How's this for a worry, $31 billion that could be assisting Medicare, university funding, rebuilding our aged school infrastructure, laying railway lines instead of motorways, all going to fund 'religion', and all based on a law from the times of Queen Elizabeth.

Could it be time to ease the business of religion into the same bracket as other global corporate industries, liable to pay taxes?

"THE tax office wants a special national body set up to monitor "not for profit" charities, admitting that churches - such as the multi-million-dollar phenomenon Hillsong - are literally "invisible" to it.

"And the sector is expanding so rapidly that $31 billion a year is now being drawn out of the federal Budget in tax exemptions to the ever-growing list of groups claiming church and charity status."

Read more here:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/taxpayers-support-lavish-hillsong-lifestyle/story-e6frewt0-1225896526584

http://www.perthnow..com.au/news/national/hillsong-why-people-sign-up-for-a-lifetime-deal/story-e6frg15u-1225896551731

The Blue Cross,
What you claim is nonsense as no paid employee of the Church or of a Charity are exempt from paying tax. I am personally involved on the Board of a Church organisation and on the Board of a Charity for intellectual dissability and we are responsible to pay the employees salary, tax and superannuation. The Church offers community support in personal and family care, counselling and life skills. Your proposal is based on envy as the care of the family is just as important as laying railway lines, and currently the Government recognise that fact.

Philo...please... did I write the story?

Did I write the dodgy tax rules that give religion a free kick, or allow salary to be taken without taxes?

No.... not at all.

Your reaction is most odd.

"Lobby group Taxpayers Australia spokesman Roger Timms wants the Government to adopt Treasury secretary Ken Henry's recommendation that tax exemptions for churches be replaced with direct grants.Under the Tax Act, there is no cap on the amount of expenses churches can pay ministers of religion before incurring fringe-benefits tax"... did I say that Philo?

Or this "The Government has an opportunity to make the tax system more fair by closing the loopholes that exist for churches," Mr Timms said"?

Just because the church-religion taxrorting cover is blown, and Xenophon's Senate moves to rid us all of the filmstars religion has re-exposed what many of us have known for a long time, there is no need to be so rude Philo.

This is another bottom-of-the-harbour dodge.

Max Wallace, 'The Purple Economy'... I didn't write this.

http://www.iheu.org/the-purple-economy-supernatural-charities-tax-and-the-state

There is an OLO thread on the book:

"It’s not Christianphobia, when Kellogg’s complains of the competitive advantage of Sanitarium, a wholly owned company of the Seventh Day Adventist church. All such companies are in direct competition with other parts of the private sector, but are protected by a series of tax exemptions, not available to their competitors.

"Religious groups according to the Business Review Weekly, “are the hidden giants of the economy. In an era of corporate regulation, they are virtually unaccountable” (March 24, 2005)."

Read the OLO thread here:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7592&page=0

My my, the evidence just keeps tumbling out of The Googles:

http://www.blackmagicians.com/newblog/?p=113

Even the national hotbed of Christian promotion, the ABC, is into it:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/lm/stories/s833419.htm

So you see Philo, I am not inventing this at all, nor am I suffering 'envy', but I do question why we should pay religious groups to use tax monies for their own evangelising and proselytising activities at the expense of people who need assistance to be saved from the failures of the secular state to run things better.

The Blue Cross,
I note you have chosen to pick on the Church. The fact is Government gives funds to various organisations to assist in community programmes. The charity I'm involved in gets Government funding to pay wages to staff giving care and support to parents of disabled and assistance to employ intellectually disabled clients. However all have to present tax returns.

Many Churches run programmes to develop third world countries like orphanages, food production and water supply programmes. A Church near me raises each year in the vicinity of $8,000,000 for overseas programmes for 3rd world development. They do a far superior job than Government overseas aid to third world countries. Why? Because they are committed to the people.

Philo

Taxes are paid where profits are made. That is equitable. Charities from both religious and non religious organisations remain tax-free. That is fair.

Please consider the following excerpt:

"Religious groups in Australia have a combined wealth of around $1 billion, they run cereal companies, insurance companies, wineries and pizza chains, and pay none of the income tax or capital gains tax ....

