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.

I think that the only tax breaks 'churches' should get are when they are actually engaged in humanitarian charitable works. The legal definition of 'charity' in this country needs to be changed such that it no longer includes the promotion of religion per se.

Obviously, businesses that compete directly with others in the marketplace - such as the SDA Sanitarium enterprise, or the Brethren's Phillip Island Adventure Resort, should be taxed in exactly the same way as their competitors. In the case of churches that receive income and bequests from members that is applied to their primary propaganda purpose, this should attract the same kind of tax as say, advertising or real estate development companies, since this is pretty much what their activities boil down to.

While we're at it, religious schools should be deprived of taxpayer funding, which should be redirected into the ailing public system, where it belongs. I'd concede an argument whereby churches could assert that their educational activities are humanitarian in nature, and could therefore be tax-exempt beyond paying for public amenities that they use.

C.J Morgan and his green mates are so blinded they can't see that it is not funding that has led to the 'ailing public system' but the failed philosophies behind the secular system. More money than ever before has been poured into State schools and yet many still just remain crowd control centres. CJ's hatred of seeing the failure of his own philosophies being highlighted by the success of private schools must really leave a bitter taste.

I've just borrowed the book 'The Purple Economy' by Max Wallace, which makes for some interesting reading on this subject and sheds some much needed light in some very dark corners.

Churches don't pay council rates on any of their land or buildings including the minister's residence. They don't pay for their water usage either.

"Currently, federal exemptions apply to income tax, fringe benefits tax and the GST. State government exemptions cover land tax, payroll tax, stamp duties and car registration fees. Local government bodies give exemptions from municipal rates."

The Melbourne City Council estimates that these concessions are ten per cent of revenue, which in effect amounts to a ten per cent surcharge on all other rateable properties.

We all pay, in order for religious groups and sects to enjoy this privileged status, irrespective of the fact that a large percentage of us have no interest in religion and believe firmly in a secular society.

Thank God runner turned up. The discussion was rapidly descending into polite, reasonable, evidence-based debate.

Can we get on with the abuse, now?

Sancho, it helps if you imagine runner to be just like Kreacher from the Harry Potter films. It makes his/her posts so much easier to read and brings a smile to my face every time.

Filthy mudbloods.

Places like Hillsong that DO make a profit should pay tax.

It should be based on their incomes as to whether they're taxed, not WHAT they are.

You're BEGGING for system rort if you allow that.

Define a church.

Small businesses [*] only pay tax if they make a profit. As long as a church doesn't make a profit, the taxation issue is not a problem.

The real question is rates. My local cinema might be run in such a way as not to make a profit - its entire ticket revenue may go to paying expenses such as wages, repairs, film rental, and, in particular, rates. Since it would make no profit, it would pay no tax.

From my perspective a church is providing a similar service to a cinema. People go there because doing so fulfils some desire. Churches don't charge for tickets, but instead rely on donations, but otherwise there is no real difference.

So let churches pay rates just as cinemas have to.

Oh, and to the extent that donation income is being used to operate the church, it should be subject to GST.

[*] Large businesses pay payroll tax which muddies the waters somewhat.

I agree with you Pericles. It is patently unfair that the rest of society should have to subsidise carpetbaggers in any guise, especially when those doing the subsidising are sometimes right on the financial edge themselves.

Recently, I was wondering how much Tim Costello got paid - thanks for filling us in on that. I mention this because I was yet again accosted by a young, do-gooder asking for money for a charity. He inveigled his way into my confidence by asking me an innocuous question that twisted its way into a plea for a donation with all the rehearsed long-winded spiel that went with it.

So when a smiling young person says that 90% of the donations go to the people who the charity is supposed to serve, you have to ask: is this the truth, and if Costello and his ilk are getting paid so much and the 90% figure is true, then are there are lots and lots of slaves working for the charity? Something doesn't add up.

If the $250k figure is right, Costello should be publicly made to explain why he is getting so much. It's only fair to the people who pay their $1 per month (or whatever it is) to their charity that they know where their donation is actually going.

