Should churches pay tax just like any other business ?? Looking at the way that HillSux church operates you just can't help think that they should !!

http://hillsongchurch.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/hillsong-gods-millionaires/


Quote:

Pentecostal churches are not waiting to inherit the earth. They are taking it now, tax-free. Business Review Weekly Magazine, Austalian/May 26, 2005 By Adele Ferguson This weekend more than 200,000 Australians will flock to Pentecostal churches to worship God, clap, sing, speak in tongues, faith heal, and donate 10% of their pre-tax weekly earnings. Some will buy CDs, books, DVDs, mobile-phone tunes, T-shirts, fridge magnets and even a children’s DVD featuring Jesus as a superhero. Others will tune into their TV channels and web sites, visit their art galleries, schools and medical centres and even move their savings into church cash management trusts that hold millions of dollars but are unregulated. All of this is helping to fuel an industry that is turning over more than $500 million a year and growing at warp speed. Welcome to the new, commercial breed of Christianity that is sweeping Australia and spawning churches that are among the country’s fastest-growing, most entrepreneurial and slickest enterprises. So powerful are the new Pentecostal churches that they are changing politics, influencing business, and turning their founders into millionaires. Critics of Pentecostal churches say they look more like shopping malls than churches. But their members love it and the churches argue that their ballooning revenue is going back into the community...... Links with business are also growing. Hillsong, for example, has close links with Gloria Jean’s Coffees, one of Australia’s fastest-growing franchises (see the brains of the operation, page 41), and companies such as National Australia Bank (NAB), QBE Insurance and Aon Australia are targeting the members of these churches. The power of the Pentecostal churches can only increase in the business world. They are tapping into the business market with religious fervour. Many offer business directories, networking groups to help members set up small businesses and network existing ones, conferences and monthly breakfasts. Phil Baker, the pastor of Riverview Church in Perth, is hosting a series of business breakfasts around the country entitled Leadership Lessons from the Roman Empire. One such breakfast, held in Melbourne in May, attracted 500 business people, including some top executives from the NAB. Christian Outreach Centre is offering its members a five-day Business Achievers conference on Daydream Island in August at a cost of $500. Its brochure says: “In just one week you will develop the strategies, skills and motivation to take your place among Australia’s eminent business leaders.” Like all religions, the Pentecostals have a big advantage over the commercial world in that they do not have to pay tax, they do not file tax returns, they get government concessions and grants, much of their workforce is voluntary so they have relatively small wage bills, and there is little accountability and transparency about what they do or how they spend the money.

Quote:

‘Hijacked’ It is these tax breaks, the millions of dollars rolling in the doors of these churches, and the lack of accountability, that is fuelling a growing body of critics. Philip Powell, a Pentecostal preacher and a former general-secretary of the AOG, is concerned by the more flamboyant Pentecostal churches. “It is my conviction that the present Pentecostal leaders like Brian Houston [pastor of Hillsong] and Phil Pringle [pastor of Christian City Church] have hijacked the godly movement, which was simply a fellowship of churches. They have turned it into a hierarchical denomination for selfish purposes and ends. It has become a fellowship of ministers, not churches,” he says. “Many of these ministers have made themselves multi-millionaires. They are no more than business magnates who benefit from the tax-free status of corporations that they lead. They are not ‘pastors’ but business managers who have cashed in on a loophole in the Western governmental tax system.” Houston says he is not an entrepreneur but considers himself a visionary. He says Hillsong’s message is not about personal wealth, “but rather it’s about personal effectiveness. We encourage people to live resourceful lives, enabling them to reach beyond themselves. It’s the difference between faith to put food on your own table and the commitment to look beyond your table and put food on the tables of others,” he says. Politicians are usually wary of antagonising such powerful churches, but not Carmen Lawrence, the national junior vice-president of the ALP. She has been asking questions in Federal Parliament about the lack of accountability and transparency. Lawrence says she worked out that Hillsong had received almost $800,000 in grants from government departments to fund various programmes, including family workers, youth activity services and “emergency relief”. “I suspect the figure is larger than that. We haven’t pinned down some of the questions, and the answers we are getting [from the Government] are evasive,” she says. Lawrence says it is essential that if taxpayers’ money is involved, the grants and the use they are put to should be made public. “The real problem is that it isn’t clear what the constraints and controls are, or the criteria for monitoring these grants, so we don’t know whether the funds are being used to proselytise,” she says. But the churches themselves say there is nothing to worry about. They say the money is being re-invested in community services – relevant community services. Houston says: “As a not-for-profit organisation, all our income goes back into the church and extensive services we provide. Last year our total turnover was $40 million. Of this, 60% went directly towards helping people; 28% was for buildings and infrastructure, which is ultimately about people too, as you have to put 18,000 people somewhere; and 12% was for general administration.” Whatever the case, the popularity of Pentecostal religion is unquestionable. Pastor Ashley Evans from Paradise Community Church says: “We are scratching where people are itching.” That itch has a lot to do with the way Australians are feeling. Ruth Powell, a manager at NCLS Research, says there are many theories about why the Pentecostal churches are so popular. Some theories centre on their contemporary style of worship and the experiential nature of their approach to faith. Other theories centre on the churches’ ability to offer certainty in times of change. The more popular Pentecostal churches are tapping into a void in people’s lives, offering a sense of community, fun, and a way to alleviate financial responsibility. They do this by selling a message that is easy to buy: that Pentecostalism is about enjoying life now. In other words, if you embrace this brand of God, you will be rewarded financially and spiritually in this life, as well as the next. It is much easier to think that wealth and worldly success are signs of God’s favour than to wait for happiness in the afterlife, as most traditional religions preach. The New Zealand-born Houston, pastor of the biggest Pentecostal church, Hillsong, is one of the main proponents of prosperity theology. The author of You Need More Money: Discovering God’s Amazing Financial Plan for Your Life, Houston writes: “Prosperity is definitely a result of applying God’s word to your life.” In section two of the book, he adds: “It’s God’s will for you to prosper.” Houston’s wife Bobbie reinforces the here-and-now in her books and CDs, the most eye-catching being a CD entitled Kingdom Women Love Sex, which talks about everything from having a great sex life to keeping slim. Father James McEvoy, a senior lecturer in theology at Flinders University, says this type of religion, prosperity theology, is a reinvention of the gospel. “It is a distorted reading of the gospel,” he says. “The central symbol of the Christian faith is a failure.” But the idea of having a good time on earth – financially and personally – is one reason Pentecostalism is so popular. It is entertaining, and the preachers, like all shrewd marketers, know how to reach their market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ8hefESt7c

The full version ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free.

Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country.

Not for profits may not file tax returns, but they must still file annual reports fully audited to ASIC.
Just wanted to make that point.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:33pm:

Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country.

Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?  

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?

They do and so do non religious charities which are usually not for profit organisations.

Some religious organisations could be not for profit, but I know a lot that are not and they make huge profits without paying tax. Now if the huge profits went back into charity, good thing, but it usually goes into hoarding real estate and other investment schemes.

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:39pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?

No only gullible people do the unpaid work whilst the church pockets the loot :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:54pm:

... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   No only gullible people do the unpaid work whilst the church pockets the loot :(

Well I'm sure the people who benefit from the charities work don't care about who does the work, or pockets the loot- all they would care about is that they are getting help.

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:56pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:54pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   No only gullible people do the unpaid work whilst the church pockets the loot :( Well I'm sure the people who benefit from the charities work don't care about who does the work, or pockets the loot- all they would care about is that they are getting help.

I'm sure too and I'm glad someone is there to help them, but the church can still pay tax and help the needy instead of helping the needy and pocketing the profits to feather their own nest.

