Waivers for religion?

[Hoss]

501(C)(3) doesn't change my giving choice at all.  I don't have enough deductions to itemize.  If I give anything, it's because I want to, not because I get a tax break.

+1.  I'd need to be Guido rich to do that.

[Townsend]

If you are speaking of property only, churches do not pay property taxes, but only on property used "exclusively for worship activities."

How open to interpretation is that?

[Red Arrow]

If you are speaking of property only, churches do not pay property taxes, but only on property used "exclusively for worship activities."

Are the parking lots next to the worship building used "exclusively for worship activities."?

What do they pay property tax on?

[we vs us]

This is one of the problems with choosing to use employers as the vehicle for getting the populace insured. Employers then get to choose (or believe they should get to choose) the terms under which they should insure their employees, based either on moral conviction, cost, or any combination of the two.  This means, among other things, that they might have a moral stake in what your covered contraception might be.  This particular thing might be of small consequence on the cost front (getting a box of condoms from Walgreens ain't so expensive) but it sets a very bad precedent for further questions of health that would be expensive indeed. In this case, the Catholic Church might very well have a moral objection to contraception, and that's their right, but they are also in charge of offering comprehensive healthcare to their employees who may or may not be Catholic.  The science on contraception is clear:  it's a good thing in a variety of ways.  Is it right, then, for the non-Catholics who are nonetheless employed by the Catholic Church to have to abide by the Church's moral beliefs? 

Or, another way, who's responsibility is it to make the moral choice about whether to use or not use contraceptives?  The company helping to provide the healthcare or the person who will be using the healthcare? 

[Gaspar]

How open to interpretation is that?

As far as I can tell, it's tight.

You cannot claim property tax exemption unless the structure is exclusively used for worship.  

If anything it is more open to negative interpretation from the taxing entity.  If you have a church that operates as a business 2 days a week, and a place of worship 1 day a week. You would not be eligible.

The homes of pastors are subject to property taxes.  Many churches own the pastors home and lease it or offer it free of charge to the pastor, but the church is still liable for paying taxes on that property.

The worship facility itself is the only exemption.  Depending on state, I think they get some minimal license exemptions on the purchase of vehicles, but I believe they too must fall under that exclusive to worship umbrella.

[Teatownclown]

My godness, this is todaze TNF circle jerk.

5013c's serve a useful purpose, but like so much in the tax code loopholes exist and are abused. Gassiuos,

You cannot claim property tax exemption unless the structure is exclusively used for worship

: not so. 61st and Yale....

I always love to look into how much administrators pay themselves and how much they utilize the expenses to cover for personal uses...

I'm off this thread.... too sticky.

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

[Gaspar]

This is one of the problems with choosing to use employers as the vehicle for getting the populace insured. Employers then get to choose (or believe they should get to choose) the terms under which they should insure their employees, based either on moral conviction, cost, or any combination of the two.  This means, among other things, that they might have a moral stake in what your covered contraception might be.  This particular thing might be of small consequence on the cost front (getting a box of condoms from Walgreens ain't so expensive) but it sets a very bad precedent for further questions of health that would be expensive indeed. In this case, the Catholic Church might very well have a moral objection to contraception, and that's their right, but they are also in charge of offering comprehensive healthcare to their employees who may or may not be Catholic.  The science on contraception is clear:  it's a good thing in a variety of ways.  Is it right, then, for the non-Catholics who are nonetheless employed by the Catholic Church to have to abide by the Church's moral beliefs? 

Or, another way, who's responsibility is it to make the moral choice about whether to use or not use contraceptives?  The company helping to provide the healthcare or the person who will be using the healthcare? 

Bingo!
You always have a way of hitting the nail on the head.  We just always disagree on the tool to hit it with.

Reliance on an employeer to carry the responsibility of healthcare builds all kinds of webs of dependency for the worker.  There are all kinds of spiders in those webs.

A free system where employees are free to choose whatever coverage they wish, go to whatever hospital they wish, and choose their medical practitioner is my idea of a solution.

You probably choose to take the other road where the government is the answer, but as you can see, government is no better than one giant uncaring employer wielding its mass to force the minimum for the minimum.  More dependency, no web, just all spiders.

[Gaspar]

My godness, this is todaze TNF circle jerk.

5013c's serve a useful purpose, but like so much in the tax code loopholes exist and are abused. Gassiuos,: not so. 61st and Yale....

I always love to look into how much administrators pay themselves and how much they utilize the expenses to cover for personal uses...

I'm off this thread.... too sticky.

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law

We will miss you. 
61st and yale.  Property under charitable trust, not under religious filing.
Hospital is tax exempt as are most non profits.

[Conan71]

We will miss you.  
61st and yale.  Property under charitable trust, not under religious filing.
Hospital is tax exempt as are most non profits.

I get TTC's point, but...

SFH is one of the most "profitable" companies in the city of Tulsa.  It's just that those profits end up in the shape of 500,000 square foot additions, doctor's buildings, and very good pay for administration and upper staff.  I'm not a hater, nor complaining, just stating the facts.  My company certainly has benefitted from their re-investing of profits into their power plant.  

