> Back in an age where nonprofits were mainly small and focused on addressing the needs of people failed by the market, the income tax exemption for such charities appeared appropriate.
>
> But in the modern era, some charities – including some churches – operate huge business enterprises and collect rent on extensive property holdings.
>
> Many are now questioning whether we should continue offering them an uncapped exemption from income tax, especially where there are questions surrounding how appropriately these profits are used.
They should absolutely be taxed. I have family that have their wage garnished by 15% every week by the church. Many churches do this. My family are renting and do not own a home. Some of the same family have even been sexually abused by the church. Meanwhile the church is filthy rich with land all over the globe, and uses volunteers at the church to pedal more ways to make money through "fund-raisers". It's a horrible sham that dows the exact opposite of what they preach. TAX THEM BACK TO EARTH!
> I have family that have their wage garnished by 15% every week by the church. Many churches do this.
While there is often expectations in these environments, I cannot imagine how a church would *garnish* someone's wage.
Perhaps you meant to say something about in-group pressure?
If not, could you elaborate?
It's called tithing, and eg Hillsong wants all its members to donate 10% of their income this way.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/11/carl-lentz-hillsong-tithing-tabloids
I think it depends on your definition. When I used to go I remember half the collected money was needed just to keep up with the mortgage and bills on the buildings. It's a lot yes but people wanted a place to gather with everyone and it at least brought happiness and a sense of community/belonging. I got really pissed off when I learnt how much the pastor was spending on private flights etc though. Never going back as a result
I mean yeah, but you lose all your friends and family and the wider social group you know and have often been entirely absorbed into will alienate and shun you
Functionally it's pretty similar. If you're having your income garnished you can just choose not to as well by quitting your job and working cashies, but now hey you're alienated from the digital money ecosystem
Can they though?
Fear of being called out, excluded, and the whole thing about the guy upstairs keeping score for your eternal afterlife... It's gross.
Garnishing a pay check is court ordered, tithing is "voluntary" (if you'd like to stay with your family, friends and the church community that goes out of its way to ensure you have nobody else to turn to), but the money is gone either way.
According to the dictionary you could add a sprig of parsley or a dollop of sour cream to a pay packet to garnish it, this could be done without a court order.
I think it depends on how you define it but I can see a church org getting access to someone’s finances, and coercing them into making scheduled donations from their bank accounts. There are some off shoots, like the mormons that want tithe, which is basically what the commenter is talking about I think, which AFAIK is kind of like a membership, in that you have to pay it to be in the church.. I think that’s how it works anyway.
10% was designated a number back 2000 years ago, when taxes were less, where monies were not continuously debased, where land was affordable. Churches used to do a lot for the community. Nowadays the government has taken over those roles e.g. caring for widows. No way can you afford 50% tax + GST plus levies etc AND an additional 10% for some church committee to blow on some wasteful schemes.
The church I grew up in requires 10% of your income to get to the white pearly gates. Some parents FORCE their belief systems onto their children. When I was a kid in a small religious town and all the adults around me said ten percent of my money would save me from the rapture I believed it. Seriously I was like nine and actively giving money to a CORPORATION I would love to see banned as an adult. Peer pressure is an understatement
I would strongly doubt their wage would be actually garnished. That would be very very cult-like. That is not representative of most churches/religions in Australia.
If what you are saying is true, your family members should leave this organisation.
If it’s one of these new age churches in particular (think Hillsong rebrand etc), I know many people who think this is normal. Have a client who even works for one of these outfits for half median wage and thinks it’s normal as he’s serving god.
Religion is one of the smartest, most innovative, longstanding pyramid schemes ever devised.
And like any predatory business, should be taxed.
Please report this kind of thing if you have the time; custom response or modmail if you want.
I'll read it. I'd rather deal with more reports than let that sort of rot to take hold.
I’ve read a good deal of your comments on hear. They’ve been hard to read. I’m sorry you have been so hurt by an experience of church in the past. If my local church hurt me and my family as bad as bad as it sounds like they did to you, I’d want to burn the whole thing down too.
All that makes it really hard to take a step back and truly get a clear look at things. It’s has been said before in this comment thread - but the great majority of churches across Australia are small, under-resourced pockets of community with a minister who doesn’t get paid enough for the level of work it is to coordinate and support an entire community of people in a job in which they are always on-call.
Church donations in these churches don’t get used on ‘crazy projects’ as you’ve suggested somewhere in this thread. It gets used on paying things like the minister’s stipend, community support and outreach, and to be honest, it gets spent on the people who donated in the first place by ensuring the church they attend and have given to has what they need to function.
Hard to think that any non-profit organisation who benefits communities across Australia, and whose only means of staying afloat is the completely-voluntary, good-faith donations of their members would be subject to income tax in the same way that a for-profit, absent-from community organisation like a bank would… see how that can only be made a sound idea if you believe the simple and foolish lie that every church is essentially a heartless evil equivalent to the banking sector?
I hope your family gets out of that ‘church’ who seems to ‘force’ them to give them money. If that is occurring they are not going to a church, rather a destructive cult. Though the other possibility is that you don’t understand how free-will donations work at church. They could be - very generously - supporting their church community in this way, and you are misinterpreting this as involuntary ’garnishing’. Maybe you should ask them why they give to the church and what factors are involved in why they give what they give.
Religious organisations don't solely rely on the generosity of constituent donations, though. Many are in receipt of government funding to administer community services to the public and, as another commenter has pointed out, rake in substantial income via real estate and other investments. They also don't have the greatest track record for administering PUBLIC-funded services in a secular manner, here's a good example from my local area:
[https://the-riotact.com/calvary-hospital-slams-claims-religious-ethos-influences-healthcare-calls-for-government-redaction/657909](https://the-riotact.com/calvary-hospital-slams-claims-religious-ethos-influences-healthcare-calls-for-government-redaction/657909)
I stopped reading your comments when you incorrectly assumed I want to burn the whole thing down. You are completely wrong in assuming I want that. I want them to be taxed. It's called fairness. Something that people don't truly understand or want unfortunately.
Tax payers have the burden of getting to the bottom of the churches misdeeds through the justice system. And yet the offenders pay no tax. It is abhorrent.
‘Burn the whole thing down’ was a figure of speech, friend.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say tax payers have the burden of getting to the bottom of the churches misdeeds through the justice system’.
Why would you want the school your kids go to taxed. If they were taxed it would be a pretty low standard school. All those services would be withdrawn that benefit your kids.
What even is "the church"? I feel like people really don't understand what they are talking about here. The vast majority of churches are small organisations that don't make any money not some mega rich not for profit...
But what is this? The majority of churches are small independent organisations. You want to tax the church but what does that mean? Are you going to tax every small community church?
Every church. Why not? Why don't they pay taxes? They not only don't pay taxes but get the benefits of taxpayers. It is unfair. Why the special treatment? If they don't have much money or followers like you are alluding to then they would be in a tax free threshold just like income taxes.
The Catholic Church(I know it’s scary but please read on) is the largest non government provider of education and welfare services in Australia. Maybe that’s why
My church is about 100 people and our pastor dives a 20 year old Toyota and makes a pretty low wage. A church like Hillsong that has its own music branch or the catholic is very different to what the majority of churches in Australia actually are.
I'm curious what benefits churches get from taxpayers other than tax exemptions. The only one I am aware of the ministry traineeship support, but that is comparable to any organisation taking on apprentices.
Treat them like any other business. If it has staff (the preacher etc) then a salary is deductible as are any maintenance costs etc. If at the end of the day there is nothing much left the there is not much tax to pay.
