Bottom 20% spend $1.90 for $1.00 in wages

Technically the purchasing power would be the same, it would just be more towards food, rather than new Ferrari's and Viagra. Assuming, of course, that your uncited 30% figure is incorrect. In which case, we'd probably need to fix some things, and they should be pretty obvious, if they result in such a huge shortfall.
 
Technically the purchasing power would be the same, it would just be more towards food, rather than new Ferrari's and Viagra. Assuming, of course, that your uncited 30% figure is incorrect. In which case, we'd probably need to fix some things, and they should be pretty obvious, if they result in such a huge shortfall.
The purchasing power would be the same if the transition of tax monies to welfare recipients were 100% efficient. But they are not.

Ever applied for welfare, or seen the amount of paper work gone through in determining a case? What do you think pays for the various forms filled out by applicants, and case workers, and supervisors, and administrators, all of whom play a part the determination of the validity and need of an applicant?

Taxes

What pays for the salaries of the case workers, their supervisors, the administrators, the administrators assistants and secretaries? What pays for the building space occupied by the agency that administers the local branch of a given assistance program?

Taxes

What pays for the incessant surveys, research, reports, etc. used by an agency to justify its continued existence and need for expansion? Not to mention the survey workers, researchers, report writers, etc.

Taxes

What pays for the upper echelon administrators' trips to "seminars" in Cancun, Rio and Vegas? What pays for the administrator's government license cars? What pays for their expense accounts?

Taxes



Conversely, while charities do have their infrastructure to pay for also, they rely heavily on volunteers who do many of the jobs that government agencies pay for. Many charities receive office space, etc. in contribution rather than having to pay for it. And the paperwork (paper cost money, too, as does printing of forms) required by the average charity is a tenth or less than that used in the disposition of a welfare case in a government agency.

Charities that are run by churches are especially efficient because the infrastructures are already paid for by voluntary church contributions, run by church volunteers, so almost 100% of contribution to a church charity drive reaches the people it is intended to assist.
 
The purchasing power would be the same if the transition of tax monies to welfare recipients were 100% efficient. But they are not.

Ever applied for welfare, or seen the amount of paper work gone through in determining a case? What do you think pays for the various forms filled out by applicants, and case workers, and supervisors, and administrators, all of whom play a part the determination of the validity and need of an applicant?

Taxes

What pays for the salaries of the case workers, their supervisors, the administrators, the administrators assistants and secretaries? What pays for the building space occupied by the agency that administers the local branch of a given assistance program?

Taxes

What pays for the incessant surveys, research, reports, etc. used by an agency to justify its continued existence and need for expansion? Not to mention the survey workers, researchers, report writers, etc.

Taxes

What pays for the upper echelon administrators' trips to "seminars" in Cancun, Rio and Vegas? What pays for the administrator's government license cars? What pays for their expense accounts?

Taxes



Conversely, while charities do have their infrastructure to pay for also, they rely heavily on volunteers who do many of the jobs that government agencies pay for. Many charities receive office space, etc. in contribution rather than having to pay for it. And the paperwork (paper cost money, too, as does printing of forms) required by the average charity is a tenth or less than that used in the disposition of a welfare case in a government agency.

Charities that are run by churches are especially efficient because the infrastructures are already paid for by voluntary church contributions, run by church volunteers, so almost 100% of contribution to a church charity drive reaches the people it is intended to assist.



churches are supported by voluntary donations ? what about them paying no taxes for sewer , water , fire and police protection which they use ? We all involuntarially support churches to some extent thru their tax exempt status.
and then those voluntary contributions are tax deductable....
 
churches are supported by voluntary donations ? what about them paying no taxes for sewer , water , fire and police protection which they use ? We all involuntarially support churches to some extent thru their tax exempt status.
and then those voluntary contributions are tax deductable....
The church I attend pays their water and sewer bill just like anyone else. I would imagine most churches do since water and sewer is not paid through taxes but by direct billing.

Many charities are also tax exempt. Yet they use public facilities such as police and fire protection. And contributions to those charities are also tax deductible. Do you object to that? Or are you just against churches?

As for what churches uses to pay for the expenses they do incur, yes those monies are gained through voluntary contributions.

But let's try to stay on the topic of how best to meet the needs of the truly poor.
 
The church I attend pays their water and sewer bill just like anyone else. I would imagine most churches do since water and sewer is not paid through taxes but by direct billing.