Brownyn writes

'We all pay, in order for religious groups and sects to enjoy this privileged status'

Don't forget we all benefit from godliness in society. Imagine how many more divorces, health bills, social security etc etc if we allow secularism to continue to destroy our society. Recently we sent a bus load of Pollies to an earth worshiping (sorry gw summit) that achieved absolutely nothing. Get over it guys. One day you will get your wish and the salt and the light will be taken from you. More than likely you will then get sharia law and then you will have a valid whinge.

I think all churches should be charged atleast triple taxes.

This would reduce, at least some what, their ability to brainwash, innocent kids into their dark age superstition.

I'm not sure what everyone wants to tax ? Pericles.. are you saying our donations to our Church'es should be taxed? why?

I can agree with Stg a little.. for example in the case of Hillsong.. their 'Music Ministry'....aah..this is 'manufactured product' and can be marketed anywhere.. world wide..and is.

Perhaps it is a good idea to separate out the 'commercial' aspects like this? Or.. make a regulation/law that requires any such enterprise to be separately assessed.. somehow.

It depends a bit on where the income goes and how it is used.
If a royalty is paid to the artists.... then it seems taxation is legitimate. If sales income goes to the Church.. then taxation might be a reasonable claim.

I find myself wanting to differentiate between 'selling product' and renting space for campers as there is nothing tangible that the camper takes away, plus in the case of CYC the whole of the income would be under the umbrella of the Brethren Trust, not the management of CYC, but Pericles might be able to uncover details here.. afterall he did a good (and updated) job on Tim (feed the poor) Costello and his $250k package.

Pericles.. I see no valid reason to tax World Vision, but I see LOTS of reasons to reduce Tim (and other senior Execs) salaries to something more approaching 'Christ like'.

But remember.. good for the Church good for Rotary/Lions/Apex.. better tax their next chook raffle.

"Small businesses [*] only pay tax if they make a profit. As long as a church doesn't make a profit, the taxation issue is not a problem."

This is exactly what I'm saying. Churches are not for profit, therefore they shouldn't be taxed.

BTW if you're upset that a group of free, tax-paying individuals are associating together and pooling their resources to propagate a belief system, then perhaps you could do likewise. For example, in the U.S. (where this is also an issue) the humanist society gets tax-exempt status. It's not stealing from taxpayers, because the members of the Churches have already paid their taxes. Currently the law reflects this- I think it should stay that way.

Where profits are made (e.g. Christian music artists getting royalties), they should be taxed.

Netjunkie,

When I visit my local cinema, I buy the ticket using money on which I have already paid tax. Despite that, the cinema has to pay rates and GST.

Why should a church be any different? It's not because it has different arrangements in place for getting its income. A cinema wouldn't be exempt from rates (not sure about the GST angle) even if it used donations rather than ticket sales.

In any case, if money that has already been taxed were to be immune to future taxation as it changed hands, then pretty soon no tax would be paid by anyone. Much as that might seem like a nirvana, our society cannot function that way.

So basically, the only thing that should not be taxed is donated income. I can live with that. But every other source of income is 'profit', it just isn't distributed amongst a group of shareholders it goes to the church as a corporate entity. Where money is collected in direct exchange for goods or services, that's not a donation. Bretheren camps or any other business should not be excluded.

Sylvia Else,

When you buy a movie ticket, the theatre does not pay tax on its whole takings. The theatre has expenses to meet and these are deducted from its gross takings and what is left over is the profit.

When Churches pass the collection plate, these are used for various purposes both for running the church and providing humanitarian aid in both Australia and Overseas. I would like to ask people who state that churches should pay tax, how many of you have examined a churches annual financial statements? I have, and believe me there is no profit. So Hasbeen, triple nothing is nothing.

RobP, it's all here

http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/

You don't need the whole annual report, it's all in the Annual Statement and Accounts.

It's all there on page 36.

