Last time the government counted us,and some of our views,the out come said about a third of us follow no faith, why should we subsidise any of them?what was the thought behind no tax for them in the first place? is that reason still the case in a time even cults can get tax breaks, are we letting tax that may fund help for the truly poor in fact fund obscenely wealthy faiths?

//what was the thought behind no tax for them in the first place?//

They get tax exemption under the Charities Act, which classifies them as charities. I think that should be changed; whilst churches do a lot of charity work, they also do a lot of stuff that has naught to do with charity. The Scientologists get tax exempt status, and I've never heard of a Scientologist charity.

The law should be changed so that religions only get tax breaks for their charitable work. Those that are already mostly about charity will be barely affected - for instance, I can't see it negatively impacting on the Salvo's too much. But those that are about turning a profit like Hillsong and Scientology will suddenly find that they have to pay tax like any other business.

Belly you obviously have no idea how belief systems work. Islam imposes a tax on food, which you are paying. The Government gives $1,000,000 for Islamic Cultural Centres. The Government does not give to the building of Churches, nor does it give to Church funds. It does not give to the development or promotion of Christianity; as it does to Harmony by promoting education on Islam in schools.

Where do you want to tax Churches? For schools, charities, welfare programmes? Do we then tax all members Clubs?

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj9_rvt0_LcAhVEebwKHcL-BXAQFjAGegQIBhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ato.gov.au%2FNon-profit%2FYour-organisation%2FIn-detail%2FIncome-tax%2FIncome-tax-exemption-and-sporting-clubs%2F%3Fpage%3D3&usg=AOvVaw3_W_rfzzfLf9CAFdD6k6Wt

Churches pay tax on salaries. They do not exist to sell services, or create a profit.

I believe, have been told, that Religions in the UK come under the "Superstitions Act" & are Taxed.

Therefore a change from the "Charities Act" to a "Superstitions Act" would be a step in the right direction.

The Churches could claim for their Charity work off their Tax. They would have to explain just what they did with the money. Eg; Was the money sent overseas. To what Organizations did the Charity money go to. Who do those Organizations distribute the money too. Why wasn't the Charity money spent to Aid Australians in need?

//Islam imposes a tax on food, which you are paying.//

Bollocks.

//It does not give to the development or promotion of Christianity//

Short memory, Josephus?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-21/world-youth-day-to-cost-taxpayers-86m/2410210

$86 million for Catholic World Youth Day sounds like giving to the promotion of Christianity for me.

//promoting education on Islam in schools.//

The Government provides money for education on a number of faiths that aren't Christianity, Josephus. It's called 'Studies of Religion' in my state. I was under the impression that it was only a HSC elective, but it turns out there's a syllabus for junior years as well. I believe it's still an elective, which means students aren't required to take it.

http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/pdf_doc/studies_religion_710_syl.pdf

//Do we then tax all members Clubs?//

Yes, the tax exempt status for clubs is another rort that some organisations exploit shamelessly. Did you know that under these laws, the NRL and AFL claim tax exempt status? Frigging ridiculous. This one's a bit tricky because there are local sporting clubs and so forth for whom the exemption is warranted. But yeah, the legislation definitely needs tightening up.

//They do not exist to sell services, or create a profit.//

Except for the ones that do.

faith based schools are already subsiding the god deniers by receiving far less per student than the state schools. Time the gw high priests paid back some of the millions scammed from tax payers for fraudulent prophecies.

Churches aren't taxed because they are so-called Not-for-Profits.
They don't exist to make a profit and it is profits that are taxed. Now it might be possible to change the law so that these organisations are taxed on their net income but I wonder if you've thought this through.

If you're gunna tax churches you'd have to designate that donations to them would be treated as income. But if that's the case then donations to Greenpeace would also be treated as income. And donations to the Salvos...and farm relief... and the P&C...and women's refuges. See the problem?

If the donations were income then the expenses incurred in 'earning' that income would be deductible - ministers salaries, church upkeep, cost of Bibles, charity work and payments. I'd doubt that many churches on that basis would make a taxable profit.

Greenpeace on the other hand.....

So Belly, do you want to tax all Not-for-profit organisations or just those who disapprove of?

Churches pay tax on salaries?

Brian Houston from Hillsong takes his tiny "salary" from the tax-free bucket of money and his Church appears to purchase all his personal items on his behalf to provide him with a comfortable life of luxury, not to mention the suitcases full of undeclared cash "love offerings" handed over at international speaking events.

Religion is indeed a business and is run like one.
You just have to look at The Vatican or Salt Lake City to see the result of billions of dollars. (Funny how the anti-contraception Catholic Church owns shares in companies that manufactures condoms).

The Federal Government subsidises all private religious schools with taxpayer money.

As far as Halal accreditation being a tax on food, the same applies to Kosher labelled food so why no complaint there?

This is how Kosher labelling was argued against by extreme right wingers back in the sixties -
https://ia802607.us.archive.org/23/items/TheWallyButterworthCollection/KosherFoodBlackmailOfAmericaHousewives.mp3

The details are different but the sentiment is the same.

Another attack on Christianity by an illiterate boofhead who calls everyone not of his way of thinking a 'troll'. He is too stupid to realise that Christian churches and their offshoots save tax payers massive amounts of money with their charitable works, which they do much more efficiently than politicians can do. Make no mistake, when galahs like this rubbish 'faith' they mean Christianity - not Islam and all the other monkey-worshippers and death cults.

The bulk of warped thinking in Australia is anti-Christian, the very basis of Western culture. When the Marxists finally get rid of Christianity with the help of all the bogans who think they are not Christians because they don't go to church, I won't be around to see the Christianophobes get their well-deserved come uppance.

There should be no tax. Tax is theft. Money is slavery.

We should make everything free. With today's technology is it totally achievable.

May I this place has suffered because an insensitive poster once said something others took offense to, it lost much needed income, so while we can name very many groups we do not consider honest faiths lets say we do not, every post is interesting, Josephus,you go out of your way to put words in other people's mouths, maybe because your view needs to bend the truth? yes I KNOW about Halal,do you however know it was just about the same for first testament Christians? that similar rules for food existed in that book for us? that Jews too have such rules? is it JUST POSSIBLE that if my view, tax them all,, gets a start,, that tax on us,, for some times eating a food they do,, will put and end to that too?no faith should not be taxed, no faith ever should in any way tell any one how to live or our government how to govern.

try to be nice this is our last communication, it is my view you are a troll, and not a very bright one, you come here to insult and my leave of absence was driven by one like you,, maybe even you, I got that wrong, will not again answer you nor contribute to your threads Sir get a mirror,hillsong, no better word to describe why we must tax every faith.

"Churches pay tax on salaries?"

No they don't. Who said they did?
No business pays tax on salaries (well apart from payroll tax from exempt which churches aren't exempt). Recipients of the salary pay tax on it and that goes also for employees of not-for-profits.

"Religion is indeed a business and is run like one."

Well if you squint really tightly and look at it through your left eye only, then perhaps that case could be made. But then it would also apply to Greenpeace, Get-up, the Salvos, the local P&C, the tuck-shop for this weekends under 7s match. Gunna tax them as well?

"The Federal Government subsidises all private religious schools with taxpayer money."

Actually the parents who send their kids to private schools are subsidising the taxpayer. Every kid in private schools saves the taxpayer about $4000 compared to the cost of that kid going to a public school. Close down the private system and the budget would never recover.

Either tax all not-for-profits on their notional profit or tax none. Picking and choosing based on your personal prejudices isn't what happens in nations where the rule of law applies.