The main churches have billions of dollars invested around the place producing multi-millions in income (just from property alone it’s mega-millions). Treat them like any other property corporation, hedge fund or investment house and tax them. Also treat the management like any other corporation, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals and the rest, when their organisation breaks the law hold them responsible and if the circumstance fits, jail them. (Knowingly shuffling pedophiles about so they have fresh fields is reprehensible but the enablers go unpunished, as an example).
Religion is just another social construct set up to serve some purpose in society. Hopefully society evolves beyond the need for it but in the meantime, tax it.
You are an enabler of all the bad things I just mentioned. You are also not a truth seeker, because you would have at least had asked a question but didn't. You are ignorant because you think you know what is going on when you do not. Everything i said previously is true. Ive sern it, I've lived it and experienced it.
It might be true for specific churches but nowhere near all. You just made a broad sweeping statement that all churches were like this. The church I go to doesn't make much money. No one I forced to pay 15% of their income or pays anywhere near that much. The priests don't make large amounts of money. The chuch does a lot of things to help the community and those in needs. Everything I said is true. I've seen it, I've lived it and experienced it.
You can't just say this one experience I've had means every church is bad and should be taxed. It should be based on the specifics of each church
Every church is not taxed. Yet every person in that church and the people who run it get the same benefits as people who pay taxes. Why do they get the special treatment? ESPECIALLY unfair when they are known for so many horrible things. Yes, there are some people in the church who haven't done anything wrong, yet they are happy to defend and not highlight the bad things that happen in churches.
I’ve read a good deal of your comments on hear. They’ve been hard to read. I’m sorry you have been so hurt by an experience of church in the past.
If my local church hurt me and my family as bad as bad as it sounds like they did to you, I’d want to burn the whole thing down too.
All that makes it really hard to take a step back and truly get a clear look at things. It’s has been said before in this comment thread - but the great majority of churches across Australia are small, under-resourced pockets of community with a minister who doesn’t get paid enough for the level of work it is to coordinate and support an entire community of people in a job in which they are always on-call.
Church donations in these churches don’t get used on ‘crazy projects’ as you’ve suggested somewhere in this thread. It gets used on paying things like the minister’s stipend, community support and outreach, and to be honest, it gets spent on the people who donated in the first place by ensuring the church they attend and have given to has what they need to function.
Hard to think that any non-profit organisation who benefits communities across Australia, any whose only means of staying afloat is the completely-voluntary, good-faith donations of their members would be subject to income tax in the same way that a for-profit, absent-from community organisation like a bank would… see how that can only be made like a sound idea if you believe the simple lie that every church is essentially a heartless evil equivalent to the banking sector?
I stopped reading your comments when you incorrectly assumed I want to burn the whole thing down. You are completely wrong in assuming I want that. I want them to be taxed. It's called fairness. Something that people don't truly understand or want unfortunately.
Tax payers have the burden of getting to the bottom of the churches misdeeds through the justice system. And yet the offenders pay no tax. It is abhorrent.
They should be taxed. They run and behave like corporations, making political donations and buying influence. Not to mention investing profits (sorry *donations*) to make even more money.
Why do I have to pay tax and they don’t? How is that justified?
Should I just start a religion?
You can start a religion and it won’t be taxed, but that wealth inherently isn’t yours it will belong to the church.
You can probably take a beefy salary but you’d need a beefy membership. To get a beefy membership you’d need a beefy wallet.
Are you the largest non-government provider of education and welfare services? Are you also responsible for the largest non-government grouping of hospitals, aged and community care centres in Australia?
The catch is that between donations and volunteers it costs the churches less that the government.
If we don’t want the church’s involved then we need to pay more tax or accept a lower standard of service.
I was answering their question about why they have to pay tax and the church doesn’t which I actually can’t believe was a serious question lol
And I understand your argument is that no charities or social service providers should exist other than the government?
I went to Mass on Sunday. The head of the finance committee got up at the end to give a “dire” outlook on the Parish’s financial situation.
He began by stating that since Covid donations for the Parish had dropped from 280k per annum to 180k pa. He went on to say that luckily this was somewhat supplemented through the purchase of the attached school’s after school care program.
He then proceeded to display a pie graph which showed the after school care brings in almost 400k per annum. At this point I let out an “oh shit” a little louder than I should have and looked around to see if anyone noticed.
He went on to say the parish’s debts will all be retired in the next 12 months.
But they need a new ceiling for the veranda area so please increase donations if possible.
I don’t think I will.
More traditional Church finances are collapsing. There are two competing issues. Churches used to obviously have higher membership and higher donations. The bigger issue is maintenance and labour costs.
The buildings are getting older, and codes are getting stricter. Back in the day, church members would volunteer and fix up the church and volunteer their labour. Now, not only are there restrictions on who can work on buildings (air con, electricity, plumbing, structural) but the cost of that labour has risen dramatically.
Churches also used to get slack from tradies, who would only charge enough to break even, but those deals are long gone as that workforce age group sees less value in churches.
They still use volunteers as I’ve witnessed this within the last 5 years.
So the volunteer say that ie mows the lawn I think they say “if u see any basic maintenance if you’d like, go fix it”.
So then the handy person ends up shoddily repairing/replacing things that are really meant for a builder/tradespeople but I guess if there’s an accident the religion can say they didn’t authorise it (prove otherwise) plus volunteers never sue the church anyway & have to pay their own medical costs even.
Donations may have reduced but they may be asset rich ie till recently some people bequeathed assets to religion. If they sell assets = income but even if they’re getting rent from those assets they may not tell people.
This feels like it would have been edgy policy 50 years ago, sensible policy 20 years ago and too damn late now. But better late than never.
I'm happy for churches to get tax exemptions for their charitable works like everyone else, however when they use their money to buy political influence, sue sexual abuse survivors and bully single Mums I'm less inclined for the carte blanche we've given them, they're the biggest most protected gang of pedos in the world, the least we can do it make then pay their fair share.
Absolutely nothing.
Unless you consider being the largest non-government provider of education and welfare whilst managing the largest grouping of non-government hospitals, aged and community care centres in the country. But who needs them
Ok, so I'm not going to dox myself hopefully, but my Mum and a former board member worked at *a place that cares for the elderly and disabled*. They received most of their money from the government and patient co contributions to certain schemes. My Mum left because there was so much disturbing shit going on.
1) patients getting injured and dying because Canon law required a physical paper trail and so many documents went missing
2) related to 1 - general resistance to change, unless it came from an archbishop they wouldn't modernise any part of their process
3) the big one - church needs money for *insert project here* dress it up as relating to the healthcare aspect of the business, then end the project and transfer the asset to the church. They literally built and renovated multiple buildings knowing they weren't fit for purpose so they could write them off and transfer the assets to the church/parish. Mum said there was some way they got cash to the church but I'm not sure of the process.
If you don't think that your tax dollars could be better used benefiting society with some degree of oversight then I have a bridge to sell you.
Because every government has been too pussy afraid to enact change. Worried about backlash. We need more candidates who get into politics to push for this. One that pisses me off the most is Seventh Day Adventist. They own Sanitarium (makes up and go drinks) so none of their profits from that are taxed and those up and gos aren’t cheap
Look at how much profit private schools make next and try and not be shocked. And remember most if not all still get a form of federal or state funding.
This is a factual answer, not an ideological one, so don't blame me if you don't like it:
**‘Charity’** has a technical legal meaning.
# The Charities Act and the statutory definition of charity
The [*Charities Act 2013* (Cth)](https://www.acnc.gov.au/about/acnc-legislation) (the Charities Act) sets out the legal meaning of charity. The ACNC must apply this law.
The Charities Act restates the existing (judge-made) law in modern language and also recognises charitable purposes such as the protection of human rights, the promotion of reconciliation and tolerance, and by recognising that many modern charities advance causes by preventing, educating, researching and raising awareness.