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:56pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:54pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   No only gullible people do the unpaid work whilst the church pockets the loot :( Well I'm sure the people who benefit from the charities work don't care about who does the work, or pockets the loot- all they would care about is that they are getting help.

so they can pay their fair share of tax then and still live like the rest of us tax payers ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:05pm:

... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:54pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   No only gullible people do the unpaid work whilst the church pockets the loot :( Well I'm sure the people who benefit from the charities work don't care about who does the work, or pockets the loot- all they would care about is that they are getting help. so they can pay their fair share of tax then and still live like the rest of us tax payers ;)

So you want charities to pay tax like everyone else?  That's a surefire way to put an end to charity.

<<So you want charities to pay tax like everyone else?  That's a surefire way to put an end to charity.>>
...........................................................................

Maybe not. Hillsong for one is using the church as a tax free haven to prosper. Some churches make plenty of profits but do little charity work, it's a scam, a front for making big money with little effort.

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:12pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:05pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:56pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:54pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   No only gullible people do the unpaid work whilst the church pockets the loot :( Well I'm sure the people who benefit from the charities work don't care about who does the work, or pockets the loot- all they would care about is that they are getting help. so they can pay their fair share of tax then and still live like the rest of us tax payers ;) So you want charities to pay tax like everyone else?  That's a surefire way to put an end to charity.

why ?? They are getting the money for nothing anyway !!

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:26pm:

<<So you want charities to pay tax like everyone else?  That's a surefire way to put an end to charity.>> ........................................................................... Maybe not. Hillsong for one is using the church as a tax free haven to prosper. Some churches make plenty of profits but do little charity work, it's a scam, a front for making big money with little effort.

maybe it is - but how do you distinguish a faux-charity from a genuine charity?  

Hi Nail,
I like George Carlin -


God is all powerful but he needs money - go figure that.

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:26pm: <<So you want charities to pay tax like everyone else?  That's a surefire way to put an end to charity.>> ........................................................................... Maybe not. Hillsong for one is using the church as a tax free haven to prosper. Some churches make plenty of profits but do little charity work, it's a scam, a front for making big money with little effort. maybe it is - but how do you distinguish a faux-charity from a genuine charity?

That's the thing. Maybe the churches need to be investigated thoroughly. The government always seem keen to throw big $$$$ at charity, but are they all ridgy didge? There certainly seemed to be a fair bit of back handedness and ducking and weaving going on in the church I attended, and I wasn't purposely looking for it, the opposite in fact. I couldn't turn a blind eye, it opened my eyes actually to the true meaning of God needs your money, and he wasn't getting much of theirs that's for sure.

If they all have to pay corporate tax that might sort out the spammers from the genuine charities.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:48pm:

... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   They do and so do non religious charities which are usually not for profit organisations. Some religious organisations could be not for profit, but I know a lot that are not and they make huge profits without paying tax. Now if the huge profits went back into charity, good thing, but it usually goes into hoarding real estate and other investment schemes.

You do realise that not for profit doesnt mean they dont make a profit, it means the profits are not distributed and retained by the organisation soley.

Might be worth learning that.

Verge wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:48pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   They do and so do non religious charities which are usually not for profit organisations. Some religious organisations could be not for profit, but I know a lot that are not and they make huge profits without paying tax. Now if the huge profits went back into charity, good thing, but it usually goes into hoarding real estate and other investment schemes. You do realise that not for profit doesnt mean they dont make a profit, it means the profits are not distributed and retained by the organisation soley. Might be worth learning that.

OK. So let them pay tax on their profit, that's fair.

Churches are supposed to be charities, isn't that the whole following Jesus idea. They pay tax like everyone else and they help the needy like they are supposed to do.

Verge wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:19pm:

You do realise that not for profit doesnt mean they dont make a profit, it means the profits are not distributed and retained by the organisation soley. Might be worth learning that.

Agreed. You'll also learn it's a bit of a lurk.

And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividents on shares?

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares?

They buy more property and expand the empire.

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:38pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? They buy more property and expand the empire.

That's right, something went wrong with feed the hungry message.

Greed and self indulgence was it?

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 4:09pm:

And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares?

That's the shame. They shouldn't have any profits while ever there's hungry and homeless around. There's plenty of work to be done.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

Hi Nail, I like George Carlin - God is all powerful but he needs money - go figure that.

God is everywhere, but he also needs public housing.  ;D

... wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 2:29pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 2:26pm: <<So you want charities to pay tax like everyone else?  That's a surefire way to put an end to charity.>> ........................................................................... Maybe not. Hillsong for one is using the church as a tax free haven to prosper. Some churches make plenty of profits but do little charity work, it's a scam, a front for making big money with little effort. maybe it is - but how do you distinguish a faux-charity from a genuine charity?

You tax the ones that can't prove the existence of their imaginary god. That means they are not genuine in the first place ;) LOL

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 5:10pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? That's the shame. They shouldn't have any profits while ever there's hungry and homeless around. There's plenty of work to be done.

Don't worry, the clergy can always cherry pick a verse or two from their bible to justify their greed ;)

Squat a church near you, god wont mind. ;D

Is the Sanitarium company still a tax free arm of the Adventist church? Used to be. They'd probably make the Hillsong look like tiddlers.

the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is.

Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc.

most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax?

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 5:28pm:

Don't worry, the clergy can always cherry pick a verse or two from their bible to justify their greed ;)

Ah Yes!...but which Bible?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax?

Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence!

http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif

The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament.

This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality.

Tool.

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool.

While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain.

This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do?

and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either.

Ah poor Tool. You know nothing about me. Nothing at all.

You play the man, you do not play the ball. Silly you.

Tool.

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:43pm:

Ah poor Tool. You know nothing about me. Nothing at all. You play the man, you do not play the ball. Silly you. Tool.

so you dont want to discuss the topic? why is that? intellectual inadequacy ot is that only your prejuduces are on display, astro?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:21pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either.

I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong).

Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result.








Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me.



If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society?


Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:21pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either.

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has complained about not for profit organisations being tax exempt.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:46pm:

so you dont want to discuss the topic? why is that? intellectual inadequacy ot is that only your prejuduces are on display, astro?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gif

The poor paranoid sod sees "Astro" everywhere!

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing004.gif

I have no bloody idea who this "Astro" was...but whoever he is/was I like him. If he did enough to get banned/nuked/obliterated by you, then to him I dips me lid. Yessiree Bob.

Now.

Do you want to talk about the topic?

Or do you want to sling sh1t at people?

Your call...

Tool "mate".

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:38pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? They buy more property and expand the empire. That's right, something went wrong with feed the hungry message. Greed and self indulgence was it?

They feed and care for more of the hungry and the destitute than the Australian Sceptics or the Atheist Society, that's for sure. They run schools and hospitals here an in poor countries.


Just as a forexample, here's the Anglican Church's financial report. Tell us where the vast property expansion is evident.
http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/Website.nsf/content/Financial_Reporting_for_the_General_Synod

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:12pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:38pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? They buy more property and expand the empire. That's right, something went wrong with feed the hungry message. Greed and self indulgence was it? They feed and care for more of the hungry and the destitute than the Australian Sceptics or the Atheist Society, that's for sure. They run schools and hospitals here an in poor countries. Just as a forexample, here's the Anglican Church's financial report. Tell us where the vast property expansion is evident. http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/Website.nsf/content/Financial_Reporting_for_the_General_Synod

That's right.

they also feed and care for more hungry than the East Brunswick Stamp Collecting Society and of course the National Society for the Preservation Of the Sulphur Crested Cockatoo.




Selfish bastards.

Quote:

This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do?

What did you do?

I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income.