Punishing organisation you don't like through taxation is something that is done in third world totalitarian shithole countries. Oh now I see why rache/Belly like the idea.

Hi TTBN...

Once again I agree with your excellent summation of the Topic! And to think we had a minor 'difference of opinion' awhile back, that in itself appears to be utterly absurd.

I'm an atheist, but I've witnessed some of the good works undertaken by a few of these religious groups. And the dedication of those individuals who subscribe to those groups. The Salvation Army, is a good example of a church with their 'sleeves rolled up', getting right down, among the most disadvantaged of them all.

Long term homeless, aggressive, smelly old men who live a life in perpetual detritus, in parks; lanes; and in winter months, dry sewers; public toilets; and storm water channels. More or less anywhere the coppers will leave them be, and they'll not get rolled by some of these *%@# street punks (who's throats I'd rip-out) who pray upon their meagre possessions, especially after social security pay-days.

First you see the cap 'n badge, then a white shirt, and an overworked 'officer' of the Salvos. Handing out hot coffee, soup and sandwiches from the back of their little Van - together with a hearty '"God Bless you" which is usually answered by a grunt.

However, the powerful Churches, are notable by their absence. Except for one different group who aren't a religion I don't think? 'Seven days Adventurers'? Clean cut young men and women doing a similar job as the Salvos, but not in the seedier parts of Sydney, usually somewhere near the top of William Street near Hyde Park usually helping younger homeless kids.

Taxation of the Salvo's should be, all but waived. Only imposed upon the personal income of their paid Staff. The same goes for the other Churches if they work for our indigent folk in the community.

Any taxation relief afforded to the Islamic religions - 'ALL' income from those benefits 'MUST' remain here in Australia. No funds whatsoever, derived by any taxation relief, should ever be allowed to be sent off shore! Thus their financial operation(s) should always be closely monitored and scrutinised by Taxation authorities.

//They don't exist to make a profit//

Ummm.... Scientology? Obviously not the only church up to funny business, but certainly the best example of why giving churches tax exempt status is problematic. Did you know that their Churches and Missions are licensed franchises?

//If you're gunna tax churches you'd have to designate that donations to them would be treated as income.//

Scientology charges its adherents a lot of money to be Scientologists. These are not voluntary donations: there's a six month free trial, and if you don't cough up after that then no Scientology for you. Seems to me they're charging fees to provide a service, albeit a dodgy one.

//But if that's the case then donations to Greenpeace would also be treated as income.//

Just remove their charity status. How the hell do Greenpeace count as a charity in the first place? When was the last time they helped anybody in need? Oh yeah.... never.

Seems to me we need a better working definition of a charity than 'people willing to accept donations'. I'm willing to accept donations, and I'm not a charity.

//And donations to the Salvos...and farm relief... and the P&C...and women's refuges. See the problem?//

No, because they're proper charities. They do help people in need. Well, maybe not the P&C in absolutely every case; some of our private schools are long way from being in need. See the difference?

//So Belly, do you want to tax all Not-for-profit organisations or just those who disapprove of?//

Maybe we could just tighten up the Charities Act so that organisations which clearly aren't all that charitable can't claim charity status. We could start with Greenpeace if you like, then move on to Scientology and Hillsong. Somebody should give that Great Barrier Reef Foundation a thorough auditing while we're at it.

Or we could just let the rorts continue. I guess both options have their merits.

Toni,

Your a bit off the mark here. Charities are exempt but that's only because they are a form of not-for-profit.

From the ATO website..."Registered charities are a type of exempt entity." But they aren't the only type of exempt entity. Full explanation here....

http://www.ato.gov.au/Non-profit/your-organisation/do-you-have-to-pay-income-tax-/types-of-income-tax-exempt-organisations/

Greenpeace et al aren't tax exempt because they're a charity. They're tax exempt because they are considered a not-for-profit. Ditto Scientology although I'd like to see them treated as a criminal organisation.

As an overall guiding rule, tax on organisation is levied on profits. No profit no tax. If an organisation doesn't exist to make a profit then it can't be taxed. If those who want to just punish religion want to change those rules then they need to understand that it'll catch a lot of groups they wouldn't want to tax. The law of unintended consequences is a bitch.

We have a topic that surely divides us and lets bias run free, right now the American right, has some Churches that are anything but true faith based, here we saw and rightfully so the Salvos get a pat on the back, can we look at others? one had street reach, workers going out in to the night without pay, feeding the true poor,BUT its leaders warned them, my brother included, not to bring the riff raff back to the church. hillsong a millionaire preacher is one of thousands like that, and are we to let our biases ignore the true cults? are they too to ride on the backs of pay as you earn tax payers the only section that can not avoid tax? are the thirty percent who do not believe to have no voice in this, is it CHRISTIAN to target a faith other than your own just because they are different?

o sung wu

Thanks. I don't claim to speak for Christianity, and I keep my personal beliefs to myself. I just say that I am not keen on institutionalised religion nor clerics: many of whom have converted to mere virtue signalling, hoping to get the attention of those people who sneer at them. They are a bit like Turnbull, sucking up to people who will never vote for the coalition. I do give them credit for their pastoral work among the less fortunate, and I think exemption from income tax is the lease that the politicians can do.

ttbn - Quote "Christian churches and their offshoots save tax payers massive amounts of money with their charitable works"

You may be right but you may be wrong, remember when the boats were coming the charities that includes some church charities wanted the government to bring them all here so they could help them they stood to get multi millions of dollars to do so.

Charities get lots of money to look after refugees.

Going back somewhere like 30 years the Catholic church was the biggest business in the world, even owned Kraft so if they any church has profit based businesses that should be taxed otherwise it gives them an advantage over similar businesses in private hands.

Get Rid of Money Quote "We should make everything free." Stupid statement, if you give everything away for free what idiot is going to work to make it in the first place?

Philip S,

I think the second sentence of my post above yours sums up what I think about that. The church luvvies are just virtue signalling to attract people who hate them, the poor, simple fools. Top offenders are the Uniting Church and the low Church of England. The Salvos? Not sure that I regard them as a religious domination, but they are well thought of for their help to Australians, and I think that they should stick to that. I know many people who have stopped donating to the Salvos because they don't want their money going to illegal entrants or faux refugees.

I can be a smarty at times, in truth we all can, but please tell me, is it ok to impose tax on the average workers but not a Church he/she does not believe in? can we separate the faiths we like but think the faith we do not like are fair game? what is the purpose of tax if it is not to pay for the things we all use or in the case of welfare may/will use? then why should some who make huge sums not pay, is it ok for true not for profits, usually in some way in the service of the community to not pay tax, in my view yes it is ok Churches surely, with massive bank accounts should return some of it to those in need

Belly,

I get it. You dislike religion and want to punish it by taxing the churches.

But you are determined to avoid the implications of that change of policy in that a lot of other groups will be caught up in your vendetta.

BTW, you want to tax all faiths. Define faith. Christian of coarse. Islam? Hindi? Buddhist? Gaia worship? Jedi? The tax act could become quite voluminous and quite philosophical.

My thoughts:
Should a person be taxed on gifts?
Say if I gave you $100 Belly, do you think you should pay tax on that gift?
Likewise, if you gave me $100, should I pay tax on your gift?

I think if you or I want to give each other money the government need not take a cut.

So overall I think if people want to give their money away it's their business, and there's no need for the government to be double dipping on monies already earned.

I probably have more an issue with people blindly following certain flawed and illogical belief systems without instead just learning ethics and staying better grounded.

Dear Belly,

Where would we be without
Vinnies, The Salvation Army, Father Riley's - Youth Off
The Streets, to name just a few religious charities.
These organisations represent Religion at its best.

