Oliver,

A few facts about the "tax free" status of religious institutions.
Last financial year my church received an "income" of about $150,000. Of this income, all but a few dollars of it was received of offerings from the members, and the remaining few dollars came from a small amount of bank interest received. The church has expenses that it must make, besides the Pastor's salary there is maintenance of facilities and money is spent on both local and overseas work. From the Church's Income and Expenditure statement more money was put into the community than taken from it. If the church is compared to a company, the offerings received from the members would be classed as injections of capital from the members and therefore is not considered income. The church does not make a profit, otherwise church members would be receiving dividends like the shareholders of companies. Church members, unlike company shareholders contribute to the running of the church and do not financially benefit.

As for church pastor's wives using the church vehicle tax free - I can tell you that as a loans officer this benefit is not only available for churches but available to all employees of non profit organisations such as charities and hospitals. Employees of these organisations usually receive a small taxable salary to live on and house payments and car allowances are made available as part of a salary package. Many people may not agree with this, but this arrangement is not restricted to religious organisations.

Yay CJ and Bugsy. Good for you. A toast to you, in fact. Well done.

Steel Mann,

Good reply. Thank you.

Just the same, it is not unusual for secular businesses or individuals to be under financial pressure. Presumably, high oil price hurts the taxi industry and water restrictions; war washers.

Your church's income is modest. What about Christian charity between churches & parishers. Why don't rich share their branches bounty with the less forrtunate. Holistically, the Catholic and Postestant churches are not poor. They have huge wealth.

Herein, I have seen on a TV documentary that the City of Rome, for some reason, offers the Vatican one million US dollars each year, which the Vatican, presumably for diplomatic reasons, always turns Rome down.

If you work in the financial sector, you would be aware that [still?] Been out of it for a while] Charge Card Services operates on behalf of Banks, not a Bank,i.e,sharing this collective resource. Some unis and TAFEs, take this approach too, e.g, libraries.

Christian churches could share resources or outsource mass/service to under mutiplex structures*, sell their property to help the needy.

*Separate times and/or theatres.

Mathew 19:

19.21: Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

I would suspect the employee, General Manager/Secretary whom heads Apex or Lions, would pay tax on their personal income. The Queen does, despite her charity work. Moreover, a car provided, would be under salary-sacrafice deal. The NPOs are separate.

If the NPOs are engaged in private activities, as, say, income for the Scouts on holiday, then tax them too,but selectively.

Luke 20:

20:23 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

20:24"Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"

20:25"Caesar's," they replied.He said to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

Would not the money spent on expensive rings, for the laity to kiss, be better spent on helping street children?

Citations: Bible KIV

All,including Boaz & Sells,

Christans, do I cite a reliable speaker?

Kind regards.

Fascinating snapshot of the finances of a church, Steel Mann, many thanks.

Without wanting to be too nitpicking, I don't think this would fly:

>>If the church is compared to a company, the offerings received from the members would be classed as injections of capital from the members and therefore is not considered income.<<

A company would most certainly not be permitted to label such monies "capital", Steel Mann. There are some fairly strict rules that the taxman applies, and I wouldn't imagine that the church would be in a position to treat the individuals concerned as shareholders.

There really isn't a convincing argument for churches to enjoy tax-free status.

Certainly, there is every reason for charities to be exempt, so long as they fulfil the criteria. But is does seem a little odd, from an atheists perspective, that we provide the wages of a wide variety of religionists through our taxes.

I don't mind supporting, say, famine relief in Africa. But subsidising someone's belief in a deity is a little off.

Apart from anything else, there is no agreement between the religions as to which one is "right".

So the odds are extremely high that my money is being spent on something either illusory or erroneous.

I see the problem BD.
Its difficult when there are so many erosion attempts by Islam and Australians seem ill-equiped to deal with them.
My heart says dont give Islam an inch anywhere.
They would own us if they could.
There is a civil war coming with Islam on Australian soil, I believe it, and as much as I hate to see it, may The Lord permit it earlier than later, under His Controls just so we can get it over with and save democracy.
Islam needs to be bound and gagged in Australia, so we dont eventually suffer under its persecution.
Hope thats not too radical?
Oz for oz and for Jesus Christ and His governing.
There were no christians committing evil acts on September, 11 2001 as far as the records show.

"..the architect chose a circular design free of overtly religious imagery. In the Main Chapel, for instance, there are no Christian statues and symbols, except for a large removable cross. The stained glass windows evoke a church atmosphere, but are abstract in design and without religious embellishment.

Sounds good to me.... who could find fault with this?"

I for one BD and I know I'd have a lot of company if people knew about it. At a time when educational provision is being increasingly compromised due to the severe under funding of our public universities, why on earth is money being wasted building religious facilities?

Quite apart from their inappropriateness within secular institutions, will they be the places of peace and unity their creators envisioned? Obviously not, if this sad little altercation is typical. And judging by the amount of bickering we all witness constantly between the different belief systems, it most probably will be. Far from being places of unification, they'll do nothing but breed further disagreement and division.

"I also have only to know that my and your tax dollars have no business supporting sectarian religious interests at PUBLIC educational facilities."

Let me make this very clear to you BD, our tax dollars should NOT be supporting ANY religious interests at ANY public educational facilities. Whether or not they are multifaith or denominational is irrelevant. If religious groups at tertiary institutions think they need to meet somewhere, they can meet in the common room as any other group would do.

The fact these groups can even think of demanding that public money provide them with places of worship shows just how much the line between church and state has blurred during the Howard years. It needs to be demarcated once again, strongly and clearly. But unfortunately I don't think sleeve-wearing Christian, Rudd, will be the one to do it.