|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 13:58:31 GMT 10
Do you think churches should have to pay company tax like any other business, and even the churches who have vast social services which fill a massive gap in society?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2013 15:11:12 GMT 10
A simple "yes" would have sufficed, Buzz.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 15:18:10 GMT 10
So even though they're doing some of the work the government fails to do, they should pay tax?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2013 15:47:33 GMT 10
You're right that they do work that the government "fails" to do. I agree with the choice of the verb "fails". The "government" that began the "failure" was the Howard Government who stripped itself of as many welfare functions as it could and shoved it all off to the churches.
Hasn't worked as a ploy to reduce the size of Government, though. Centrelink is a leviathan.
The principle behind the notion of the secular state is that religion is relegated to the private sphere. So yes, the churches should pay whatever taxes any other private outfit would be liable to and those welfare functions that governments in the past (don't blame the Gillard Government for this) have outsourced to them, effectively making them an arm of government administration, should be returned to Government.
And if that means that churches act in a way that renders them liable to pay company tax then so be it. I have investments as part of my retirement income and I pay tax on them - and I'd expect the ATO to come after me if I didn't!
I understand that that god-bothering and very sectarian outfit Catch The Fire is a highly partisan political outfit and doesn't necessarily act like the Salvos where charity is concerned. During the bushfires I should imagine the lady giving fire fighters a cuppa tea and a sandwich might be wearing a Salvo's uniform, and the shelters where fire victims go to who are made homeless by the fires might be organised by Vinnies, blankets, clothes and boxes of groceries might be distributed by Anglicare. Don't hear much about Catch The Fire being involved. But I did hear after the Black Saturday fires that the CTF chief honcho said it was God's punishment for homosexuality.
That was classy!
I also understand he was a big mate of John Howard's and they did a lot of his wedge politicking for him during the 2007 elections so that stuff appeared that defamed a lot of people Howard didn't like that didn't carry the Liberal logo.
Choice!
If they're liable to pay tax, let 'em pay it!
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 15, 2013 16:01:55 GMT 10
A simple "yes" would have sufficed, Buzz. do not tell me what to say - not ever Buzz, Buzz ... that's a cliché line from every Z grade American "tough guy" movie you've ever seen. It's laughable, and pathetic. I'll tell you whatever I want. Here's a promise Buzz: I'll never make comments about your family and I'll never use personal information to demean or humiliate you in an under-the-belt way. But if you say something stupid or bore us all shitless about God's family tree as an answer to a question about churches tax liability that really just requires a "Yes" or a "no", then I'll say so. Do you "capeesh" (bowdlerised spelling intentional)? Good! And if you don't "capeesh" ... stiff shit! And I don't care what you think of that. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 16:12:36 GMT 10
The government will always use non-government organisations to provide welfare, because it is a cheaper way to do it. The NGOs can get away with paying their employees thousands of dollars less a year for two reasons.
The first reason is they can use the excuse that they're a charity, and therefore cash strapped and not profit making. Secondly, especially when it comes to church based NGOs, a lot of the workers are church members. They consider it part of their service to the church, and will not complain about being exploited on such low wages.
Why would the government tax them? The government saves money by not taxing them and outsourcing these services.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:21:47 GMT 10
Hillsong should pay tax.
They're a CULT so they deserve to cough up seeing as they are taking money from the mugs who get sucked in by their bullshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 16:33:12 GMT 10
What about other charities, for example, A Start in Life ( www.astartinlife.org.au/ ) which helps students from disadvantaged backgrounds get through school, TAFE and University? Should they be taxed for providing this assistance to disadvantaged students? I only bring this charity up because I donate money to them because they're loosely connected with the Freemasons. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 16:38:41 GMT 10
Freemasons are yet another CULT that sucks in the gullible.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Jan 15, 2013 16:44:57 GMT 10
Do you think churches should have to pay company tax like any other business, and even the churches who have vast social services which fill a massive gap in society? No... people will stop donating. However, who keeps account of donations and where the money is used? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 16:46:21 GMT 10
Do you think churches should have to pay company tax like any other business, and even the churches who have vast social services which fill a massive gap in society? No... people will stop donating. However, who keeps account of donations and where the money is used? I know KPMG audit The Salvation Army, I remember I chose that organisation when I did an assessment item at uni. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 16:50:04 GMT 10
Freemasons are yet another CULT that sucks in the gullible. And what good have you done in the world? NONE. So go sit on your middle finger and rotate! |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Jan 15, 2013 17:51:04 GMT 10
A simple "yes" would have sufficed, Buzz. do not tell me what to say - not ever Pim has a point Buzz....what you said is so very immature, I wonder about your mental age. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 19:25:46 GMT 10
do not tell me what to say - not ever Pim has a point Buzz....what you said is so very immature, I wonder about your mental age. What do you think Jody, should churches such as the Salvos, Vinnies and Anglicare have to pay company tax? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2013 19:39:48 GMT 10
Yes, any organisation that has multiple EFTPOS terminals is a for-profit organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Jan 15, 2013 19:53:58 GMT 10
No Matt, I don't think those who such good work for those who have very little should have to pay company tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Stockton on Jan 15, 2013 20:50:42 GMT 10
As the law stands today, organisations are not taxed on income or profits derived from their members -law of mutuality says you can't make a profit from yourself.