According to The Guardian (link given below) -

"The high court of Australia states for church bodies to
qualify as religious institutions the church body must: be
instituted for promotion of a religious object; its activities
must reflect that character; and its practices and conduct
must not offend against the laws of Australia."

A former Assistant Taxation Commissioner Terry Hamilton
points out that "The Royal Commission into institutional
responses to child sexual abuse found more than 4,000 children
were sexually abused in 1,691 different institutions, including
2,489 children sexually abused in 964 religious institutions
managed by the Catholic Church." Lets also not forget that
Cardinal Pell's trial will be coming up shortly.

"The associated crimes in these cases break the taxation law
obligations that must result in a forfeit of tax exemptions
and the registration of tax-exempt charities."

The tax exemptions costs Australia over 30 billion dollars a
year - and there is no transparency or accountability required.
This needs to change. Especially in the cases of
charities who may discriminate according to their religious
convictions - for example - refusing care and aid to gay people?
We are a secular state - shouldn't church and state be
separate? Especially with institutions that have a great deal
of explaining to do.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/18/churches-should-lose-charity-status-over-child-abuse-former-tax-head-says

My apologies for the typo. Here's the link again:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/13/churches-should-lose-charity-status-over-child-abuse-former-tax-head-says

so according to Foxy's standard Indigenous affairs should not receive one more per cent of tax payer funded money.

It's unreasonable to tax direct donations to Churches but they should not be exempt from taxes on income raised from other sources.
The Mormon Church for example, is the largest landowner in the USA and has an annual income from it's numerous businesses of around $30billion.

Also, Sporting and Racing Clubs can simply claim to be not-for-profit organisations and also be tax-free but actually spend more on self-promotion and internal running costs than on charitable activities.

The less tax gathered from such sources means more tax must be raised elsewhere, so even if you are not a member of any specific religion or sporting organisation you are still subsidising them all.

Is it fair that I have to pay more tax so Churches can use their tax concessions to protect pedophiles?

I have zero doubt a lot of the extreme wealth some Churches /faiths have came from the true poor, and that such money should be taxed and not hived away for that faiths use,too few in my view would disagree if we are talking only about the very much fringe groups around us, some are obscenely wealthy and seem to provide great comfort to their leadership group, even high cost planes,tax is at the base of our way of life, it funds a great deal, and could fund even more if we had more.

I have no issues with charities being tax exempt, however, as soon as any charitable organisations invests outside of their own private space, or derives an income from fixed assets, they should be treated like any other business/trust and pay taxes.

Using tax free dollars to invest in income producing assets gives a clear competitive advantage which is simply unfair to the other tax paying investors whether they be companies, trusts or individuals.

God is a commodity, like a Big Mac, he's there to be bought and sold. How about a tax on god of 10% we could call it GST (God Service Tax) The Hindi's would be in trouble they have about 1000 gods.

The Catholic Churches main charity "Vinnies" is kept at arms length by the church so there is no church liability in relation to the charity. Similar to the way the CC tried to claim varies religious orders were separate corporate identies and therefore the church was not financelly libel for the actions of their pedophile priests and brothers.

The RSL operates all its Sub-Branches as registered charities and not as clubs.

Belly stick with it. The rabid right posters like ttbn, don't like your straight talk, it gets under their skin. Be like me and apply the 'Armadillo Principle'.

rache, just on that score, some of the most exclusive race clubs AJC at Randwick, and golf clubs around Sydney operate on crown land, and pay a peppercorns rent. Disgusting!

I heard of a woman here that is an Nigerian immigrant, Apparently she came to Australia with nothing, but has lots of gold? She started a Church & brought up 5 or 6 housed in the Churches name & rents them out to other immigrants who are subsidized. Apparently she turns any money she has into Gold & her Church is Registered in a Tax haven so it all goes over seas. She get's all her repairs to her houses done & the Receipts are made out to the Church for any Tax deductions.

I was standing beside her at my local Electricians waiting to pay a Bill & she was wanting a Discount because She is a Church. The Lady I payed my Bill to provided the explanation & an apology for making me wait so long. I thought what was happening it was interesting, so I was prepared to wait.

Faiths every one, have for too long got to involved in
how we are governed, not many of us could not think of one that seems unlikely even to be a follower of any God, the Christian God said pay sesor his dues did he meen tax? cash and wealth held by faiths should be used for charitable works or tax paid on it

Belly obviously has not heard of Stalin and Mao. Ignorance is bliss and dangerous. The god deniers and Islam compete as the most violent facist.

All Church staff has to submit income tax including Brian Huston.
http://hillsong.com/media-releases/bobbies-and-my-finances-a-letter-from-brian-houston/

Belly said, "the Christian God said pay sesor his dues did he meen tax?"

All Christians pay tax including the first Christians who paid tax to Caesar.

Christian parents pay tax on all income to the Government and if they decide to send their children to a Christian school they pay substantial school fees, and by their contributed tax subsidise children attending free education at public schools.

That's false Josephus.
The government spends more per child on kids in private schools.

Everyone really needs to understand the world we live in.
Mostly everything is the opposite of what you think it is.
Liberal = Authoritarian

AC: The government spends more per child on kids in private schools.

Not exactly true.

Every child receives $x, per day, per child, regardless of type of School from the Federal Government & the State Government. Then there is the $1 for $1 that is provided for fund raising for Special Projects, Sports, Trips, etc. The same applies Public Schools & for any Children's Sports, eg; Gymnastics, Dancing, Little Athletics. etc,.

My guess is you are counting this in the Government spend. Maybe Private Schools Parents are more active then the Parents at Public Schools.

A lot of Public School Parents would rather listen to Head Banging Music, Spend their money fixing up their Hi-speed wrecked cars, Booze & Drugs. Not all, but a hellava lot more than Private School Children do. You know the Bogan no-hoper types. The types that Public Schools have too cater for. Future Slaves & Dole Bludgers.

Wait for it... Wait for it...

Jayb, was the woman you "heard of" the same woman you were "standing by" at your local electricians, maybe they were two different people. Does your local electrician have some kind of shop? How odd, what does he sell at his shop, electricity.
I have never head of a woman from Nigeria with a church, or a electrician with a shop, but could be true.

Dear Belly,

«what was the thought behind no tax for them in the first place?»

The thought was to keep the churches subservient to the state: bribe them so they do not preach against the state and instead instruct people from the pulpit to follow its laws.

Churches (and anyone else who refuses to be a corruptible thief) should never accept money or gifts from the state - while such gifts are in the state's interest, they are against Godliness and destroy the churches' spirit and their reason to exist.

'That's false Josephus.
The government spends more per child on kids in private schools.'

Absolute rubbish Armchair. The amount of tax payers money given per child in Private schools is significantly lower. You obviously have no idea.

Jayb - Why don't you give her details to the tax office?

If she is doing that probably on the dole as well.

All faiths should be taxed and to simplify administration all of the charitable work that they now do should be funded by the State, simple.

Dear Is Mise,

«all of the charitable work that they now do should be funded by the State, simple.»

What? Are you going to deny ordinary people the ability to open their hearts and express their generosity towards the needy?

Not at all, it just comes out of their taxes.

Dear Is Mise,

But so long as taxes are not voluntary (as I wish them to be), one is denied the ability to express the goodness of their heart!

Also what if one wants to help a particular charitable cause, also what if they believe that some other cause is not worthwhile, not truly charitable or perhaps even harmful?