Why not? These are for-profit activities, they are not charitable or even evangelical; they are in the business of being in business, how do they manage to avoid business costs because of a misty historical precedent that has no relevance in a secular society?

Religious organisations argue that their profits are redistributed to the community in the form of charitable activities and community services. This same claim is made by purveyors of poker machines and it’s the reddest of herrings in both cases. Non-profit or charitable activities are tax deductions no matter who you are, and if all your profits are distributed this way then you will not pay any tax on them...

... but taxing business activities is not going to interfere with any religious activities, unless you want to believe in the divine properties of Weet-bix™ and So Good™. It’s fear-mongering and chest-beating to drown out the facts.

Taxes are only required where profit is generated: if the expenses of running a business (or church) are more than the income, there is no tax to be paid; if a church wants to confine itself to charitable and evangelical activities it will generate no profit and not have to worry about taxes. If, on the other hand, a religious organisation manages to extract profits from its congregation or cereal packets, it should not be allowed to hide the source or the amount of those profits from the public by covering it with a shroud of we-are-untouchable-because-of-God mysticism."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/18/xenophon-didnt-go-far-enough-no-religion-should-be-tax-free/

TBC, this certainly has been a problem for many long years. How they go about bringing reform is difficult as any suggestion that religions should pay tax would bring cries of outrage across the community.
Most churches do do extensive charity work throughout our communities and to tax this would be counter productive as government would find it impossible to take up the slack at the cost these organisations perform this work for. Possibly they could separate their charities from there churches and pay tax on their church activities with strick restrictions on the fringe benefits allowed within the charity system. In the end i don't understand the tax act well enough but surely the extreme wealth these organisations control is out of control.
10% of your income is a fairly standard rate that churches charge for eternal life. It was always expected in the Salvo's and Brian Houston is a product of that organisation.

Philo I'll take that as an apology then.

Perhaps you could take the time to read the articles?

As for this "A Church near me raises each year in the vicinity of $8,000,000 for overseas programmes for 3rd world development".

A great shame they see no benefit in spending even half of that on Indigenous peoples within Australia...never mind the halt, lame and infirm, as the man said.

Always the 'missionary zeal', giving the 'natives' a hand in the hope they can be turned from Islam to Christianity eh?

When it comes to religions, 'altruism' is a non-word.

nairbe... I think Severin's post has answered your general questions about 'how to do it'.

Try Max Wallace's book if you want to cry about the extent of 'the joke'.

I find it amusing that so many support religions running businesses, in a free market society.

They undercut genuine business opportunities, they snare certain markets, employ their flock rather than on any semblance of merit, and no one is allowed to question them even as they are supported on ATO largesse.

There is no excuse for the state not to provide from our vast wealth, and particularly to repair when the 'free market' we all support fails so magnificently, and so frqeuently.

Seeking evangelisers to dole out charity, to the deserving poor, in a massively wealthy society, is a crime yet to be recognised, a filthy crime of 'noblesse oblige', a carryover from the aristocracy as they bought themselves out of Hell for living their disgraceful lives of abundance, stupidity and ignorance.

TBC. Ideologically speaking spot on.
My point about these groups doing charity work in our communities is reflective of the reality of our current social and economic structure. If churches stop doing this work it will impose a very large financial burden upon the community that they are not prepared to face. We see this by the reaction to many other issue when cost increases or tax rises are required to achieve anything. This is after all the "me" generation.
If you can sell the taxation of charities in return for the inevitable tax increases to cover the social responsibilities that will only balloon under a governmental system good luck to you. When you have to go to a charity for a food parcell no one says that it is wrong or humiliating when you get a food voucher for coles, but when the government introduces income management it is inhuman.
In the end government will only tender out these responsibilities to the same charities for more than it is worth and these groups will end up making more money. Certainly companies like Sanitarium should not receive tax free status and i don't think it would upset to many if they lost it.

nairbe... excuse me if I think that $31b is already a sizeable impost on the ATOs shareholders.