One could make the argument that St. Francis' contribution to area payroll, both in terms of direct employment and all the construction workers, engineers, designers, architects, and equipment vendors is huge.  I suspect they might rival American Airlines as far as overall economic impact in direct and indirect employment.  Yet I don't hear anyone complaining about sweetheart property tax deals, land leases, tax gifts for improvements, or sales tax exemptions that the now bankrupt AA has enjoyed for a number of years.

This issue is a gamble for the Obama administration.  From what I've read and heard so far, it's church leadership which is really upset about the issue.  We aren't hearing many man-on-the-street comments out of Catholic followers who actually do tend to vote slightly more to the Democrat side.  The Church can be pissed all it wants, what matters is what the followers do.  I suspect a high number manage to separate political conviction from religious conviction, otherwise I'd think a Democrat Catholic would be rare simply due to the pro-choice stance of the Democrat Party.

I suspect what is going on is the Obama campaign is trying to gather information from focus groups before rendering a final decision.  If the focus groups say that a large bloc of Catholic voters will go elsewhere this time around, waivers will be granted.

[nathanm]

My personal opinion? If the employee is a member of the religious organization they work for, said religious organization should have the option of not buying insurance that covers contraception. If the employee isn't, they shouldn't be punished for views they don't subscribe to, as evidenced by their choice not to be a member of the religious organization.

[heironymouspasparagus]

So, lets forgive and re-engage then.  Do you think that the administration will reverse the mandate, push forward, or create a waiver program as they have done with other burdensome regulations?

If you don't wish to answer the follow up questions on your post about taxing religious organizations, I will leave that alone.

Since you brought up the topic of burdensome regulations - I will repeat a question that I have asked many times here and that has been ducked all those times - which burdensome regulations are they?  We keep hearing that particular phrase out of "The Script", yet there are no real examples to offer.  This one is not actually all that burdensome due to Obama, since, as noted, it has pretty much been covered since Bush.

I know there is no desire to answer the primary question, let alone follow up questions, but there it is....again.

[we vs us]

Bingo!
You always have a way of hitting the nail on the head.  We just always disagree on the tool to hit it with.

Reliance on an employeer to carry the responsibility of healthcare builds all kinds of webs of dependency for the worker.  There are all kinds of spiders in those webs.

A free system where employees are free to choose whatever coverage they wish, go to whatever hospital they wish, and choose their medical practitioner is my idea of a solution.

You probably choose to take the other road where the government is the answer, but as you can see, government is no better than one giant uncaring employer wielding its mass to force the minimum for the minimum.  More dependency, no web, just all spiders.

The problem with a "free" system based on price only is that it's not particularly free.  Just like with anything else, service will segregate out into income segments to accommodate people's ability to pay. Unfortunately, though, people's ability to pay and their needs will not necessarily align, and so what happens when someone making $30k a year needs a heart transplant?  If the buying process for the heart transplant mirrored the buying process of any other consumer good, you'd choose the cut rate option or choose to put off the purchase or at worst go into debt.  But unfortunately, there is no "bargain" heart transplant option.  There might be differences in cost, but all will be out of reach for someone making $30k a year.

Choosing the bargain insurance option doesn't ameliorate that problem.  The heart transplant is still something you need, and  adding insurance adds a middleman with -- possibly -- some attendant services, but not a solution to the insoluble core problem, which is price.

I don't disagree that people should be free to chose their provider, their coverage, etc.  But your version of libertarianism is based at least in part on having an option of opting out of a given purchase entirely.  In order to be truly free, you must also be free not to buy at all.  With healthcare, that's frequently not an option.  Often, it's a purchase you must make, and therefore you lose whatever freedom and leverage you might otherwise have.  Another market-warping mechanism is the Hippocratic Oath, which dictates that if you need a service you will be treated regardless of ability to pay.  There's no other transaction in our economy where service is guaranteed whether or not you finally pay.  

Both of these things, IMO, make the libertarian argument moot.  In fact, they make most economic arguments based on customer-side incentive moot.  

And just FYI, I don't always believe the government is the right center of power, but I believe that markets are fundamentally unstable things, are never perfect (and therefore almost never offer the freedom that libertarianism suggests is possible) and often subject to capture by powerful players.  The government is the only entity that plays both inside and outside the economy, that has the ability to institute anything resembling "fairness" when markets get out of control.  

[AquaMan]

The only thing that that article fails to acknowledge is that the leaders of the faith consider it an assault on the faith, and stirs controversy that will hurt his campaign. Two groups are fighting behind the scenes.  Women's health organizations and religious groups (not just Catholic).

Isn't that what this is all about? You want to replace a leader or leaders of our country who don't represent what you view as the majority view. The faith folks should do the same. Its not the flock that is burdened, they don't mind having their contraceptives covered by St. John's insurance, its their leadership seizing an opportunity, who feels burdened.

This in effect becomes a squabble between religious leaders and their followers that the leaders are hoping the government will settle for them. Such hypocrisy.

BTW, I am offended. I owned a classic Corvette. You sir, have Corvette envy. I worshiped that car and felt the government had no right to force me to carry insurance on it. Had I been clever enough at the time I would have formed a group of other Corvette owners, met each Saturday night and imbibed the sacred fluids and honored Duntov while performing cleansing rituals. Then I could be on Fox TV complaining about intrusion.

[we vs us]

The Administration offers a workaround:

On a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.

"All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services," the official said. "The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge," if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.

[Conan71]

The Administration offers a reach-around:

I tried to resist.  Really, I did.