Tied my legs to together here, not wanting to target one faith or the worst of that faith, however surely few doubt some, of the American right Churches are very very rich? we complain, and rightfully so, about multi nationals not paying tax in out country, but surely some faiths, some from within them, are no different? how do we not note some pure cults get the same tax break as true believers?

The easy part of charity work is giving a cash donation. The hard part is getting in and doing something practical that helps improve the lives of others. Some of the people working at hoko hoko shops like Vinnies are pensioners and cant afford a cash donation, but their efforts are worth their weight in gold. Anna you're worth your weight in gold dear lady.

Having said that I would still slug rosary beads, cruixfixes, bibles and koran's etc with a 10% mumbo jumbo tax.

Do you know that trades union are not taxed on their profits from the enormous investments? I’m not talking about their union fees but profit on investments from the enormous wealthy they’ve accumulated over the years. For example..."With income nudging $150 million and assets in excess of $310 million, the CFMEU is a financial titan whose earnings outstrip major private companies".


Paraphrasing Belly...I have zero doubt a lot of the extreme wealth some unions have came from the true poor, and that such money should be taxed and not hived away for that unions use.

It is estimated that the Australia taxpayer loses around $50 billion per year by not taxing unions and that means other taxpayers have to pick up that slack.

I’m sure all those who want to tax churches on equity grounds will be totally on board with also taxing unions.

“The tax exemptions [for churches] costs Australia over 30 billion dollars a year.”...Foxy
There are some numbers you look up and some you make up. This is the latter. No one knows how much tax is ‘forgone’ since no one knows how much ‘profit’ the churches might make if it were taxed. It’s just a case of pick a big number to make the case seem more important than it really is.

ArmChair,

"The government spends more per child on kids in private schools."

There's rubbish, utter rubbish...and then there's this utterly uneducated assertion.

Combining state and federal funding, governments spend about $6000 per child more on public schools than on the entire catholic system. Even for funding for very poor catholic schools the difference is over $4000 per child. That is, a child going to one of the poorest catholic schools receives $4000 LESS than the average paid to a public student. For the top 10% of private schools in terms of wealth, the spending difference as compared to public is over $13000.

AC has a habit of making highly erroneous claims which he hopes will just sail through and if challenged he just drops out of the thread and heads elsewhere to make more highly erroneous claims.

Then we should tax all non-profit enterprises like GetUp and the Unions as well.

SM have come to expect much like that from you, at least unions and not for profits claim to be giving a service, how about one well know Church with its HQ here but in many country that if mentioned most would agree should have a PTY LTD after its name, of the one based on a science fiction book? ask questions of unions in posts that have them as the subject, but, know, if you are skilled and you are, at finding fault on demand, but totally unable to see wrong on your side improvement is not possible big corporations too must be made to pay tax, we know a few of them fund your side of politics

Belly,

The CFMEU has a war chest of nearly $100m mostly from extortion. The workers are an excuse, not a cause.

If this is the face of religion don't tax it ban it.

‘You dogs, I spit on your cross’: Muslim imam accused of abusing council staff and illegally clearing land claims his Islamic group is exempt from Australian law

A Muslim imam accused of abusing council staff over allegations he was illegally clearing land claims his Islamic group is exempt from Australian law.

Dr Mustapha Kara-Ali is the Imam of religious guild Diwan Al Dawla, a guild which conducts much of its religious practices on a property in Colo, New South Wales.

Hawkesbury City Council has launched legal action against the imam after learning he was allegedly clearing land on the property without a permit, the ABC reported.

Dr Kara-Ali, a Harvard graduate, allegedly screamed 'you dogs, I step on your cross' when council workers visited the property to serve court documents.

If a religious charity is found to be in participating in or encouraging unlawful behaviour, it can have its charity status revoked.

A conflict between council officers and Dr Kara-Ali and an unidentified man was caught on dash cam, allegedly showing the unknown man spitting at officers.

'Both men were repeatedly yelling obscenities from the other side of the gate, calling out 'you dogs, I step on your cross', the council officer wrote in an affidavit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6074709/Muslim-imam-accused-abusing-council-staff-illegally-clearing-land-claims-exception-law.html

While some people are getting excited about taxes and charities, perhaps the Tax Office should look more closely at Personal Accummulation Funds.

These were set up by Howard as a (bogus) way of promoting the wealthy to donate more to charities but the Tax Office regards them as a minimisation system. Apparently they simply can't reach into their pockets and hand over any tax-paid money unless there's also something for them in the deal.

All that the ATO requires is that each Fund donate $11,000 per annum or 5% of the Fund (whichever is greater) to recognised charities. The rest is used in any way the Fund decides - such as paying the owner Director's Fees or "other uses".

Strangely, the average donation from all Funds is around 8% so Fund operators are using them to control how much the get to keep for themselves. It's effectively a way of paying around 8% tax on income by laundering income through these funds.

When Turnbull said he donates "every cent" of his PM salary to charity, he actually donates it (tax free) to The Turnbull Foundation - a charity and a Personal Accumulation Fund. Only Public Funds have to open their books (as Shane Warne's failed one reminds us).

As a result he not only pays no tax on his PM salary, he gets to claim 100% of it as a deduction against other income - a double-dipping rort if there ever was one.

Meanwhile most of his investments are kept in the Caymans where they also evade Australian taxes. Not a good look for someone who talks a lot about tax.

It's the mug PAYE taxpayers that are paying for this country and donating their tax-paid income to charities.

Charities and taxes are not always what they seem.

When it comes to taxes, there needs to be specifics. What is being taxed, how much is being taxed, and what those taxes will go towards. Otherwise, it's likely to go into a fund that will likely only be used to line a politician's pockets.

Taxing anything that gets it's funds from donations sounds like a bad idea to me just on principle. Seems like it would invite either corruption or oppression, or both.

Practical aspects aside; the undertone for those in support in taxing all faiths, isn't about the benifits orf the programs that will recieve the money. Otherwise where the taxes would contribute would be included.

Instead this is about either a means to punish faiths for existing, and should be taxed for the sake of those that don't believe in them. Or anger at rich churches and rich anything else in the form of a faith.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Addressing that undertone, I have a question for anyone supporting a tax on faiths. What's the next step when the faith still continues on instead of dies away under the preasure of taxes? There are many places around the world that oppress a faith in more force then a tax on it. Often in those areas the faith still persists. So after taxing the faiths, what's the next step to get rid of them? This won't be enough. Nothing short of a gruesome crime against humanity will be enough to get rid of faithful believers in a faith getting together and having their time of worship together. It's something to think about. How far are you willing to go.

Going back to taxes. If churches are taxed, I think they will survive. But more would need to be addressed about those taxes to ensure that the tax is not too heavy a burden for the smaller churches (or any small religous body); how those taxes would be accounted for (donations taxed before or after bills are paid); and where those taxes will go towards (towards funding schools, hospitals, police, or fund the travel plans and the campaigning of politicians). The details of this matter a great deal. Not that it should be supported after those details are fleshed out, because I still say taxing donations is an invitation to corruption or oppression.

Should we tax the "not for profit" multi-nationals that operate tax free in Australia?

"The tax office has revealed 36% of the largest public companies and multinational entities in Australia paid no tax in the most recent financial year on record."

Adani: $0 tax paid on $724m revenue.
Chevron: $0 tax paid on $2.1bn revenue.
ExxonMobil Australia: $0 tax paid on $6.7bn revenue.
Origin Energy: $0 tax paid on $11.9bn revenue.
IBM: $0 tax paid on $3.6bn of revenue.
Ansell: $0 tax paid on $326m of revenue.

Shadow, they make your claims about the CFMEU look like small beer, and you want to give rip off muti-nationals and thieving banks dirty big tax cuts!

