Lyle Shelton gives no reason or sound argument as to why churches should not be taxed, that is why they should continue to be selectively exempted, moreover why democratic government should be encouraged to evade responsibility for the welfare of its citizens. What Shelton is advocating here, apart from continuing the cosy relationship between the Christian church and state, is neoliberalism. We already have one of the lowest tax regimes among western countries and it should be increased to pay for decent welfare where it’s needed (getting rid of middle class welfare like Abbott’s outrageous maternity leave, as well as the religious drain on the public purse). What Shelton doesn’t mention is that all our charitable organisations amount to a beaurocratic drain with only a fraction of donated funds reaching those who actually need help, the rest kept to finance the organisation. More importantly yet, the church and other charitable organisations actually do us a disservice in applying band-aids to the dire inequities that are the hallmark of western nations. They make things look better than they are while helping to insinuate a (false) sense of community, rather than vicious self-interest, as the abiding community spirit. The church and others should cease all charitable work and so expose the wretched state of our democracies and the miserable penny-pinching, pull-the-ladder-up mentality of the well-to-do Shelton is wittingly or unwittingly defending.

The problem is when the charity or church is involved in business therefore that tax exemption carries over to the business.

For example the catholic church used to own craft foods and it was therefore tax exempt but made heaps of profit that went offshore.

The catholic church used to be the biggest business in the world 30 or so years ago.

One problem is that churches generally are a large entity from which charitable work can be funded.
It is also true that religion is a massive global business, playing on the individual's generosity and altruism to gather huge sums, a portion of which are distributed to the needy of the world.

But the anti-religion stance is not justification enough for the abondoning of tax freedom in Australia. Even if only a small percentage of funding ever arrives at the place of need, that funding would probably not have existed at all without the exempt status of religious organisations.
We are lucky to have socially responsible community groups such as Rotary, Apex, and Lions who also provide a portal for personal generosity.

The responsibility is on all tax exempt charities to be totally open and frank about the destination of their disbursements, particularly when donated funds are used for capital expenditure on buildings and the like.

“In fact, it is the teachings of Jesus that have inspired Christian churches to good works for millennia.”

Christians are inspired by fear to do good works. Doing good works is part of the package of being a Christian. If you want the supposed benefits of being a Christian you have to go along with the whole package – you can’t pick and choose. Christians believe they get comfort from being a Christian which they do not. They believe they will get justice in heaven against their foes. They get fellowship which is based on mutual dependence so it is not really fellowship at all. They think they get answers to life’s big questions but they are not answers in any true sense of the word. In order to protect these things they are told they must do good works.

Sure, things get done but the Mafia gets things done. These things may well get done, and for the right reasons, with the money accrued from taxes placed upon religions. The end does not justify the means.

"provide a public benefit which saves the taxpayer billions."

You mean they deprive the taxpayers of millions.
That could be spent by the government on their own social programs.

The exemption from tax has nothing to do with the value contributed to the community.
It stems from theological belief in the separateness of "this world" and the "other world".
God and Ceasar.

We are past the age of theology influencing law.

One tax for all: bank transaction tax.
Want to avoid it: don't bank the collection.

I don't know if the Catholic Church is the only one that manage=s not to be an entity that can be sued for compensation, but it would seem reasonable that tax exempt status should only be granted to incorporated, sue-able charities.

We would all lose if churches were taxed! Errant nonsense!
All too often we see, churches conducting commercial operations using volunteers, and in a tax free setting.
In too many cases they compete for market share with ordinary family run enterprises, which have to pay wages, company tax, payroll tax, land tax and have I missed anything?
It is said, if the Vatican was to sell its mountains of hoarded treasure, it could feed the entire hungry of the world for several years.
Churches have for centuries been the beneficiaries of wills and testaments, and own significant property holdings!
How many times do we hear, where a community, through its own funds raising/voluntary labor, have built a church/school/orphanage, only to see it sold years down the track, with the money leaving the district, to swell the coffers of a central diocese?
Look, people should be free to give charity, always providing,it isn't consumed in various administration fees!
The good Samaritan didn't need to go through a money consuming middle man, but gave his timely assistance in the first person.
Mormon priests work at real jobs through the week, completely support themselves, and pay tax.
If they can so can others.
And there'd be fewer "idle hands" for the "devil" to tempt?
If we simply jettisoned all our current tax laws and collection methodologies, and replaced all that convoluted complexity, with a stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax, nobody, not even the ultra rich (sham) churches like Scientology, could avoid paying a fair share!
Churches currently pay some unavoidable tax, fuel excise, council rates and the GST, which would disappear with my proposed reform; meaning, bona fide churches would be no worse off!
Rhrosty.