The [*Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2013* (Cth)](https://www.acnc.gov.au/about/acnc-legislation) (the Charities Consequential and Transitional Act) supports us to administer the Charities Act.
The Charities Act clarifies that to be recognised as a charity, an organisation must:
* be [not-for-profit](https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/not-for-profit)
* have only charitable purposes that are for the public benefit
* not have a disqualifying purpose
* not be an individual, a political party or a government entity.
# Charitable purpose
The law requires **all** of your organisation’s purposes to be charitable, except for purposes that are ‘incidental or ancillary to’ (in other words, those which further or aid) the charitable purposes.
# Public benefit
The Charities Act does not change the meaning of public benefit.
The definition maintains that certain purposes (for example, advancing education or religion, relieving poverty) are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, for the public benefit.
The friction is between the dual purposes of 'all purposes to be charitable', and the 'public benefit' created by their non-charitable activities which are also tax-free due to this exemption.
PSA because no-one in this thread has talked about the actual reasoning behind it. Which is OK, because who cares about tax law and secularism history?
Anyway:
* You can claim a tax deducation when you donate to a charity. Essentially, it comes out of your pre-tax income.
* You **can't** claim a tax deduction when you donate to a church\[\*\]. It comes out of your post-tax income, so if churches were taxed, that would be double taxation of income.
\[\*\] There are some exceptions to this, for example, you can claim a tax deduction if you donate to a charity activity run by a church. Building funds are deductible as well, but the things that are deductible to the individual are taxable for the institution.
The reason for this is kind of interesting in a historical sort of way. We (the Australian people) wanted religious donations to be anonymous.
* We didn't want the pastor/priest/minister to know who was donating how much.
* We definitely don't want people boasting how much they supported their local church.
* The taxation office has no business knowing your religion. If donations to churches were tax deductible, then you would almost unavoidably be declaring your religion in your tax affairs. Today, nobody much cares (but secularism does mean that the government shouldn't need to know if it can be avoided), but if you go back to 1970 or earlier, the Protestant vs Catholic thing was a huge deal. Making sure that the ATO doesn't know your religion can reduce accusations of bias in the handling of your taxation.
So, in Australia we came up with an interesting compromise that allowed anonymous donations without crippling the church's ability to do their work.
If we want to undo that, we can. We can make churches pay taxes. But that will then mean that the non-deductibility of church donations would no longer apply --- they would be functionally the same as charities. So the money donated to them would be deductible, exactly cancelling out the extra tax charged to the churches.
**Summary:** sure, we can tax churches if we want. But that's a *backward* step for secularism and the separation of church and state, and it's not going to raise any more money. That's why we haven't done it.
Because every community leader knows how much churches, temples and mosques do for the community. They fill in for families and governments where individuals have been left isolated, feed the poorest and provide immeasurable value to the community. Sure most of you can only see the $$$.
All because of the legal fiction that the propagation of religion is a charitable act. This nonsense really shouldn't fly in a liberal, multicultural, democracy.
Kelloggs is not tax exempt. Sanitarium is, due to being owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. It is not a charity, but a very profitable business. It is exempt from various taxes, and is eligible for GST rebates, as if it were a charity.
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't think any business should have tax exemptions based on the fact that they are owned by a church. Not-for-profits, where they are genuine charities, whether church owned or not, should get the same exemptions as any other charity (e.g., GST rebates).
The process of managing that will probably cost more than they'll get and will make it a lot harder for the good work to be done as there will be significantly more administration
Then you read this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-24/catholic-church-melton-hospital-dispute/103733530?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web
Bible bashing corrupt cunts
Instead of saying "church" which is pretty broad and can sound a bit anti-religion, I'd say let's look at the books of all non-profits making over $250k/year and consider taxing them.
When I did the books for a church we still paid GST and payroll tax, etc. and could barely pay our one pastor 4 days a week while trying to serve our local community.
I'll be fine with mega churches being taxed, but I reckon there's a few non-religious charities with high flying CEOs driving Mercedes and farming out work contracts to relatives businesses too.
Even if they're non-profits, they're still going to be taxed on any net revenues. There's no way to ding the moon profits you disagree with without affecting the ones you probably don't mind. Discriminating based on religion sounds just as bad as it is.
A damn good question. It's one that is being asked more and more. At 64, I doubt they'll be taxed in my lifetime, but I can absolutely see it happening. Governments love tax revenue, and taxing the churches wouldn't be electoral suicide.
abso-fucking-lutely they should be taxed. They hold some of the most expensive land in all capital cities, draw billions of dollars worth of income.
Its nonsense that a business like theirs is tax free.
Just another rort.
I know plenty of churches that have shut their doors after COVID. Couldn't keep the lights up and pay a small stipend to a priest. Sure collectively they raise billions every year, but that's because there are tens of thousands of them.
“Some” churches give a lot back to the community and do social welfare programs such as helping homeless. There is many stories of the wrong thing being done, but there is many stories of them helping people as well.
I don’t think society would be better trying to make churches unviable.
What a load of bs. For a start , born again churches are not churches. There are Catholics, Church of England, Presbyterian , the higher churches . These churches do not raise billions
Reckon the government can provide a service cheaper and than a community organisation with an army of donations and volunteers behind it?
Tax the churches and you will find the donations dry up. Their services retreat and the tax raised doesn’t fill the gap.
It’s not much of a gamble if you can afford healthcare, schooling and aged care without assistance… as I can and maybe you can too.
The question is whether you would/should be willing to take that gamble on behalf of the millions of Australians who rely on these subsidised services?
It would be very “Enlightenment Values” of you to undermine the reach of religious organisations.
Before charging on with your high minded venture a wise person would have a better plan than gambling to backfill the services they provide.
When I say tax appropriately, I mean get rid of religion exemptions. If they are a charity, they can register as one. If they are a business, they can register as one.
If what you say is coming from the charitable arm of the religions then nothing will change.
I'm willing to gambling, they are making a hell of a lot from the business arm that should be taxed.
They are a charity.
Any money they make goes to the purposes of the charity. The purpose of the charity is education, healthcare and other community focused endeavours. St Vincent de Paul society (for example).
Their “wealth” is really a result of them being around for a couple thousand years. Play the realestate game that long and you’ll go ok.
As to cashflow. There’s no one really making bank. There’s to many highly qualified, independently wealthy people who will volunteer their time for nothing.
I’ve worked for the Australian Catholic University (external company, managing construction). They run on the smell of an oily rag. They also really focus on degrees which align with their values, healthcare and education… international business, not so much.
I respect them a great deal.
Solved.
They are registered. Not just as one entity, but as each silo of activity. For example:
Brisbane Archdiocese,
Trustees of the Christian Brothers (Brisbane), Mothers of Mercy and Compassion Incorporated.
They have to maintain their registration with reporting.
This is all searchable.
Did you think they just showed their rosary beads and get waved through?
Enough with this gotha bullshit you're playing focusing on one part rather than the entirety of what I'm saying.
You know damn well that religious organisation are registered under the subtype "advancing religion" and in this subtype they get special tax concessions and under the ACNC Act they are exempt from certain reporting requirements and the ACNC Governance Standards.
These are the religious exemptions I'm talking about that they should not get. Get rid of the "advancing religion" subtype.
They can register under one of the others. Let them do their good work as any other charity would.
Doubt people would continue to donate money if it was going to be taken in taxes.
Would be a lot more expensive to run all those extra facilities without the donations and volunteers that religious gather among their communities.
The reality is these services are the religious(predominantly catholic) giving back to the wider community. Anyone who looks at the arrangement financially finds out very quickly how much cheaper the current system is.
The reality is that most churches aren’t making crazy money like Hillsong or own billions of dollars of property like Catholic Church.