Some of us think this is wrong.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:12pm:

Just as a forexample, here's the Anglican Church's financial report. Tell us where the vast property expansion is evident. http://www.anglican.org.au/Web/Website.nsf/content/Financial_Reporting_for_the_General_Synod

Mate, digger, dude, buddy, pal, ol' mate, knob jockey dickwad...

That's not Hillsong old bean. That's the Anglican Church of Australia. There's a difference  ;)

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool.

And what question have you asked?

The laws are not there to ensure equality - if equality was one of your questions. In any case, the churches give salve to far more of the down and outers than the laws. And you know why? because of what the churches are. They are community organisation. The money they have is from their congregations. That means the people who freely assemble in each church. And get this - each church has a council (as seen in the Vicar of Dibley, an excellent sociological documentary, by the way, as is yes Minister). And these council decide what they do with their money. WHen they collect, they tell you what they are ccollecting for and you can look at their books!

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 6:58pm:

the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax?

so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ??

any ideas ??


Quote:

All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says.

What are you actually unhappy about?


http://myhillsong.com/financial-charter

http://myhillsong.com/corporate-goverance

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 1:48pm:

... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   They do and so do non religious charities which are usually not for profit organisations. Some religious organisations could be not for profit, but I know a lot that are not and they make huge profits without paying tax. Now if the huge profits went back into charity, good thing, but it usually goes into hoarding real estate and other investment schemes.

SO what is the difference between the profits of a religious and a non-religious charity business, Madame Resentment? All the religious organisations are fronts and none of the nonreligious are? Or what? Do you actually think - I wouldn't be surprised in the least - that non-prifit organisations, religious or not, are not subject to legal financial regulations and reporting requirement?

Reflexive, habitual stupidy like yours is not a cohesive argunment. But you wouldn't understand, would you? As long as there is a plot to sniff, you are happy.

Soren wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. And what question have you asked? The laws are not there to ensure equality - if equality was one of your questions. In any case, the churches give salve to far more of the down and outers than the laws. And you know why? because of what the churches are. They are community organisation. The money they have is from their congregations. That means the people who freely assemble in each church. And get this - each church has a council (as seen in the Vicar of Dibley, an excellent sociological documentary, by the way, as is yes Minister). And these council decide what they do with their money. WHen they collect, they tell you what they are ccollecting for and you can look at their books!

You're barking at the wrong bloke there Fido  ;)

I'm not (and others are not) bringing the work that the traditional community Churches do into disrepute.

You need to look at the original post again...

Gist wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 6:48pm:

Is the Sanitarium company still a tax free arm of the Adventist church? Used to be. They'd probably make the Hillsong look like tiddlers.

Now we're getting there...

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:22pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. And what question have you asked? The laws are not there to ensure equality - if equality was one of your questions. In any case, the churches give salve to far more of the down and outers than the laws. And you know why? because of what the churches are. They are community organisation. The money they have is from their congregations. That means the people who freely assemble in each church. And get this - each church has a council (as seen in the Vicar of Dibley, an excellent sociological documentary, by the way, as is yes Minister). And these council decide what they do with their money. WHen they collect, they tell you what they are ccollecting for and you can look at their books! You're barking at the wrong bloke there Fido  ;) I'm not (and others are not) bringing the work that the traditional community Churches do into disrepute. You need to look at the original post again...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1320891655/46#46

The (lefty zillionaires) ACTU doesn't pay tax either :o :o.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making?

when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? If that were the case the ALP wopuld be deregistered on the basis opf some its members crimes.

and secondly, many of these 'millionaires' are so on the basis of their non-church speaking fees and book royalties. Or are  we going to deny people that as well?

The tax free status of non-profits and churches has been rorted in the past that is true. But the problem with threads like this is it assumes that ALL churches rort - and they dont. Removing tax-free status of non-profits will only reduce their capacity to perform, doing more harm than good.

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:19pm:

Gist wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:48pm: Is the Sanitarium company still a tax free arm of the Adventist church? Used to be. They'd probably make the Hillsong look like tiddlers. Now we're getting there...

this old furphy AGAIN? Sanitariium is non tax-exempt. they pay 30% tax on all profits juist as every other company does (except miners who pay more!). But the reason they pay no tax on profits is they make no profit (they pay the normal payrol taxes, GST and levies). They make no profit because at the end of the year all surpluses are given to a tax deductible charity.

You can pay no tax too. all you have to do is donate your entire salary minus deductions to charity - just as they do.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:34pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making? when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? If that were the case the ALP wopuld be deregistered on the basis opf some its members crimes. and secondly, many of these 'millionaires' are so on the basis of their non-church speaking fees and book royalties. Or are  we going to deny people that as well? The tax free status of non-profits and churches has been rorted in the past that is true. But the problem with threads like this is it assumes that ALL churches rort - and they dont. [highlight]Removing tax-free status of non-profits will only reduce their capacity to perform, doing more harm than good[/highlight].

How?


If they could claim any charitable outlay as a deduction , how would that limit their performance?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:38pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? They buy more property and expand the empire. That's right, something went wrong with feed the hungry message. Greed and self indulgence was it?

the christian church currently feeds 40% zimbabwe. now red that again... FORTY PERCENT OF A COUNTRY.

makes your whining look pretty pathetic, doesnt it?

Grey wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:00pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has complained about not for profit organisations being tax exempt.

just churches... how convenient and typical of a religion-hating leftie.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:34pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making? when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? .

The "3" of them represent the biggest growing church in australia (is it not?).

Bit of a worry isnt it?





How about we abolish the tax free exemption , allow them to claim a tax deduction on their charitable works and then those "3" (I'm sure it's more than that ) would be forced to find another way to con hundreds of thousands of people.

Grey wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:

Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong.

you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME.

your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:40pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:38pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? They buy more property and expand the empire. That's right, something went wrong with feed the hungry message. Greed and self indulgence was it? the christian church currently feeds 40% zimbabwe. now red that again... FORTY PERCENT OF A COUNTRY. makes your whining look pretty pathetic, doesnt it?

which costs them about .1 percent of their total income and gives them carte blanche to control minds and destroy lives with their anti contraception , anti gay and pro superstitious nonsense propaganda.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making? when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? If that were the case the ALP wopuld be deregistered on the basis opf some its members crimes. and secondly, many of these 'millionaires' are so on the basis of their non-church speaking fees and book royalties. Or are  we going to deny people that as well? The tax free status of non-profits and churches has been rorted in the past that is true. But the problem with threads like this is it assumes that ALL churches rort - and they dont. [highlight]Removing tax-free status of non-profits will only reduce their capacity to perform, doing more harm than good[/highlight]. How? If they could claim any charitable outlay as a deduction , how would that limit their performance?

you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church).

As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else.

my church has also renovated a run-down high school, renovated the 4th floor of the adelaide childrens hospital and several other projects. we also run a soup kitchen and provide free counceslling for the community plus help for the aged and disabled etc etc etc etc

and people want to complain???

There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:45pm:

Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l

And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics).

A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors .


A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated .

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:47pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:40pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 5:08pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:38pm: Soren wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 4:09pm: And what do they do with the profits? Pay dividens on shares? They buy more property and expand the empire. That's right, something went wrong with feed the hungry message. Greed and self indulgence was it? the christian church currently feeds 40% zimbabwe. now red that again... FORTY PERCENT OF A COUNTRY. makes your whining look pretty pathetic, doesnt it? which costs them about .1 percent of their total income and gives them carte blanche to control minds and destroy lives with their anti contraception , anti gay and pro superstitious nonsense propaganda.

well that attidude reveals what is inside your heart. not much. a group feeds forty percent of an entire country and your comment is this??

id like to know what sickness in your soul causes you to criticise those that feed the poor for... feeding the poor.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated .

