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.