Many charities are also tax exempt. Yet they use public facilities such as police and fire protection. And contributions to those charities are also tax deductible. Do you object to that? Or are you just against churches?

As for what churches uses to pay for the expenses they do incur, yes those monies are gained through voluntary contributions.

But let's try to stay on the topic of how best to meet the needs of the truly poor.

The sewer system was built with tax dollars and bonds.

Yes their contributions are voluntary and tax esmept which means tens of billions of dollars spent on church buildings and such that people pay no taxes on.

No sales taxes are collected on the materials used in the building of the church or materials used in it's operation.

Yes I know other charitable orgs are tax exempt, but churches are not only charitable organizations their are primarially churches used for promoting their religion.
 
Anyhoo, back on topic from the poor little rich boy who doesn't like religion....

The problem with government programs is multifold. The fact that, due to a poor method of determining economic status, many people are given assistance who would not need assistance - or at least not nearly as much assistance - if they spent their income more wisely is one problem.

Another problem is many times the way the programs are structured, they entrap recipients into the system by punishing those who make the attempt to assist themselves. Let's look at food stamps as an example. The food stamps program has severe cutoff regulations in that a person who makes $50 too much per month for three months suddenly loses over $200 in assistance. How the heck is that supposed to encourage people to pick up a few extra hours at their pt job, or go get that job that pays 25¢ more per hour?

Food stamps is not the only example. It's messed up that people so often lose more in benefits by working a bit more (ie: trying to get on their feet) than they gain from the extra work. It fact it's bass ackwards.

IMO, those cutoffs are not put in place out of ignorance, either. For the assistance agency there are definite economic and political gains to be made by making sure the agency is fully or if possible, over utilized.

Those types of cutoffs were very prevalent with federal programs aimed at NAs living on reservations. I saw many of my family and friends take the easy way, and remain dependent on the assistance because that is where the greater money lay. One cannot really blame them for that. Getting a good paying job in the 60s was not something to count on for NAs or blacks. And getting a poor paying job wound up losing more benefits than the job paid. So the answer was sit at home and stay drunk, like the government wanted us to stay.

So some of the individual programs modified the way the handle cutoffs for working poor. But that does not work either because invariably an assistance recipient is involved with more than one assitance agency. So if the policy becomes to lower assistance by $30 if the recipient makes $50 (which sounds like a reasonable compromise) the recipient ends up losing $30 from each of 3 different assistance programs, for a total of $90 less assistance for making and extra $50 at work. Once again the person on assistance is literally (and IMO, not accidentally) discouraged from trying to help themselves, but are rather encouraged to maximize total income by a careful balance by working less and getting more program assistance.

as such assistance becomes a trap as opposed to the hand up it is supposed to be. The poor are (purposely?) kept poor by the way government assistance is designed.
 
Now I can pretty much agree with most of that post.

And religion is ok for those who need and like it, I just dont think it should be subsidized by tax exampt status.
 
"But let's try to stay on the topic of how best to meet the needs of the truly poor."

Part of that focus has to be in removing the placebo that churches and charities are taking care of the poor. Government programs, as faulted as they may be, are doing as FAR better job of taking care of the poor than churches or charities.

The tax-exempt status of ANY organizarions, including churches, should be directly relational to the percentages of charitable income that goes to the poor.

That leads to an intellectual and factual reading of the resources needed and committed to addressing poverty in America.
 
"But let's try to stay on the topic of how best to meet the needs of the truly poor."

Part of that focus has to be in removing the placebo that churches and charities are taking care of the poor. Government programs, as faulted as they may be, are doing as FAR better job of taking care of the poor than churches or charities.

The tax-exempt status of ANY organizarions, including churches, should be directly relational to the percentages of charitable income that goes to the poor.

That leads to an intellectual and factual reading of the resources needed and committed to addressing poverty in America.
Will the government have to meet the same standards?

Right now for every dollar that actually meets the hands of an assistance recipient, three are spent running the program. Most church programs are exactly the opposite with 4 dollars (or more) reaching the hands of the recipients for every dollar spent to run the program.

Any claim made that government programs are more efficient than church or other private programs is made without real knowledge of the situation. The only advantage the government has is the sheer number of dollars they have to throw at the problem compared to churches and other private assistance agencies.
 
Will the government have to meet the same standards?

Right now for every dollar that actually meets the hands of an assistance recipient, three are spent running the program. Most church programs are exactly the opposite with 4 dollars (or more) reaching the hands of the recipients for every dollar spent to run the program.