A) you are assuming they do - and they dont.
B) you are assuming YOU have the right to decide what a group does with THEIR Money - and you dont
C) you criticise people for feeding the poor. how is your credibility going today?
D) the majority of churches run at a loss with the pastor either working for free or for a salary he could top at Maccas. But feel free to condemn everybody.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated .

you arent saying that at all. all you are saying is that YOU think the christian church should behave the way YOU want them to while ignoring the fact that they DO. Feed the poor. care fot the sick and the widows. THAT was Jesus command and the church does that - far better than anyone else.  and until 150 years ago NO ONE else was doing it at all - just the Church. But your contribution is to criticise.

How many people in zimbabwe are you feeding? IM just feeding one.(personally) but Id bet the loudest critics on here give the least. It certainly is usually the way.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:50pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making? when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? If that were the case the ALP wopuld be deregistered on the basis opf some its members crimes. and secondly, many of these 'millionaires' are so on the basis of their non-church speaking fees and book royalties. Or are  we going to deny people that as well? The tax free status of non-profits and churches has been rorted in the past that is true. But the problem with threads like this is it assumes that ALL churches rort - and they dont. [highlight]Removing tax-free status of non-profits will only reduce their capacity to perform, doing more harm than good[/highlight]. How? If they could claim any charitable outlay as a deduction , how would that limit their performance? you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church). As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else. my church has also renovated a run-down high school, renovated the 4th floor of the adelaide childrens hospital and several other projects. we also run a soup kitchen and provide free counceslling for the community plus help for the aged and disabled etc etc etc etc and people want to complain??? There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me.

Again , because people who have read the life and teachings of jesus recognise that anyone claiming to act and speak and follow the example of jesus CAN NOT also be a rich person.


It's not rocket surgery.


ANY rich pastor/priest ( of the christian religion)  is the same as a prostitute chastity campaigner , or a cannibal vegan proselytizer or a KKK tolerance advisor

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated . A) you are assuming they do - and they dont. B) you are assuming YOU have the right to decide what a group does with THEIR Money - and you dont

I dont have the right.

But in a christian church jesus surely does.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:59pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:50pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1320891655/30#30 date=1320915493]the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making? when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? If that were the case the ALP wopuld be deregistered on the basis opf some its members crimes. and secondly, many of these 'millionaires' are so on the basis of their non-church speaking fees and book royalties. Or are  we going to deny people that as well? The tax free status of non-profits and churches has been rorted in the past that is true. But the problem with threads like this is it assumes that ALL churches rort - and they dont. [highlight]Removing tax-free status of non-profits will only reduce their capacity to perform, doing more harm than good[/highlight]. How? If they could claim any charitable outlay as a deduction , how would that limit their performance? you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church). As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else. and people want to complain??? There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me. Again , because people who have read the life and teachings of jesus recognise that anyone claiming to act and speak and follow the example of jesus CAN NOT also be a rich person. It's not rocket surgery. ANY rich pastor/priest ( of the christian religion)  is the same as a prostitute chastity campaigner , or a cannibal vegan proselytizer or a KKK tolerance advisor

u might try actually reading the Bible instead of one person's interpretation. you are actually dead wrong - which is fitting given that you are only grinding your axe against the Church AGAIN.

no comment on feeding milions of people? of course not. we must fixate on Brian Houston whos church has sold more music DVDs than any group or band in the country and a man whose books have sold millions of copies? How evil! We must not have sucess! we must be poor and ineffectual!!!  the hungry must die and the hurting must suffer all so that a few sick people can ensure the church isnt successful.

lame.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:56pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated . A) you are assuming they do - and they dont. B) you are assuming YOU have the right to decide what a group does with THEIR Money - and you dont I dont have the right. But in a christian church jesus surely does.

It is a bit presumptuous to speak on Jesus' behalf if you dont read what He wrote, isnt it?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated . A) you are assuming they do - and they dont. B) you are assuming YOU have the right to decide what a group does with THEIR Money - and you dont C) you criticise people for feeding the poor. how is your credibility going today? dy.

No I'm not.



I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:56pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated . A) you are assuming they do - and they dont. B) you are assuming YOU have the right to decide what a group does with THEIR Money - and you dont C) you criticise people for feeding the poor. how is your credibility going today? dy. No I'm not. I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire.

you want to be credible and claim 0.1% of income feeds nearly half of an entire country???

you are going to have to do a lot better than that. Id be interested to hear if you have actally read the Bible (the whole thing). from your rather silly claims Id be surprised if you had read any more of it than Lastnails selective out-of-context posts.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:56pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:45pm: Grey wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:17pm: Quote: This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? What did you do? I do support a not for profit foundation and I know that all money goes towards the cause for which it was set up. Not much of what churches collect goes to worthy causes, but they claim tax free status on 100% of income. Some of us think this is wrong. you are wrong on almost everything there. tell me again when DONATIONS to any cause whatsoever has ever been TAXABLE. they arent and nor should they be. Donations and offerings to church arent taxable any more than the donations you give to support the lifesaveing society. Donations are not INCOME. your simpeltons seem to be under the delusion that taking donations makes you a business. it doesnt. donations that are then paid to staff are income taxable.  but the donations themsevels arent. If a church has $1M excess of donations over expenditure then it is theirs to do as they fit and is not taxable. IM surprised you cant tell the difference.l And herein lies the difference of opinion (or ethics). A "church " , in my opinion , DOESNT have the right to spend that 1 million dollars "extra" donations as they see fit ie funding millionaire lifestyles for its pastors . A "church " (and here i am talking about a "christian" church) has only RESPONSIBILITIES , not rights , to do what its founder advocated . A) you are assuming they do - and they dont. B) you are assuming YOU have the right to decide what a group does with THEIR Money - and you dont C) you criticise people for feeding the poor. how is your credibility going today? dy. No I'm not. I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire.

wealth??? you shoudl actually go to a church, get involved and see what the wealth is. most struggle to pay their way and their pastor and NONE have large accumulations of cash.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:04pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:59pm: [quote author=longweekend58 you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church). As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else. and people want to complain??? There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me. Again , because people who have read the life and teachings of jesus recognise that anyone claiming to act and speak and follow the example of jesus CAN NOT also be a rich person. It's not rocket surgery. ANY rich pastor/priest ( of the christian religion)  is the same as a prostitute chastity campaigner , or a cannibal vegan proselytizer or a KKK tolerance advisor

u might try actually reading the Bible instead of one person's interpretation. you are actually dead wrong - which is fitting given that you are only grinding your axe against the Church AGAIN.

no comment on feeding milions of people? of course not. we must fixate on Brian Houston whos church has sold more music DVDs than any group or band in the country and a man whose books have sold millions of copies? How evil! We must not have sucess! we must be poor and ineffectual!!!  the hungry must die and the hurting must suffer all so that a few sick people can ensure the church isnt successful.

lame.[/quote]


Sold more music DVDS?


Sold millions of books?



