Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

CA bill could remove tax breaks for BSA

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CA bill could remove tax breaks for BSA


    This article only mentions sexual orientation:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Boy-Scouts-could-lose-tax-break-for-gay-ban-4292197.php

    The bill itself includes religion and religious affiliation, so it would still be in effect if the BSA allows gays but still excludes atheists:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0301-0350/sb_323_bill_20130219_introduced.html

  • #2
    I don't have a problem with it as long as all of the churches lose their not for profit status as well.

    Imagine the money from the LDS church alone......

    That is how ya pay for socialized medicine.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting - so the Local Option, which is being touted as the answer to all our problems, will not suffice for those who are pushing for total capitulation. Or will they only remove tax-exempt status for troops that don't follow the New Model of Boy Scouting? How will THAT accounting work?

      Here is the text of the bill: http://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB323

      Groups named in the bill are Little League, Bobby Sox, Boy


      Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Inc., Young Men's
      Christian Association, Young Women's Christian Association, Future
      Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs,
      Distributive Education Clubs of America, Future Business Leaders of
      America, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, Collegiate Young
      Farmers, Boys' Clubs, Girls' Clubs, Special Olympics, Inc., American
      Youth Soccer Organization, California Youth Soccer Association,
      North, California Youth Soccer Association, South, and Pop Warner
      football.




      Notwithstanding any other law, an organization organized
      and operated exclusively as a public charity youth organization that
      discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual
      orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation shall
      not be exempt from taxes imposed by this part.


      So it would also require the Boy Scouts to admit girls, the Girl Scouts to admit boys, and all youth sports organizations to admit both sexes.
      I like this comment in the comments section:

      "Who do you think builds community gardens for feeding the poor? Who installs benches alongside trails for weary hikers? Who assists elderly people with yard work without charge? Who encourages loyalty to our nation by placing flagpoles at athletic fields? Who takes inner city kids on their first campouts and teaches them how to be safe and comfortable in the woods? Who remembers annually those who have given their lives in defense of this country? Who creates habitat for bats, songbirds, and wild ducks? Who trains other young people to communicate and educate and lead? Who urges boys and their parents to follow the counsel of our first President, George Washington, to give definite attention to the religious life in order to become the best kind of citizen? The Boy Scouts of northern California, that is who. I have witnessed all these examples personally! These kids and their leaders are not whining moochers, but servants of their neighbors, high achievers and patriots."

      That gets overlooked often - is the tremendous amount of good that is done by the BSA trumped by the need to allow the 3.2% of men in who define themselves by their sexual desires for other males into the organization? If so, we live in a very screwed-up world.

      Comment


      • #4
        Just equal treatment. Tax-free status is a privilege, not a right.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would welcome an end to ALL tax dodges, no matter what or who they benefit and the entire current tax code, to be replaced by the Fair Tax. That would level the field and give the maximum 'local option' to every individual.

          If the tax advantage is the margin which causes a person to choose to do good charitable things for others, then I have to question the depth of their commitment to those things.

          Comment


          • Krampus
            Krampus commented
            Editing a comment
            Where I live the local city, county and other government-run food banks went belly up. If not for churches, synagogues and other religious groups collecting food the hungry in our area would have gone without. When you talk to many churches the ONLY reason they can run such a program is due to the non-profit status. Take that away and you are left with either the government doing it (fat chance), private enterprise doing it (but not for a profit, so why bother) or people doing it out of the goodness of their hearts AND having to fund their work too (again, fat chance). So I would not call all non-profits a "tax dodge". Non-profits play a huge role in society.

          • packsaddle
            packsaddle commented
            Editing a comment
            Krampus, first of all, a 'non-profit' isn't necessarily something to which contributions are deductible. They are merely non-profit. If they do happen to have a status that allows contributions to them to be deductible, they are accepting a subsidy from ALL of us who pay taxes. They should not. If their charitable actions have sufficient merit, then those of us who would pay less tax will step up and contribute more, since we will have more disposable income. Churches, for example, consume public services such as infrastructure, fire protection, etc. They should support those the same as the rest of us. If they can't operate their programs efficiently enough to survive with the added tax burden like the rest of us, they shouldn't survive, same as the rest of us. If their members are sufficiently charitable, they won't let that happen, If not, then that's fate.