If my question was why not tax Muslim faiths, we would find much support, even ,as would be the case in my perfect world tax on Halal, if we are speaking about Tom Cruise's Church a snowball effect of support would say yes, now if we are talking about true cults? much the same,in the minds [will it ever end] the Royal Commision in to offences against children? or if I named the group that seem to practice separation and demand its followers only deal, by and sell, within its group? a clear tax free business? this is not an assault on faith, it is my view that no body no group should be able to avoid tax ever

//I still say taxing donations is an invitation to corruption or oppression.//

Yeah, but not taxing Scientology and their ilk is an invitation to corruption and oppression, even if the bulk of their income is derived from (obligatory) donations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG70fhg0wL4

It would also seem to violate your 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". In other words, Government should not be favouring religion over non-religion, and if non-religious businesses get taxed then so should religious ones.

//Adani: $0 tax paid on $724m revenue.
Chevron: $0 tax paid on $2.1bn revenue.
ExxonMobil Australia: $0 tax paid on $6.7bn revenue.
Origin Energy: $0 tax paid on $11.9bn revenue.
IBM: $0 tax paid on $3.6bn of revenue.
Ansell: $0 tax paid on $326m of revenue.//

As I'm sure one of our resident Tories will be along to remind you any moment now, tax is paid on profits not revenue.

Nevertheless, it amazes me how many big companies fail to turn a profit year after year after year, whilst still apparently remaining quite successful. Most companies that aren't profitable go under. I suspect they may actually making money hand over fist, then engaging in some 'creative accountancy' in order to pretend they're not. Not much you can do about that except tightening up the tax laws.

Increasing penalties for accountancy practices that are just plain illegal wouldn't hurt either. Hefty prison sentences are what's needed, not fines - apparently they're not a sufficiently effective deterrent. Tax evasion is, after all, theft. Theft on massive scale in the case of multi-nationals; but the junkie who breaks into somebody's house and nicks their telly will be punished far more harshly than the executive who steals millions of dollars. Seems to me we've got our priorities a bit wonky.

Read Gore Vidal's book "Julian" and Foxe's Book of Martyrs for the fundamental difference between the regrettably enduring Church of the tyrant Constantine and Christianity.

The thread is ignoring [because it must] the simple truth we teach our kids in school, evolution made us not God, any of them, so yes cry about those cults, the very very long list of them, stamp your foot in rage at the jet flying millionaire preachers in that lost country the no longer United states, but know we are giving tax breaks to that kid from Charlie browns comfort blanket, and say that is morally good for us

rache,

"the Tax Office should look more closely at Personal Accummulation Funds."

If there was such a thing I'm sure the ATO would look at them. I assume you mean " Private Ancillary Funds" which you were rabbiting on about in a previous thread.

At the time I explained to you how you had it all wrong (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8372#262696)

but it seems you are determined to remain wrong.

Oh dear to encourage reading Gore who has shown to be a total fraudster is desperate. Talk about false prophets and thieves!

mhaze - Thanks for the correct info.

rache I did a search for "Personal Accummulation Funds" what is it australia

Most searches resulted in ZERO results.

Google had 1 document which is from the world bank. that result also took out the extra "m" you spelt the word wrong.

As the above stated you have already been told you have false info yet refuse to change even though a very quick search would have set you right.

Sorry but your credibility for information has taken a huge hit

Tax is the very base of our whole system of government, if we reduce those who pay no tax, for any reason, we could without doubt, reduce the amount we all pay, that being made possible by the far bigger tax base if you think this is not true tell me why?

Marxist always want more tax in order to feed the swamp. Look at how Rudd/Gillard turned a large surplus (which came only after 12 years or so of paying Labours last debt) into billions of dollars of debt. Leftist Pollies love to spend other people's money often to give themselves pay rises. Why do you think the vast majority of public servants, nurses, teaches, academics vote Labour Green. It certainly has nothing to do with whats good for the country unless they are totally naive.

Toni, if the junkie who nicks your telly could get himself promoted to the 'ruling class', and relegate the company executive to the 'subservient class' in society, I think you would see the tables turned. The prisons would be filled with executives, and the junkies would be living it up in Monte Carlo (with free TV's).

Rache - If you want info on Turnbull try this link he has links in a number of shady things.
In case you were thinking former Goldman Sachs banker Malcolm Turnbull is above any possible suspicion, here is a list of just some of the serious financial scandals he has been embroiled in over the years:
Solomon Islands clear fell logging scandal (1991-92)
Siberian gold scandal (1993-95)
HIH insurance company collapse (2001-03)
Russian Rain Man scandal (2007)
Cayman Islands tax haven scandal (2015)
Named in Panama Papers (2016)
Donated $1.75 million to the Liberal Party to be elected (2016) (IA wonders if that $1.75 million came from the Turnbull Foundation?)

Here are some of the recipients of his charity, guarantee 95% of Australians get no benefit from them.
Beneficiaries of the Turnbull Foundation -
- Biennale of Sydney $25,000
- Australia Chamber Orchestra $20,000
- Rhodes Scholarships $200,000
- Sydney's Scots College $10,000
- ANU $70,000

The Turnbull Foundation, although listed on the Business Register as a charity, is not listed on the charity regulator ACNC’s register.

http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/editorial-the-figjam-philanthropist,11644

To Belly.

Your position is unusually pro-tax. Most people I know don't want to create new taxes, but they are willing to vote for more taxes if there is a cause behind it. Many people I know are actually the opposite view you have regarding taxes. They hold the position of having a smaller government presence and encourage indivual charity. But even those who see the benefits of government programs, they don't seem to call for increased taxes without a cause to direct them to.

Australia tax code might be different then what I'm use to, but from what I understand of taxes, they aren't just throwing the money into a collective pile to be used up collectively. Each source of taxes is split up differently, and often even supports different programs. The income tax, the sales tax, the housing tax; all are taxed differently and the money collected is split up in different overly complicated measures.

Adding a new tax on religion would need to be scrunitized so that 1) it's fair and not too heavy a burden on donated contributions and the religous orginizations being taxed. And 2) need to be scrutinized to ensure that the money is going somewhere worthwhile. personally I wouldn't want my donated money to be going somewhere else without my knowledge.

If this wasn't about taxing religion, and was just about adding a new tax source (or increasing an existing source like income taxes), I'm sure you'd see a harsh tone delivered back to you.

(Continued)

(Continued)

On a previous note. Taxing donations is a dangerous idea. It will invite the group's being taxed to lie about the donations they recieved (who would really know?), or it discourages donations in the first place. One other possible outcome is that the donations being taxed will end up in a politician's privite bank account instead of anywhere useful. If that becomes the case, that politician might encourage religous activities because the donations are in fact funding him or her. That's just the corruption factor of the equation.

If the taxes are placed with the unsaid intention to discourage religous activities, then it will fail horribably, and the unsaid intent will have to justify a different method of opposing religion. That's the oppression angle.

Both oppression and corruption are invited into this senerio of taxing donated money on religions. You might as well ask to tax the Red Cross or other disaster relief programs that get most of their support from indivual donations and voluntary service put in. Not through taxes. See how much support taxing other nonprofit and charity organizations will get.

Talk about new taxes for something, there are MSM reports about Victorians paying $200 per years extra to register there cars it was supposed to go to a new vic roads computer system, no guessing the money did not they are still using the old computers.

