• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Jon Oliver covers televangelists.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Meh. I don't subscribe to any televangelists nor would I ever contribute to their "cause" but if other people want to, I don't really give a damn. Unless they are committing fraud to facilitate donations (and it appears they are doing the exact opposite, since they are brazenly open about their lavish expenditures), whatevs.

The tax exemption angle is overstated a bit. I am by no means a tax expert so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, while the *organization* does not have to pay taxes for the donations it receives, the *individuals* who receive cash or fringe benefits from the organization must report most of those benefits as income and pay taxes on it.

So, using Jon Oliver's "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" as an example, it may be true that "Our Lady" doesn't pay taxes on donations it receives, but if Jon Oliver tried to transfer those funds to himself for personal gain (either via straight cash or via fringe benefits), taxes would have to be paid in most circumstances. There might be a few scenarios where you could avoid taxes (like buying yourself some awesome office furniture), but those scenarios are limited.
 
How do you tell someone to watch your show instead of getting chemo and then not jump off a bridge when someone actually does that?
 
artemicion said:
The tax exemption angle is overstated a bit. I am by no means a tax expert so someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, while the *organization* does not have to pay taxes for the donations it receives, the *individuals* who receive cash or fringe benefits from the organization must report most of those benefits as income and pay taxes on it.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is technically true, but there is a lot of leeway in what is considered 'personal' versus 'church' owned. They also get a 'parsonage' which is to say that their house is tax free, as well as an allowance for utilities, repairs, and expenses of said house. I'm willing to bet that most of these TV televangelists are not all that wealthy according to tax records and that most of their possesions are actually owned by the church that they fully own.

So, using Jon Oliver's "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption" as an example, it may be true that "Our Lady" doesn't pay taxes on donations it receives, but if Jon Oliver tried to transfer those funds to himself for personal gain (either via straight cash or via fringe benefits), taxes would have to be paid in most circumstances. There might be a few scenarios where you could avoid taxes (like buying yourself some awesome office furniture), but those scenarios are limited.
Click to expand...

True, but what if the church just paid him a very small salary but the church allowed him to use chruch funds for anything he wanted? Of course he would not own that new Bently, the church would, but of course he ownes the church. With there being virtually no chance of them ever being audited there would be no real risk in making personal use of church property.
 
SMOGZINN said:
True, but what if the church just paid him a very small salary but the church allowed him to use chruch funds for anything he wanted? Of course he would not own that new Bently, the church would, but of course he ownes the church. With there being virtually no chance of them ever being audited there would be no real risk in making personal use of church property.
Click to expand...

He would have to report the use of his Bentley as income as a fringe benefit, I believe--again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Whether he'd be audited is a separate issue, though I imagine his status as a televangelist, his small reported income, and the fact that he's driving around in a Bentley would get the IRS's attention. If the church owns his house, he'd have to report the rental value as income and pay tax, no?

I mean, to me it's not a big deal because it's not as if these churches would necessarily pay any form of corporate tax if non-profit status weren't available. Couldn't they just organize as an S Corp, partnership or sole proprietorship without much change in their tax bill? AFAIK none of those types of entities pay corporate tax either.
 
artemicion said:
He would have to report the use of his Bentley as income as a fringe benefit, I believe--again feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, if he used it for personal use. But if he claims that he only uses it for offical use, then he does not. If the IRS can not audit the church then there is no way to dispute his claim.

Whether he'd be audited is a separate issue, though I imagine his status as a televangelist, his small reported income, and the fact that he's driving around in a Bentley would get the IRS's attention.
Click to expand...
One would think, that that is part of what Jon Oliver was talking about. The IRS has explicit instructions not to audit religious institutions and leaders.

If the church owns his house, he'd have to report the rental value as income and pay tax, no?
Click to expand...
No, the law allows that a religious leader home is tax exempt as well as a tax exempt allowance to run and maintain that home.

I mean, to me it's not a big deal because it's not as if these churches would necessarily pay any form of corporate tax if non-profit status weren't available. Couldn't they just organize as an S Corp, partnership or sole proprietorship without much change in their tax bill? AFAIK none of those types of entities pay corporate tax either.
Click to expand...

In these cases the owners pay income tax on the full amount of the businesses earnings.
 
It was interesting to me only in that I never knew just how brazen it all was.

I had never heard of this idea of sowing seeds and seed gifts. That anyone with any morals at all would tell someone drowning in credit card debt to charge $1k to their card and god will wipe out their debt is scum on an order of magnitude I can't imagine. Follow that up with the lady telling people to skip cancer treatment and just send money?! Amazing all around.
 
