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.