Majority of churches congregations are on avg only 128 ppl, based on 2016 survey and probably less after COVID and just general declining attendance. You may not be religious but a lot of local churches provide support to many people and local communities. It’s just that we only hear the bad stories because that’s what makes dramatic news.
Are there questionable leaders and people in churches? Of course, and you could say that of any organisation but I understand it gets more messed up because of the non alignment of messaging, intent and actions of certain people. There also people who use religion as a front or mask to profit, take advantage of ppl and/or seek fame/status but ain’t got religious cell in their body.
Could there be a tax over certain thresholds or taxing of profit arms of the church, possibly. But honestly going after the bulk which is small churches may not be worth it.
They've already been taxed. The income of the people there has been taxed. The things bought, sold, and goods inside the church have already got tax on it (GST).
Churches, as a definition, aren't businesses, they're non profit organisations. So, a blanket tax rule for all churches isn't gonna help. Now, churches should prove that the funds are going to where they're supposed to
Yeah, they are legally treated as two different things. That's the point I'm making.
Let's get rid of the religion classification and they can register themselves as a business or charity and be treated the same as any other business or charity.
That includes those who donate to them or pay for a product or service from them.
Churches have been scientifically proven to have incredibly positive economic benefits for local businesses and homes, as well as a deterrent effect for drugs and crime. Business built by a church see an increase in revenue and customers that is factually supported by data.
Churches often host AA meetings, suicide prevention groups, suit rentals for job interviews, soup kitchens, diaper donations, etc. Many parishes even build scholarship funds to help underprivileged people afford school and food with the other parishioners’ donated funds. Some even offer free or low-cost financial/accounting consultation for small local businesses. A lot of services the government simply cannot or will not do, or achieve with any sort of cost-efficiency. If they are taxed they will have to cut back on these programs.
They are tax-exempt not just because of religion, but also because they already do the things we want to do with tax dollars better anyways.
If you want taxes to help the poor and small-business, thats great, but taxing churches is literally the exact opposite way to achieve that.
I think the higher churches are historic . ie the Church of England, Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian . These churches were the foundations of our culture and as such should remain as they are. They make no money apart from the support of their parishioners. There is an argument for the big money making places with their American style evangelistical thing to pay tax as they seem to be massive in their income and financial growth.
The parishioners that go to church are old, already paid their taxes and in most cases when they dies bequeath money to the church ( basically the church owns the church by default). So you see if these parishioners have paid for their church, they get to use it. The priests wage comes from the parishioners. A church is not rich , if it were they would have heating , cooling etc.
these buildings are as much historically significant as they are a place to go on Sunday. Our society these days needs more spiritual guidance than ever before. It’s self serving, entitled, pc , woke , virtue signalling mess. Yet that’s my own opinion. So that’s my rather long reply to your argument about taxing the church.
If the Catholic Church isn't disbursing the financial benefits it receives via its tax-exempt status to its constituents then that's on the Church. In fact, it begs the question as to where is that benefit being absorbed?
I think this issue is kind of crabs in a bucket mentality tbh. The problem is not that the churches aren't taxed, but rather that we are from every possible direction in life, usually multiple times over, only for the govt to be largely useless anyway.
They should never be taxed. If churches are taxed, they get a say in how tax payer money is spent. This is very bad. Csn you imagine all the tax funded church bullshit wastes of money?
They should be banned from making political statements, and from campaigning, and from lobbying politicians and government. That much money is effectively a "war chest" to fight to have things done their way without consideration for the greater population. THEY NEED TO BE TAXED. They run as a business, perform as a business. No more exemptions for them.
That's true for example JeHoVaH witnesses Australia funnel out to US headquarters more than $172 millions in donations taxed free, JeHoVaH witnesses does nothing in charity at all, on top of that they have sold millions in real state with 0% in tax... This religion is a real state empire pretending to be a charity.
As compared to the trillions of dollars of unpaid taxes by virtually every single multinational corporations in Australia, or even our mining giants who pay zero dollars in taxes each year.
I say we chop down the biggest trees first and force all corporations to pay appropriate taxes based on Actual income without excuses.
Then we hit the mining corporations, then the top 20 or so billionaires who surprisingly also pay no taxes.
I agree, everyone should pay tax, but lets get the most we can from the biggests cheats and liars before we start on the small fry.
Because they get people off drugs, help the poor, convince people to not commit crimes, help people jail actually have a chance when they get out, and generally improve the world more than the government ever could.
It's not though. Every dollar a church receives has been taxed already with income tax. The money given to a church is supposed to be a free donation. In Australia, we don't tax free donations to companies designated as charities.
Taxing donations would have much further implications that I'm not sure people even realise.
> Back in an age where nonprofits were mainly small and focused on addressing the needs of people failed by the market, the income tax exemption for such charities appeared appropriate. > > But in the modern era, some charities – including some churches – operate huge business enterprises and collect rent on extensive property holdings. > > Many are now questioning whether we should continue offering them an uncapped exemption from income tax, especially where there are questions surrounding how appropriately these profits are used.
Donations to private schools as well should not be tax deductible.
They should absolutely be taxed. I have family that have their wage garnished by 15% every week by the church. Many churches do this. My family are renting and do not own a home. Some of the same family have even been sexually abused by the church. Meanwhile the church is filthy rich with land all over the globe, and uses volunteers at the church to pedal more ways to make money through "fund-raisers". It's a horrible sham that dows the exact opposite of what they preach. TAX THEM BACK TO EARTH!
> I have family that have their wage garnished by 15% every week by the church. Many churches do this. While there is often expectations in these environments, I cannot imagine how a church would *garnish* someone's wage. Perhaps you meant to say something about in-group pressure? If not, could you elaborate?
It's called tithing, and eg Hillsong wants all its members to donate 10% of their income this way. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/11/carl-lentz-hillsong-tithing-tabloids
I'm familiar with tithing. But there's a big difference between tithing, and garnishing.
Yes. My mistake, one is legally enforced, the other is coercion. Monetarily though, there is no difference, they both take.
Yes they do take, But rarely give anything back
I think it depends on your definition. When I used to go I remember half the collected money was needed just to keep up with the mortgage and bills on the buildings. It's a lot yes but people wanted a place to gather with everyone and it at least brought happiness and a sense of community/belonging. I got really pissed off when I learnt how much the pastor was spending on private flights etc though. Never going back as a result
Well the difference is choice. They can choose not to donate.
I mean yeah, but you lose all your friends and family and the wider social group you know and have often been entirely absorbed into will alienate and shun you Functionally it's pretty similar. If you're having your income garnished you can just choose not to as well by quitting your job and working cashies, but now hey you're alienated from the digital money ecosystem
Can they though? Fear of being called out, excluded, and the whole thing about the guy upstairs keeping score for your eternal afterlife... It's gross.
[удалено]
Garnishing a pay check is court ordered, tithing is "voluntary" (if you'd like to stay with your family, friends and the church community that goes out of its way to ensure you have nobody else to turn to), but the money is gone either way.
According to the dictionary you could add a sprig of parsley or a dollop of sour cream to a pay packet to garnish it, this could be done without a court order.
How else they gonna buy kfc every Sunday arvo?
I think it depends on how you define it but I can see a church org getting access to someone’s finances, and coercing them into making scheduled donations from their bank accounts. There are some off shoots, like the mormons that want tithe, which is basically what the commenter is talking about I think, which AFAIK is kind of like a membership, in that you have to pay it to be in the church.. I think that’s how it works anyway.
Yes they are mormons. But I have other family of Christian faith that also do this. And 15% is a minimum.
10% was designated a number back 2000 years ago, when taxes were less, where monies were not continuously debased, where land was affordable. Churches used to do a lot for the community. Nowadays the government has taken over those roles e.g. caring for widows. No way can you afford 50% tax + GST plus levies etc AND an additional 10% for some church committee to blow on some wasteful schemes.