CountZero said:
It was interesting to me only in that I never knew just how brazen it all was.

I had never heard of this idea of sowing seeds and seed gifts. That anyone with any morals at all would tell someone drowning in credit card debt to charge $1k to their card and god will wipe out their debt is scum on an order of magnitude I can't imagine. Follow that up with the lady telling people to skip cancer treatment and just send money?! Amazing all around.
Click to expand...

Seriously. How come the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't demonstrate against them.......oh wait...
 
I wasn't able to watch all of it, but even as a Christian myself I find that a lot of his points are quite spot on. There's nothing wrong in the Bible with being wealthy. There's nothing wrong with being a pastor and being compensated well by the church. But let me tell you, it is NOT of God when the church is asking for monetary donations in return for healing prayers. The problem with the prosperity gospel movement is that they warp the teachings of the Bible for purely monetary gain. Yes, sowing your faith for a richer harvest is a Biblical principle, but it doesn't mean give to the church on a credit card. It may sometimes mean give to God what you have, but it's more to be taken as a life principle, like how it relates to loving a particular neighbor who's particularly hateful towards you to build a strong relationship with them in the future.

The Bible teaches that true wealth comes from these principles, and even non-Christians I think can agree with these: Work hard, utilize your talents, invest wisely, give freely, avoid debt where possible, generate savings, spend conservatively, and most importantly, honor and thank the source that it comes from; the Lord.
 
Ventanni said:
The Bible teaches that true wealth comes from these principles, and even non-Christians I think can agree with these: Work hard, utilize your talents, invest wisely, give freely, avoid debt where possible, generate savings, spend conservatively, and most importantly, honor and thank the source that it comes from; the Lord.
Click to expand...

The bible teaches that some people are stupid enough to believe anything including believing that schizophrenics who lived 5000 years ago were really talking to an invisible man in the sky when they heard voices in their head.
 
GagHalfrunt said:
The bible teaches that some people are stupid enough to believe anything including believing that schizophrenics who lived 5000 years ago were really talking to an invisible man in the sky when they heard voices in their head.
Click to expand...

I always thought it was a way for the powerless to ascend to a place of importance.

"This just in: God says for you to......"
 
How are televangelists any different than people who put up BS GoFundMe campaigns? Or people panhandling on the side of the road? In reality, it's no different than panhandling. Simply asking "Give me money!" except it's on every home TV instead of just a highway intersection.

A fool and their money are soon parted - either way.
 
TeeJay1952 said:
I always thought it was a way for the powerless to ascend to a place of importance.

"This just in: God says for you to......"
Click to expand...

Both are true.

The "writings" are from mentally sick people who literally did hear voices in their heads . They're the people that today would grab a rifle and climb up a tower to open fire on the town below because the voices in their head told them to do it. Educated people would call them bi-polar, schizophrenic, dangerous, psychotic. Truly stupid people might call them prophets.

The greedy and clever understood the need of the weak-minded to believe in fairy tales and installed themselves as gods representatives to interpret the rantings of the lunatics in whichever way gave them the most power and earned them the most money.
 
Last edited:
s0me0nesmind1 said:
How are televangelists any different than people who put up BS GoFundMe campaigns? Or people panhandling on the side of the road? In reality, it's no different than panhandling. Simply asking "Give me money!" except it's on every home TV instead of just a highway intersection.

A fool and their money are soon parted - either way.
Click to expand...

Panhandlers don't promise that your ailments will be cured, and that you'll receive fortune back by giving. They aren't preying on your faith to sell you false promises of riches and prosperity.
 
RaistlinZ said:
Panhandlers don't promise that your ailments will be cured, and that you'll receive fortune back by giving. They aren't preying on your faith to sell you false promises of riches and prosperity.
Click to expand...

But they *will* work for food

:^D
:^D
:^D

They pull the religion card also; "god bless". Pro tip, if there was a god, you wouldn't be asking me for money...
 
RaistlinZ said:
Panhandlers don't promise that your ailments will be cured, and that you'll receive fortune back by giving. They aren't preying on your faith to sell you false promises of riches and prosperity.
Click to expand...

If it makes you are more likely to hand them money they will tell you that you can fly, run through walls, and cure cancer all at once. Nice try.

I think the difference (if anything) is the tax breaks. To which I fully agree, tax the shit out of religion just like any other organization. It's a place of business, just like any other. They just get their funds from other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top