Probe Puts Prosperity Teachings Under Critical Eye

Victor Conedy »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Wow! I REALLY, REALLY need some help on this issue. PLEASE, somebody please respond to this post soon and tell me how the REAL issue keeps getting overlooked? Let me make it simple: You cannot start a church (no matter what the philosophy) and have the church publish your book, distribute your book and then pay you royalties IF you have a tax-exempt 501c. Is that simple enough? It doesn't matter if that book is the greatest book ever written and saves the lives of millions of people, you still can't use your non-profit 501c to sell it and pay your royalties. You CAN donate the same book to that same non-profit organization and let the non-profit sell it and keep the money to be used for other projects. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?????? Read below for a more detailed explanation.

Most of the comments are based on pure emotion, either for or against. Are you aware that tax-exempt status is given to an organization from the US Government? Therefore, the US Government has a right to see that an organization continues to adhere to the rules that were used to determine the tax-exempt status. An organization gets a 501c BECAUSE it files paperwork and asks for the tax-exempt status. The paperwork states that among other things, that the organization will exist for the purpose of some community benefit and not for the benefit of an individual. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast numbers which would indicate what constitutes "existing for the benefit of an individual". In the 1990's for example, the president of the Red Cross was receiving a salary of about $436,000 per year. Excessive? Maybe, considering that the President of the U.S. wasn't making that much at the time. In that case, the salary went up for review and it was determined that it may have been a little much for the circumstances. Those who pointed this out were not against the work that was being done by the Red Cross, but in order to maintain a status of "non-profit" the organizations main focus needs to be to the needs of a group of otherwise disenfranchised persons. Same situation here concerning the church that has applied for and enjoys the tax-exemption. No one is questioning that any of these churches are benefiting the community by feeding the homeless or by providing spiritual relief. The problem is, since there are no clear cut numbers or percentages which would reveal malfeasance, simple "appearances" is all one can go on. Lavish lifestyles of heads of non-profits are in fact a violation of the tenets and purpose for granting the tax-exemption. Taking this as an attack on God's people or God's work is naive and ignores the real issue. Also, gladly calling them all charlatans is equally juvenile. Victor Conedy

Grassley Asks Televangelists Again for Cooperation

Victor Conedy »

Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Wow! I REALLY, REALLY need some help on this issue. PLEASE, somebody please respond to this post soon and tell me how the REAL issue keeps getting overlooked? Let me make it simple: You cannot start a church (no matter what the philosophy) and have the church publish your book, distribute your book and then pay you royalties IF you have a tax-exempt 501c. Is that simple enough? It doesn't matter if that book is the greatest book ever written and saves the lives of millions of people, you still can't use your non-profit 501c to sell it and pay your royalties. You CAN donate the same book to that same non-profit organization and let the non-profit sell it and keep the money to be used for other projects. CAN YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?????? Read below for a more detailed explanation.

Most of the comments are based on pure emotion, either for or against. Are you aware that tax-exempt status is given to an organization from the US Government? Therefore, the US Government has a right to see that an organization continues to adhere to the rules that were used to determine the tax-exempt status. An organization gets a 501c BECAUSE it files paperwork and asks for the tax-exempt status. The paperwork states that among other things, that the organization will exist for the purpose of some community benefit and not for the benefit of an individual. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast numbers which would indicate what constitutes "existing for the benefit of an individual". In the 1990's for example, the president of the Red Cross was receiving a salary of about $436,000 per year. Excessive? Maybe, considering that the President of the U.S. wasn't making that much at the time. In that case, the salary went up for review and it was determined that it may have been a little much for the circumstances. Those who pointed this out were not against the work that was being done by the Red Cross, but in order to maintain a status of "non-profit" the organizations main focus needs to be to the needs of a group of otherwise disenfranchised persons. Same situation here concerning the church that has applied for and enjoys the tax-exemption. No one is questioning that any of these churches are benefiting the community by feeding the homeless or by providing spiritual relief. The problem is, since there are no clear cut numbers or percentages which would reveal malfeasance, simple "appearances" is all one can go on. Lavish lifestyles of heads of non-profits are in fact a violation of the tenets and purpose for granting the tax-exemption. Taking this as an attack on God's people or God's work is naive and ignores the real issue. Also, gladly calling them all charlatans is equally juvenile. Victor Conedy

More Questions Raised in Probe of Preachers

Victor Conedy »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:43 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Why do we (Christians) ALWAYS miss the point? It is hard for me to believe that we are actually reading these allegations before we responded to them! Most of the comments on this blog are based on pure emotion, either for or against. Are you aware that tax-exempt status is given to an organization from the US Government? Therefore, the US Government has a right to see that an organization continues to adhere to the rules that were used to determine the tax-exempt status. An organization gets a 501c BECAUSE it files paperwork and asks for the tax-exempt status. The paperwork states that among other things, that the organization will exist for the purpose of some community benefit and not for the benefit of an individual. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast numbers which would indicate what constitutes "existing for the benefit of an individual". In the 1990's for example, the president of the Red Cross was receiving a salary of about $436,000 per year. Excessive? Maybe, considering that the President of the U.S. wasn't making that much at the time. In that case, the salary went up for review and it was determined that it may have been a little much for the circumstances. Those who pointed this out were not against the work that was being done by the Red Cross, but in order to maintain a status of "non-profit" the organizations main focus needs to be to the needs of a group of otherwise disenfranchised persons. Same situation here concerning the church that has applied for and enjoys the tax-exemption. No one is questioning that any of these churches are benefiting the community by feeding the homeless or by providing spiritual relief. The problem is, since there are no clear cut numbers or percentages which would reveal malfeasance, simply "appearances" is all one can go on. Lavish lifestyles of heads of non-profits are in fact a violation of the tenets and purpose for granting the tax-exemption. Taking this as an attack on God's people or God's work is naive and ignores the real issue. Also, gladly calling all the pastors charlatans is equally juvenile.
Get the facts, it is NOT a religious issue, it's just about tax. You know how Uncle Sam is about his money. NOT to mention that the Senator in questions is responding to complaints from INSIDE those organizations. If you focus on the real issues, you might learn something!
Victor Conedy

Ministers Question Senate Probe, Defend Prosperity

Victor Conedy »

Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Stop! Most of the comments are based on pure emotion, either for or against. Are you aware that tax-exempt status is given to an organization from the US Government? Therefore, the US Government has a right to see that an organization continues to adhere to the rules that were used to determine the tax-exempt status. An organization gets a 501c BECAUSE it files paperwork and asks for the tax-exempt status. The paperwork states that among other things, that the organization will exist for the purpose of some community benefit and not for the benefit of an individual. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast numbers which would indicate what constitutes "existing for the benefit of an individual". In the 1990's for example, the president of the Red Cross was receiving a salary of about $436,000 per year. Excessive? Maybe, considering that the President of the U.S. wasn't making that much at the time. In that case, the salary went up for review and it was determined that it may have been a little much for the circumstances. Those who pointed this out were not against the work that was being done by the Red Cross, but in order to maintain a status of "non-profit" the organizations main focus needs to be to the needs of a group of otherwise disenfranchised persons. Same situation here concerning the church that has applied for and enjoys the tax-exemption. No one is questioning that any of these churches are benefiting the community by feeding the homeless or by providing spiritual relief. The problem is, since there are no clear cut numbers or percentages which would reveal malfeasance, simply "appearances" is all one can go on. Lavish lifestyles of heads of non-profits are in fact a violation of the tenets and purpose for granting the tax-exemption. Taking this as an attack on God's people or God's work is naive and ignores the real issue. Also, gladly calling the all charlatans is equally juvenile. Victor Conedy