What bible verse or parable calls for these outcomes?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:04pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:59pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:50pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:00pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:21pm: Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 7:09pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1320891655/30#30 date=1320915493]the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. Ah the little ray of sunshine blesses us with his presence! http://www.filipinouk.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/repuke.gif The issue, Einstein, is with the law. What is the law? The law is simply nothing more than a mere act of Parliament. This is why "the people" are asking questions (Heaven forbid that the Great Unwashed should dare ask questions!) about the laws that allow such inequality. Tool. While it is clear that you hate the Church and that is your right, dont think for a moment that removing tax free status from non-profits is somehow going to enrich socieity by removing most charities and impeding the actions of those that remain. This month my church did a community project for the Childhood Cancer Association. Cost: $350,000. what did you do? and this wouldnt be possible if non-profits were taxed. Mind you, it wouldnt be needed because the CHildhood Cancer Association wouldnt exist either. I would be ok with this if the pastor of said church didnt live a millionaires lifestyle (like hillsong). Raising 350000 for cancer is great but if the pastor and church higherups make 1,350,000 then it's not such a great result. Now I am one of those people with not much of a knowledge on australian tax laws but maybe someone could enlighten me. If the tax free status of "religious" groups is abolished , but any charitable donations or outlays paid by a "religious " group is tax deductible (just like any member of society I think) would this prevent "religious" groups from doing good in society? Or would it just prevent those unscrupulous and money hungry , millionaire lifestyle type "religious" groups from getting away with selfish profit making? when you talk about millionarie religious people you are usually talking about probably 3 of them in total. Is it reasonable to condemn an entire group for the actions of one? If that were the case the ALP wopuld be deregistered on the basis opf some its members crimes. and secondly, many of these 'millionaires' are so on the basis of their non-church speaking fees and book royalties. Or are  we going to deny people that as well? The tax free status of non-profits and churches has been rorted in the past that is true. But the problem with threads like this is it assumes that ALL churches rort - and they dont. [highlight]Removing tax-free status of non-profits will only reduce their capacity to perform, doing more harm than good[/highlight]. How? If they could claim any charitable outlay as a deduction , how would that limit their performance? you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church). As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else. and people want to complain??? There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me. Again , because people who have read the life and teachings of jesus recognise that anyone claiming to act and speak and follow the example of jesus CAN NOT also be a rich person. It's not rocket surgery. ANY rich pastor/priest ( of the christian religion)  is the same as a prostitute chastity campaigner , or a cannibal vegan proselytizer or a KKK tolerance advisor How evil! We must not have sucess! we must be poor and ineffectual!!!  .

Well you are half right.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:09pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:06pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1320891655/60#63 da. No I'm not. I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire.

you want to be credible and claim 0.1% of income feeds nearly half of an entire country???

you are going to have to do a lot better than that. Id be interested to hear if you have actally read the Bible (the whole thing). from your rather silly claims Id be surprised if you had read any more of it than Lastnails selective out-of-context posts.[/quote]


.1 percent was hyperbole to make a point.

Not surprised you missed it.


But i wasnt just talking about the zimbabwe situation.




But still  I wouldnt be surprised if the entire christians churches expenditure on the poor    (worldwide and all "christian churches"  )IS    .1 percent

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:04pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:59pm: [quote author=longweekend58 you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church). As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else. and people want to complain??? There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me. Again , because people who have read the life and teachings of jesus recognise that anyone claiming to act and speak and follow the example of jesus CAN NOT also be a rich person. It's not rocket surgery. ANY rich pastor/priest ( of the christian religion)  is the same as a prostitute chastity campaigner , or a cannibal vegan proselytizer or a KKK tolerance advisor u might try actually reading the Bible instead of one person's interpretation. you are actually dead wrong - which is fitting given that you are only grinding your axe against the Church AGAIN. no comment on feeding milions of people? of course not. we must fixate on Brian Houston whos church has sold more music DVDs than any group or band in the country and a man whose books have sold millions of copies? How evil! We must not have sucess! we must be poor and ineffectual!!!  the hungry must die and the hurting must suffer all so that a few sick people can ensure the church isnt successful. lame.

Sold more music DVDS?


Sold millions of books?



What bible verse or parable calls for these outcomes?



[/quote]

LOL the Bible actually refers to God giving success to beleivers!! But I guess such passages didnt make it past your 'filter'. and where does that money go? helping the poor. feeding the hungry and teaching kids who have no schools. yeah, Im so sure God would be upset with that.

Somehow in that mind of yours youd be happy if the church helped 1/10 as many people as long as they received 1/100 as much as they do now. You arent talking ethics or outcomes. you are just saying you hate the church. Fortunately, some people help the poor. Pity your contribution is soley to attack those that do. awfully 'Taliban' of you.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:09pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:06pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1320891655/60#63 da. No I'm not. I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire. you want to be credible and claim 0.1% of income feeds nearly half of an entire country??? you are going to have to do a lot better than that. Id be interested to hear if you have actally read the Bible (the whole thing). from your rather silly claims Id be surprised if you had read any more of it than Lastnails selective out-of-context posts.

.1 percent was hyperbole to make a point.

Not surprised you missed it.


But i wasnt just talking about the zimbabwe situation.




But still  I wouldnt be surprised if the entire christians churches expenditure on the poor    (worldwide and all "christian churches"  )IS    .1 percent
[/quote]

you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing.

You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:19pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:04pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 9:59pm: [quote author=longweekend58 you might do to research non-profit first. it isnt as simple as it sounds. I did so a few years ago as part of a business analysis for a non-profit group (non church). As far as churches go the only tax-exempt status they have apart from those any non-profit has is for an taxes on goods or services for 'religous observance'. that means that all taxes, duties and GST etc on anything used for a church service is refundable. That actually amounts to not very much in the running of a church other than building. day-to-day activities are taxed just the same as everyone else. and people want to complain??? There are very few rich pastors. most are paid a pittance. some are paid well and the rich ones do so from book royalties and speaking tours. why that is a problem exactly is beyond me. Again , because people who have read the life and teachings of jesus recognise that anyone claiming to act and speak and follow the example of jesus CAN NOT also be a rich person. It's not rocket surgery. ANY rich pastor/priest ( of the christian religion)  is the same as a prostitute chastity campaigner , or a cannibal vegan proselytizer or a KKK tolerance advisor u might try actually reading the Bible instead of one person's interpretation. you are actually dead wrong - which is fitting given that you are only grinding your axe against the Church AGAIN. no comment on feeding milions of people? of course not. we must fixate on Brian Houston whos church has sold more music DVDs than any group or band in the country and a man whose books have sold millions of copies? How evil! We must not have sucess! we must be poor and ineffectual!!!  the hungry must die and the hurting must suffer all so that a few sick people can ensure the church isnt successful. lame. Sold more music DVDS? Sold millions of books? What bible verse or parable calls for these outcomes?

LOL the Bible actually refers to God giving success to beleivers!! .[/quote]



And I am sure it refers to FINANCIAL success.





That's right pilgrims.


God WANTS you to have a million dollars in the bank , a Mercedes , wear georgio armani suits and eat caviar and drink champagne.

I mean , after all , that's what he sent his son down to earth to do.

Very "Christian" of you longwinded.

::)

You do realise that Jesus Christ was leftwing don't you?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:22pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:09pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:06pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1320891655/60#63 da. No I'm not. I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire. you want to be credible and claim 0.1% of income feeds nearly half of an entire country??? you are going to have to do a lot better than that. Id be interested to hear if you have actally read the Bible (the whole thing). from your rather silly claims Id be surprised if you had read any more of it than Lastnails selective out-of-context posts. .1 percent was hyperbole to make a point. Not surprised you missed it. But i wasnt just talking about the zimbabwe situation. But still  I wouldnt be surprised if the entire christians churches expenditure on the poor    (worldwide and all "christian churches"  )IS    .1 percent

you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. [/quote]




No i wouldnt.

But only you would think that 50 percent is an acceptable figure for a "christian" church to spend on the poor.



50 percent AINT ENOUGH.

Not for a church supposedly based on the life and teachings of jesus christ.



It doesnt take no biblical scholar to work that out.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:22pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe?

No.

If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings.