Who are you trying to appease Lyle?

Generally agree with most dissenting comments, particularly Squeers and Philip S.

Of course churches should be liable to pay tax like any other corporation, their administration would need to demonstrate that specific activities were charitable to claim tax free status. The easiest way to solve that problem is to separate the Church's religious and charitable functions.

"our constitutional separation of church and state."

Does the anti-establishment provision in the Constitution specifically separate Church and State as the author believes?

I have no objection to the church not being taxed. Providing that:
1/. The taxation office conducts regular audits to ensure that payment going overseas are to charities and NOT to the coffers of the Vatican or the C of E etc.
They do not object like stuck bulls when an atheist organisation claims tax exemption.
Given equal tax brakes what can a religious charity do that a secular charity cannot?

Agreed Atheist. The Vatican is the largest financial institution on the planet. Their chartable works should not be taxed but other profits should be.

The other parasitic cartels that should be taxed are our central banks. Collectively these banks have far more power than the Vatican but pay almost no tax. They create money from nothing and call it our debt.

"If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state, which would arguably be a breach of our constitutional separation of church and state."

We have constitutional separation of the judicature and the legislature, but judges still pay taxes. You are clutching at straws here.

There is no good reason why churches shouldn't contribute the same proportion of their income and capital gains in taxes as any other institution with employees and premises. If they DO make charitable donations, they can of course claim these as deductions, in the same way as any other taxpayer.

This article certainly made me choke over my Sanitarium cornflakes.
L Ron Hubbard, he of a powerful imagination, is said to have claimed: "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion." That's assuming you're not already getting tax breaks from an existing one, of course. Scientology fits perfectly into the pre-existing pattern.
It is fair that charities, including the charity arms of churches, get tax exemptions. On the other hand, there is no reason to favour institutions which make breakfast cereal, own property in the Vatican or structure their asset holdings so that they can't be sued by victims of sexual abuse, in a manoeuvre known as the Ellis defence.
And a record of good church work over millennia? Yes, a record of schools and hospitals, along with burning heretics, making war against adherents of the wrong form of Christianity, whatever it was at the time, oppressing women and gays etc. A mixed record indeed. Marriage equality, anyone?
Lyle's argument is that the churches can serve God and Mammon. It's not impressive, except in its audacity.

The previous comments have said it all.

However, one additional point I'd make is to ask: Why should female taxpayers indirectly fund the tax-exempt status of such a patriarchal institution as the Catholic Church and similarly gynaphobic religions?

mac - What you say is right and is the problem, they like the catholic church should reports of exactly how much they get from donations and from businesses they own or control then they should say exactly where that money went if it really went to helping people or straight to the Vatican coffers.

Jon J - Quote ""If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state" So you prefer that the taxpayers are forced to support the charities and the money making enterprises that some control.

Any money that they put into banks or money gaining assets should be taxed, but not money they use for charitable purposes.

$10 says you can't get even a small percentage of the big charities to show you there accounting books.
Why because if you see how much goes to charity as opposed to administration costs people would be very angry.

Since I posted here I've come across a new article by Marion Maddox ("Right-wing Christian Intervention in a Naive Polity: The Australian Christian Lobby), all about the pastoral "wheeling and dealing" of the ACL, of which Lyle Shelton is the managing director. The movement's founder is one John Gagliardi who wrote the "manifesto for Christians working in business", whom he designates the "Kings" of the new order. It seems we're living in the end times and this will involve a "great transfer of wealth". According to Gagliardi God (presumably) shall "supernaturally" generate "enormous, prodigious, colossal and stupendous" flows of money channelled by his "Kings".

Maddox summarises, "ACL's business-heavy board, corporate structure, and market-oriented training programs further reinforce an image of middle-of-the-road respectability, congruent with a political system in which both parties largely seek neo-liberal, business-oriented solutions to social problems". The ACL "appear[s] to anticipate a gradual transition of power away from secular institutions into Christian hands, achieved by market forces"

This is the same mob "which places mainly evangelical chaplains in mainly public schools"!

Shelton and the ACL are not mainstream or representative of Christians, as they claim to be, and I would argue that the article here provides further evidence of his and his organisation's fundamentalist (economic and religious) agenda and ambitions.

Indeed I'll add hypocrisy to the list of charges. They don't want to pay tax but they're also in receipt of untold wealth in the form of corporate donations!

