My thoughts run something along the lines of this:

If a family are all living together and one member gives money to the other member, does the recepient have to declare it as extra income? Or is it just sort of assumed that each of the individuals in the family are taxed and if say the husband chooses to give $10, 000 of his income to his wife to buy a car, because he has already paid tax on that income, his wife doesn’t need to list the money as income for her personally? (This is tricky with marriage, so substitute husband/wife with parent/adult child or something if it makes it easier).

Similarly, with religious bodies, every person in a religious organisation is taxed (unless they are below the tax threshold). What we do as a Church is simply pool some of these funds together to be redistributed.

Some would say “that’s OK, but only if it’s spent on humanitarian pursuits”. This is the thing though: we are theists, not humanists, so although a sizeable portion of our money will go to feeding, clothing, educating, healing the poor, etc., we will also spend money on the electricity bills for our worship services, salaries for our admin staff, and others things which are not technically “humanitarian” in nature.

I’m all for Sanitarium, etc., being taxed (or any other commercial business venture for that matter). But as far as funds that go towards the running of the Church and it’s programs, so long as these are either specifically related to worship of GOD/Christian edification, and/or are used charitably for other people, they should not be taxed. This is not a business making a profit. It is a group of individuals (or, as some would say, a spiritual family of sorts) pooling our money together to resource the communal living out of our faith.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
-Jesus

So you don't even think that they should pay rates?

Not paying rates means taxpayers pay to maintain their council-provided services (water, sewage etc.), even though the property that the church owns is quite a valuable asset.

As for church-run businesses, I completely agree, they should be taxed. No arguments there.

Rates should be obligatory for all land holders.

Businesses which manufacture a product which is marketed in the same way other manufactured products are..should be taxed.

Camps.. however are a different category. They seek to impart 'atmosphere' and not for commercial profit.

If it can be shown that a camp facility does retain all income and does in fact make a 'profit' and does provide a beneficial dividend to shareholders...then it should be taxed.

-Absense of shareholders.
-Absense of real profit.
-Absense of beneficial dividend to shareholders and directors of a personal nature.

means.. no tax thanks.

Churches should not pay 'company' tax.. but all members DO pay income tax. Donations cannot or should not be taxed.. as they are not 'earned' they are by nature donations.

If Donations were taxed..then we better start taxing the Childrens hospital or become gynormous HYPocrites.

Bugsy,

I never read where netjunkie said that churches shouldn't pay rates. I think you will find that churches do pay council rates.

Churches are not commercial ventures. They do not have shareholders. They do not make a profit for distribution to members. I have attended church for over 25 years and I have paid contributions towards the running of the church, but have never received a financial benefit. As netjunkie has already pointed out, church members already pay taxes on the money they provide to the church. Any salaries paid to church workers are taxed like any other worker pays tax.

Most people who say churches should be taxed have no idea of accounting principles. All churches make a profit of nothing, so if they were liable for tax, they would still not pay any.

Steel Mann,
I think you'll find they in many (most) cases they do NOT pay council rates. Where they are charged, it is usually at the minimum rate for services only.

Now, some 'religions' are run as corporations, for profit (although not the members profit). Think scientology.

Taxation has rules, not logic.

If you put your savings into starting a company, the government takes no heed that it has already been taxed as income.

If you then exchange your shares in your private company for shares in a listed company, the government is not concerned that no cash has changed hands. They'll tax you straight away on their market value.

Once you maintain a place of business, and start employing people, you should be taxable, like the rest of us. Just don't look for logic in the rules, or you will simply become bitter and twisted.

It isn't just churches, either. There are companies around, complete with chief executives on massive salaries, their payroll of professional beggars and accountants and their comfy lifestyles, masquerading as charities.

It seems that all you have to do is find some sort of cover-story, to be funded by the rest of us taxpayers.

It is nothing short of a scandal.

And the participants in this farrago of pretence and piety add to the insult.

"We alleviate the suffering of poor communities in the developing world" says Tim Costello, from his carpeted office and his $250k salary.

"Camps.. however are a different category. They seek to impart 'atmosphere' and not for commercial profit. If it can be shown that a camp facility does retain all income and does in fact make a 'profit' and does provide a beneficial dividend to shareholders...then it should be taxed."

But do these camps have a chief executive, and staff who are paid salaries, Boaz?

If so, they are a business, and should be taxed.