And by the way , you have NO idea what I do

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:09pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:06pm: [quote author=longweekend58 link=1320891655/60#63 da. No I'm not. I'm criticising  an organization that claims to follow the teachings of jesus christ for spending .1 percent of their wealth (  WEALTH!!! In a "CHRISTIAN" organisation!!!  unbelievable)  on feeding the poor when nothing short of 100 per cent would have been their founders desire. you want to be credible and claim 0.1% of income feeds nearly half of an entire country??? you are going to have to do a lot better than that. Id be interested to hear if you have actally read the Bible (the whole thing). from your rather silly claims Id be surprised if you had read any more of it than Lastnails selective out-of-context posts. .1 percent was hyperbole to make a point. Not surprised you missed it. But i wasnt just talking about the zimbabwe situation. But still  I wouldnt be surprised if the entire christians churches expenditure on the poor    (worldwide and all "christian churches"  )IS    .1 percent you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true.

No i wouldnt.

But only you would think that 50 percent is an acceptable figure for a "christian" church to spend on the poor.



50 percent AINT ENOUGH.

Not for a church supposedly based on the life and teachings of jesus christ.



It doesnt take no biblical scholar to work that out.[/quote]


simple practicalities... how does a church worker feed and clothe themselves while doing the work if they are not paid because the church has to give all its money to the poor??

And how does the food even get to Zimbabwe's poor because the church doesnt have the money to buy trucks to get it there.

Even the Bible says it id RIGHT for a worker of righteousness to be paid. see, you'd know that if you ever read the words of the Man you chose to quote.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do

actually I do. it is almost always the same. the loudest voices in complaint are usually those who do the least. its true in every aspect of life. They give $20 occasionally to a charity and think they are doing well while criticsing people who give 10% of their salaries and their free time and skills to help the poor.

Ive seen it all before. You MAY be one of the few exceptions, but statistics are overwhelmingly on my side.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ?? any ideas ?? Quote: All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says.

Hi Nail,
Why must I pay heavy taxes yet these people selling life after death don't?
It's not fair.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do

how does ANYONE give 100% of their income away every year.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ?? any ideas ?? Quote: All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says. Hi Nail, Why must I pay heavy taxes yet these people selling life after death don't? It's not fair.

ah... the second half of Dumb and Dumber arrives.

You're confusing outlay with profits paid to fund the lifestyles of millionaire pastors.





i'm not saying that christian workers shouldnt be able to buy food , buy trucks to deliver that food etc.




It's the driving around in mercedes , the extravagant house and lifestyle sthat people like the hillsong (and catholic churches) enjoy.



Tax all self proclaimed "churches" and give tax deductions for any charitable works (including having to buy trucks to deliver food etc)

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do actually I do. it is almost always the same. the loudest voices in complaint are usually those who do the least. its true in every aspect of life. They give $20 occasionally to a charity and think they are doing well while criticsing people who give 10% of their salaries and their free time and skills to help the poor. Ive seen it all before. You MAY be one of the few exceptions, but statistics are overwhelmingly on my side.

But they are NOT giving it to the poor are they?



They are giving it to the rich.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

You're confusing outlay with profits paid to fund the lifestyles of millionaire pastors. i'm not saying that christian workers shouldnt be able to buy food , buy trucks to deliver that food etc. It's the driving around in mercedes , the extravagant house and lifestyle sthat people like the hillsong (and catholic churches) enjoy. Tax all self proclaimed "churches" and give tax deductions for any charitable works (including having to buy trucks to deliver food etc)

so you think all donations to a church should be taxable income right? is that what you are saying? because if that is true then church donations automatically become income tax deductible to the donor thius making it a zero-sum game.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do actually I do. it is almost always the same. the loudest voices in complaint are usually those who do the least. its true in every aspect of life. They give $20 occasionally to a charity and think they are doing well while criticsing people who give 10% of their salaries and their free time and skills to help the poor. Ive seen it all before. You MAY be one of the few exceptions, but statistics are overwhelmingly on my side. But they are NOT giving it to the poor are they? They are giving it to the rich.

now you just sound stupid and nail-like. in the Bible - since you want to quote it - the donations were brought to the house of God (the church) and the leaders distributed it from there INCLUDING to the running of the church and to its leaders. Funny, the biblical command sounds awefully like what teh Church actually does.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

You're confusing outlay with profits paid to fund the lifestyles of millionaire pastors. i'm not saying that christian workers shouldnt be able to buy food , buy trucks to deliver that food etc. It's the driving around in mercedes , the extravagant house and lifestyle sthat people like the hillsong (and catholic churches) enjoy. Tax all self proclaimed "churches" and give tax deductions for any charitable works (including having to buy trucks to deliver food etc)

and if these things are all earned by their own efforts - eg speaking and books then why is this wrong? do u think no one should be allowed to earn a good income? are you channeling equitist tonight?

so its ok to be rich as long as you dont go to church as well. correct?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do actually I do. it is almost always the same. the loudest voices in complaint are usually those who do the least. its true in every aspect of life. They give $20 occasionally to a charity and think they are doing well while criticsing people who give 10% of their salaries and their free time and skills to help the poor. Ive seen it all before. You MAY be one of the few exceptions, but statistics are overwhelmingly on my side. But they are NOT giving it to the poor are they? They are giving it to the rich. now you just sound stupid and nail-like. in the Bible - since you want to quote it - the donations were brought to the house of God (the church) and the leaders distributed it from there INCLUDING to the running of the church and to its leaders. Funny, the biblical command sounds awefully like what teh Church actually does.

Does that biblical command say that the church leaders should travel by gold plated chariot, live in the biggest mansions, wear the best and most expensive silk togas, eat the best food and drink the best wines?

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:42pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do actually I do. it is almost always the same. the loudest voices in complaint are usually those who do the least. its true in every aspect of life. They give $20 occasionally to a charity and think they are doing well while criticsing people who give 10% of their salaries and their free time and skills to help the poor. Ive seen it all before. You MAY be one of the few exceptions, but statistics are overwhelmingly on my side. But they are NOT giving it to the poor are they? They are giving it to the rich. now you just sound stupid and nail-like. in the Bible - since you want to quote it - the donations were brought to the house of God (the church) and the leaders distributed it from there INCLUDING to the running of the church and to its leaders. Funny, the biblical command sounds awefully like what teh Church actually does. Does that biblical command say that the church leaders should travel by gold plated chariot, live in the biggest mansions, wear the best and most expensive silk togas, eat the best food and drink the best wines?

and now we get right down to it. lets not care one iota about feeding the poor or helping the sick. this is about a handful of pastors who are good enough authors to make enough money to buy a nice house and a good car. so when this entire rant is boiled down it is done to ENVY? how disappointing. I wish I could say I was surprised. but these threads ALL boil down to this.

You dont care for the poor yourself but you do at least abuse those that do. How altruistic of you.

BTW one of Gods favoured people in history was David - a very rich king follwed by his son who was much loved by God and the richest person in all of history. both were made this way by God.

your biblical theology is as bad as your disinterest in the poor.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:44pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:38pm: You're confusing outlay with profits paid to fund the lifestyles of millionaire pastors. i'm not saying that christian workers shouldnt be able to buy food , buy trucks to deliver that food etc. It's the driving around in mercedes , the extravagant house and lifestyle sthat people like the hillsong (and catholic churches) enjoy. Tax all self proclaimed "churches" and give tax deductions for any charitable works (including having to buy trucks to deliver food etc) and if these things are all earned by their own efforts - eg speaking and books then why is this wrong? do u think no one should be allowed to earn a good income? are you channeling equitist tonight? so its ok to be rich as long as you dont go to church as well. correct?

If you are claiming to be an expert in the teachings of jesus christ then YES.



YES YES YES YES YES.

That's EXACTLY what I am saying.