T. Costello: cash salary and fees - $209,655; Superannuation - $41,890; Total $251,545

Which, interestingly, was a 30% increase over the previous year. It's amazing what you can get away with using other people's money.

Nice work if you can get it, a quarter of a million funded by others begging on your behalf.

And the 90% figure is a teensy exaggeration too, you will notice.

Income - all sources: $356m

Projects - all destinations: $313m

That's 88%

My Health Insurance company does better than that.

And Boaz, stop imagining things.

>>Pericles.. are you saying our donations to our Church'es should be taxed? <<

Nobody pays tax on revenue, Boaz, don't be silly.

>>Pericles.. I see no valid reason to tax World Vision<<

They are clearly a business, Boaz, with a $27m payroll.

They recover GST from the government along the way - a million bucks worth of input credits. They don't pay FBT as long as they stay below $30k (!) in fringe benefits per person. They don't even pay Payroll Tax - that's another cool $1.5m in taxpayer support, right there

So it could reasonably be stated that the salaries and perks of the executives of World Vision are entirely taxpayer-funded, plus a good swag of middle-management too.

Hope we all feel good about that.

the salvation army must be the richest and most powerful organization in the world it is interesting that they recieve $50 millon from the goverment for its projects in the U.S.

Does the goverment take threw taxes with one hand and then give back with the other.

The rules and laws regarding charties seem very strange in some cases they must give 20% of donations to there cause but 80% can go to people collecting the money and organizing the charity.

i myself have been paid 50% of the money i collect for a charity was it morally wrong for me to accept this money.

also i was blackmailed into collecting money for the salvation army i have no ide what they used the money for but i have seen people sneaking money in to their pocket i think a lot people dip in as the money gets passed from person to person. Chritians cannot be trusted alot of then seem to have no soul they pretend to be good by making out people outside the church r evil.

in a perfect world we could donate lots of money to churches knowing it would put to good use but it is not a perfect world.

It depends on what they do with all this tax-free loot.

If they're pulling in tens of millions per year (eg Hillsong) from commercial ventures or using the money for buying political influence (eg Exclusive Brethren) then I have some reservations about their true motives.

Even Mother Teresa had some significant clouds of suspicion hanging over her financial dealings.

Does all this warm and cuddly, feel-good tax-payer largesse extend to ALL religions and is everybody happy to keep subsidising the occassional madras or Scientology Temple?

Well sleuthed, Pericles.

"Income - all sources: $356m" - cripes, that's a lot!

I take back my criticism of Costello a fraction, as I thought the total income would have been much less than that. While I now believe his salary is probably defensible given the total size of the donations, I still don't think it's fair based on what he does (sitting in front of a camera and his desk) remembering that he has/is nothing without the army of volunteers doing the real work underneath him.

BTW, the 90% figure I quoted was the amount for a similar NGO (can't remember which one now)

SteelMan

Did you bother to read what I wrote before pontificating?

Sylvia.

If they pay no taxes they shouldn't get taxpayers' money for their schools and hospitals. They can't have it both ways... or can they?

In any event, there must be total and absolute transparency - including gifts to political parties.

Any organisation that promises eternal bliss, threatens eternal damnation, claims supernatural events and an interventionist deity and unable to substantiate any or all of these claims, is nothing more than a scam and should be treated as such by our laws.

Pericles.. as you already know.. I have as much of a problem with Costello's package as you do.

It doesn't matter RobP how much 'income' World vision receives.. it's all donations and a few more zero's than smaller groups but it doesn't take any more skill to administer a figure with an extra decimal point ...does it?

It's plain silly to mention taxing Church income from donations.. and the piccy theatre illustration? absurd. People "buy" a ticket to see a professionally produced product.. the show..at church we often participate ourselves.. we don't even have a pastor at the moment..we all share the load...for free....

It's just mean spirited people who would want to tax donated money.
Tax those who are given an income FROM it.. no drama there.

Fractelle.. my counselling room is open from 9.00am to 5.00 pm :)

runner: << Don't forget we all benefit from godliness in society. >>

Oh puke. You'd have to be a one-eyed godbothering nutcase to think that constitutes a rational argument... oh wait...