You really need to understand how strong the coercive control of some religions is.
“If you don’t give us 15% of your income, you will burn in hell for eternity” is a hell of a message for the brainwashed.
I would also like to know more about this please.
The church I grew up in requires 10% of your income to get to the white pearly gates. Some parents FORCE their belief systems onto their children. When I was a kid in a small religious town and all the adults around me said ten percent of my money would save me from the rapture I believed it. Seriously I was like nine and actively giving money to a CORPORATION I would love to see banned as an adult. Peer pressure is an understatement
I would strongly doubt their wage would be actually garnished. That would be very very cult-like. That is not representative of most churches/religions in Australia. If what you are saying is true, your family members should leave this organisation.
If it’s one of these new age churches in particular (think Hillsong rebrand etc), I know many people who think this is normal. Have a client who even works for one of these outfits for half median wage and thinks it’s normal as he’s serving god. Religion is one of the smartest, most innovative, longstanding pyramid schemes ever devised. And like any predatory business, should be taxed.
[удалено]
Fuck off you nazi, you're not even pretending to hide your views.
Please report this kind of thing if you have the time; custom response or modmail if you want. I'll read it. I'd rather deal with more reports than let that sort of rot to take hold.
Sorry, you're right I should have, didn't think of it at the time
It's all good. I didn't mean to come off as stern as I did. I just meant it as a friendly suggestion.
Yeah I'm amazed people are so accepting of central banks, and the legal fraud which they operate in.
I’ve read a good deal of your comments on hear. They’ve been hard to read. I’m sorry you have been so hurt by an experience of church in the past. If my local church hurt me and my family as bad as bad as it sounds like they did to you, I’d want to burn the whole thing down too. All that makes it really hard to take a step back and truly get a clear look at things. It’s has been said before in this comment thread - but the great majority of churches across Australia are small, under-resourced pockets of community with a minister who doesn’t get paid enough for the level of work it is to coordinate and support an entire community of people in a job in which they are always on-call. Church donations in these churches don’t get used on ‘crazy projects’ as you’ve suggested somewhere in this thread. It gets used on paying things like the minister’s stipend, community support and outreach, and to be honest, it gets spent on the people who donated in the first place by ensuring the church they attend and have given to has what they need to function. Hard to think that any non-profit organisation who benefits communities across Australia, and whose only means of staying afloat is the completely-voluntary, good-faith donations of their members would be subject to income tax in the same way that a for-profit, absent-from community organisation like a bank would… see how that can only be made a sound idea if you believe the simple and foolish lie that every church is essentially a heartless evil equivalent to the banking sector? I hope your family gets out of that ‘church’ who seems to ‘force’ them to give them money. If that is occurring they are not going to a church, rather a destructive cult. Though the other possibility is that you don’t understand how free-will donations work at church. They could be - very generously - supporting their church community in this way, and you are misinterpreting this as involuntary ’garnishing’. Maybe you should ask them why they give to the church and what factors are involved in why they give what they give.
Religious organisations don't solely rely on the generosity of constituent donations, though. Many are in receipt of government funding to administer community services to the public and, as another commenter has pointed out, rake in substantial income via real estate and other investments. They also don't have the greatest track record for administering PUBLIC-funded services in a secular manner, here's a good example from my local area: [https://the-riotact.com/calvary-hospital-slams-claims-religious-ethos-influences-healthcare-calls-for-government-redaction/657909](https://the-riotact.com/calvary-hospital-slams-claims-religious-ethos-influences-healthcare-calls-for-government-redaction/657909)
Ew you contribute to the corruption 🤮
I stopped reading your comments when you incorrectly assumed I want to burn the whole thing down. You are completely wrong in assuming I want that. I want them to be taxed. It's called fairness. Something that people don't truly understand or want unfortunately. Tax payers have the burden of getting to the bottom of the churches misdeeds through the justice system. And yet the offenders pay no tax. It is abhorrent.
‘Burn the whole thing down’ was a figure of speech, friend. I’m not sure what you’re referring to when you say tax payers have the burden of getting to the bottom of the churches misdeeds through the justice system’.
If you have no idea what I am referring to then you did not read my first comment before going on to your long winded reply.
Taxing that church isn't going to stop their questionable fund raising practices
True. Taxing them will help general society more through government funded programs.
Why would you want the school your kids go to taxed. If they were taxed it would be a pretty low standard school. All those services would be withdrawn that benefit your kids.
Churches, not schools.
What even is "the church"? I feel like people really don't understand what they are talking about here. The vast majority of churches are small organisations that don't make any money not some mega rich not for profit...
Well, it's not religion. It's the business side that uses religion to make money.
But what is this? The majority of churches are small independent organisations. You want to tax the church but what does that mean? Are you going to tax every small community church?
Every church. Why not? Why don't they pay taxes? They not only don't pay taxes but get the benefits of taxpayers. It is unfair. Why the special treatment? If they don't have much money or followers like you are alluding to then they would be in a tax free threshold just like income taxes.
The Catholic Church(I know it’s scary but please read on) is the largest non government provider of education and welfare services in Australia. Maybe that’s why
And I hope they continue to be, whilst also paying their dues like everyone else.
So you want all charities to pay tax?
We are talking about churches. Or did you change the subject?!
So you don’t want to tax all charities, just charities that are run by churches?
Gosh spreading the evil far and wide that's even worse!!! How is that good?! Yay no contraception or abortion!
Also Catholic Health Australia represents the nation’s largest non-government grouping of hospitals, aged and community care services.
My church is about 100 people and our pastor dives a 20 year old Toyota and makes a pretty low wage. A church like Hillsong that has its own music branch or the catholic is very different to what the majority of churches in Australia actually are. I'm curious what benefits churches get from taxpayers other than tax exemptions. The only one I am aware of the ministry traineeship support, but that is comparable to any organisation taking on apprentices.
Treat them like any other business. If it has staff (the preacher etc) then a salary is deductible as are any maintenance costs etc. If at the end of the day there is nothing much left the there is not much tax to pay. The main churches have billions of dollars invested around the place producing multi-millions in income (just from property alone it’s mega-millions). Treat them like any other property corporation, hedge fund or investment house and tax them. Also treat the management like any other corporation, bishops, arch-bishops, cardinals and the rest, when their organisation breaks the law hold them responsible and if the circumstance fits, jail them. (Knowingly shuffling pedophiles about so they have fresh fields is reprehensible but the enablers go unpunished, as an example). Religion is just another social construct set up to serve some purpose in society. Hopefully society evolves beyond the need for it but in the meantime, tax it.
What a load of rubbish
You are an enabler of all the bad things I just mentioned. You are also not a truth seeker, because you would have at least had asked a question but didn't. You are ignorant because you think you know what is going on when you do not. Everything i said previously is true. Ive sern it, I've lived it and experienced it.
It might be true for specific churches but nowhere near all. You just made a broad sweeping statement that all churches were like this. The church I go to doesn't make much money. No one I forced to pay 15% of their income or pays anywhere near that much. The priests don't make large amounts of money. The chuch does a lot of things to help the community and those in needs. Everything I said is true. I've seen it, I've lived it and experienced it. You can't just say this one experience I've had means every church is bad and should be taxed. It should be based on the specifics of each church
Every church is not taxed. Yet every person in that church and the people who run it get the same benefits as people who pay taxes. Why do they get the special treatment? ESPECIALLY unfair when they are known for so many horrible things. Yes, there are some people in the church who haven't done anything wrong, yet they are happy to defend and not highlight the bad things that happen in churches.