If people want to change the law, they need o think long & hard before going down that road.
Groups which would be effected include (although there would thousands of others)
Charities -Red Cross, RDNS WWF Greenpeace etc
Unions
Clubs (rugby leagues, AFL clubs, your local tennis club etc)
Schools run by say a church
Hospitals run by say a church
There are other entities but the above is an interesting cross section of businesses.
Now before the resident tax expert points out, several rugby leagues clubs (to name an easy identifiable group) DO pay income tax on SOME of their income. In particular, their bar or dining room income based on an age% of members Vs non-members (ie guests) sales. The income tax is calculated on the non member sales.
GST is a tax that is paid by any one (group) running a business with sales of greater than $100k pa. N-F-P have a higher starting point
However,I think JS is refering in his opening thread to income tax & not GST.
And as messy as it is-I suggest we leave things alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 22:16:19 GMT 10
Yes, any organisation that has multiple EFTPOS terminals is a for-profit organisation. Eftpos isn't a luxury item these days. It has become a standard form of payment. Shit, you can even turn your smartphone into a credit / debit card facility these days. So, Vinnies has eftpos at their op-shops, does that make them above it? |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 15, 2013 23:33:40 GMT 10
The Hillsong guy Houston - his father sexually abused children And Brian Houston has acknowledged that of his father, even made him resign over it. But why should Brian be punished or smeared over his father's criminality? Do you follow one of those religions that believe in generational punishment or something? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 5:18:40 GMT 10
So, Vinnies has eftpos at their op-shops, does that make them above it? The odd eft terminal in an Op-Shop is very different to 10's of Eft terminals in a church, now, what did your namesake have to say about money changers |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 10:06:20 GMT 10
Oh please don't stop there! Maybe you could inform us of the charitable deeds undertaken by the Islamic mob? None? Oh right ... too busy funding charitable works in Syria and so on ....  |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 16, 2013 10:22:07 GMT 10
What's that got to do with the topic? Matt asks a very loaded question in the thread topic about whether or not organised religion should be liable for company tax. I was just trying to point out that it's a lot more complex than the loaded way in which Matt puts the question.
Do you think an outfit like Catch the Fire should be considered as equivalent to the Salvos, or to the Catholics with their Vinnies, or to the Anglicans with their Anglicare?
I don't!!
Now you bring in the Muslims. OK then, let's bring in the Muslims - along with Catch the Fire.
Australian law says that Australian government policy - and Australian business for that matter - can't discriminate on the grounds of religion, among other things. Fine.
So OK, let's have them all thrown in and placed onto one vast level playing field: mainstream Christians who try to help in a practical way when natural disasters strike, fruitcake religious extremist nut jobs who think fire and floods are a "God Hates Fags" punishment from Heaven, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews ... the lot! All in one basket and so if one has to pay company tax then the lot has t pay company tax. Or, conversely, if one gets an exemption from company tax then the lot get exempted.
To act on any other basis might be actionable under a raft of laws, plus Section 116 of the Constitution.
It'd be an interesting case ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2013 10:37:08 GMT 10
OK ... I don't know much about Catch the Fire. But I reckon they'd be a pretty small outfit with few resources. Unlike the mussos! Who, as we all know, are quite adept at raising funds ... but not for any charitable works here in Oz!
As for paying taxes ... well it depends I suppose on how many assets they are accumulating in their "not for profit" activities. I think the Christian churches are fairly good at providing for the whole community whatever ethnicity. That cannot be said for the mussos whose only charity extends to muslims either here or mainly in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 16, 2013 13:04:08 GMT 10
The Muslims get most of their funding from Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 16, 2013 13:55:37 GMT 10
Ya gotta love the way Matt blithely makes these gratuitous unsourced and agenda-laden pronouncements.
Do you really want this thread to be about Muslims? You put up this thread to ask - in your agenda-laden and very loaded way - whether "churches" should have to pay company tax. And I think you could broaden that to encompass what Tea Party nutters call "faith-based organisations" so that would include all organised religion, Christian mainstream, "God Hates Fags" Christian fruitcakes and apocalyptic Christian extremist nutters, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc etc.
On the principle of "one in, all in" if one lot has to pay company tax then send in the auditors to determine the tax liabilities of the lot of them. The opposite of "one in, all in" is "one out, all out". So if the ATO starts giving exemptions to one, it has to give exemptions to the lot.
|
|