<< Imagine how many more divorces, health bills, social security etc etc >>

You have a point. These insidious phenomena are indeed evident in our society. God hasn't been doing His job - I want my money back.

Fractelle - hear hear! Well said indeed.

Polycarp,

It was predictable that some people would dislike my cinema analogy, but to characterise it as absurd seems over the top.

As a non-believer (you guessed that, right?), I see both the cinema and the church as service providers. Even if you don't have a priest (however described) at a service, you're still being provided with the church building itself.

What is it about your activity in the church that gives it a special status, and entitles the church to relief from an obligation to pay council rates that almost everyone else has to pay?

To the extent that your donations are used to provide the church and, on occasion, a priest, why should your donations not be subject to GST? Why should you get your desired service at a discount compared with what I have to pay for a service with a comparable underlying cost?

Note that I'm not saying that all donations should be taxed. Only that part of the donations that is being used to provide you with the service.

"It doesn't matter RobP how much 'income' World vision receives.. it's all donations and a few more zero's than smaller groups but it doesn't take any more skill to administer a figure with an extra decimal point ...does it?"

Polycarp,

Morally and ethically speaking, you're probably right. Whether he merits getting that wage, by way of how he brings his talent to bear in the job, you'd have to be an insider to know for sure. I'm not an WV insider so I don't know. But if he's anything like his brother ....

Pollypants

<<People "buy" a ticket to see a professionally produced product.. the show..at church we often participate ourselves.. we don't even have a pastor at the moment..we all share the load...for free....>>

Well exactly. Fancy asking anyone to pay to hear you 'share the load'. Even for free I can't imagine value for money.

Have you thought of paying the congregation to attend?

Most of you guys can't see the link between tax breaks and organised crime. Due to the single mindedness of many here I guess I have to explain that I don't mean current churches are organised crime. I mean if you make them not having to pay taxes organised crime WILL dump their finances into 'churches'. Most people that come within coooeee of the rich list will do the same, as will businesses, you'd be dumb not to as well.

If you wanna see the 'second coming' within 1 year.....make churches tax free. ;o)

Sylvia said:

"Note that I'm not saying that all donations should be taxed. Only that part of the donations that is being used to provide you with the service."

yes Sylv..I can imagine the headache of you trying to work that out for each "donation" which is anonymous anyway. The portion which provides a salary to a pastor IS taxed....it's called income tax.
We don't "pay for a service" we join together in fellowship with each other. Should I charge GST for every loving hug I receive.. should I be charged when I give one? Do we tax a smile? If someone shares a word of encouragement or sympathy with us.... do we tax this?
If the pastor preaches a 'red hot' sermon.. do we tax that? but if he preaches a lousy one.. no tax.. because we didn't receive 'value for money'? this is all so rediculous it is a joke.

Clearly.. you are in dire need of discovering what it means to be a Christian and to enjoy the life of a local Church... I suggest you read about it in the New Testament.

We do not give our money as donations in order to receive a service i.e. a sermon.. we do it as a total part of 'being' a fellowship.. and some of our money goes to such things as aids orphan support in Africa. Yeah.. lets tax that too.... and then there is the 'casserole bank' for needy families.. yep...let's tax that too.

On the RATES issue.. ANY community based organization is eligable to apply for rates excemption..and that would include the Lions and Apex etc. When was the last time Apex built a local church as a 'community' service? (I'm not saying they haven't)

Porkycrap: << When was the last time Apex built a local church as a 'community' service? >>

What Porky and his fundy mates don't seem to realise is that building a church or speading God's word is only construed as a 'community' service by members of the Christian community. Service organisations like Apex et al aren't in the business of disseminating propaganda, which is what Christian preaching and proselytising amount to - on the contrary, they do practical things for the benefit of the entire community.

no one should pay tax, it is looting made tolerable by time.

but everyone should support the activities of society, in proportion as they gain some value from society. it's easy to do nowadays, just clip off x% of every transaction and divert it to the treasury. your bank's computer does similar things every minute. cash transactions? eliminate cash, it's already on the way out.

unfair to the poor, to make them pay for what they get? no, it treats them as equals. if the 5% (or however much) 'duty' bothers you , give the poor a 'citizens wage', a bribe to keep them from mugging or dealing drugs.

and best of all, no special mate's rates for anyone.

