Ever-increasing pressure on the U.S. budget has inspired some unconventional thinking on how to balance it, or at least make a dent.

One idea gaining traction: Get stricter with tax-exempt groups.

Newsweek, citing a study from the Secular Coalition of America, reports that if the IRS were to stringently enforce section 501(c)(3) by getting tougher on religious groups that promote political candidates or use funds for noncharitable purposes, it could lead to an additional $16.75 billion in revenue.

Via Newsweek:

"We're trying to use the current budget crisis as an example, as a way to show lawmakers what can be done," says Lauren Anderson Youngblood, Secular Coalition for America spokeswoman. "We're not doing this to hurt anyone. We're not doing this to attack churches or attack religion. We simply want things to be fair."

All told, in 2012, there were 1,616,053 tax-exempt organizations in the U.S., according to Time magazine. That list includes educational institutions, sports leagues, and potentially polarizing groups like the Heritage Foundation and Planned Parenthood
The National Football League, for example, enjoys tax-exempt status, albeit a different type — section 501(c)(6) — than religious organizations. Recently, that status has been called into question.
Earlier this year, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) proposed an amendment to the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would end the NFL's tax-exempt status. The wildly popular NFL is a $9 to $10 billion-per-year organization, but does not pay federal taxes. A Change.org petition asking that Congress revoke the NFL's tax-exempt status has over 282,000 signatures.

According to Coburn's report, if professional sports organizations — including the NFL, Professional Golfers Association (PGA), and National Hockey League (NHL) — weren't exempt from federal income taxes on earnings, the government would be able to generate an additional $91 million annually. Major League Baseball gave up its tax-exempt status in 2007.

Of course, $91 million is a big number, but when it comes to the overall budget, it's a drop in the bucket. Another idea, more controversial, is to tax all churches. While many would no doubt find that distasteful (dare we say sacrilegious), the tax influx would have a significant effect on the budget, according to Ryan T. Cragun, a sociologist of religion cited by the Washington Post in August.

Via the Washington Post:

"Cragun et al estimate the total subsidy at $71 billion. That's almost certainly a lowball, as they didn't estimate the cost of a number of subsidies, like local income and property tax exemptions, the sales tax exemption, and — most importantly — the charitable deduction for religious giving. Their estimate that religious groups own $600 billion in property is also probably low, since it leaves out property besides actual churches, mosques, etc."

Gaudy numbers, but ones that are more than likely to remain theoretical. Newsweek spoke with Chuck McLean, vice president of research at charity watchdog organization GuideStar, about the prospects of the IRS — which faced intense criticism over its scrutiny of tea-party-related charities — going after tax-exempt churches.

Via Newsweek:

"If they flipped a coin and it came up heads, then they would go after tax exemption of churches. If it came up tails, they would poke themselves in the eye with a red hot needle," he says. "It's a no-win proposition for them to go after churches under the best circuмstances."

http://news.yahoo.com/are-tax-exempt-groups-to-blame-for-budget-problems--154407106.html

I am totally against churches being non profits because they must sign away their rights and responsibilities to be one.  Why should an organization NOT have a right to express their political views????  Better to pay the tax and be free to speak out than to sell out for a tax break.  Our churches have a responsibility to educate their members on the right way to think about politics and have been mute for far too long.

Marsha

Even if they paid taxes they people who are against them would find another way to go after them.

I am totally against churches being non profits because they must sign away their rights and responsibilities to be one.  Why should an organization NOT have a right to express their political views????  Better to pay the tax and be free to speak out than to sell out for a tax break.  Our churches have a responsibility to educate their members on the right way to think about politics and have been mute for far too long.

Marsha

There are churches and ѕуηαgσgυєs which are non profit and not only don't pay taxes but receive grant money.   And they can preach and say whatever they want.   Some of these churches preach hate.  Like obama's pastor, rev wright.

As always, it's Catholics who are discriminated against.   The United States has long history of anti Catholicism.  

A protestant colleague's pastor husband has been harassed and had his home and vehicles vandalised because of his stand against Sodom and Gomorrah laws.  So, no, it's not just Catholics.  If you stand for Truth according to Natural Law, you may expect persecution in some form.  
Our Lord says we should rejoice to be held guilty of keeping the Faith.

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey

There are churches and ѕуηαgσgυєs which are non profit and not only don't pay taxes but receive grant money.   And they can preach and say whatever they want.

Which ones are these? I have heard about "Rev" Wright but do not know if his "church" status has come under fire.  What other ones are there?

I have a few protestant acquaintances who also complain about their congregations being "gagged" so I know it is not only the Catholics who cannot or do not speak out.

Marsha

You're correct, it's not just Catholics, but to Catholics like us it
seems we are singled out -- a biased opinion, perhaps.

Why would it be any different for civilians than it is in the military?



In the US military for some years, it has been a punishable
offense for chaplains to talk to the soldiers about Jesus.  And
now, as of a few weeks ago, I think, it is no longer allowed for
priests to say Mass for the armed forces.. They can talk to them
like psychologists on a material, natural level, but they are
forbidden from speaking to soldiers about spiritual matters.

And the same applies to protestant ministers.  No talk about
Jesus or reading from the Bible.  

I have not heard a single word about Mohammedans being
forbidden from talking about the Koran or Mohammed and
stuff relating to Mohammedanism.  Nor has there been a
word about Hindus or pagans or satanists being restricted.  

It seems now it is much easier for a soldier in action to get
help from a satanist minister or a pagan chaplain than it is
for him to get help from a Catholic priest or even from a
protestant minister.



The Boston Red Sox just won the World series.  

The last time that happened was in 1918, and when it did,

they had Catholic MASS in the middle of FENWAY PARK.


.