One thing I have always been against is the tax free haven... or is that heaven... which religions get to enjoy. It shouldn't be this way. We all pay taxes so that national wealth can be better distributed amongst all peoples.

The intaxability of Religion...

A quirk in our logic of taxable activity that the likes of L Ron Hubbard exploited to an outrageously successful effect.

If by a quirk of logic you mean that it is unconscionable to tax god, then it is faulty logic. We would not be taxing god, we would be taxing the wealth accumulation of religion for the purposes of redistributing that wealth.

Tax is a socialist concept... something Jesus would be in favour of, given he was a socialist through and through.

Sappho wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 1:59pm:

If by a quirk of logic you mean that it is unconscionable to tax god, then it is faulty logic. We would not be taxing god, we would be taxing the wealth accumulation of religion for the purposes of redistributing that wealth. Tax is a socialist concept... something Jesus would be in favour of, given he was a socialist through and through.

However, tax (as the Holy Fathers have manipulated it) is mundane and contingent... 'god', on the other hand, (or what Gen Y call spirituality), is beyond the trivialities of this world... ergo... "Tax is beneath religion".

Besides, as the bible informs us, tax collectors, are "sh!t under the shoe"... are they not?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 9:16pm:

Sappho wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 1:59pm: If by a quirk of logic you mean that it is unconscionable to tax god, then it is faulty logic. We would not be taxing god, we would be taxing the wealth accumulation of religion for the purposes of redistributing that wealth. Tax is a socialist concept... something Jesus would be in favour of, given he was a socialist through and through. However, tax (as the Holy Fathers have manipulated it) is mundane and contingent... 'god', on the other hand, (or what Gen Y call spirituality), is beyond the trivialities of this world... ergo... "Tax is beneath religion". Besides, as the bible informs us, tax collectors, are "sh!t under the shoe"... are they not?

If tax is poo under the shoe, then so too is tithing because it is a tax upon the faithful for the purposes of redistributing wealth.

Does anyone know how most relgions spend their money? I think you'll find they look more like a charity than most activities that are directly taxed.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Does anyone know how most relgions spend their money? I think you'll find they look more like a charity than most activities that are directly taxed.

Charitable spending would reduce their tax obligation as it does for everyone.

I thought the tax exemption applied to the donations to the church, not on the spending side.

Perhaps the suggestion is that the church should be charged GST on the products it sells?

What taxes exactly should they pay?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 10:15am:

Does anyone know how most relgions spend their money? I think you'll find they look more like a charity than most activities that are directly taxed.

If it was down to what they 'looked like' I think the  Salvation Army should be charged a surtax to for offences to architecture.

http://www.kisser.net.au/lions/images/sal_giv.gif

Another for music too of course  ;)

Yes, they certainly come up short when it comnes to building grand churches.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 12:53pm:

I thought the tax exemption applied to the donations to the church, not on the spending side.

No, I was referring to the tax concessions they can apply for because they are engaged in charitable work.


Quote:

What taxes exactly should they pay?

Well, if they can show that they are not for profit NGOs then I would say that there tax obligations and concessions should be the same as that of a not for profit NGO.

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:

Yes, they certainly come up short when it comnes to building grand churches.

Guess they're too busy making war on the causes of malignant suffering.

Sappho would you agree that almost all religions are non-profit?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 7:55am:

Sappho would you agree that almost all religions are non-profit?

Not completely. There are elements in most religions that are not 'not for profit' and as such they should be allowed to apply for tax concessions in the same way other 'not for profit' orgs do.  

Can you clarify? Who is it that takes the profits?

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Can you clarify? Who is it that takes the profits?

Take the Catholic Church for example... what percentage of donations go towards the upkeep of their extensive book and art work collection?

No idea. This is your story.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Can you clarify? Who is it that takes the profits?

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an011128-17.html

Of course the pope doesn't get paid a lot. One gold silver and copper coin for each year I believe, which is buried with him, perhaps to cover the cost of living forever in heaven. But you know those ecclesiastical executives live quite well and exercise a lot of power. Châteauneuf-du-Pape Vieux Telegraphe still carries the papal seal.