        • #6
          Keep in mind that this is only a bill, and it has just been introduced. There are probably hundreds of bills introduced every day in state legislatures around the country that never see the light of day. We have all kinds of wacky things introduced in the New Jersey state legislature all the time that are never passed.

          AZMike, I think your assumptions about how "local option" plays into this are probably incorrect. If local option is adopted, I think a bill like this would have very little chance of passing. There is no indication in the article about whether it has a chance of passing anyway.

          Although this may surprise some people, I'd like to see the California state Senate, and everybody else, just back off the BSA for the few months that it will take to resolve this issue, and see what happens. Give the BSA the chance to do the right thing, without a lot of threats and pressure. Then, if they don't, swing away.

          As Merlyn points out, if a bill like this passed, it wouldn't matter what happened on the "gay issue" because the BSA would still be discriminating on the basis of religious belief or non-belief. On the other hand, if California waits for the outcome of the decision in May, and local option is adopted, I suspect this bill would just go away.

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by Merlyn_LeRoy
            Just equal treatment. Tax-free status is a privilege, not a right.
            Just like Healthcare, Oh Wait!

            It's a big stick thing, however I think NOW will have something to say about this bill since they are big supporters of the Girl Scouts.


            Barry

            Comment


            • #8
              Reason #583,773,230 for not living in California....and I was BORN there.

              Comment


              • #9
                Keep in mind that this is only a bill, and it has just been introduced. There are probably hundreds of bills introduced every day in state legislatures around the country that never see the light of day. We have all kinds of wacky things introduced in the New Jersey state legislature all the time that are never passed.

                AZMike, I think your assumptions about how "local option" plays into this are probably incorrect. If local option is adopted, I think a bill like this would have very little chance of passing. There is no indication in the article about whether it has a chance of passing anyway.

                Although this may surprise some people, I'd like to see the California state Senate, and everybody else, just back off the BSA for the few months that it will take to resolve this issue, and see what happens. Give the BSA the chance to do the right thing, without a lot of threats and pressure. Then, if they don't, swing away.

                As Merlyn points out, if a bill like this passed, it wouldn't matter what happened on the "gay issue" because the BSA would still be discriminating on the basis of religious belief or non-belief. On the other hand, if California waits for the outcome of the decision in May, and local option is adopted, I suspect this bill would just go away.

                Comment


                • #10
                  What should be of just as much, if not more, concern is the additional mentions of religion and religious groups. I would think that would be unconstitutional, but given the weird legal decisions now regarding these types of things, who knows. If there was really any question that there is a very active direct Political Attack on BSA, this should make it obvious. I have already lodged my opposition with my local state representatives, neither of which shows on the supporters of the amendment. I find it particularly disengenuous that the SF paper conveniently leaves out all the sections relating to religion, but do give them credit for making it pretty clear this is A DIRECT ATTACK on BSA.

                  Of course, as noted numerous times, the complete lack of real concern for the youth possibly affected is simply terribly sad.

                  Comment


                  • Merlyn_LeRoy
                    Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                    Editing a comment
                    You mean the way you constantly ignore how gay and atheist youth are affected?

                • #11
                  NJCubScouter, have you asked the writer of the bill if he plans to back off if the Local Option is passed? What if we don't allow atheists in, or if the local boy's football league doesn't allow girls to play?

                  Having thrown his hat into the ring and gotten massive support from the gay community, not to mention the disaffected atheists, do you really think he will back down if only the local option is accepted? None of the gay organizations have said they would be satisfied with the local option. I may be wrong in that.

                  NJCubScouter or anyone else, are you aware of any statements by any gay political group that says they would be satisfied solely with the Local Option, ot do want total capitulation?