If you are just some poor pleb trying to get by , who happens to believe in jesus (by family inheritance usually)  then I wouldnt expect the same diligence to adhering to gods word.





But if you claim to SPEAK FOR JESUS  and you claim some higher authority and knowledge then YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
you CANNOT be rich.

You CANNOT live that extravagant lifestyle.
YOu CANNOT ask hundreds of thousands of peope to give their money to you so you can live that extravagant lifestyle NO MATTER THAT YOU MIGHT GIVE .1 percent , 1 percent , 50 percent and more to the poor.



Thank you for helping me make that clear.



good night

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:42pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:34pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:29pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:22pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:18pm: [quote author=lon you wouldnt be surprised because if you were told that 50% went to the poor you'd only say it wasnt true. See, you arent really interested in truth - hence your 0.1% stupidity - it it was stupidity, not hyperbole. If the church gave 99% of its income you'd still complain. If they gave 100% youd find something to argue that they should be giving 150% of income - all while you did nothing. You criticise imperfect effort while sitting back and doing nothing yourself. Who do you really think is thanking you for that? the starving in Zimbabwe? No. If they gave 100 percent I would say that they are doing christs teachings. And by the way , you have NO idea what I do actually I do. it is almost always the same. the loudest voices in complaint are usually those who do the least. its true in every aspect of life. They give $20 occasionally to a charity and think they are doing well while criticsing people who give 10% of their salaries and their free time and skills to help the poor. Ive seen it all before. You MAY be one of the few exceptions, but statistics are overwhelmingly on my side. But they are NOT giving it to the poor are they? They are giving it to the rich. now you just sound stupid and nail-like. in the Bible - since you want to quote it - the donations were brought to the house of God (the church) and the leaders distributed it from there INCLUDING to the running of the church and to its leaders. Funny, the biblical command sounds awefully like what teh Church actually does. Does that biblical command say that the church leaders should travel by gold plated chariot, live in the biggest mansions, wear the best and most expensive silk togas, eat the best food and drink the best wines?

youve obviously not driven in a mercedes. they are over-rated and over-priced.

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:44pm: darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:38pm: You're confusing outlay with profits paid to fund the lifestyles of millionaire pastors. i'm not saying that christian workers shouldnt be able to buy food , buy trucks to deliver that food etc. It's the driving around in mercedes , the extravagant house and lifestyle sthat people like the hillsong (and catholic churches) enjoy. Tax all self proclaimed "churches" and give tax deductions for any charitable works (including having to buy trucks to deliver food etc) and if these things are all earned by their own efforts - eg speaking and books then why is this wrong? do u think no one should be allowed to earn a good income? are you channeling equitist tonight? so its ok to be rich as long as you dont go to church as well. correct? If you are claiming to be an expert in the teachings of jesus christ then YES. YES YES YES YES YES. That's EXACTLY what I am saying. If you are just some poor pleb trying to get by , who happens to believe in jesus (by family inheritance usually)  then I wouldnt expect the same diligence to adhering to gods word. But if you claim to SPEAK FOR JESUS  and you claim some higher authority and knowledge then YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES you CANNOT be rich. You CANNOT live that extravagant lifestyle. YOu CANNOT ask hundreds of thousands of peope to give their money to you so you can live that extravagant lifestyle NO MATTER THAT YOU MIGHT GIVE .1 percent , 1 percent , 50 percent and more to the poor. Thank you for helping me make that clear. good night

you may now return to that safe place of self-interest and self-belief where there are no poor people and you dont need to care about them. as for the Church, we will take our flawed selves out into the community and feed the hungry and carae for the sick.

yep some will rort and some will also steal. we are not immune from that.

But when you drill a well for a village that has no water do you think that even matters? do you think ANYONE cares if Brian Houston drives a merc if he leads a church that feeds 10,000 people or runs a home that save 600 cambodian preteens from prostitution?

you have a funny set of priorities.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:44pm:

darkhall67 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:38pm: You're confusing outlay with profits paid to fund the lifestyles of millionaire pastors. i'm not saying that christian workers shouldnt be able to buy food , buy trucks to deliver that food etc. It's the driving around in mercedes , the extravagant house and lifestyle sthat people like the hillsong (and catholic churches) enjoy. Tax all self proclaimed "churches" and give tax deductions for any charitable works (including having to buy trucks to deliver food etc) and if these things are all earned by their own efforts - eg speaking and books then why is this wrong? do u think no one should be allowed to earn a good income? are you channeling equitist tonight? so its ok to be rich as long as you dont go to church as well. correct?

selling gold passes to heaven :D LOL

Jesus Christ was a socialist

http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/axiemeluv/Smiley/nod.gif

Uncle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 11:14pm:

Jesus Christ was a socialist http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/axiemeluv/Smiley/nod.gif

hahahha - try reading the NT


imho, all religions should be subject to taxes set by the govt.
they may be permitted to offsets due to donations of the needy, but if they are profitable (which is good), they should pay tax on the net profit.
Which is fine.

there is a church by me that gives away 20 Ton of food each and every week to the poor and needy.

They should pay taxes on their profit, minus some consideration for that ongoing deed.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 11:52pm:

there is a church by me that gives away 20 Ton of food each and every week to the poor and needy. They should pay taxes on their profit, minus some consideration for that ongoing deed.

What church is that? Where do they get the food from? The 20 ton figure is just the excrement of steers isn't it? The food they 'give' is food donated by bakeries and supermarkets isn't it?


Quote:

LW - the christian church currently feeds 40% zimbabwe. now red that again... FORTY PERCENT OF A COUNTRY.

More excrement of steers. ICRC mounts a huge effort in Zim as does OXFAM, churches give away biscuits for sunday school attendance and run around telling people they'll burn in hell for wearing condoms. Missionaries should get out of the road and let the proffessionals get on with the job.

The bottom line is that if the churches were doing their job efficiently they would be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

There are still too many hungry and homeless and the church still has too much money.

If the church wants to make a profit, it should pay tax on it.

It seems that the church uses the same 10% tithe as the parishioners. Not good enough, 10% for the sheep, 100% for the shepherd.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 11:50pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 11:14pm: Jesus Christ was a socialist http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/axiemeluv/Smiley/nod.gif hahahha - try reading the NT

I have http://forum.football365.com/images/smiley_icons/nodding.gif

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 3:44pm:

Verge wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 3:19pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:48pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   They do and so do non religious charities which are usually not for profit organisations. Some religious organisations could be not for profit, but I know a lot that are not and they make huge profits without paying tax. Now if the huge profits went back into charity, good thing, but it usually goes into hoarding real estate and other investment schemes. You do realise that not for profit doesnt mean they dont make a profit, it means the profits are not distributed and retained by the organisation soley. Might be worth learning that. OK. So let them pay tax on their profit, that's fair. Churches are supposed to be charities, isn't that the whole following Jesus idea. They pay tax like everyone else and they help the needy like they are supposed to do.

You miss the point though.  You can only disperse profits to owners/shareholders, they receive an dividend.

If they pay tax, who are they able to disperse the income to by way of dividend, and pass on any imputation credit as well to, like any other business you say?

For example, ANZ pays tax, disperses income to my wife and those dividends have already had the tax paid on them at the corporate rate.  My wife then gets a refund on them.

Who does the church do that with if they dont have anyone to disperse the income to?

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:53pm:

and now we get right down to it. lets not care one iota about feeding the poor or helping the sick. this is about a handful of pastors who are good enough authors to make enough money to buy a nice house and a good car. so when this entire rant is boiled down it is done to ENVY? how disappointing. I wish I could say I was surprised. but these threads ALL boil down to this. You dont care for the poor yourself but you do at least abuse those that do. How altruistic of you. BTW one of Gods favoured people in history was David - a very rich king follwed by his son who was much loved by God and the richest person in all of history. both were made this way by God. your biblical theology is as bad as your disinterest in the poor.

yes but you should read ALL of your bible. Where does Jesus charge people money to listen to him ??

