"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.