• PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I hate the idea of treating homeless like babies. Most of these people got to where they are by choices. If they wanted to stay at the church they probably can. Most churches I know have cots for people down and out. If these people wanted to stay at the church they would have.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Most of these people got to where they are by choices.

      Objectively false. Huge majorities of homeless individuals face chronic illness, disability, untreated mental illness, or have been abused.

      The numbers vary, but most homeless people have a job and still can’t get housing due to overwhelming unaffordability, a factor which is manipulated against them by zoning laws and corporate ownership.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      If churches are going to be a tax free non-profit, we need to see ‘services done’ at roughly a similar order of magnitude as their receipts would allow. And no, a couple of cots is not the answer. Perhaps a small apartment building with 8 units that the church owns and operates, and provides permanent residency for a small local population of the unhoused.

      Other wise I think they church should be disbanded and its organizers held liable for tax fraud.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Well I don’t think you should go trying to disband someone’s religion. In my area Churches usually donate people and money to organizations that help the homeless. I’ve worked in the soup kitchens serving hundreds

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I mean if they’ve got the receipts of how the money is spent like any other non-profit has to provide, I have no issue with it. If they can’t provide the receipts, that’s a for-profit institution, and should be taxed as such.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              If I run a 501-3c (and I have), I have to provide what amounts to a complete budget of where my organizations income came from, where it went to, and how much was spent on things like overhead, office expenses, executive pay, travel, etc. My board is responsible for me getting those numbers right, otherwise we run afoul of the IRS.

              Churches are not held to the same standard. A church is effectively granted tax free status on its receipts (income) and is not required to provide any charitable services as a product of those receipts. They are fundamentally different legal entities, however, I’m arguing that they shouldn’t be, and that churches and “faith based” institutions should be held to the same standards as any other charitable organization under the 501c3 definition of a non-profit.

              If your church or faith based organization doesn’t exist to provide a charitable mission, then it shouldn’t be free from taxation (or it should not exist).

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        There are more empty homes in the US than homeless.

        While churches taking extreme advantage of tax exemption is a concern, a concern that should be addressed, this situation pales in comparison to the hoarding, lobbying and zoning that goes into keeping the illusion that housing is a scarce resource up, and prices intentionally high.