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?