Taxation of Religions

[DanDare]

Actually I think there is nothing OT about the discussion. Tax exemptions are given for a purpose. In the case of religion it was considered to automatically be a social good. With charity it also assumed to be a social good. Similarly with clubs, and also a question of fairness and not double taxing coops etc.

Is having free lunches for those that drop in charitable in this context? Religious motivation or lack of it does not answer the question. The need of those receiving the free lunch is more pertinent. If the people could afford to by lunch at a restaurant nearby then you have subsidised their income at the expense of the restaurants revenues. There may be some social good comming out of it however is it enough to then get tax emption to be played against other revenues?

Is building a "holy place" something that should gain a tax exemption? Why?

Should a priest have a tax exempt income? Why?

[stevebrooks]

Originally Posted by Plankton

I'm not getting into this discussion, it's even more off topic than discussing langar in the context of charity and tax concessions. The "good stuff" comment was in context of the post.

It's a shame the thread took this kind of turn. Thanks anyway.

Are you sure we are all reading the same thread?

Originally Posted by Plankton

Should the Gurdwara pay tax? Presumably we're talking about income tax on donations, right, not GST which they already pay in their bills and such.

Would you only tax religious institutions who receive over a certain amount of income in a financial year? Would a small fish like my temple escape under the radar?

See that hightlighted bit?

The answer is yes a pretty solid yes from us here.

It was also stated that the Langar provides free food to visitors, if this wasn't inlcuded as an example of charity and a justification for not paying tax then why inlcude it at all?

It was your question in the context that you provide food free to visitors, and the answer is, it depends on the reasons for the providing of the free food, and if that is explicitly for charitable purposes and is stated clearly as the reason then any input into that provision should be tax free, but for all other activities not charity based then yes it should pay tax.

You asked the question, that's seems to be the majority answer, can't be much more clear and on topic than that.

[Gorinnosho]

Thanks to all the posters so far, plenty of useful information and discussion!

I am all for separating the charitable sections of religions to fall under the same umbrella of other Not For Profit organisations, while the remainder of their organisation (probably around 95%...) should both be taxed as any other business and be open for audit.
However, the charitable work should be proven to be free of prosthelytizing. For good people who really care it should be enough that they are doing good work. If they can't provide charity without attempting to convert people then they cannot be considered a charity.

[Aldaron]

Originally Posted by Gorinnosho

Thanks to all the posters so far, plenty of useful information and discussion!

I am all for separating the charitable sections of religions to fall under the same umbrella of other Not For Profit organisations, while the remainder of their organisation (probably around 95%...) should both be taxed as any other business and be open for audit.
However, the charitable work should be proven to be free of prosthelytizing. For good people who really care it should be enough that they are doing good work. If they can't provide charity without attempting to convert people then they cannot be considered a charity.

I agree in principle, but I think it would be virtually impossible to practically enforce. Where do we draw the line between opinion and proselytising? If the charity is provided without being contingent on conversion, can we realistically tell people they can't discuss their religion while helping someone? How about if a Red Cross worker discusses politics? An Oxfam worker mentions their favourite football team?

I'd prefer to err on the side of free speech here and ensure that the charity isn't given in exchange for conversion. It'd be far easier to police, and doesn't creep into treading on the toes of peoples' rights.

[DanDare]

Originally Posted by Gorinnosho

Thanks to all the posters so far, plenty of useful information and discussion!

I am all for separating the charitable sections of religions to fall under the same umbrella of other Not For Profit organisations, while the remainder of their organisation (probably around 95%...) should both be taxed as any other business and be open for audit.
However, the charitable work should be proven to be free of prosthelytizing. For good people who really care it should be enough that they are doing good work. If they can't provide charity without attempting to convert people then they cannot be considered a charity.

To highlight the difficulty consider Ronald McDonald house. It is branded as a McDonald's thing, but does good work supporting sick kids, but the selection of sick kids as a target for this work is part of McDonald's branding, but its all legit and audited, but...&etc.
[edit]However, church charities should not require participation in religious instruction or ritual, nor should they filter helping people by faith criteria. The Salvos are bad in this respect with their refusal to assist openly gay people. Charities don't get to use their assistance as a blackmail lever.[/edit]

[Aldaron]

I forgot something, and I didn't want to edit my last post this late.

I also believe that any church / temple / whatever that receives any tax exemption should get absolutely zero exemptions from ordinary secular law.

So the Catholic church, which is partially publicly funded by its tax exemptions, should have absolutely no right to discriminate against employees on account of their religion or sexual orientation. Every other NFP organisation has to abide by such rules, why the fuck shouldn't the religious groups?