undermine their mission to guide the morality of their members by their interpretation of God's law? Furthermore, doesn't that absolutely eliminate their right to free speech? If we accept this point of view, we welcome a world where every church function is observed by IRS men with a clipboard, where every sermon must be pre-approved by Big Brother, where every bulletin and newsletter must be inspected.

I don't think churches should be a place where politics are preached in every room. When I go to worship, I want to hear what Jesus said, not what George W. Bush said. However, I think the complications, questions, and opportunities for abuse are too numerous to allow the government to continue penalizing churches for any evidence of political leaning.

--------------------
"In perfume, as in underwear, the scantiest of applications provides the greatest of returns." -Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 858 | From: Arlington, Texas | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BlushingBride
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlushingBride     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
To the issue of giving to churches, the elderly, and nursing homes...

Tithing (giving 10% of our income to our church) is one of the most sacred responsibilities that Christians have. According to our beliefs, God has charged us with the duty of giving 10% back to the church, so that the church can continue to function and to do good works. It is a religious requirement for Christians. To do anything which would penalize those who obey this law, is every bit as abhorrent to me as, say, detaining Muslim women who wear their headscarves in public. Or placing a special tax on those who keep kosher.

Yes, I can understand their reasoning. I can also understand your feelings, RubyMoon. But, the ultimate effect of this bill would be that it punishes people who obey a religious law, and that, I think, is wrong.

--------------------
"In perfume, as in underwear, the scantiest of applications provides the greatest of returns." -Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 858 | From: Arlington, Texas | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
GrandMal de Caesar
I Saw Three Shipments


Icon 1 posted      Profile for GrandMal de Caesar   E-mail GrandMal de Caesar   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, first here are the IRS rules on what is "political intervention": http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html

As to violating anyone's religious beliefs of giving, that does not seem to be at issue. The point is that if a leader of a tax-exempt entity, and just the leader, endorses a candidate at an official forum, that is intervening in the political process. What members say and believe is their business, although if those statements happen in a public forum sponsored by that organization it may enter a grey area--because of the group's sponsorship, not the members' statements.

Nothing prevents any non-profit, church or otherwise, from having strongly held policy statements and beliefs and making these known. Do these amount to endorsements of candidates with, perhaps, those same beliefs? No, that requires taking a step across the line and making that an explicit endorsement. In a group or congregation, there might be many differences in political beliefs and voting. So the issue statements represent no problem at all.

Frankly, the tone of some of these responses that suggest a government pogram (that is a crackdown asin imperial Russia against Jews, not a mispelling) against people of faith reminds me that crocodiles can cry. Where was this concern a couple of months ago when Inboxes, news reports, and Fox were filled with demands that everyone must say "Merry Christmas"? So how do Jews, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others fit in your America? IRS agents with clipboards in churches? C'mon !!

--------------------
Blinded by the lite

Posts: 89 | From: West Virginia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
ULTRAGLORIA
Markdown, the Herald Angels Sing


Icon 1 posted      Profile for ULTRAGLORIA     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
This law is designed to prevent people from giving all or most of their assets to a charity (any charity, not just a church) and then turning to the taxpayers to suppport their nursing home care.

There are similar laws to prevent people from giving all or most of their assets to their families, then turning to the taxpayers to suppport their nursing home care.


Blushing Bride, who on earth is penalizing people tithing to any church?

--------------------
A Lie can run around the world before the Truth can get its boots on. - Terry Pratchett

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions; but everyone is not entitled to their own facts. - Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Posts: 2495 | From: Connecticut | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
BlushingBride
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for BlushingBride     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Meh. Earlier the day I wrote before, I'd been arguing with someone else about a *similar* issue, and I think most of my ranting and annoyance at her was transferred here, whether necessary and applicable or not. I am now, true to my name, Blushing, and beg that you forgive me and remember my many less ranty-rambly-silly posts before this one. (I would edit the monsters down, but at this point, that would be bad form.)

I do understand full well that no one's been singled out and that, the bill in the OP would affect all non-profits, secular or not. I spoke in terms of churches because, in the one post, I was responding to a church-y issue, and, in the other, I was considering how the post would affect people who follow the tithe.


