Oz Govt following UK & French lead on Tax/Charity status

by Mattieu 153 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  isaacaustin

  ***Reniaa thinking now, how can I derail Bohm's question...hmm let me see if I can thrown something like the trinity into this***
• 

  MMXIV

  Debator, I see your arguement, but I was expecting to see how

  we pay more taxes than most

  You haven't argued this because you can't and nor can anyone else as it's untrue that JW's pay more than than most or indeed than average.

  I'll use UK as an example as I don't know French tax but lets see if we can refine your example a little...

  We have 3 men working at a office in france, all doing the same type of job and on the same wage level. They all pay taxes as per governmental requirement.

  My first fundamental issue is that I don't believe JW's earn the same as your average person on the street. JW's in my last KH (in an affluent area) mostly didn't work, only about 30% worked which is below the national average of 50% (per national statistics office). They also mostly earned less than the national average of £24k. I'd estimate that the average 100 JW's (working and non working) earned about 50% less than your average 100 people in the UK. Having been in several other congregations I'd say that wasn't too disimilar - if anything they earned less money.

  So if the average income tax for a JW (30%working x £20,000salary x 17%av tax) is £1020.*

  Average income tax for a non JW (50%working x £24,000salary x 17%av tax) is £2040.

  Mr A (an atheist) puts it in his bank getting interest. (doesn't pay further tax on it)

  Mr c (a witness) puts it in a donation box at the back of the kingdom Hall. (The money gets taxed because france doesn't like witnesses)

  Tax on investment income such as bank interest is payable but lets ignore that to keep it simple.

  Mr A non-witness has paid £2040 income tax

  Mr C the witness has paid £1020 income tax plus must pay tax on donations to WTS IF it lost it's charity status. Depending** on the way it was taxed then they'd probably have to donate £5,000-£10,000 to pay tax of £1020. Something tells me the 120,000 odd JW's don't all do that do they??

  Now in all of this we've ignored all other types of tax other than income tax i.e.

  1) Mr A earns more money so spends more money (more VAT, corporatation tax and NIC in the price of goods he buys, stamp duty, IHT etc)

  2) Mr A's employer contributes more tax (apportionment of NIC, corporation tax, business rates etc)

  3) Mr A pays more council tax (less likely to be on reduced rate due to benefits).

  * in fact this would be lower as the average tax rate would be lower.

  **Depending on the way the WTS paid tax i.e. sales tax on it's literature or just on it's profits etc.

  So in reality Mr A will also pay way more in other taxes than Mr C.

  So is it fair that Mr C may have to pay probably an extra £20 tax a year for donations to the WTS (based on estimated contribution of £200) than Mr A, when Mr A already pays several thousand pounds more in tax?

  IMHO JW's do not contribute more to society in general than the average person in the UK. Certainly not financially. So if that's the case in the UK I doubt it's different in France. You ask if it's fair and honest for a government to tax one religion rather than another? Is it fair if one religion takes more from society than another?

  MMXIV
• 

  bohm

  Debator/Reniaa: Your grasping straws. Its not a loaded question, its a simple yes/no question and you just call it loaded because you dont like the fact you have painted yourself into a corner by your knee-jerk reactions on page 1.

  Then you go into your usual tirade, but this time it was particular stupid:

  "And since you clearly do not agree with the european court of rights over witnessess that shows your bias."

  Uhm, show where i have written i do not agree with the european court. Show me the quote. Before you were ignorant, now you are an LIAR!

  Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the tax-excempt status for a religion which ABUSE said status?

  [Updated: Removed a word that was to long for Reniaa/Debator, and i think Liar has a better ring to it anyway]
• 

  isaacaustin

  Bohm,

  Reniaa said:

  "And since you clearly do not agree with the european court of rights over witnessess that shows your bias."

  I thought the ECHR would be considered a pawn of Satan by a JW.
• 

  bohm

  Isaac: This is fun :-). I actually thought Debator/Reniaa was smarter than this. Totally interlectually bankrupt.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Bohm, it is. She tries the defense tactic of ignoring the damning evidence against her postion by throwing the prejudiced carrot and then quickly diverting to another point. She hasn't changed a bit.
• 

  besty

  I think there are several general trends here:

  1 - Western governments are in a financial mess. Any and all opportunities to maximize tax dollars will be taken.

  2 - Availability of information and the public appetite for disclosure means charities will increasingly have to open their financial and 'public benefit' kimonos.

  3 - Religion is not held in the same awe as in prior times. Increasingly vocal non-religious/anti-religious entities will seek a level playing field. There will be less free passes given out.

  New Religious Movements (NRM's) will be under particular scrutiny given their abusive doctrines (shunning, blood and child abuse spring to mind in one case), lack of attachment to the community in general and questionable public benefit - where are the truly open-hearted charitable works for the good of those in need?

  To lurking JW;'s and apologists on here - get used to defending your right to tax exemption based on charitable status. You are skating a fine line - proselytizing for new recruits and distributing literature to existing members does not create public benefit.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Besty, that is a very good analysis. I agree that it will become an question of what is creating a tangible public benefit, such as actually feeding the poor, or physically assisting those who are sick/elderly/etc- something that an entity is accomplishing in leau of the government providing that particular benefit. As has been said, recruiting to a cult, or any group for that matter does not constitute a public benefit.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Reniaa/Debator..

  What`s to complain about?..

  Your too lazy to be a Real JW..And..

  It`s unlikely you give the WBT$ any money..

  The government should tax Fraudulent Organizations like the WBT$,into Bankruptcy..

  ....................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  isaacaustin

  Outlaw,

  I still say the Wt should reinvent themselves in the animal bedding industry. If you take their cheap quality magazines and shred them you will find they make excellent hamster bedding. Not sure if that would be a qualifier though for being God's channel of truth. What do you think?