Jakanapes

OK, so we give 'em the blankets at cost. No profit. I still don't see the difference. There are lots of "non-profits" that get paid to do things. Reimbursement is NOT profit. And this is the point that's important. The churches weren't setting up shelters as an act of CHARITY, they were setting up shelters at the REQUEST of the government. I'm going to assume it's because they had the resources and experience to set up said shelters while the governments were flailing around.


Again, the actions of those groups who set up shelters at the request of the government AREN'T charity. Any money spent by the churches during the shelter operations is being repaid by the government. Therefore, any money donated to the churches as charity, IS going to charity.

No, the money goes back into whatever coffers it came from. The dollars took a short vacation.

OK, the analogy of the plane making company was probably poor, but that was more intended to counter your request/compel argument. The at-cost blanket company is a much better analogy.

It breaks down to something very simple for me.

The government asked a group with a certain set of resources and experience to do something.

The group incurred debt doing that action.

The government is paying that debt, since the group was acting as a proxy for the government.

That the group is religious/secular, for-profit/non-profit, charitable/capitalistic is completely irrelevent.

How about this:

The State of Texas asks the American Heart Association to send an expert to speak to a group of cardiologists at a state run hospital about some new breakthroughs. The AHA agrees and flies a guy down, he spends a few days in Dallas, lectures and goes home. Texas then reimburses the AHA exactly for his flight, lodgings and food.

Is the AHA now no longer a charity? They're still non-profit, they made no money from the reimbursement. They were in no way obligated to make the outlay of expenses for this lecture, but they did so at the request of someone else.

I have no idea if the government mentioned reimbursement as the time of the request. If so, then they have an obligation to discharge, if not, then reimbursement is still the right thing to do.

Yes, it's my tax dollars, but I, personally, have no problems if the government sets up the shelters themselves or pays to have them set up. So long as the government is requesting it. As I said, it would be a very different matter if they were repaying organizations who decided to set up shelters on their own.

Seeker630

[QUOTE=Jakanapes]OK, so we give 'em the blankets at cost. No profit. I still don't see the difference.

Even if you did this, you haven't donated anything--you will have been paid for the blankets. You will have no profit, but you will have been paid all the same. There is no loss, or "giving" anything to anybody.

The churches weren't setting up shelters as an act of CHARITY, they were setting up shelters at the REQUEST of the government.

We're gonna have to disagree on this one---whether the gov't asked or not is totally irrelevant--those churches that may have set up shelters did so voluntarily--the gov't has no authority to order them to do it-- it can't be anything other than charitable.


The government is paying that debt, since the group was acting as a proxy for the government.

No--- again you make my argument for me---if the gov't is giving money back to the churches, then anyone who donated anything should also be eligible for reimbursement. I should be able to get a check from the gov't for the money I sent to UUSC------right? And I don't even have the added benefit of being tax-exempt, in fact--I already paid income taxes on that donation. I mean the gov't went on TV and radio and the internet and asked the public to donate money to any of a variety of organizations--hell FEMA even posted links on their website to some of them, including one of Pat Robertson's organizations. If it makes a difference that some of the churches were asked--then why not everyone else who was asked? Everyone who donated anything was acting as a proxy of the gov't using your reasoning---after all they complied with a gov't request didn't they? They are providing money or materials to alleviate the disaster aren't they?

That the group is religious/secular, for-profit/non-profit, charitable/capitalistic is completely irrelevent.

Hardly--- since the entire purpose of the the OP was to discuss FEMA giving tax money to churches. Otherwise the purpose of this thread is exactly what?


How about this:

Is the AHA now no longer a charity? They're still non-profit, they made no money from the reimbursement. They were in no way obligated to make the outlay of expenses for this lecture, but they did so at the request of someone else.

Minor point but the AHA is not, nor has it ever been, a charitable organization--it is a non-profit research group. Further--it is not a religious organization and does not enjoy the added tax-exempt benefits that churches get. (not paying property taxes for example) This is a bad example though for other reasons. The gov't has always contracted with private entities to provide goods and services--but those entities are not churches any more than the AHA is.

but I, personally, have no problems if the government sets up the shelters themselves or pays to have them set up. So long as the government is requesting it. As I said, it would be a very different matter if they were repaying organizations who decided to set up shelters on their own

I know you don't have a problem with it, but I do for all the reasons I have put forth. Again you seem to be hung up on the issue of whether someone in the gov't formally asked anybody to do anything--it's irrelevant. Help given is still help whether somebody in the gov't asked for it or not.

I still don't see anythig in your opinions that discloses why churches should be reimbursed but not individuals or companies. I'll again refer to the example of my donation to the UUSC---if a church can be reimbursed---why not me? If you agree that individuals or companies can be reimbursed, then I should get a check every year from the IRS for anything I donate, because that money is there when it's needed down the road. What is the point of the "donation" if I'm going to get it back? If the gov't is going to reimburse them then who needs "charitable" organizations in the 1st place? If, as you say, they are merely acting as agents of the gov't, then why do they need tax-exempt status? As it stands right now, I can take a deduction from my taxes, but it only equates to a small % of what I actually donated to any qualifying organization--definitley not the same as reimbursement.

But then again--we get full circle back to my 1st post--------where is the "charity" in reimbursement? I don't know how you define "donate", but as I understand it--the word clearly implies that one is "giving" something away without expecting it to be returned. And that is why it's called a donation, and not a loan. In effect, the taxpayer is being double dipped---churches get a free ride all the time, because they sometimes provide services that the gov't is not set up for, or just doesn't want to do. That has traditionally been one of the main justifications put forth by churches for their special tax status. They generate no tax income for the gov't, but if somebody calls the fire dept to put out a church fire, somebody is paying the freight, and it's not the church.

I paid nearly 20% of my income last year to the Feds alone because I'm single and have few write-offs. You and I and your company all pay taxes--churches pay nothing--yet continually consume tax-funded public services.

Think about it--the ACLU recently helped Jerry Falwell defend himself in court over a state law in Virginia having something to do with how his church can use land they own. Yet his church paid not one damn nickel towards the cost of the court system that upheld his rights. They paid nothing for the street lights in front of their property, the roads they get there on, or the DPW that picks up whatever they put out at the curb every week.

If the gov't is going to continue to allow special tax code treatment for churches, then they should get no tax money for their tax-exempt "charitable" status. I hate to be long winded but that is how I feel, and it brings me back to the purpose of the OP.