                  Comment


                  • #12
                    AZ; It is obvious to me that the total capitulation is their goal. They may finally overplay their hand; if the infamous "silent majority" finally has had enough. Time will tell. Meanwhile, I still am for the local option, as have always felt that was the way it should have been left anyway. But, changing the keystone of belief in personal spirituality would I think pretty much be the end of it. Even on an international level, God, or some spiritual entity or belief is part of almost all of the Scouting groups. Those that claim otherwise are simply wrong, though some other groups do have internal pushes against it.

                    Comment


                    • Merlyn_LeRoy
                      Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong, because you wrote "almost all". Did you have a point?

                  • #13

                    AZMike, as I am sure you realize, I have not asked any California state legislators about this, nor do I plan to. It's basically a non-event as far as I am concerned. It doesn't matter what one legislator plans to do. You show me a law passed by both houses of the California legislature (apparently needing a two-thirds vote in each house to pass) and signed by the governor, and then we can talk about what it means.


                    As for "massive support from the gay community", oh, you mean all 3.2 percent of the population, which I believe is the figure you used somewhere around here? And that figure might even be high. Plus, of the admittedly limited sampling of gay people I have known in my life (maybe 20-25 people?) I would say that about one-quarter were involved in any way with any "activist" organizations or lobbying. So assuming that my unscientific sampling is somewhat accurate, maybe we are talking about 1 percent of the population? How massive is that? Maybe it's a little more in California. But it doesn't seem very massive. As for "disaffected atheists", if you mean people people who are active in "atheists' rights", there are probably even fewer of them then the "gay activists." There are, however, a lot of straight people and people who do believe in a higher power, who do not think that gay people and atheists should be discriminated against.


                    As for what the "gay organizations" or "gay political groups" will or won't be satisfied with, as I have said in the past: I don't care. I care about what people in the BSA think, and we have a sampling right here in this forum, and almost everybody here (other than those who want to keep the policy as is) seems satisfied with it. The two members of the BSA executive board who want to change the policy are presumably among those who are satisfied with it. This is a BSA issue, and it seems to me that we have come up with a pretty good solution right here within the BSA, and now all that has to happen is that the national council needs to approve it. What you and a few others seem to be saying is "We shouldn't change the policy because some people outside the organization will still keep pushing for more changes." Baloney, I say. I am not deterred by the scary monsters that you seem to see lurking in the closet. (Ooh, in the closet, I like that.)


                    I say, let's have the right policy regardless of whether there are still some unhappy people here or there, and mostly outside the BSA.

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      So, would a church youth group who performs charity work be required to allow athiests.

                      Better yet, if there was an atheist youth organization involved in public activism, would they be required to grant admission to the hundreds of evangelicals who would just love to preach Jesus to them while volunteering in leadership positions?

                      Comment


                      • Merlyn_LeRoy
                        Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Only if they also want to be exempt from California taxes as outlined in SB 323. Plenty of organizations exist now that aren't exempt from taxes, of course, so I don't know why so many people are responding as if such organizations couldn't exist at all if this law passes.

                      • CalicoPenn
                        CalicoPenn commented
                        Editing a comment
                        No - read the bill - only organizations exclusively organized as a public charity youth organization are affected. A churches youth group is not generally a public charity youth organization. They are organized under their church and generally do not have a separate legal identity.

                    • #15
                      Let's take our heated passions out of this. Simply put, should an organization that has won court battles to proclaim themselves private and limit their membership as they see fit get tax breaks? I remember back when I lived in Missouri, a Ku Klux Klan (or similar type "hate" organization), volunteered to take care of a certain stretch of the highway (i.e. litter clean-up) and were denied that priviledge.

                      Yes, we do live in a particular world these days.

                      P.S. Missouri renamed the stretch of the highway the Klan was so interested in keeping clean the Rosa Parks freeway. When Nazi's wanted to perform similar service, they renamed the highway the Abraham Joshua Heschel highway. :-)

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X