Politicians say taxes are for something specific but like usual they lie with no consequences, they should be held accountable but are not.

mhaze,
(Replied in error in the other thread)

Of course a PAF must keep records to maintain its status but the only mandatory guidelines are that the fund cannot be used to run a business and the minimum $11,000 or 5% donation per annum payout and this loose arrangement has been a complaint of the ATO since the Funds were legislated. This is why they consider the funds to be a vehicle for tax minimisation.

Allowable "expenses" of the Fund are not specified and commonly disburse such things as Directors Fees to individuals and "administrative costs". Funds can and do employ family members for that purpose.

Just before it collapsed, the Shane Warne Public Fund was paying his brother "employee" more money than the Fund was distributing to charities and was running at a loss because "expenses" were taking up 86% of the revenue. Public Funds run lavish fundraising parties as an example of administrative costs.

As I mentioned, the average fund is only paying out around 8% to charities so where is the money going?

Runner,
For your info and some perspective (as if you really care) -

That "large surplus" announced in Howard's last Budget was mostly gone by the time of the November election in his frantic effort to buy votes.

Keating/Hawke inherited an economy rated at the 20th in the world in 1983 from Fraser/Howard but left it as the 6th best in the world in 1996.

By the time Howard/Costello were gone in 2007 we were back to the 9th.

Rudd/Gillard had us at the top after the GFC but by last year we were back down to the 18th and with a deficit that has been doubled, thanks to the superior economic management of the Coalition.

not-now.soon and others who want my reason for proposing we tax Faiths, there are a few, yes however with no attempt to hide it I do want more tax to be collected, from mostly those who do not pay any,it is my view we can better serve welfare if we both pay more and trim the waste fraud,multinationals are high on my make them pay list,fraud? infests both our tax and welfare, along with charities, this morning SMH worth reading two stories, bring back Abbott, stunning, but in black and white, and a named Church, that last year spent half its collected charity money on? its staff! yes too, hurtful to some but why must we fund fantasys? evolution is what we teach, but we fund some thing very different, tax if spread over us all can and needs to be at a lessor rate, a flat 20 percent, unavoidable for every one every group, can only be good for consuming, the basic of capitalism surely

Belly, you assume the development of species has nothing to do with a Creator; that it just happens without the introduction of new healthy genes. Evolution does not rule out divine intervention as you assume. However Christianity is more than how we came into being it is more about character, actions, motives, and wisdom that creates good society.

//If the taxes are placed with the unsaid intention to discourage religous activities, then it will fail horribably, and the unsaid intent will have to justify a different method of opposing religion. That's the oppression angle.

Both oppression and corruption are invited into this senerio of taxing donated money on religions.//

Suppressive actions, eh NNS? I think we've found the Scientologist, guys.

Just kidding, NNS. I know you aren't actually a Scientologist; it's just that you sounded an awful lot like one just now. Seriously, if you replaced 'oppression' with 'suppression' that could have been written by a Scientologist. Something you might want to reflect on.

Anyway, Matthew 22:15-22.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22%3A15-22&version=KJV

See, even your man JC was down with the idea that the Church and the State have different spheres of influence; the Church being concerned with the immaterial - the immortal soul, the supernatural, all that jazz - while the State is concerned with more mundane and practical matters like property rights and taxation. If the Church doesn't want the State sticking it's beak into theological matters - which I suspect it does not - then it should respect that it's the State's business to determine tax policy.

And that tax policy does need tightening up. I not proposing that all not-for-profits be beaten with the same stick; we all seem to be agreed, for example, that the Salvos do good work. But at the other end of spectrum, we have the likes of Scientology who are clearly a bunch of swindlers and crooks, taking advantage of a tax loophole for their own sinister ends. What's needed is a sufficient tightening of that loophole to sort those that genuinely deserve that tax break from the dodgy bastards gaming the system, of whom there are plenty, and not just in the religious sphere.

I'm sure it's not outside the capabilities of our politicians. I mean, what else do we pay them for?

Josephus, please see the current pope, not un touched by fears he too ignored pedophilia in his Church, today said what he should have the day he took office, ABC online news this day, two men who happen to be Muslim, who happen to have their own branch one of them invented and heads, are destroying bush land on the outskirts of Sydney,building without permission, council workers are said to have needed police riot squad and air wing, helicopters,to protect them while investigating! said two did not appear in court claiming they are a religious group therefore not subject to Australian law! and we should not tax them?

Belly, anyone who does not live by good social order deserves scrutiny, condemnation and isolation. Those building a religious jihad training camp on the Colo River certainly need their actions curbing; as their intent is against National Security, and good society.

Well it seems the consensus among those who just want to punish religion is that the churches need to be taxed so as to hurt them and their cause.

That taxing donations would reduce tax revenue (since the donation itself would become a tax deduction to the donor) is ignored. That other organisations would be caught up in the jihad is ignored. (besides legislation could be designed to discriminate in favour of these'good' organisations since discrimination is fine so long as it favours the 'right' people). That the new tax would earn 3/5ths of bugger all is ignored - all church expenses would become deductible so their 'profit' would be minor.

But those of a certain ilk would get the warm-inner glow of having beaten the enemy and that's all that matters.

Rache,

Previously you made all sorts of claims about these funds, all which you now seemed to have abandoned following my giving you links to the actual ATO summary. It'd be nice if you acknowledged that, but alas.

" This is why they [the ATO] consider the funds to be a vehicle for tax minimisation."

The ATO's job is to maximise tax collections. That they think the funds are used to reduce tax doesn't mean that the funds aren't nonetheless doing what they were designed to do.

" commonly disburse such things as Directors Fees to individuals "
I'm not sure how much you don't understand about all this, but paying directors fees is the opposite of tax minimisation. The Directors Fees are taxable in the hands of the recipient and usually at a higher rate than that which applied to the fund.

I can not see why some think my view is about punishing faiths, the thought honestly plays no roll in my wish as told here, yes I could name many faiths I dislike, we all surely can, but why do we not tax the BILLIONS of dollars faiths turn over every year? is it fair that they not pay?just maybe the head of WASP faith needs to throw more money men out of his place of worship.

To Belly.

I understand your want for rich faiths, (or any rich orginizations) to be taxed, or at least give back. But I don't know how to tax the rich more without the burden being dealt more so to the not so rich or the poor.

For the faith groups that house millions or more, I don't think taxes are enough. Maybe something along the lines that is an organization makes X amount of money or more then it should annually inform it's members and the public how it spends the money. That might be enough for tv evanguals saying how much they need contributions to actually use that money for charitable causes instead of holding it for themselves.

That might cause some issues too if there are unexpected expenses but are under the scrunity of the public so there's no funding to help fix those issues. But in theory if the orginization makes enough money to be wealthy, maybe the scrunity is something worth it.

The thing with taxes is that most taxes are about income tax or sales tax. But if there already is taxes taken out for church staff, then that's all I think that can be accounted for through taxes.

That all said, you and I have different views concerning taxes as a whole. In my opinion the government should have tax funded programs and tax funded resources., but it doesn't need more taxes then that to get wasted in spending only to say they need more next time. Something is wrong with the tax system and the answer in my opinion isn't to have more taxes.

Not-now.soon income tax is my target not GST but include that if what we are getting is fair tax on all faiths,why not? if this thread demanded we tax the exclusive brethren, or Islam, maybe the Tammy whatever one, that one saw massive fraud send its head to prison, a host of others,it would be supported by most, I just can not understand in a world that has a third not believing n any faith why we must prop up a faith.now maybe I am wrong, not certain, but do faiths pay GST? if not why not? cults, they exist,some pay no tax why

Belly said,"from mostly those who do not pay any[tax], it is my view we can better serve welfare". He assumes Government paid employees know welfare better than volunteers in community Churches, where people seeking help come. The Churches in our community run Op shops and food hampers and interest free small loans to people with real needs. So he wants to tax those that have donated from their taxed income to pay a local Government welfare worker! What communist enlightenment!!