Ok Demos. 'Taxing' and 'Clipping' are two different things?.

Good luck with your tax free, service free, road free, dark ages...

Excerpt from Crikey.Com

"...Firstly, it’s important to understand that any religion that satisfies the criteria established by the High Court in its 1983 definition of religion in the Scientology case, is eligible for tax-exempt status. Briefly, these are a belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle and canons of conduct that give effect to that belief.

An organisation must have a building, be paying a stipend to a minister or similar, have a congregation, perform rituals and be open to the public. Secondly, all religions are legally charities. To "advance religion" is a tax-exempt charitable activity....

...There are about 1,500 religious organisations that are coded into the ABS’s data base. Their numbers seems to be increasing while at the same time Christian belief in Australia has declined steadily at every census.

The justification for religious organisations running tax-exempt commercial businesses is that the money goes back to the community through charitable spending, so what’s the problem? THE PROGRAM DID NOT CONSIDER THE IDEA THAT MAYBE THERE ARE RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS THAT TITHE THEIR MEMBERS TO CREATE A BASE OF CAPITAL, START TAX-EXEMPT BUSINESSES, DO A COSMETIC AMOUNT OF CHARITABLE WORK OR NONE AT ALL, AND DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY MANAGE TO LIVE VERY WELL..."
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20080822-Churches-tax-and-deniability.html

The use of capitals is mine, to emphasize the fact the many religious commercial activities do not contribute a single cent to charity or similar works, but in fact provide a very comfortable standard of living for a variety of Christian (predominately) and other religions, from Muslims through to Scientologists.

I have no doubt that OLO contributors like MJPB and Polly would defend tax exemption to the death. Perhaps they would understand the concern of the secular community better if they considered how much of their taxes go towards religions they simply don't like - Islam for example.

Churches that provide education, hospitals, homes for the mentally and physically disabled- whihc is mainly the Catholic, Anglican, Uniting and Baptist churches should always be provided with tax exemptions. The overwhelming good they provide, and also the allieviation upon tax dollars that governments would have to fork out if they were not in the public square, should be a no-brainer.

For those that sell Sanitarium, they should be taxed as that is a business. But if the 7th Day Adventists have hospitals and I beleive that the one at Wahroonga is one of theirs, then to the4 extent that Sanitarium Foods gives funds to that hospital then that component should be tax exempt. It all depends upon how they use their profits.
People who oppose tax exemptions are clearly hostile to religion and need to clear theri heads of hate before even answering this topic question or of being in politics generally.

'Oh puke. You'd have to be a one-eyed godbothering nutcase to think that constitutes a rational argument.'

Coming from such a dogmatic secularist as you CJ I consider it a compliment.

Do not-for-profit organisations have to pay tax? Do they have to specifically be charitable, or do are all NFPs tax-exempt?

Do not-for-profit organisations have to pay tax? Do they have to specifically be charitable, or do are all NFPs tax-exempt?
Posted by netjunkie, Tuesday, 30 September 2008 10:35:48 PM

Obviously not, netjunkie. Not for profit organisations doesn't mean that the organisation can make more money than it spends. It means that the members are the "owners" of the organisation and none of the profit is distruted to its members. A not for profit organization must also declare in its constitution what happens to its assets in the event of the organisation closing down. In the event of a non profit organization closing down, the assets are generally transferred to organization with similar operations. Churches are run on these lines and are therefore not for profit.

Most sports clubs are run on the same lines. They are not for a specific charity.

Staff that work for not for profit organisations pay the same taxes on their salaries as everyone else.

Great, then I see no reason why Churches should pay taxes, unless they're hoarding their resources for some reason.