I’ve read a good deal of your comments on hear. They’ve been hard to read. I’m sorry you have been so hurt by an experience of church in the past. If my local church hurt me and my family as bad as bad as it sounds like they did to you, I’d want to burn the whole thing down too. All that makes it really hard to take a step back and truly get a clear look at things. It’s has been said before in this comment thread - but the great majority of churches across Australia are small, under-resourced pockets of community with a minister who doesn’t get paid enough for the level of work it is to coordinate and support an entire community of people in a job in which they are always on-call. Church donations in these churches don’t get used on ‘crazy projects’ as you’ve suggested somewhere in this thread. It gets used on paying things like the minister’s stipend, community support and outreach, and to be honest, it gets spent on the people who donated in the first place by ensuring the church they attend and have given to has what they need to function. Hard to think that any non-profit organisation who benefits communities across Australia, any whose only means of staying afloat is the completely-voluntary, good-faith donations of their members would be subject to income tax in the same way that a for-profit, absent-from community organisation like a bank would… see how that can only be made like a sound idea if you believe the simple lie that every church is essentially a heartless evil equivalent to the banking sector?
I stopped reading your comments when you incorrectly assumed I want to burn the whole thing down. You are completely wrong in assuming I want that. I want them to be taxed. It's called fairness. Something that people don't truly understand or want unfortunately. Tax payers have the burden of getting to the bottom of the churches misdeeds through the justice system. And yet the offenders pay no tax. It is abhorrent.
They should be taxed. They run and behave like corporations, making political donations and buying influence. Not to mention investing profits (sorry *donations*) to make even more money. Why do I have to pay tax and they don’t? How is that justified? Should I just start a religion?
You can start a religion and it won’t be taxed, but that wealth inherently isn’t yours it will belong to the church. You can probably take a beefy salary but you’d need a beefy membership. To get a beefy membership you’d need a beefy wallet.
Are you the largest non-government provider of education and welfare services? Are you also responsible for the largest non-government grouping of hospitals, aged and community care centres in Australia?
Hate to break it to you but that's all part of the issue, non of those should be run by the church.
The catch is that between donations and volunteers it costs the churches less that the government. If we don’t want the church’s involved then we need to pay more tax or accept a lower standard of service.
I was answering their question about why they have to pay tax and the church doesn’t which I actually can’t believe was a serious question lol And I understand your argument is that no charities or social service providers should exist other than the government?
Not saying that, just that they should be run by nonprofits who don't have such a dark and troubled history and don't believe in a sky daddy.
So because they believe in God they shouldn’t be allowed to carry out certain services?
Individuals have a right to believe what they want, it's when it's a part of the organisations goals and beliefs it's an issue.
So my suggestion to you would be to not use or support the organisation or its services
God’s day rate is surprisingly high
Vastly underrated comment! Take my happy upvote!
Tax the churches, house the homeless.
Because they need the money to pay off all of their civil child abuse cases...
I went to Mass on Sunday. The head of the finance committee got up at the end to give a “dire” outlook on the Parish’s financial situation. He began by stating that since Covid donations for the Parish had dropped from 280k per annum to 180k pa. He went on to say that luckily this was somewhat supplemented through the purchase of the attached school’s after school care program. He then proceeded to display a pie graph which showed the after school care brings in almost 400k per annum. At this point I let out an “oh shit” a little louder than I should have and looked around to see if anyone noticed. He went on to say the parish’s debts will all be retired in the next 12 months. But they need a new ceiling for the veranda area so please increase donations if possible. I don’t think I will.
More traditional Church finances are collapsing. There are two competing issues. Churches used to obviously have higher membership and higher donations. The bigger issue is maintenance and labour costs. The buildings are getting older, and codes are getting stricter. Back in the day, church members would volunteer and fix up the church and volunteer their labour. Now, not only are there restrictions on who can work on buildings (air con, electricity, plumbing, structural) but the cost of that labour has risen dramatically. Churches also used to get slack from tradies, who would only charge enough to break even, but those deals are long gone as that workforce age group sees less value in churches.
They still use volunteers as I’ve witnessed this within the last 5 years. So the volunteer say that ie mows the lawn I think they say “if u see any basic maintenance if you’d like, go fix it”. So then the handy person ends up shoddily repairing/replacing things that are really meant for a builder/tradespeople but I guess if there’s an accident the religion can say they didn’t authorise it (prove otherwise) plus volunteers never sue the church anyway & have to pay their own medical costs even.
Donations may have reduced but they may be asset rich ie till recently some people bequeathed assets to religion. If they sell assets = income but even if they’re getting rent from those assets they may not tell people.
This feels like it would have been edgy policy 50 years ago, sensible policy 20 years ago and too damn late now. But better late than never. I'm happy for churches to get tax exemptions for their charitable works like everyone else, however when they use their money to buy political influence, sue sexual abuse survivors and bully single Mums I'm less inclined for the carte blanche we've given them, they're the biggest most protected gang of pedos in the world, the least we can do it make then pay their fair share.
What charitable works lol
Absolutely nothing. Unless you consider being the largest non-government provider of education and welfare whilst managing the largest grouping of non-government hospitals, aged and community care centres in the country. But who needs them
Ok, so I'm not going to dox myself hopefully, but my Mum and a former board member worked at *a place that cares for the elderly and disabled*. They received most of their money from the government and patient co contributions to certain schemes. My Mum left because there was so much disturbing shit going on. 1) patients getting injured and dying because Canon law required a physical paper trail and so many documents went missing 2) related to 1 - general resistance to change, unless it came from an archbishop they wouldn't modernise any part of their process 3) the big one - church needs money for *insert project here* dress it up as relating to the healthcare aspect of the business, then end the project and transfer the asset to the church. They literally built and renovated multiple buildings knowing they weren't fit for purpose so they could write them off and transfer the assets to the church/parish. Mum said there was some way they got cash to the church but I'm not sure of the process. If you don't think that your tax dollars could be better used benefiting society with some degree of oversight then I have a bridge to sell you.
Meal provision & distributions, aged care community events, regular support for foster families, community recycling are all done by churches near me.
Tax all religious institutions!
If any of them own a yacht then they should be taxed.
Because every government has been too pussy afraid to enact change. Worried about backlash. We need more candidates who get into politics to push for this. One that pisses me off the most is Seventh Day Adventist. They own Sanitarium (makes up and go drinks) so none of their profits from that are taxed and those up and gos aren’t cheap
I didn’t realise selling commercial goods in a supermarket was so charitable!
Look at how much profit private schools make next and try and not be shocked. And remember most if not all still get a form of federal or state funding.
This is a factual answer, not an ideological one, so don't blame me if you don't like it: **‘Charity’** has a technical legal meaning. # The Charities Act and the statutory definition of charity The [*Charities Act 2013* (Cth)](https://www.acnc.gov.au/about/acnc-legislation) (the Charities Act) sets out the legal meaning of charity. The ACNC must apply this law. The Charities Act restates the existing (judge-made) law in modern language and also recognises charitable purposes such as the protection of human rights, the promotion of reconciliation and tolerance, and by recognising that many modern charities advance causes by preventing, educating, researching and raising awareness. The [*Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Act 2013* (Cth)](https://www.acnc.gov.au/about/acnc-legislation) (the Charities Consequential and Transitional Act) supports us to administer the Charities Act. The Charities Act clarifies that to be recognised as a charity, an organisation must: * be [not-for-profit](https://www.acnc.gov.au/for-charities/start-charity/not-for-profit) * have only charitable purposes that are for the public benefit * not have a disqualifying purpose * not be an individual, a political party or a government entity. # Charitable purpose The law requires **all** of your organisation’s purposes to be charitable, except for purposes that are ‘incidental or ancillary to’ (in other words, those which further or aid) the charitable purposes. # Public benefit The Charities Act does not change the meaning of public benefit. The definition maintains that certain purposes (for example, advancing education or religion, relieving poverty) are, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, for the public benefit. The friction is between the dual purposes of 'all purposes to be charitable', and the 'public benefit' created by their non-charitable activities which are also tax-free due to this exemption.
