What's really scandalous is using a charitable tax exemption for political purposes.

[ctsnowman]

Last edited Fri May 17, 2013, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

But the media doesn't want to talk about THAT.

[dkf]

1. Then Obama should do the first Mea Culpa and rescind Organizing for America from this status.

[ctsnowman]

3. Everyone of these political orgs. should be shut down.

[FSogol]

4. Yes, we should tie one arm behind our back to help the Repubs.

[randome]

2. Actually, NONE of them should be tax-exempt. Once exceptions are made, there is no stopping it.

Congress creates loophole after loophole and then they create loopholes for the loopholes.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ctsnowman]

5. I diagree.

As long as they are helping feed poor old people e.g. and don't require membership to an political party church etc. then I think it should be given tax free status.

[randome]

7. But then you get Congress defining 'charity', and that's why it's such a mess right now.

I have no problem with 'real' charitable organizations being tax exempt but how do you define 'real'? Or rather, how do politicians define it?

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[ctsnowman]

9. I am leaning more and more to having a jury decide this type of thing.

There are a lot of instances like this that "we the people" could decide for ourselves. This isn't 1750 when it took 3 weeks to get to DC on horseback. Getting the pols to surrender power will not be easy though. And of course we might have to actually work our system instead of watching DWTS. Peace to you.

[randome]

13. Peace to you, too. And, yeah, some more 'We, the people' would definitely be welcome.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

8. Churches are one of the main providers of these services.

[ctsnowman]

10. If the church requires you to be a member then I don't think they should be given the exemption.

That's just another country club. But I have worked and donated to many soup kitchens that serve anyone.

[uponit7771]

6. Come on People!!! Tea Party and Social Welfare Organization fit like hand in glove

...well if the organizatin is to launder money that is...

Looking at the facts, they DESERVED a twice over...


There's NO scandal here other than Obama jumping the gun.....again

[ctsnowman]

11. Agreed. NT

[FreeJoe]

12. Wrong scandal

I believe that there are different types of "charitable" tax exemptions that might apply in these circumstances. With a 501(c)(3) organization, money that YOU give to them is deductible from YOUR taxes. If they use that money for political purposes, that is not just scandalous, but also illegal.

With a 501(c)(4) organization, YOU don't get any tax deduction for contributing to them. Unlike a "for profit" business, they don't have to pay taxes on their profits, which makes sense. They can participate in political campaigns, but it cannot be their primary purpose. It is OK for them to have education about their viewpoints, however disagreeable, be their primary purpose. So a group formed to tell people about the dangers of climate change, the benefits of free trade, or the risks of fracking are all legitimate and they can also participate in the political process.

The scandal is not that they aren't paying taxes. It is hard to understand why a non-profit would be expected to pay taxes. The scandal is that they are being used to hide funding sources. If an organization is set up PRIMARILY to engage in politics, it should be a 527 organization. It would still be tax exempt, but the list of donors would have to be made public.

This article explains it better:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/501c4-vs-501c3-vs-527/