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.