Any claim made that government programs are more efficient than church or other private programs is made without real knowledge of the situation. The only advantage the government has is the sheer number of dollars they have to throw at the problem compared to churches and other private assistance agencies.

What church programs affect poverty in Detroit, or Chicago, other than an occasional meal or hand-out?

What national church program, institution, or organization are you talking about?

The Salvation Army?
 
What church programs affect poverty in Detroit, or Chicago, other than an occasional meal or hand-out?

What national church program, institution, or organization are you talking about?

The Salvation Army?
There are numerous churches in both Detroit and Chicago. Most of them operate some type of assistance programs from homeless shelters to youth programs to soup kitchens to housing assistance, etc.

Interfaith is a nation wide program, operated by a coalition of several denominational and non-denominational churches which provides assistance for housing.

And, yes, the Salvation Army is a faith based assistance foundation which does a lot of good assisting the needy nation wide.

There are many, many examples of faith based assistance programs. Most are local operated by individual churches. And they do more with each dollar received than the government will ever dream of.

Try doing a little honest research on this topic instead of spouting incorrect guesswork. Religious contributions totaled approximately $34 billion dollars in 2006. Of that, approximately 80% goes to operating expenses of the churches that received the contributions. (A few of which resulted in the leadership attaining a high level of wealth. But over 99% are honest and reasonable operating expenses.) So, including missionary services, there is about 6.8 billion dollars left. Most is used in community assistance programs as those mentioned above.

Compare that to the federal welfare budget which totals well over $100 billion annually, not including medicaid or any of the non-retirement related SS payments. Tack on all 50 states' welfafre budgets and the totals reach over $200 billion.

Now do you wonder why the government programs are more visible?
 
80% goes to the operation of the church ? Kinda inefficient for a chairty organization dontcha think ?
And much of their chairty work is overseas, not here. Missionary work.
 
80% goes to the operation of the church ? Kinda inefficient for a chairty organization dontcha think ?
And much of their chairty work is overseas, not here. Missionary work.
I included missionary work and overseas charity work as part of operational costs of a church, to separate out the 20% of donations they spend on local community assistance projects.

The part that goes to local projects is actually a bit under 19%, but I rounded up to 20 to make the math simple.
 
80% goes to the operation of the church ? Kinda inefficient for a chairty organization dontcha think ?
And much of their chairty work is overseas, not here. Missionary work.
Also, as you are so overjoyed to continually point out, churches are not primarily charity organizations. So the operational costs and ratio to donations are quite different than an organization whose only purpose is charity.
 
There are numerous churches in both Detroit and Chicago. Most of them operate some type of assistance programs from homeless shelters to youth programs to soup kitchens to housing assistance, etc.

Interfaith is a nation wide program, operated by a coalition of several denominational and non-denominational churches which provides assistance for housing.

And, yes, the Salvation Army is a faith based assistance foundation which does a lot of good assisting the needy nation wide.

There are many, many examples of faith based assistance programs. Most are local operated by individual churches. And they do more with each dollar received than the government will ever dream of.

Try doing a little honest research on this topic instead of spouting incorrect guesswork. Religious contributions totaled approximately $34 billion dollars in 2006. Of that, approximately 80% goes to operating expenses of the churches that received the contributions. (A few of which resulted in the leadership attaining a high level of wealth. But over 99% are honest and reasonable operating expenses.) So, including missionary services, there is about 6.8 billion dollars left. Most is used in community assistance programs as those mentioned above.

Compare that to the federal welfare budget which totals well over $100 billion annually, not including medicaid or any of the non-retirement related SS payments. Tack on all 50 states' welfafre budgets and the totals reach over $200 billion.

Now do you wonder why the government programs are more visible?

You have yet to quantify or validate any of the claims you've made other than "lots of churches doing lots of things."

In Detroit, as in many major innercities, there is often a church on all four corners of some blocks. There are multi-million dollar church/cathedrals sitting in communities with a median income below the poverty level. On Sunday mornings, sitting outside of many of these oppulent temples you'll find Mercedes, BMW's, Jags, and sometimes Bentleys and Rolls that do not belong to the flock .. although the flock paid for them. When these pimpmobiles aren't parked outside the church, they are parked in front of oppulent homes .. the flock paid for.

