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

by Mattieu 153 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  debator

  Hi MMXIV

  The point is that ministers pay personal tax for those things, as do elders who pay tax from secular jobs. In churches where they get paid wages presumably they too pay tax from their wages. As does the congregation of a church (as per their personal circumstances relating to the law of the land).

  Religion is a spiritual choice from people that already pay taxes (personal circumstances allowing) So taxing their religious choice is making them pay a further tax on top of this.

  How much would a kingdom hall use tax payers money? Hardly any at all. Since it's upkeep is all paid by donations.

  Hi black sheep

  are you willing to put up similar documents from other religions?

  Bohm

  despite you not respecting my name, I did answer that question but made it clear that you are deliberately keeping it vague and filling in the "abuse" (apparently involved) from your own prejudiced opinion.

  Hi doubting bro

  Your comparing apples and oranges. Religions are a public right and we should not have to pay for the privillege on top of the fact that we already pay taxes and recognition of that right is why they are tax exempt.

  Many religous heads are actually heads of their country like in England. The Queen is the head of the church of England and a lot of her accumulated wealth has been got from donations to the church of England and I'm sure she pays a healthy tax bill.

  To explain the Public right of religion to people that are mostly atheist and think of churches as just money making schemes without recognising how much those of us that do have a deep spiritual need and do need to express this, is almost impossible.
• 

  Black Sheep

  are you willing to put up similar documents from other religions?

  This isn't about other religions. This is about the Watchtower.

  Any group that doesn't qualify for tax exemption, shouldn't get it.

  It is obvious from the Kiwi applications, that they are not charitable except to their own ends.

  They don't qualify. They have fooled the NZ Charities Commission into thinking they have. It is time we put a stop to it. They are not the only high control cult here playing the same tricks.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Reniaa said:

  Hi black sheep

  are you willing to put up similar documents from other religions?

  My reply: Why?
• 

  isaacaustin

  "To explain the Public right of religion to people that are mostly atheist and think of churches as just money making schemes without recognising how much those of us that do have a deep spiritual need and do need to express this, is almost impossible."

  My reply: So says Reniaa the wannabe 'debator'. You words have been duly noted.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Debator - no one is saying that your deep inner needs should go unrecognised only that you shouldn't expect the right to an environment where those needs can be safely expressed if you won't raise a finger to contribute to that environment.

  Seriously it just looks like you just want to eat from the communal pot and never bring anything to put in it except your unceasing inner needs that we must feed.
• 

  Lily Pie

  I'm curious. Why does any religion have a "right" to earn profits free of taxes? There are rights, and then there are priviliges.

  To re-cap. Profits are Income less expenses. So why would a religious organisation need a surplus? The only reason is to purchase assets, or accumulate funds for future activities. Shouldn't an organisation in order to claim tax-free status have to "prove" that they are intending to use these surplus funds in a way that promotes the wellbeing of people.

  In Australia, the Scientologists have been targeted directly by the government because they refuse to be "transparent", and you know, wheres theres smoke, theres usually a fire......

  The willingness of an organisation to be transparent to governments and the public at large should be the measure used to determine eligibility for tax concessions. and the onus of proof that they are indeed acting in good faith, for the benefit of people, should rest on the religious organisation.

  I think this standard should apply equally to all religions.

  (BTW the watchtower isn't being targeting in australia, scientology is.)
• 

  DaCheech

  the watchtower is creating a army of "vow of poverty" followers.

  when these "tax free" people get old, who is gonna take care of them? not the WTS........... you guessed it the goverment!

  unlike the WT system, catholic and other churches pay their clergy and their clergy is paying taxes from their pay.

  the whole WT ponzy scheme is tax free!

  look at even the CO/DO's (unlike the first one mentioned in the bible - Paul) don't have a tax paying job, but are supported with "expense checks" and "green handshakes".

  so, you can't fool me and say that this whole ponzy scheme's gotta go under the radar!
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  If anyone's profits are taxed, all profits should be taxed. There is no reason why a religion's profits should be viewed any differently from any other organization's. If they are donating their profits to charitable works, then that money is gone and no longer profit. But if they are investing their profits in real estate ventures and such, then that money should still be taxable.

  It is common sense. I never bought into the rationale for tax exemption for religions. You make money you pay taxes. Period.
• 

  bohm

  Debator:

  despite you not respecting my name, I did answer that question but made it clear that you are deliberately keeping it vague and filling in the "abuse" (apparently involved) from your own prejudiced opinion.

  What you are doing here is that you are ignoring the context of the conversation. Lets go back and review it. On page 2 you wrote:

  I am not arguing the point on whether religions abuse their non-profit status (clearly many do) but they are the mental property of our spirtuality.

  Which prompted me to ask:

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

  Which you answered yes to. Apparently, you first introduced the word Abuse in the conversation, and you understood it at that point. Then i asked you this:

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

  But by now you can see that you are painting yourself into a corner since i would clearly follow up by investigating the courts definition of abuse, and suddenly it would be a discussion on general grounds where you could not like jump and scream PERSECUTION, but actually have to use your brain. It would also introduce the concept that courts has some leverage over religions if they are doing something stupid, a concept you cant accept in the case of the WT.

  So what the heck are you going to do, you have for all intents and purposes answered yes to the question allready?

  Oh here it is! All of a sudden, you deside that the word abuse - which you yourself first introduced in the discussion back on page 2, and which you had no problems with in the context of non-profit - is suspect, and you accuse me of being dishonest and other stupid things.

  Now you can return to the usual mode of debate, namely jumping up and down and screaming PROSECUTION.

  The fact here is that its not a loaded question, it is a perfectly legitimate question and the word you find suspect is introduced by yourself previously.

  You pretend you are able to defend the WT. In truth, you are not. You only keep that illusion going by 1) evading, 2) plain out refuse questions that will reveal your bias.

  ...

  And by the way, your weak PROSECUTION stunt with the names - you have called me Bohn in most of this thread. Two standards, silly appologist.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Bohm, some things never change. Reniaa getting her butt kicked and doing her usualy persecution screams, hijacking, running and avoiding are some of those things.