Squeers, I think, if memory serves, the end times, will be where things are reversed.
That the rich will become the new poor and the poor will become the new rich? It will also be marked by a blending of religion and politics or theocracies?
In my own living memory, I have seen the most poverty stricken nations on the planet, lift billions from enduring poverty; and formerly rich nations, become debt laden basket case economies, only surviving, on the financial goodwill of the formerly poor nations!
In Christian mythology, the only reason to have wealth was the good works you could do with it, like the examples of the Good Samaritan, or the good master?
The other example, where unearned wealth was transferred to the greedy by the gullible, the Master took up a whip and lashed the money changers out of the temple.
Esoteric Christians lived simple humble lives, met each other, in their own humble homes and built no towering edifices to glorify God!
If Peter was the first Pope or Christian Leader, then his eldest daughter was the second, or so called female Pope?
The first and only eyewitness account of the life of Jesus, was the gospel according to Mary Magdalene? Everything that follows, is patent plagiarism?
The self deluded or those hiding their evil deeds/intentions behind them, will not get rich by some heavenly act!
For if heaven were to intervene, heaven would start with the poor and persecuted first, and the sick and infirm immediately following.
For if there is a God, and is all pervasive everywhere present, then surely that God is represented by unconditional love, and not all that different from the love of a parent for a newborn and helpless child?
The church needs to be built again from the ground up, using truth as the only foundation; and then emulate the example, of its founder and early esoteric leaders!
Starting by whipping the greedy and the power hungry, (spot the difference) from its ranks!
Cheers, Rhrosty.

In past centuries churches provided many services.
Churches were virtually the only organisations offering schools, hospitals, mental asylums.

But in the 20th century, the state took over these roles.
They also provide subsistence payments for the otherwise-destitute ("alms for the poor").
And the state is funded by taxes.
The church-based services are now redundant.

Rhrosty,
I'm not a Christian but I sympathise with much of the "philosophy" of Christ's teachings, which even from Mark's gospel (some 40 years posthumous) are "radically" different from the corrupt theological line adopted thereafter. Mark records Jesus as a perfectly ordinary, though charismatic man, though even there the historical Jesus is soteriologically retouched. What ACL promotes is nothing less than an abomination that Christ would surely have washed his hands and feet of.

Lyle Shelton has written a poor explanation as to why churches should be exempt from taxation. His example of taxing the local junior AFL football club is easy to rebuff. While no one argues that donations or contributions from cake sales to junior football clubs should be taxed, if his local junior football club financed the construction of a large block of modern retirement homes, no one could argue that the club should not be taxed on the profits. It is only a historical quirk that the extensive business interests of religions in western societies are not taxed.

Multinational companies make tax deductable donations to charity, but that does not exempt them from taxation. Religions are fundamentally multinational organisations who do business in our country yet pay no tax. This is unacceptable. These religious multinational organisations not only have the effrontery to piously lecture to our taxpayers on our supposedly uncharitable ways, they have been known to actively use their influence to set up political parties that promote their interests, and shamelessly meddle in the politics of the countries that they pay no tax in.

If Conzinc Rio Tinto set up a political party to promote its interests (as the Catholic Church did with the DLP), or if the directors of Conzinc Rio Tinto had the gall to lecture Australian politicians on asylum seekers or abortion (while simultaneously paying no tax), there would be an uproar. Yet religious businesses can do all these things without contributing to the society in which it inhabits.

The most alarming aspect of religious exemption from taxation, is the fact that these tax exempt organisations are increasing in numbers exponentially as ever more organisations claiming religious affiliations get in on the gravy train. The time has come to stop this nonsense and say to every religious organisation, that if they want to do business in Australia, they have to pay their fair share of tax. One presumes that religious organisations will be less inclined to lecture Australians on our perceived lack of charity when they are paying their fair share of it.

Asclepius, L Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who *created* Scientology, hence his comment.

Great to see that this thread has consensus, with no dissenting voices. I'm delighted that Shelton's attempt at fostering support has found none, though there are many OLO notables who are conspicuous in their silence here. What the ACL is attempting at the State and Federal level in Australia is a democratic scandal (think about Maddox's title!), nothing short of heresy, and the usual defenders of the faith have nothing to say, though they're always quick to attack the left, before it even exhales! It seems they don't mind democracy being compromised so long as it's from their own contemptible side.

The last sentence of the article says it all.

There is a small minority of people, many of whom have been bamboozled by tracts of atheist propaganda produced by Dawkins and his ilk, who are militantly anti religious and who can’t see past the end of their own noses. Then there's the greens and their supporters. They are pretty much the only people for whom this is an issue, and not quite coincidentally, both groups are equally immune from logic when it comes to any issue around religion.