Some of these churches take in millions of dollars individually and shell out just enough to the poor to give the impression of legitimacy. I know this for fact because I've worked with churches and the Detroit Council of Baptist Ministers to establish a program to get churches to adopt indiviual high schools close to their locations.

I've also worked with churches in Atlanta through the Congressional office I worked for trying to assist the poor. One of the best programs in the nation in addressing the needs of the poor has been that of late civil rights activisy and minister, Hosea Williams. Yet, one of his greatest frustrations was that he could not get the assistance from area churches that he knew they were capable of. Atlanta area churches rack in millions of dollars every Sunday, but contributed precious little to his program .. so he went to the government and corporations for help.

My point is that although thare are a great many churches doing good work, there are many doing nothing but pimping and trickling down crumbs to the poor .. like Bishop Eddie Long and many others.

If the church wants tax-exempt status and taxpayer money in the form of "faith-based" programs, them the American people deserve an accounting of what that church is doing.

Where is your great difficulty in shining the light on what churches may or may not be doing? In the investigation of mega-churches, some pastors are refusing to open their books. They think themselves above the law and you seem to agree with that nonsense.

Without shining a light on these ministers, many of whom have almost sole control of the church finances, abuses go undiscovered ..
like this one ..

Days before pleading guilty to money laundering earlier this month, former legislator Ron Sailor Jr. secretly took out a $250,000 mortgage on the southwest Atlanta church where he was pastor.

The congregation had no idea what he had done, church leaders say. Now, they say they have no idea where the money is.

The deacons of Greater New Light Missionary Baptist Church were scrambling Thursday to piece together what happened and just who was the minister they thought they knew.

"It's amazing to all of us," said Jimmie Evans, chairman of the board of deacons. "We can't believe it."

Sailor resigned his legislative post after pleading guilty March 18 in federal court. Gov. Sonny Perdue on Thursday called a May 13 election to fill the seat, which represents sections of DeKalb and Rockdale counties.

A church trustee began checking records Tuesday after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Sailor had accepted at least $80,000 from a lobbyist in a 2007 land transaction, Evans said.

The board soon learned Sailor had secretly changed church bylaws to make himself chief executive officer, Evans said.

They also found Sailor had borrowed $250,000 using the church's buildings and 2.5-acre property as collateral. Fulton County tax assessors value the property at 2540 Campbellton Road at $369,200.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/dekalb/stories/2008/03/27/sailorchurchindex_0328.html

There are hundreds of such abuses .. but the abuses aren't just financial as the revelations of sexual abuses my Catholic clergy, and the revelations of pedophillia sex dens clearly demonstrate.

I wonder if you believe the "secular" government has the right to taking action against these abuses .. that would not have been discovered without investigation.

Believe as you will, but neither the church nor religion are above the law.

AND, government assistance to poor families in the form of food stamps, medical care, welfare payments, and care for disabled children far exceeds the occasional assistance any family may recieve from a church.

AND, many of the programs run by churches are funded by the government.

Could the government do better? .. Of course they can .. but tyey can also do better by ensuring that ANY organization that gets government funding or tax-exempt status are actually doing what they say they are.
 
Also, as you are so overjoyed to continually point out, churches are not primarily charity organizations. So the operational costs and ratio to donations are quite different than an organization whose only purpose is charity.


correct, so they sound not get a good of a tax break as a charity that routes 80% of their donations to chairty.
 
correct, so they sound not get a good of a tax break as a charity that routes 80% of their donations to chairty.
First, there are several charities (C.A.R.E. is a big one) whose performance is far worse than religion - and they do not have the excuse that charity is not their primary purpose. But they still qualify for tax exempt status.

Second, an organization does not have to be a charitable organization to qualify as tax exempt. The qualification comes under the heading of "public benefit", not charity. For instance, there are a number of environmental organizations that do no charitable work at all. They do not have to as that is not what they were formed to do. But they qualify as tax exempt under 501(c)3, do not pay taxes, and donations are tax deductible.

Likewise, churches are not primarily charitable organizations. The vast majority of them do charitable work, but that is not the purpose they were formed for, and not what qualifies them under 501.

If you want to remove tax exempt status from organizations that do not do charitable work, you would have to remove that status from ALL non-charitable public benefit organizations. There are a WHOLE bunch of them.

And boy howdy, you'd better find another planet to hide on if you are successful in getting your charitable requirement passed (which you will not be). I hear Green Peace can be rather nasty when their dander is up.
 
Back
Top