The Forum > General Discussion > When Discrimination laws....discriminate.
When Discrimination laws....discriminate.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
- Page 18
- 19
-
- All
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 19 September 2008 8:52:16 PM
| |
Poly said,
“There are many 'not for profit' secular organizations and charities are allowed to have a POLITICAL purpose as long as that political aspect is 'ancilliary' to their primary charitable purpose.” “COMPANY TAX is the only tax which is not paid by Adventure Resort, and I don't see how that equates to tax payer funding? “ It’s paid for by tax payers in terms of lost revenue from taxation. http://blogs.theage.com.au/business/executivestyle/managementline/archives/brw2906p042-046.pdf “…religious groups are virtually unaccountable. Unlike most other not-for-profit groups, religious groups do not have to file income tax returns and, contrary to the practice in most other countries, they do not have to pay tax on commercial businesses or pay capital gains tax on the sale of assets. Despite getting all these tax exemptions, paid for by Australians in terms of lost revenue from taxation, groups such as the Church of Scientology, Christian City, Hillsong, Christian Outreach Centre and some of the Catholic operators, including the Sisters of Charity, refuse to reveal their revenue.” Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 20 September 2008 10:08:38 AM
| |
Polly
The Christian Brethren Holiday Resort is not a charity. Like many affiliated organisations it is part of a legalised tax rort running into millions of tax free dollars - that don't wind up helping anyone except the religious organisations. Consider (if that is possible): "According to Australia’s Business Review Weekly, the 10 largest religious groups in Australia had a staggering $A23.3 billion of revenue in 2005. The Sydney-based Hillsong Community Church (a Pentecostal Christian church affiliated with the Australian branch of the Assemblies of God) is reported to earn, Wallace writes, a cool tax-free $A50 million a year.... ...For churches and other religious groups, all non-business income is exempt from tax so long as it is not for the pecuniary profit of any individual. Similarly, any business income is exempt so long as the trust, society or institution involved carries out its charitable purposes in New Zealand and no one with any control over the business is able to direct or divert monies derived from that business to their own advantage. Should the state, on behalf of believers and non-believers alike, support religious proselytisation? Wallace says no. “Supernatural charities can have their belief systems and proselytise to their hearts’ content. What they should not have is unqualified tax-exempt income to promote these beliefs at the expense of that nominally secular democracy comprising an increasing number of citizens who have no interest in the ideational culture of religions.”" http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3534/features/10411/the_god_dividend.html Give it a rest, Polly, your religion discriminates against anyone it deems "unacceptable" - so much for tolerance. Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 20 September 2008 11:23:36 AM
| |
As I understand it, they get away with it because in English law (much of which we've inherited) the promotion of religion itself is regarded as a form of charity. I agree that we need to rid ourselves of this anachronistic nonsense.
Businesses conducted by religious organisations should be subject to the same taxation and legal constraints as any other businesses. Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 21 September 2008 8:00:50 AM
| |
-Adventure Resort
-Apex -Rotary -Lions Are all "altruistic community organizations" Also... The Tax Act Determination TD 93/190 1. Subparagraph 23(g)(v) provides that the income of a society, association or club that is established for community service purposes (not being political purposes or lobbying purposes), and that is not carried on for the purposes of profit or gain to its individual members, shall be exempt from income tax. 2. The purpose of enacting subparagraph 23(g)(v) was to create a category of exemption for community bodies whose activities are not accepted as being charitable for the purposes of subparagraph 23(e), but which, nevertheless, conduct activities of benefit to the community. In other words, some organisations that do not qualify for exemption under subparagraph 23(e) may, nevertheless, be exempt under subparagraph 23(g)(v). I still don't see how Adventure Resort is any different from a Lions raffle.. or any other fundraising activity for a community purporse. There is no 'profit' as such. No individual person benefits "financially" from such groups. Are Open Brethren Churches "community minded"? Why not ask the local primary school? Children who have been emotionally shredded through broken homes are helped.. mentored and supported by various individuals who, at their own expense and time.. spend an hour a week with these kids. 2 groups from our own fellowship are heading to Africa this month at their own expense, to build class rooms/dormitories for aids orphans, one going is a policeman..and his (non Christian) boss is also going with him. They take either unpaid or annual leave for these trips. Seems to me like there are some mean spirited ones among the critics who just want to have a 'Christian bash'? Gays don't want hetero's or lesbians in their bar.. and we don't want openly badged gay organizations at our adventure camp. 6 of one, half doz of another? Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 21 September 2008 5:20:11 PM
| |
Polycarp Sunday, 14 September 2008:
<<TAX PAYER FUNDED CHURCHES.. can any one enlighten me about how Churches are funded by the tax payer? Give actual evidence. In our case, we pay for them ourselves- 100%.>> Polycarp, Sunday 21 September 2008: <<The Tax Act Determination TD 93/190>> You see Poly, even you can find the evidence to contradict your own position if you look hard enough. Maybe if you thought first and then did some research before shooting your mouth off, you'd make a fool of yourself less often! Posted by Spikey, Sunday, 21 September 2008 6:22:38 PM
|
err.. how so ? details details.. please.