I think, but I could be wrong, that is more than Abbott is moaning about that Rudd threw overboard in the GFC.

No, it's not apparently, $42b was the deal it seems:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/42b-stimulus-package-rudd-cuts-a-deal-with-xenophon-20090213-86jw.html

But Rudd only did that once.

The religious rip off continues for ever and ever, Amen.

Now, if the Christos from the Coalition are up in arms over a one-off of $42b, how come they are so quiet on $31b every year?

Sounds like corruption to me.

Part of the solid 'partnership' between church and state, and to Hell with punters.

TBC is right in being concerned about tax free privileges for the churches. I am ok with the fact that some of the money is used for worthwhile causes, such as the intellectually and physically impaired,
but I don't agree with the obvious trappings of wealth some churches display for all to see.

The Catholic church is one of the wealthiest religions in the world. One only has to visit Rome and the Vatican city to see the obscene wealth on display- supposedly as a 'shrine to Our Lord'.

I am sure many of the faithful would be happy to see a lot of these 'treasures' sold and used to further the good works that the Catholic church does.
I won't hold my breath.

Dear TBC,

While I agree with your theory that:

If religious organisations carry out genuine
charitable or educational activities they should
be entitled to the same tax regime as secular
non-profit organisations doing similar work. And,
that purely religious activities should be
regarded as quite different.

Your argument as I understand it seems to be
that - Australia believes in the separation of church and
state. Yet it seems to grant unfair tax concessions
to religious institutions. It can be argued that
in a democracy members of a particular faith
are quite entitled to support it out of their own
pockets and that it is immoral for funding to be
extracted compulsorily from other citizens.
No argument there.

I wonder, however, if we start to really examine all
charitable, scientific, and public educational
institutions, that are currently entitled to
tax concessions, how many of them would be able to
withstand the scrutinization from the Taxation Office?

I don't know of all the loop-holes that are currently
available to these institutions - but I somehow have a
sneaking suspicion that religious institutions would not
be the only ones getting away with questionable
tax concessions.

And let's not even discuss what corporations
and multi-nationals are able to get away with.

Foxy... my response is that a modern nation needs taxation to supply what is expected of it.

Of course, posters such as Stern and AGIR, would have us live in a genuine Brutopia where the individual would live by their boot straps, but most people, even Tories, are more generous than that.

It is only sensible to continually test what should be supplied against what is supplied.

No citizen, or organisation, should be above the state, which is after all, just our collective body.

So, by all means, let us examine all tax rorts, dodges, lurks and 'legitimate' exemptions.

Like you, I do not assume that religion is the only candidate, but unlike all the others, only religion has an as-of-right exemption, and that seems to be very out-of-order in a secular nation-state.

Suze, I understand your suggestion that the Catholic Church should sell the wealth amassed in the Vatican and give the proceeds to its charities. I would suggest, though, that this is overly simplistic. Having such wealth and cultural capital stored in one place generates enormous revenue from tourism, some of which goes towards the maintenance of the Vatican, some to the administration of the Church and the bulk towards the Church's charitable missions.

I'm sure there are many who would argue that this isn't true - that it is laundered away to top up the coffers of wealthy churchmen - but, without the Church's ledgers, they have only conjecture to work on. I certainly don't have the ledgers, but that is the official line offered by guides and volunteers at the Vatican. With our notion of justice, we plebs must assume that it is true unless we have evidence to the contrary.

As for the exclusivity of religions' tax-exemptions, aren't the bulk of their exemptions derived from their non-profit status? These same exemptions, then, apply to community sporting groups and other non-profit organisations in society. As TBC said, there is scope for considerable investigation here - not just for churches.

In the several other threads on this topic, I have outlined my point of view. I agree that the profit-generating sectors of religious organisations need to be taxed as businesses. Of course, if their entire profits are passed on to their charitable services, there won't be much tax. But at least we know that their profits are going back into the community, often (but not always, I concede) in a more efficient and honest manner than would be implemented by the tax-collecting government.

Otokonoko... there was a major tax case recently (last year?) where an undertakers business was deemed to be tax free because they gave their profits to a publisher who produced Bibles to be used to help convert people to Christianity... a 'good works' project.