My instistance not all Muslims are a threat is not a defense of that faith, in fact some, too many, from that faith are indefensible, EG Indonesia ,this mornings international press, has imprisoned a woman of Chinese extraction for 18 months, for? complaining about the noise in the morning call to prayer, do faiths,, any of them,,,have such rights to see governments rule to defend them?

Belly,
Your Leftist side of politics and SBS and ABC support the growth of Islam in Australia, so you can prepare for loud early morning calls for prayer.

Josephus just maybe your constant charges against my left is lost on you but it is you not me who stands far from middle Australia's wants and wishes, you defend your faith constantly by insulting others, truth is no faith is without sin, even crimes against us all,yes some Muslims are confronting us, and yes some should not be in this country,not near all, the faith? every faith is fantasy, everyone should reform its teaching and stay out of our morals and government

Belly,

Please tell us who you mean when you say, "..just maybe the head of WASP faith needs to throw more money men out of his place of worship."

I'm lost on this one; who is he?

Not in the least surprised that you are lost IsMise, Jesus the Lord of my childhood and the one I followed faithfully for over a third of my life? ok?Now tell me how did my thought we should tax faiths see some think I am bigoted? if in the midst of child sexual assault revelations in our Churches some would agree!
Nothing hidden here if and it remains an if, my sub conscience used this thread to support my view humanity should get up off its knees, stop worshiping the host of Gods we invented and become one? then is that a crime?

Belly,

I'm still lost; the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church but I can't find any head for the WASPs.

Please elucidate.

Dear Belly,

Only moral regeneration can restore us as a nation (or any other).
A sincere apology goes far toward restoring a genuine moral
order, for it realigns basic energies with truth. Many people
register the need for forgiveness while underestimating the
importance of an apology. To ask someone to forgive you
without actually apologising is bogus, and callous, and
patronising.

Beneath every political wound is a personal one and personal
wounds must be addressed on a personal level. Other means
can treat our wounds but only a spiritual experience can heal
them.

Forgiveness heals our souls by washing us clean of the past
and delivering us to an unsoiled present.

I don't think that the Churches have actually apologised
to any victims for the harm that has been done. And anything
short of a spiritual healing can suppress the past but cannot
erase it.

Foxy we share that view, not unusual, but my thoughts here are not my bias showing just my view of truth, Catholic was far from the only Church involved in this tragic shame filled betrayal of every thing that *GOD* is said to teach us it seems true that Christianity is shrinking, because followers can not ever forgive this horrible event,30 percent of us said we have no faith in our national count,maybe even more just ticked the box not truly giving any thought to it,I remain convinced tax is paying for all the things that make us a community and that faith is party of that and should pay, ismis,well,Pope do you truly think I do not know he is head of the Catholic empire you call Church?

It is pointless attacking evil individuals, rather attack the teachings of the faith, as persons violate the ideology of the faith. The ideology taught is what we are to live by. not what some perverted persons behaviour. Paedophile Priests would fit better in Islam whose teaching approves of sex with infants.

Josephus you no one else try to turn a thread about economics in to something else as humanity emerged from the caves, after we left Africa, we developed different ways of talking hence different Gods, and each God is the true one such as you tell us even if you ignore the basic teachings of that God by damning followers of other Gods in his name, tax every fantasy tax every one who pays no tax and use the tax to feed and house the truly poor

Belly is still on the course to make Australia a Communist Gulag. Sorry Belly they have been a failure in the past, and Democracy has successfully emerged in those States. They tried to destroy people of faiths by imprisoning and murdering them. Your hope of double taxing them to destroy them is typical of a Dictator.

Belly,

Who is the head of the WASPs?

That's what I asked and, as usual, you made a stupid statement and now can't back it up; bit like all those Catholic nuns in black that you can't seem to find.

'I don't think that the Churches have actually apologised
to any victims for the harm that has been done.'

Not sure about that Foxy. Any true Christian would apologise for their crimes. I wonder if anyone has apologised for Mohammeds murders, rapes, child abuse etc?

ismise may I mate? you have yet to convince me anything you ever say has any degree of intellectual worth behind it, runner look think with me on this, is there any chance you will ever meet a good Muslim? then what are the chances you will meet many fine Christians? mentioned earlier here, by me, was a story from both ABC and nines a current affair, we saw, with our own eyes, a demented team of two, Muslims as it turned out, damning our laws, our God,saying they walk on our cross, tax them? yes before deporting them.that statement is going to be the same for followers of any faith who act like that.

'is there any chance you will ever meet a good Muslim? '

many many Belly of they are not following Mohammeds example.

Belly,

The chances of meeting a good Muslim are very high.

I have many Muslim friends and I'm staying on the estate of one of them at the moment.
He and I served together many years ago in the army and have been good mates ever since.

He is the Muslim friend that thinks that the Australian Government is mad to encourage Muslim migration and that from a man who is a leader among his people; he knows Muslims very well and has fought against them in the past.

It's no what Muslims are at the moment but the potential that their faith has to cause trouble that is the problem.
India and Pakistan would still be one country were it not for the teachings of Muhammad.

Belly still wants to identify individuals rather that the basis of their prophets / guru's / leaders teaching.

another couple of stabbing murders today in Paris by Mohammed follower. Hardly makes the news. Hopefully Dutton will have the guts to minnimise the problem in Australia.

mhaze,
"The Directors Fees are taxable in the hands of the recipient and usually at a higher rate than that which applied to the fund".

Not when they are paid directly into Superannuation funds (which is usually the case with these funds). In any case, the full amount going into those funds is not only untaxed but also becomes a tax deduction that can be used against other income - which is quite a significant concession.

Once again, the ATO does not specify how the fund money is spent, just how much is given away and it's not like "work related expenses" for PAYE taxpayers which have to be justified for their relevance.
I could find nothing in the documentation that shows this not to be the case.

That's the criticism made by the ATO when these funds were first established but no politician is willing to correct that situation because of the very influential people using it to their advantage.

In the end it's a double-dipping tax rort for the wealthy masquerading as philanthropy that is denied to the vast majority of the population.

To Belly.

Out of courisity what would you call a fair tax? Whatever it is I'm sure a larger church, a larger mosque, or a larger worship center or temple of any kind would be able to find the funds. It's the smaller ones in small towns that might have to choose to pay bills or contribute to help the community. On the note of smaller towns, I'd wager their contributions to the community out weigh the amount they could contribute through taxes.

It's a little old, but consider this article on taxing churches.

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/churches-arent-business-and-they-still-deserve-a-tax-break-20161007-grxntr.html

As Josephes has mentioned, staff already do get income taxed. If the minister was hired instead of starting the church I'm betting they get taxed too. But more on that I'd need some information on the tax code for charities, or if it is specific to religions, the tax code for them compared to other organizations or individuals.

I don't think the GST should apply to donations. Which is what most churches are funded through.

Lastly though, I'm not for adding more tax revenue unless there's a worth while reason for it. To fund a certain project that doesn't have funding yet, or to continue on repairs like road maintenance. If it's not outlined in that way adding more tax revenue to a system that can't manage it's finances is just throwing money away. Why reward politicians with more money, if they can't manage what that have now? One thing that would increase my faith in taxes is if politicians weren't in the news for excess spending. At the very least let their travel costs be their own burdens to bare instead of the tax payers. If more of them did that, then I'd probably trust them more on bigger things like the projects that the taxes are suppose to go towards.