Grey wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 1:16pm:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 4:01pm: Can you clarify? Who is it that takes the profits? http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an011128-17.html Of course the pope doesn't get paid a lot. One gold silver and copper coin for each year I believe, which is buried with him, perhaps to cover the cost of living forever in heaven. But you know those ecclesiastical executives live quite well and exercise a lot of power. Châteauneuf-du-Pape Vieux Telegraphe still carries the papal seal.

But I guess they do usually take a vow of poverty 'n all.

The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.  

... wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 11:25am:

The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.

So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time?

Grey wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 1:37pm:

... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:25am: The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.   So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time?

User pays.

... wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:25am: The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.   So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time? User pays.

Totally impractical

Belgarion wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 2:12pm:

... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:45pm: Grey wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:25am: The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.   So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time? User pays. Totally impractical

If you were starting from scratch, I'm sure setting up a system whereby the bureaucracy 'garnishes' half your wages to spend as it pleases every week would seem totally impractical too.  But we've just put up with it for so long that we've developed stockholm syndrome and long ago stopped questioning how just the practice is.

Who 'uses' the military?

... wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 1:45pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:25am: The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.   So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time? User pays.

I see - not. ;D

Ahh well, if you don't see anything fishy about half your earnings being usurped by an organisation which didn't work for it, has no rightful claim to it and gives you no say in how it is spent, carry on.  

I would have thought an 'anarchist' might have seen something wrong with it, but I guess that doesn't apply to champagne anarchists..

Grey wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 11:35am:

... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:45pm: Grey wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:25am: The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.   So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time? User pays. I see - not. ;D

Neither do I. Who specifically pays for federal roads? Who pays for State roads? Who pays for the local road where it is that half the residents are pedestrians and quite happy with a dirt track?

Looks like a half arsed comment from a half arsed brain hell bent on getting this thread OFF TOPIC.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 30^th, 2011 at 9:54pm:

Grey wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 1:16pm: freediver wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 4:01pm: Can you clarify? Who is it that takes the profits? http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an011128-17.html Of course the pope doesn't get paid a lot. One gold silver and copper coin for each year I believe, which is buried with him, perhaps to cover the cost of living forever in heaven. But you know those ecclesiastical executives live quite well and exercise a lot of power. Châteauneuf-du-Pape Vieux Telegraphe still carries the papal seal. But I guess they do usually take a vow of poverty 'n all.

Well that would be the 'Christian' thing to do. That's what Jesus encourages of his followers. It's one of the reasons why tithing is so important to the faith. But it is not working.

The religion is rich and the poor still suffer too greatly. If we taxed Religion then the govt would have more funds to redirect into programs aimed at empowering and supporting those with less opportunities.

The govt are best placed to redirect wealth to where it is needed.

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:46pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 11:35am: ... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:45pm: Grey wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 1:37pm: ... wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 11:25am: The very concept of taxation is unjust to me, so I won't begrudge anyone who is lucky enough or clever enough to avoid it.   So how do we get the roads built, Dr's educated, soldiers equipped and trains running on time? User pays. I see - not. ;D Neither do I. Who specifically pays for federal roads? Who pays for State roads? Who pays for the local road where it is that half the residents are pedestrians and quite happy with a dirt track? Looks like a half arsed comment from a half arsed brain hell bent on getting this thread OFF TOPIC.

My apologies.
I should have known this was just another christian bashing thread, with no deviation from the aim of showing how tolerant and progressive you are by slinging poo at anyone who dares hold religious beliefs, especially dem mean ol' christians.

I don't have much interest in it, but simply chucked my 2 bobs worth in that just because I have to suffer taxation, doesn't mean I wish it on others.  Not exactly off topic, let alone OFF TOPIC.  Admit it, your problem is that I saw through your thinly veiled hate-thread and didn't join in with your 'righteous' christian bashing.