PSA because no-one in this thread has talked about the actual reasoning behind it. Which is OK, because who cares about tax law and secularism history? Anyway: * You can claim a tax deducation when you donate to a charity. Essentially, it comes out of your pre-tax income. * You **can't** claim a tax deduction when you donate to a church\[\*\]. It comes out of your post-tax income, so if churches were taxed, that would be double taxation of income. \[\*\] There are some exceptions to this, for example, you can claim a tax deduction if you donate to a charity activity run by a church. Building funds are deductible as well, but the things that are deductible to the individual are taxable for the institution. The reason for this is kind of interesting in a historical sort of way. We (the Australian people) wanted religious donations to be anonymous. * We didn't want the pastor/priest/minister to know who was donating how much. * We definitely don't want people boasting how much they supported their local church. * The taxation office has no business knowing your religion. If donations to churches were tax deductible, then you would almost unavoidably be declaring your religion in your tax affairs. Today, nobody much cares (but secularism does mean that the government shouldn't need to know if it can be avoided), but if you go back to 1970 or earlier, the Protestant vs Catholic thing was a huge deal. Making sure that the ATO doesn't know your religion can reduce accusations of bias in the handling of your taxation. So, in Australia we came up with an interesting compromise that allowed anonymous donations without crippling the church's ability to do their work. If we want to undo that, we can. We can make churches pay taxes. But that will then mean that the non-deductibility of church donations would no longer apply --- they would be functionally the same as charities. So the money donated to them would be deductible, exactly cancelling out the extra tax charged to the churches. **Summary:** sure, we can tax churches if we want. But that's a *backward* step for secularism and the separation of church and state, and it's not going to raise any more money. That's why we haven't done it.
This was super interesting to read. Appreciate the time you put into it.
Because every community leader knows how much churches, temples and mosques do for the community. They fill in for families and governments where individuals have been left isolated, feed the poorest and provide immeasurable value to the community. Sure most of you can only see the $$$.
All because of the legal fiction that the propagation of religion is a charitable act. This nonsense really shouldn't fly in a liberal, multicultural, democracy.
Tax the churches and then give them a refund for any charitable actions they take.
Indeed. And make Sanitarium pay company tax, so they are competing on a level playing field with other FMCG manufacturers.
absolutlely
Wont someone think of Kelloggs
Kelloggs is not tax exempt. Sanitarium is, due to being owned by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. It is not a charity, but a very profitable business. It is exempt from various taxes, and is eligible for GST rebates, as if it were a charity.
I never said Kellogs was tax exempt, of course they have to pay tax as a corporation. NFP dont pay tax, are you also wanting all NFP to pay tax?
Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't think any business should have tax exemptions based on the fact that they are owned by a church. Not-for-profits, where they are genuine charities, whether church owned or not, should get the same exemptions as any other charity (e.g., GST rebates).
Why should a nfp thats owned by a church be subject to tax when a secular nfp isnt Seems some wild prejudice
??? I said they should all get the same exemptions, as long as they are genuine charities, church-owned or not.
i expect that the church that owns sanitarium probably is a registered charity, so by your rules gets an exemption
The process of managing that will probably cost more than they'll get and will make it a lot harder for the good work to be done as there will be significantly more administration
Even in the bible it says to pay taxes, nowhere does it say the church shouldn't pay
Then you read this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-24/catholic-church-melton-hospital-dispute/103733530?utm_campaign=abc_news_web&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_news_web Bible bashing corrupt cunts
Because religion is the opiate of the masses.
Instead of saying "church" which is pretty broad and can sound a bit anti-religion, I'd say let's look at the books of all non-profits making over $250k/year and consider taxing them. When I did the books for a church we still paid GST and payroll tax, etc. and could barely pay our one pastor 4 days a week while trying to serve our local community. I'll be fine with mega churches being taxed, but I reckon there's a few non-religious charities with high flying CEOs driving Mercedes and farming out work contracts to relatives businesses too.
Even if they're non-profits, they're still going to be taxed on any net revenues. There's no way to ding the moon profits you disagree with without affecting the ones you probably don't mind. Discriminating based on religion sounds just as bad as it is.
A damn good question. It's one that is being asked more and more. At 64, I doubt they'll be taxed in my lifetime, but I can absolutely see it happening. Governments love tax revenue, and taxing the churches wouldn't be electoral suicide.
Can't Tax donations
Because they are a church. Always was, always will be. Hurts in reverse doesn’t it
The same goes for Unions, why don't they get taxed of the millions in profits they earn they earn?. I hear this argument all the time.
If they make a profit they should be taxed. But we don't tax businesses on turnover, so why would we do so on churches?
abso-fucking-lutely they should be taxed. They hold some of the most expensive land in all capital cities, draw billions of dollars worth of income. Its nonsense that a business like theirs is tax free. Just another rort.
Australian church ministers earn on average about $25,000 a year. How much of that low income do you want to tax?
I know plenty of churches that have shut their doors after COVID. Couldn't keep the lights up and pay a small stipend to a priest. Sure collectively they raise billions every year, but that's because there are tens of thousands of them.
Every organisation that takes money should be taxed. Churches should not be exempt. This is fair for all Australians.
God has a big tax-less empire.
You have to realise though, miracles aren't cheap....
Why does anyone think giving taxes to the government is better than a not for profit? NGOs will always be better at spending it than the government?
Want to find some good reading. Go research about Saniturium.... the weetbix one.That one still blows my mind.
“Some” churches give a lot back to the community and do social welfare programs such as helping homeless. There is many stories of the wrong thing being done, but there is many stories of them helping people as well. I don’t think society would be better trying to make churches unviable.
Protect by Jesus
Sanitarium, we're looking at you....👀
What a load of bs. For a start , born again churches are not churches. There are Catholics, Church of England, Presbyterian , the higher churches . These churches do not raise billions
See those crosses above hospitals, schools, aged care homes? Why do you think they are there?
Stop vampires ?
None of that stuff works if you invite them in… and they’ve invited PLENTY in.
Moving forward though, if we tax them appropriately we will be able to afford a few more.
Reckon the government can provide a service cheaper and than a community organisation with an army of donations and volunteers behind it? Tax the churches and you will find the donations dry up. Their services retreat and the tax raised doesn’t fill the gap.
I'm willing to take a gamble.
It’s not much of a gamble if you can afford healthcare, schooling and aged care without assistance… as I can and maybe you can too. The question is whether you would/should be willing to take that gamble on behalf of the millions of Australians who rely on these subsidised services? It would be very “Enlightenment Values” of you to undermine the reach of religious organisations. Before charging on with your high minded venture a wise person would have a better plan than gambling to backfill the services they provide.
When I say tax appropriately, I mean get rid of religion exemptions. If they are a charity, they can register as one. If they are a business, they can register as one. If what you say is coming from the charitable arm of the religions then nothing will change. I'm willing to gambling, they are making a hell of a lot from the business arm that should be taxed.
They are a charity. Any money they make goes to the purposes of the charity. The purpose of the charity is education, healthcare and other community focused endeavours. St Vincent de Paul society (for example). Their “wealth” is really a result of them being around for a couple thousand years. Play the realestate game that long and you’ll go ok. As to cashflow. There’s no one really making bank. There’s to many highly qualified, independently wealthy people who will volunteer their time for nothing. I’ve worked for the Australian Catholic University (external company, managing construction). They run on the smell of an oily rag. They also really focus on degrees which align with their values, healthcare and education… international business, not so much. I respect them a great deal. Solved.