Not-now .soon at least you debate and for that thank you, well I speak of income tax, and if we did spread the base, end the ability to not pay it, for every one, we could in fact reduce it, say 20 or 25 percent as single tax rate,GST? well we will always need it but not sure what level it should be,now gets hard here, at the center of every faith, are good people who want to help make a better world,but too, almost everything that divides humanity is faith based, *see post above highlighting a Muslim criminal* why not tell of the one armed man of Irish extraction who failed to pay his cab fair in Dublin? HOW can the followers of the one true God explain the hundreds of them? why should any of them not pay tax

Belly, why should ten people who decide to give $1,000 each to a farmer in drought need to pay tax on the transaction? The farmer will have to fill out a taxation form stating his earnings for the year. If he has profited he will pay tax, if he has run at a loss he will not pay tax.

Members of Churches pool their resources to contribute to charities, and pay salaries on which personal taxes are paid by the employee's of the members.

Gee Josephus how do you so lightly ignore those donors already pay tax? that under our laws they may even avoid tax because it may be called charity donations? hard to by pass you christian fixation ,so how about we talk about taxing scientology? would that get your support? taxing the Jewish faith? Islam? how about that branch Davidians well known for the FBI thing? Johns town? any thoughts?

It was Jonestown, just a thought.

thanks ismise hang around will you? my spell check often has difficulty trying to work out what I am saying you can be its back up ok?

To Belly.

You said:

<so how about we talk about taxing scientology? would that get your support? taxing the Jewish faith? Islam? how about that branch Davidians well known for the FBI thing? Johns town? any thoughts?>

Just so you know this is why I thought you were trying to use taxes as a form of punishment. I can't find the quote earlier but I thought the same sentiment was given earlier, with why Christianity isn't taxed when a third of the country doesn't believe in it.

If tax is used as a form of punishment something is wrong in the sitution. It would be better to approach the sitution head on and have the police or some other action involved that directly accounts for any wrong a group or an orginization does or wrong that they protect from correction. Taxing them isn't something to support on that approach. At least not in my opinion.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Moving on to the other underlying theme is that taxing everyone is fair, (not as a punishment to charities disagreed with or that avoid taxes); here is a question for you to consider. Earlier it was mentioned about charities that are used to "donate" to themselves without taxes being an issue. But in fact actually get a deduction in taxes. These aren't religions that cause this but larger cooperations and politicians.

What could be done to how donations are addressed without affecting how we donate to causes that use those donations to serve the community? For instance if I donate to a struggling school, and part of that donation is taxed, what good is being done here? If someone else donates large proceeds to themself and it is taxed, do you think that will stop the issue? And if we distinguish between one good charity and one that's a false charity how do we differing te the difference in legislation?

I still don't like the idea of taxing donations. But if it can be addressed in a way that a birthday gift of money or a wedding gift of money isn't then a suprise tax because it was officially donated, then I might reconsider it more. However as of now a donated amount of money doesn't seem to have a taxable abroad without over reaching what it is trying to address.

Why beat 'em when you can join 'em? L. Ron Hubbard had the right idea; start your own fake religion and cash in. Nobody will lift a finger to stop your scam, because of all the useful idiots arguing against any regulation of your dodgy dealings under the mistaken impression that they're doing God's work.

//how do we differing te the difference in legislation?//

Sorry, can we have that again in English please?

notp-now.soon only in your mind was my tax a punishment, never ever thought of it other than a fair thing that faiths pay tax,in fact if you truly follow a faith it would seem clear every faith proposes we look after the poor, why do faiths become so wealthy? surely they exist in fact to do much like Saint Francis did?is humanity to forever continue to do things in the same way forever? what would be so wrong about reform in the way faiths are seen? Ron L Hubard would like you.

If a person or business or organisation is charging for services or goods and they are creating a profit above their expenses incurred then tax is payable. I am involved in a charitable organisation and I can tell you the organisation uses volunteer staff and donations and there is no profit to tax. If tax was payable we would pay staff to have a secure work force, as volunteers are retired casual. That is also the way most Churches work.

No problem with that Josephus it changes nothing for me my belief all faiths should pay tax stands, if you wish, isolate received tax to house feed and education the poor but tax every one

Belly,

Glad to be of help,

http://www.grammarly.com/?q=grammar&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=search1&utm_content=76996511046&utm_term=grammarly&matchtype=e&placement=&network=g&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjauT3MGH3QIVSRSPCh0THgSkEAAYASABEgIJO_D_BwE

Try Grammarly, I've recommended it to many students and they all find that it's very helpful.

I have words well used here in the past to defend my self, not worth getting hot over IsMise, it is my view whatever I say, however I say it,you will find fault, if I could talk now to that not quite 13 year old kid that once was me, I would warn him missing a third of his school days, picking whatever fruit or food crop was there to be picked, to feed so many siblings was a bad idea, too finally leaving school at that age, to work full time, using a false age, was far from bright, tell him too his thirst for the education he never wanted would become a lifelong obsession, and the need to never stop learning would,,, often be pointed out by a smart arse like you.

Belly,

Not being a smart arse at all, I recommend Grammarly with the intent to be helpful and I hope that you'll take it up, it really is good although it can get a bit confused by Australian expressions.

thanks actually did, but it interfered with my spell check, true, in the days of twitter and facebook maybe my twisted English is becoming standard?

Belly, If they do not make a taxable profit, what are you taxing? Large Churches you think might be profitable have paid staff who themselves pay personal tax.

Some Churches [meaning people] pay for development in 3rd World countries, like schools and hospitals and drinking water and goats for milk and chooks for eggs and seed for crops. Which half the people in the Church I attend do. These gifts are not being made or claimed by the Church as tax deductable, they are given by persons as are your gift to a local community service or charity. Or do you not give to services like Royal Flying Doctor, Fred Hollows, Rescue Services or Fire Brigade etc because you believe they should also pay tax. Mean spirited I say!

//Or do you not give to services like Royal Flying Doctor, Fred Hollows, Rescue Services or Fire Brigade etc because you believe they should also pay tax. Mean spirited I say!//

You've really got the wrong end of the stick on this one, haven't you? Nobody objects to genuine charities, mate. What people have a problem with is swindlers, crooks and cheats who take advantage of a well-intentioned tax provision to fill their coffers with money that won't be spent on charity.

If Churches are paying for development projects in poverty-stricken countries, that's proper charity. No need for taxation. If, on the other hand, they're spending vast sums on building mega-churches and staging Christian rock festivals whilst donating a token amount of their obscene wealth to charity, it seems to me that they're mostly interested in self-promotion to grow their brand which is the behaviour of a business rather than a charity. So tax them like you would any other corporate entity.

See, it's not that complicated. You just follow the money: is the Church just a conduit through which the money flows to those in need, or does the buck stop with the Church and go no further because they're keeping it for themselves? If it's the latter, then tax them.

Josephus ever considered it may be Christians who think like you who are driving so many away from that faith?
You dig ditches around your own belief but refuse to see the American deep southern Christian Churches are not true Christians, put pty ltd after their names it would be more honest, are you aware the exclusive brethren run that faith as a business? do you think scientology is a true faith? are your views offering the same protection for Asia's many differing faiths?

Belly.

Watching you and Josephes talk back and forth, one question remains. If faiths are already being taxed, what more are you asking for?

Not-now.soon it is my view we are talking about income tax,as we see pay as you earn pay, and wait for what may be forever to see multi nationals pty ltd pay, an every one pays, the same rate, tax no one can avoid surely the current laws about faiths and tax explain them selves, thread has gone on too long, maybe but will answer when asked