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.