Ticks the charity box... but hardly a priority for the broader community is it?

Such dealings are not dodgy, but maybe they should be?

I agree wholeheartedly. In a sense, they are directing their profits from one business into another business. The sale of the bibles would then generate further profit. Where does that profit go? These things can be filtered through layer after layer of business ventures, that dollars can slowly disappear into the aether.

If, on the other hand, they were using their proceeds to buy food for their homeless shelter, or to fund a cancer ward, or to keep the flying doctors in the sky, or to train nurse practitioners in regional areas, I would have no problem with their profits being tax-free. Hell, I wouldn't even mind if they made the homeless people say grace before they ate. Their mission is ultimately evangelical, but I think evangelism needs to be detached from humanitarianism. Tax the money that would go towards prayer books, but don't tax the money that would go towards the food, shelter and clothing provided to people in genuine need. If those people 'find God' through the good works of His servants, that's all well and good. If they have God forced down their throat along with every meal, and their meal sizes shrink to fund that venture, that's not so good.

So in a secular state it is OK for the Government to give every child Mao's little Red Book but not to give then books on human history and cultural development as some agnostics disagree with the relavence of cultural development. The fact is Classical Chinese teaches they were descendant from Noah. The arguments to ban the Bible are weak and based on an agnostic world view.

They keep on telling themselves that "Christianity is an irrelavent impost on society" until they believe it. The fact is our society has developed from the moral and ethical principles of Judeao-Christian world view.

New overstock or seconds products given by business or industry to Charity for sale at lower prices than retail perhaps should incurr a GST on the sale if they already do not. However most retail Charities pay sales staff full wage and give them full time employment as compared to volunteers.

Dear TBC,

Thank You for responding to my post
and explaining your position.

I think that we're agreed on this issue.
Tax excemption priviliges should be
looked into for all institutions,
(regardless of what categories they fall
into).

Philo... "So in a secular state it is OK for the Government to give every child Mao's little Red Book but not to give then books on human history and cultural development as some agnostics disagree with the relavence of cultural development"... now you're being just a little bit silly.

Who gives out that stuff?

And what's all this 'history and cultural development' stuff that 'agnostics' are worried about?

I get the feeling that 'agnostics' don't have too much of an idea what they object to in these matters, since they have not come down on one 'side' or another.

I think the only people wanting to give books out to 'the kiddies' were Latham and Mem Fox in a failed election campaign some years ago.

It fell on stony ground.... in our 'not quite' secular nation-state.

TBC sure does seem to be full of envy. If the privileges were so great as a preacher why aren't there multitudes lining up for the jobs like there are among secular professions. With the millions that the current Government has wasted on sending a thousand to the farcical CopenHagen festival, the pink bats waste, the building fund rip off I suspect we are talking in relative terms about small amounts.

Poor TBC seems very envious of the fact that people of faith are willing to put their money where their mouth is. Secular dogma insists on the tax payer to spread their dogmas. Secularist are champions of other peoples money and now want to strip churches of money given that has already incurred tax by the givers.

Thankfully most can see through the hatred and envy of TBC and his high priests.

Oh Runner!

I am sorry to say this but you are a goose Runner, you really are.

Your religion exists on ATO and personal handouts, and you have the gall to say that "Secularist are champions of other peoples money".

Come, come.... a little reality please.

$31b annually is not small change, in my book.

I feel sorrow Runner, for you and your deluded chums, not envy.

There is nothing to envy after all, only lots to wonder about, and hope that you do not spiral into some form of mental illness with your beliefs.

I could say a secular prayer for you, if you'd like me to?

Would that help to drive the demons, the Serpents even, from your chest?

TBC

'Would that help to drive the demons, the Serpents even, from your chest?'

Just a little rational thought would be a big improvement.

Runner.. there are people who can help you return to rational though processes.

Don't be scared to approach your doctor and ask for help.

I am no expert here, so suggest you seek real medical advice as soon as possible.

It's always good to get your burdens off your chest, eh?

Good luck.