Michael Bird wrote an interesting article about this a couple of months ago:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2014/01/the-australian-greens-have-a-problem-with-religion/

As I see it, the most revealing line in the entire article is this one:

"If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state, which would arguably be a breach of our constitutional separation of church and state."

A wonderfully breathtaking assertion from the representative of a religious organization that is established for the sole purpose of influencing the conduct of the State.

"ACL, established in 1995, operates in the Federal Parliament, and in all the state and territory parliaments, and is neither party partisan nor denominationally-aligned."

http://www.acl.org.au/about/

From this it may be inferred that ACL is independent of Party affiliation, therefore only interested in pursuing its own political agenda. And that this agenda is based upon the views of Christians only.

If, in the view of the author, rendering unto Caesar offends the "constitutional separation of church and state", how much more so does direct political, partisan involvement in the processes of government?

Mr Shelton ignores the elephant in the room. When Churchs (i.e. organised religions with top down administrations) run businesses in direct competition with the private sector but do not pay company tax there is a problem. The problem is compounded - literally - when the churches then invest in real estate (as they do in spades) and then do not pay stamp duties, local government rates, land taxes etc etc they deprive society of much needed income and do not contribute to the costs of running society. This is a massive rort and explains why the churches are the biggest real estate proprietors in the nation (and probably the world). They then use this wealth for their many selfish purposes. The non church population are then effectively subsidising organisations with feet of clay (in the opinion of the non believers). This is morally wrong. Perhaps they would like to think about that - the end does not justify the means.

There seems to be a confusion as to where charity begins... you seem to wish it to begin at church rather than at home.

A religion or church is not of itself a charity, nor is that its established purpose.

Here is a thought: what is the total value of all of the property and other assets of Australia's Christian churches?

How many billions?

Now consider Matthew 19: 21-22,

"Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions."

"The idea that churches should be taxed seems to be driven more by a distaste for Christianity by a small minority..."

Or, it could be argued, it is one way of assisting churches as well as the ACL to be less hypocritical and actually to follow Christ's teachings.

WmTrevor _ Quote "The idea that churches should be taxed seems to be driven more by a distaste for Christianity by a small minority"

I believe that statement is wrong, it is more like people who do not believe everything they are told, come to the realization that a charity or church that gets money from businesses it owns or controls and does not use that money for charitable purposes but uses it to gain further profit should be taxed it is called being FAIR, too bad all the people in the world do not believe in that.

"WmTrevor _ Quote..."

Attribution is important, Philip S, the extract I used (hence the quotation marks) is from Lyle Shelton's article. I was merely reflecting it back in an attempt to help him become a 'True Christian™'.

I thought it an act of charity - from an athiest.

Trav,
is there any issue for which the greens can't be held as the scapegoat? Why are they tirelessly dragged in for a ritual slaughter whenever an institution is in the dock. Billy Brag has the quote of the week for me with his, "if you think you're being oppressed as a Christian, try being a socialist!"
If anything this is even more true of greens. Let's get past the stereotypes, we're all different regardless of our loyalties. Let's stick to issues (though I do agree with you about Dawkins and co).

I also agree with Pericles that this is a telling quote:
"If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state, which would arguably be a breach of our constitutional separation of church and state."
This relates to the point I made above, that it is or should be the responsibility of the state, not the church (which gets rich and influential in the process), to secure the welfare of its citizens. Shelton here unwittingly makes the same point!
Though please, I am not defending the welfare state per se, which is productive of more evils than benefits.
What I am saying is the state should take responsibility for our modern ills, rather than being shepherded by the church.

"If it taxed churches, the church would certainly be funding the state, which would arguably be a breach of our constitutional separation of church and state."
There are so many flaws in this argument that if I started listing them I would run out of room and time.
Total stupidity.

Yeah churches are just like any other business. They sell superstition only it has no fixed price just the expectations of donations and large bequests.

Asset rich churches should pay tax
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10909537

This to me is proof that the church should be taxed.

Catholic church's $1.2 billion in funds.
The Sydney Catholic Archdiocese controls funds worth more than $1.2 billion and has made multimillion dollar annual profits, an inquiry has heard.

In an unprecedented disclosure of the archdiocese's accounts, the royal commission into child sexual abuse has heard the church has extensive property and cash holdings in funds, which are ultimately controlled by the archbishop.

The commission heard the Sydney archdiocese makes payments to victims of sexual abuse by priests from a $426 million "procuration fund".

The procuration fund is part of a complex asset base that includes an $810 million Catholic Development Fund (CDF) which acts as an "internal treasury" to the church.