Ultragobstopper, I think my thinking re:tithing was this:
-A pensioner gives 10% of income to church, as well as any other charities.
-Said pensioner then applies for state aid for nursing care, which they are now unable to afford.
-State says, "No, once we add back that 10% you gave away, you're ineligible."
-Person can stop giving to other charities, but not the tithe, so now is up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

So, because they obeyed like they have to, they've been punished. I was lifting that more or less straight out of the OP, which is what I was responding to in that post.


GrandMal de Ceasar,
We are, in fact, talking about two issues: 1)counting gifts to churches and charities when considering a senior's income in reference to receiving state supported nursing care, and 2)churches endorsing political candidates. (My 2nd post and 1st post, respectively.)

My 1st post was intentionally exaggerated. I took the issue and extrapolated it to extremes, asking questions. But the point (wordy though it was) was that if you're going to say that non-profits (and yes, although I was talking about churches, I do realize that there are other non-profits in the world) can't endorse a certain candidate, how, in the church structure, do you define where that ends? Thank you for posting the IRS rules; I am, in fact, very familiar with them. And I'd like to point out that it's not just the leader of the organization who can be penalized. From your link:

quote:
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
My emphasis.

So, it includes anyone who's acting on behalf of the organization, not just the leader. And if you really get into it, they've left themselves open to be even more creative with interpretation than that. In fact, in Nov 2005, the IRS threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of an Episcopal church on the basis of a statement by a guest speaker--that is, he wasn't even a MEMBER of that church, much less an official. cite. According to the article, he didn't endorse either candidate. (For the record, I do not know how this case was resolved. As near as I can tell, threatening letters are still being passed around.)

My concern is that their wording in the statutes is too vague, something that is very clear when you consider the case above. (In a church, it's often difficult to define who the definitive leader is, anyway.) The way it's currently defined, the IRS has a lot of leeway for creatively defining when the church has violated the regulation. There is too much potential for misunderstanding and abuse.

--------------------
"In perfume, as in underwear, the scantiest of applications provides the greatest of returns." -Silas Sparkhammer

Posts: 858 | From: Arlington, Texas | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RubyMoon
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RubyMoon   E-mail RubyMoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Beachlife -- There was enough of it happening in the state of Maryland that about 10 years ago when we passed our bill limiting dispirsal of assets, giving to a church was included in specific language allong with giving to your grandchildren. There was an 18 month waiting period between when you give away your assets and when you can apply for assistance. (I think the time period was extended to 24 months just after I stopped working. I worked for the state of Maryland Pharymacy assistance program, which had access to applicants financial records from other programs, because some of the financial requirements were the same.
No place on either of those two where places to list expenses. Total assets and gross income was all the regulations look at. (There was an exception for nursing home financial aid if you had a spouse with no income other than yours, is they were asked for average monthly living expenses -- because they would continue to get part of your check, and if you owned your own home the house would not be sold while they still needed it to live in).

Blushing bride, unless one were well to do enough to pay the entire $5,000 a month nursing home bill themselves then it's not a matter if If the get assistance it's a matter of how much. If you have assets the assets are sold and put in an attorny controlled account. Your entire check (less spousal support) is turned over directly to the nursing home, plus how ever much from your liquidate assets is needed to make up the difference. When you assets are gone then the state picks up the difference. If you have no dependent spouse and you have a house worth 90,000 dollars and you sell the house and give the money away, then that's 90,000 dollars more the state has to pay for your care.

In my opinion with the number of urban elderly living below the poverty level, it's a sin to force them to tith. That little $90 dollars a month isn't going to mean much to the church one way or the other, but it is the difference between buying groceries and eating 3 meals a day, or having to show up at the soup kitchen for one meal a day. It makes the difference between having enough for your blood pressure pills every month, or making them strech for 3 or 4 months while you save up for a months supply.
(I absolutely hated my job when I had to answer the phones. $900 a month meant they were over the limit for pharmacy assistance, and there was nothing I could legally do about it -- unless I bought there meds out of my pocket.)

Posts: 280 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
JFB
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for JFB   E-mail JFB   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
(Apologies, BlushingBride, for snipping your post. I didn't want to take up more page-space than necessary.)

quote:
Originally posted by BlushingBride:
[...] So, because they obeyed like they have to, they've been punished. [...]

But if the person becomes dependent on government subsidy solely because of tithing, doesn't that put the burden of his/her tithing on the public?