Carry on hypocrites.  

Quote:

The religion is rich and the poor still suffer too greatly. If we taxed Religion then the govt would have more funds to redirect into programs aimed at empowering and supporting those with less opportunities.

So you think the government would get more done with the money than the church? Can you explain your reasoning?

Sappho wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 2:50pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 9:54pm: Grey wrote on May 30th, 2011 at 1:16pm: freediver wrote on May 29th, 2011 at 4:01pm: Can you clarify? Who is it that takes the profits? http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an011128-17.html Of course the pope doesn't get paid a lot. One gold silver and copper coin for each year I believe, which is buried with him, perhaps to cover the cost of living forever in heaven. But you know those ecclesiastical executives live quite well and exercise a lot of power. Châteauneuf-du-Pape Vieux Telegraphe still carries the papal seal. But I guess they do usually take a vow of poverty 'n all. Well that would be the 'Christian' thing to do. That's what Jesus encourages of his followers. It's one of the reasons why tithing is so important to the faith. But it is not working. The religion is rich and the poor still suffer too greatly. If we taxed Religion then the govt would have more funds to redirect into programs aimed at empowering and supporting those with less opportunities. The govt are best placed to redirect wealth to where it is needed.

And yet its governments that decide to redirect wealth to banking corporations that they deem 'too big to fail'...

I'd rather the government to redirect wealth than anybody else.

When you say government, you mean tired, disinterested bureaucrats?

Remember, this is not your tax money the church is spending, it is donations from private individuals who obviously think the church is a better instrument. It is often spent in material support of people who donate their time for free. Tax that, and those people might just say stuff you, I'm keeping the money. Which is probably more the point - to attack the institution rather than to actually benefit society. Why do some people get so wound up over religios people donating their own money to the church? It is obviously not a business.

freediver wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 10:52pm:

Why do some people get so wound up over religios people donating their own money to the church? It is obviously not a business.

So long as the motives of the church are transparent and truly charitable... And not an organisational freak show black parody of charitable motives, like those of Scientology.

Quote:

Ahh well, if you don't see anything fishy about half your earnings being usurped by an organisation which didn't work for it, has no rightful claim to it and gives you no say in how it is spent, carry on.   I would have thought an 'anarchist' might have seen something wrong with it, but I guess that doesn't apply to champagne anarchists..

A fair and not unexpected criticism on the face of it. Look there's GOVERNMENT and government, depending on what you mean by it. And there's the world you'd like and the world you live in.

I think any society would benefit by coperation in the building of structures that affect everybody. I might never need a hospital, but it's nice to know it's there. I might never need a road in Townsville, but the guy who makes the wotsits that fit into the thingamybobs I use everyday might need it to get to work. So the road is a benefit to me.

My objection to government as an Anarchist is being represented by somebody I don't know from a bar of soap who's been foisted on me by one of the two main gangs of the Laberal party. A government that is hierarchical and interferring with my life in ways that are really none of their concern.

Chipping in to a common fund for infrastructure costs is something I'm happy to do. It's reasonable.

Agree.

Unfortunately, religious institutions should be taxed on their earnings just like businesses when evil money-making scams like Scientology can masquerade as a "religion".

Grey wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

My objection to government as an Anarchist is being represented by somebody I don't know from a bar of soap who's been foisted on me by one of the two main gangs of the Laberal party. A government that is hierarchical and interferring with my life in ways that are really none of their concern. Chipping in to a common fund for infrastructure costs is something I'm happy to do. It's reasonable.

I can perceive your sense of disenfranchisement for which you hold government, as we understand it, responsible, but how do you imagine in a complex society into which most human cultures have evolved (presuming you are not suggesting we return to small subsistence agricultural committees), should organise its system of government?

You mention you don't like the idea of being represented by people you don't know, but what if you don't know anyone with the competence and the will to lead? Who then should do the leading?

Yes. All Religions need to be taxed like everyone else.
We'll then see which ones really are 'charitable'.

This Topic was moved here from Atheism by freediver.