Sydney archdiocese business manager Danny Casey told the commission on Tuesday that the archdiocese banked surpluses of between $7.7 million and $44 million between 2004 and 2007.

The church during that period eventually spent $1.5 million aggressively defending a $100,000 compensation claim from former altar boy John Ellis, who was sexually abused by Bass Hill priest Father Aidan Duggan from the age of 13 to 17 in the 1970s.

In 2013, the most recent year on record, the archdiocese recorded a $9.2 million surplus and had net assets of $192.7 million.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/22157093/catholic-churchs-1-2-billion-in-funds/

Con't

The critical thing which they will not tell you is how much they spent on the charity side of the church?

Simple logic breakdown:

Shelton's assertion is that charity endeavors should not be taxed because they benefit society.

This is sound.

Second assertion: Churches are charities and thus should not be taxed.

Problematic insofar as Churches have both charity and ideological functions.

Simple solution:

Church groups that wish to remain tax free give up spreading ideology and focus on charity endeavors. Churches that agree not to espouse religious teachings pay no tax. Proselytism results in loss of said tax breaks.
It need not be as harsh as it seems, Churches could break off charity arms into separate entities. The public would be able to report on their activities as they can with any other charity. But as solely secular charities, membership on charity boards would need to be just as open to secular people. In time, the religious aspect would wane.

Problem solved. Good day to you all.

The arguments in favour of the "motion" are held together by guileless twaddle. Generalities and over-simplifications prove the author to be unskilled and unsuited to the job of furthering religious influence through the surreptitious avoidance of taxation. The evangelisation that accompanies the charitable work is therefore at no cost to the church but is geared directly to the creation of more faithful that more "donations" can be collected.

The real measure of their charity would be revealed if they ever gave freely to assist the disadvantaged without expecting anything in return........the attention and allegiance of the captive, grateful and gullible audience who, given life-saving charity would feel an intense obligation to please their benefactors.

It seems, even in god's realm. there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Raising comparisons between a sports sausage sizzle and the church left me gasping a little. Are we being talked down to here by an authority so accustomed to being accorded credibility that he cares not who his readership is? The gall that permeates Shelton's intention indeed left me somewhat breathless momentarily. Being chairman of the Australian Christian Lobby and treating in such dismissive manner any complaint about separation of church and state, I think, is deserving of an accusation of typical christian hypocrisy as well.

We read that for hundreds of years the promotion of religion was seen as beneficial by governing authorities. Yet, and I'm sure Shelton knows this as well, history reveals that governments and royalty governed mainly with the approval of the church for millennia. Such a facile reference to history for authority condemns him out of his own mouth. Religion drenched every aspect of societies and ruled people's lives. This has proven to be inimical to an increasingly educated society and hence the loosening of religious tentacles today.

Extropian1,
Well and eloquently said.

Extropian1 - As TheAtheist says well put comments.

I'm humbled by the kind words of appreciation from peers and colleagues and thank them. One is keenly aware of the quality of the contributions by members.

In the issue of separation of church and state, Lyle Shelton occupies a parlous position as representative of a lobby organisation created to overcome such separation. Other contributors have mentioned this and I acknowledge them.

When the churches are prepared to have their finances subject to the same tax rules as everyone else then Shelton might make a much more valid case. The special treatment demanded by them makes a mockery of any protests of unfair or unreasonable criticism.

I attended an Australian 'church' for 15 years. On the outside it appeared to be a normal evangelical organisation. On the inside, you got to see how it really operated. This organisation which comes under the umbrella of Restoration Fellowships International has amassed property, finances and information on its members and it uses same to increase it's holdings for its own benefit.

This cult has been exposed by the ABC's Four Corners programme (July 2008) and has abused its members and destroyed their families. Yet the government of this country allows this institution to carry on and on and on without any audit of its finances, which it would do if it was taxed.

This church does not help the community, it does not help the poor, it does nothing for anyone except the elders of said community. They have been known to tell one congregation member that they need to stop being a physiotherapist and start working as a concrete contractor, mainly because the concrete contractor (member of church) was making more money. They have taken money from sick and dying old men on their death beds, and they have tossed out other sick and ailing old men because they could 'no longer support them'.

If this church were taxed, there would be a sudden need for accountability (a favourite word of the elders) and the congregation might think twice about giving money to its coffers.

The government is helpless in the face of 'churches' such as these. As to genuine gatherings of members of the body of Christ, you don't need assets, you don't need buildings, you don't need to tithe. Simply gather together wherever you can, help each other as you can, give to one another liberally and with a good conscience and give to the community as the Spirit leads you. Then let the government tax the organisations who dare to abuse the members of their communities with disdain and impunity