Also, I think it's overly-broad to consider tithing a religious mandate among all Christians. Many give only what they can reasonably afford, and are in perfectly good stead within their congregations. In fact, I can't think of any mainstream denomination that persistently demands tithing.

Posts: 472 | From: Brooklyn | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Barbara R.
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Barbara R.   E-mail Barbara R.   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I fully agree with you, JFB. Christians are not obligated to tithe a 10 percent minimum of their financial income. Also, no mainline or evangelical denomination mandates tithing. The only denominations that I know of that preach mandatory tithing are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) in Salt Lake City. UT, and the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which has it headquarters in Independence Missouri.

However, many members of mainline and evangelical churches--both clergy and laity--PREACH mandatory tithing. They often print in the church's Sunday morning bulletin of the order of worship, "Presentation of God's tithes and offerings."

Like you, I don't believe in mandatory tithing. The person should give whatever he or she can afford to give.

Barbara R.

Posts: 378 | From: Boonville, Missouri USA | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 215 posted      Profile for Canuckistan   E-mail Canuckistan   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
When I was a member of the Pentecostal church (many, many years ago), tithing wasn't mandatory.

But those who didn't tithe were considered by the church elders to be robbing God.

The minister at my church acutally preached this once. My mom responded, "Well, if I'm robbing God, I might as well stay home." And she has, ever since.

--------------------
People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril)

Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Smaragd
I'm Dreaming of a White Sale


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Smaragd   Author's Homepage   E-mail Smaragd   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by windyman:
I believe churches should be taxed.

If either

(1) The church is receiving any funding or support from the taxpayers and/or the government, or if

(2) the church is explicitly or implicity endorsing or opposing any political causes or political candidates

then the church must not be considered tax exempt.

Bear in mind the "faith-based initiatives" of the current U.S. leadership.

Besides, if my house catches fire, the fire department will respond and extinguish it. I pay my taxes in order to cover the cost of community fire protecting. If a church catches fire, the fire department also would respond. Who pays for it? The church doesn't pay into the community for their fire protection. The community (including me) are forced to subsidize the church's fire protection. How could that possibly be constitutional?

If I form an agnostics club and we hold meetings every weekend, do WE get tax exept status, and can I force my neighbors to pay for my fire coverage so that I can be tax exempt?

From Tx Exemption vs. Church Political Activity:

quote:
By not taxing churches, the government is prevented from directly interfering with how those churches operate. By the same token, those churches are also prevented from directly interfering with how the government operates in that they cannot endorse any political candidates, they cannot campaign on behalf of any candidates, and they cannot attack any political candidate such that the effectively endorse that person’s opponent.

What this means is that charitable and religious organizations which receive a 501(c)(3) tax exemption have a clear and simple choice to make: they can engage in religious activities and retain their exemption, or they can engage in political activity and lose it, but they cannot engage in political activity and retain their exemption.



--------------------
Take care,
Dave Ward
http://www.daveward.net

Posts: 5 | From: Bellingham, WA | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Most municipalities exempt churches from paying property taxes; is that considered a form of "taxpayer support?"

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Damian
We Wish You a Merry Giftmas


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Damian   E-mail Damian   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Interesting to note that Seventh Day Adventists own Sanitarium Health Food Company. They make squillions of dollars in profits each year, but pay no income tax!

--------------------
"I always tell the truth. Even when I lie." - Tony Montana

Posts: 890 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Jason Threadslayer
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jason Threadslayer     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm suprised no-one has mentioned Scientology yet.

--------------------
All posts foretold by Nostradamus.

Turing test failures: 6

Posts: 5481 | From: Decatur, GA | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RubyMoon
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RubyMoon   E-mail RubyMoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Because being a scientologist requires a certain amount of money to be a member, and because of distain of the religion for modern medicine, I think they were not mentioned because they were not relavant to the discussion of government assisted nursing home care.
No matter what my personal opinion of scientology is not every discussion in life is relavant to them

Posts: 280 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
RubyMoon
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for RubyMoon   E-mail RubyMoon   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Because being a scientologist requires a certain amount of money to be a member, and because of distain of the religion for modern medicine, I think they were not mentioned because they were not relavant to the discussion of government assisted nursing home care.
No matter what my personal opinion of scientology is not every discussion in life is relavant to them

Posts: 280 | From: Maryland | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2