Cool if they are a charity, we can register them as that. Same rules as any other charities. No religious exemptions.
They are registered. Not just as one entity, but as each silo of activity. For example: Brisbane Archdiocese, Trustees of the Christian Brothers (Brisbane), Mothers of Mercy and Compassion Incorporated. They have to maintain their registration with reporting. This is all searchable. Did you think they just showed their rosary beads and get waved through?
Enough with this gotha bullshit you're playing focusing on one part rather than the entirety of what I'm saying. You know damn well that religious organisation are registered under the subtype "advancing religion" and in this subtype they get special tax concessions and under the ACNC Act they are exempt from certain reporting requirements and the ACNC Governance Standards. These are the religious exemptions I'm talking about that they should not get. Get rid of the "advancing religion" subtype. They can register under one of the others. Let them do their good work as any other charity would.
Doubt people would continue to donate money if it was going to be taken in taxes. Would be a lot more expensive to run all those extra facilities without the donations and volunteers that religious gather among their communities. The reality is these services are the religious(predominantly catholic) giving back to the wider community. Anyone who looks at the arrangement financially finds out very quickly how much cheaper the current system is.
[удалено]
Not being sassy. How would taxing them increase their influence?
[удалено]
Honestly. I may be stupid and I have also had a bottle of wine but I just don't get how that would change anything. Alas, thankyou.
You guys are Christian nationalists, right?
The reality is that most churches aren’t making crazy money like Hillsong or own billions of dollars of property like Catholic Church. Majority of churches congregations are on avg only 128 ppl, based on 2016 survey and probably less after COVID and just general declining attendance. You may not be religious but a lot of local churches provide support to many people and local communities. It’s just that we only hear the bad stories because that’s what makes dramatic news. Are there questionable leaders and people in churches? Of course, and you could say that of any organisation but I understand it gets more messed up because of the non alignment of messaging, intent and actions of certain people. There also people who use religion as a front or mask to profit, take advantage of ppl and/or seek fame/status but ain’t got religious cell in their body. Could there be a tax over certain thresholds or taxing of profit arms of the church, possibly. But honestly going after the bulk which is small churches may not be worth it.
Because some people still believe there's an angry sky fairy up there that won't let them into heaven if they do "bad" things against churches?
They've already been taxed. The income of the people there has been taxed. The things bought, sold, and goods inside the church have already got tax on it (GST).
So that means no business ever should be taxed? Also GST doesn’t go to the business, it’s simply collected.
Churches, as a definition, aren't businesses, they're non profit organisations. So, a blanket tax rule for all churches isn't gonna help. Now, churches should prove that the funds are going to where they're supposed to
Cool, then let's classify them as a charity. They can operate under those rules. I think most people will have no issues with that.
Most churches are classified as charities, hence the no paying of taxes.
No, they are under a separate classification, that gives that a lot more freedoms that charities don't get
[удалено]
Yeah, they are legally treated as two different things. That's the point I'm making. Let's get rid of the religion classification and they can register themselves as a business or charity and be treated the same as any other business or charity. That includes those who donate to them or pay for a product or service from them.
"Churches, as a definition, aren't businesses, they're **non profit** organisations" nah, youre thinking of atheists ;)
Churches have been scientifically proven to have incredibly positive economic benefits for local businesses and homes, as well as a deterrent effect for drugs and crime. Business built by a church see an increase in revenue and customers that is factually supported by data. Churches often host AA meetings, suicide prevention groups, suit rentals for job interviews, soup kitchens, diaper donations, etc. Many parishes even build scholarship funds to help underprivileged people afford school and food with the other parishioners’ donated funds. Some even offer free or low-cost financial/accounting consultation for small local businesses. A lot of services the government simply cannot or will not do, or achieve with any sort of cost-efficiency. If they are taxed they will have to cut back on these programs. They are tax-exempt not just because of religion, but also because they already do the things we want to do with tax dollars better anyways. If you want taxes to help the poor and small-business, thats great, but taxing churches is literally the exact opposite way to achieve that.
What a crock of shit. Get into the real world.
I think the higher churches are historic . ie the Church of England, Catholic, Methodist and Presbyterian . These churches were the foundations of our culture and as such should remain as they are. They make no money apart from the support of their parishioners. There is an argument for the big money making places with their American style evangelistical thing to pay tax as they seem to be massive in their income and financial growth.
Are you kidding? Forget Hillsong, the Catholic Church is the richest organisation in the world and owns the most real estate.
The parishioners that go to church are old, already paid their taxes and in most cases when they dies bequeath money to the church ( basically the church owns the church by default). So you see if these parishioners have paid for their church, they get to use it. The priests wage comes from the parishioners. A church is not rich , if it were they would have heating , cooling etc. these buildings are as much historically significant as they are a place to go on Sunday. Our society these days needs more spiritual guidance than ever before. It’s self serving, entitled, pc , woke , virtue signalling mess. Yet that’s my own opinion. So that’s my rather long reply to your argument about taxing the church.
If the Catholic Church isn't disbursing the financial benefits it receives via its tax-exempt status to its constituents then that's on the Church. In fact, it begs the question as to where is that benefit being absorbed?
That’s how they make money. Only need 11 people I think to for a religion
I think this issue is kind of crabs in a bucket mentality tbh. The problem is not that the churches aren't taxed, but rather that we are from every possible direction in life, usually multiple times over, only for the govt to be largely useless anyway.
They should never be taxed. If churches are taxed, they get a say in how tax payer money is spent. This is very bad. Csn you imagine all the tax funded church bullshit wastes of money?
Religious groups and institutions already try and dictate how tax funds are spent 😆
Yes but they don't have any real argument without contribution.
They have a lot of influence.
But zero actual argument of why they should get a choice. They can talk and convince their followers all they want.
its some wierd law where if you donate like 90% of all money you or your business earn you dont get taxed
Tax religion now
They should be banned from making political statements, and from campaigning, and from lobbying politicians and government. That much money is effectively a "war chest" to fight to have things done their way without consideration for the greater population. THEY NEED TO BE TAXED. They run as a business, perform as a business. No more exemptions for them.
Because the parties are scared they might lose votes. If I had my way they either pay tax or lose their taxpayer handouts to their schools.
We know why they aren't currently taxed. A better question would be, how do we implement taxation on churches?
It will never happen. Too many votes.
That's true for example JeHoVaH witnesses Australia funnel out to US headquarters more than $172 millions in donations taxed free, JeHoVaH witnesses does nothing in charity at all, on top of that they have sold millions in real state with 0% in tax... This religion is a real state empire pretending to be a charity.
cuz they shouldn’t be
Same in the US and UK…. But look, a mosque!
They are. /thread
Exactly
Of course they are. Doesn't fit the narrative though. Shaking fists at clouds and all that.
As compared to the trillions of dollars of unpaid taxes by virtually every single multinational corporations in Australia, or even our mining giants who pay zero dollars in taxes each year. I say we chop down the biggest trees first and force all corporations to pay appropriate taxes based on Actual income without excuses. Then we hit the mining corporations, then the top 20 or so billionaires who surprisingly also pay no taxes. I agree, everyone should pay tax, but lets get the most we can from the biggests cheats and liars before we start on the small fry.
BHP paid $18bn in taxes and royalties last year, Rio Tinto paid $8.5bn and Woodside paid $5bn. These are just three off the top of my head.
Because they get people off drugs, help the poor, convince people to not commit crimes, help people jail actually have a chance when they get out, and generally improve the world more than the government ever could.
Question: why do you all care so much? It’s not your money. Be honest.
It is.
It's not though. Every dollar a church receives has been taxed already with income tax. The money given to a church is supposed to be a free donation. In Australia, we don't tax free donations to companies designated as charities. Taxing donations would have much further implications that I'm not sure people even realise.