Why are these scammers charging money to spread the word of god ?? surely it would be minimal overhead to setup a website and offer all of the music, video and literature as free downloads or just enough to cover the website !!

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 8:31am:

You miss the point though.  You can only disperse profits to owners/shareholders, they receive an dividend. If they pay tax, who are they able to disperse the income to by way of dividend, and pass on any imputation credit as well to, like any other business you say? For example, ANZ pays tax, disperses income to my wife and those dividends have already had the tax paid on them at the corporate rate.  My wife then gets a refund on them. Who does the church do that with if they dont have anyone to disperse the income to?

Just like any other small business pays tax by selling a product or service to the public. The church sells gold passes to heaven so let them pay tax on the income received for such a bold promise ;)

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 8:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ?? any ideas ?? Quote: All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says.

You do realise the Pastors pay tax right?

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 8:36am:

Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:31am: You miss the point though.  You can only disperse profits to owners/shareholders, they receive an dividend. If they pay tax, who are they able to disperse the income to by way of dividend, and pass on any imputation credit as well to, like any other business you say? For example, ANZ pays tax, disperses income to my wife and those dividends have already had the tax paid on them at the corporate rate.  My wife then gets a refund on them. Who does the church do that with if they dont have anyone to disperse the income to? Just like any other small business pays tax by selling a product or service to the public. The church sells gold passes to heaven so let them pay tax on the income received for such a bold promise ;)

So?

Its not for you to determine what others see value in because it doesnt fit your beliefs.

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 8:43am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:36am: Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:31am: You miss the point though.  You can only disperse profits to owners/shareholders, they receive an dividend. If they pay tax, who are they able to disperse the income to by way of dividend, and pass on any imputation credit as well to, like any other business you say? For example, ANZ pays tax, disperses income to my wife and those dividends have already had the tax paid on them at the corporate rate.  My wife then gets a refund on them. Who does the church do that with if they dont have anyone to disperse the income to? Just like any other small business pays tax by selling a product or service to the public. The church sells gold passes to heaven so let them pay tax on the income received for such a bold promise ;) So? Its not for you to determine what others see value in because it doesnt fit your beliefs.

It's got nothing to do with what I believe in, that is what the church offers its parishioners and expects to be paid accordingly. What is the difference between a church offering a gold pass to heaven and any other business offering a service or a product ??

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 8:41am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ?? any ideas ?? Quote: All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says. You do realise the Pastors pay tax right?

as do any employees of any business. Companies have to pay tax right but churches don't, even though they are selling gold passes to heaven ??

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 9:12am:

Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:41am: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ?? any ideas ?? Quote: All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says. You do realise the Pastors pay tax right? as do any employees of any business. Companies have to pay tax right but churches don't, even though they are selling gold passes to heaven ??

But these pastors you say are making millions from books etc, they dont have tax free status.  So the ones you claiming are becoming rich, are actually paying tax anyway.

Ive already explained to you what a not for profit is, but your claim the millionaire pastors are getting a free ride is false.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 9:12am:

Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:41am: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 8:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:58pm: the usual suspects making the usual comments and only Verge seems to have any idea of what it is. Not for Profits dont pay tax on their surplus (not profit). you dont like it? complain the the govt and watch a large number of community organisations collapse - mainly charities, welfare groups and community sporting groups etc. most of the nonsense spread here is by people who know nothing about what goes on and even less about taxation law. if all these 'tax evasions' are going on - churches and miners for example - why do you think the ATO isnt taking action? just perhaps because... they ARENT evading tax? so how much of the 100 million per year turnover that HillSux makes actually goes to charity ?? any ideas ?? Quote: All this growth, plus the tithing (giving 10% of pre-tax salary to the church), and not having to pay tax, is translating into prosperous churches whose leaders are flush with cash. A traditional Australian suburban church typically has fewer than 100 members and an annual budget of less than $50,000. The average Pentecostal church has revenue 10 times that, and many of the pastors have become millionaires on the talk circuit and from the sale of books and DVDs. Powell says the royalties received and money earned from speaking overseas go to these pastors, but their profile comes from the church. “It is a bit like the Pope charging for speaking engagements, and then keeping the cash,” he says. You do realise the Pastors pay tax right? as do any employees of any business. Companies have to pay tax right but churches don't, even though they are selling gold passes to heaven ??

Hi Nail,
Selling life after death is big business.  ;D

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 10:45am:

But these pastors you say are making millions from books etc, they dont have tax free status.  So the ones you claiming are becoming rich, are actually paying tax anyway. Ive already explained to you what a not for profit is, but your claim the millionaire pastors are getting a free ride is false.

You are obfuscating it.

Is the money put into the offering plate each sunday taxed or not ??

I'm not talking about the free loaders and parasites who pay themselves a wage from that money. I am talking about the money that comes through the door and put into the offering plate.

If I run a business and sell something then I have to pay GST to the Government. What GST does the church pay on its takings ??

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 10:45am: But these pastors you say are making millions from books etc, they dont have tax free status.  So the ones you claiming are becoming rich, are actually paying tax anyway. Ive already explained to you what a not for profit is, but your claim the millionaire pastors are getting a free ride is false. You are obfuscating it. Is the money put into the offering plate each sunday taxed or not ?? I'm not talking about the free loaders and parasites who pay themselves a wage from that money. I am talking about the money that comes through the door and put into the offering plate. If I run a business and sell something then I have to pay GST to the Government. What GST does the church pay on its takings ??

NO YOU DON'T  THE PURCHASER DOES ALL YOU DO IS PASS IT ON

I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself. There are plenty of examples of tax avoidance schemes from church institutions. They are experts at it.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/exclusive-brethren-parents-claim-tax-lurk-of-biblical-proportions-20110325-1c960.html#ixzz1dM3OKK00

Exclusive Brethren parents claim 'tax lurk of biblical proportions'


Quote:

Parents in the Exclusive Brethren avoid paying tax on the bulk of their children's school fees in an arrangement that would be illegal if sought by other Australian parents. Independent senator Nick Xenophon has called for a tax office investigation into the arrangement which he said looked ''at first blush like a tax lurk of biblical proportions''. When most parents pay school fees, they are paying it from income which has already been taxed. If they  sought to avoid tax by paying it via tax-deductable donations, or through a family trust, they could be prosecuted for tax evasion. But figures released on the MySchool website show the Exclusive Brethren, a radically separatist Christian sect with about 15,000 members in Australia, gets around this law. The website reveals that, at their Victorian school, Glenvale, 54 per cent of the income is tax-free because it is paid by parents through distributions from family trusts as well as donations. Because a school is a tax-free entity, Brethren families who arrange their business in this way do not need to pay tax on that money. This tax-free money makes up the majority of the Brethren schools' income, with another 28 per cent at Glenvale coming from government hand-outs, and the rest from modest fees paid from Brethren families' post-tax income. At the Meadowbank Education Trust, the Exclusive Brethren school in Sydney, government funding (state and federal) totals almost $9000 per student, fees paid by parents from post-tax income are just $2700, and the rest, $14,300 per student, comes from tax-free donations and distributions. This means that, though the government funding is on par with the most disadvantaged schools, the controversial Christian sect has $26,000 per student to spend — more than some top flight private schools such as Xavier College, Scotch College and Wesley College. The pattern is replicated at the six Exclusive Brethren schools around Australia. In 2009, the sect raised $32.4 million in tax-free money to send its 2537 students to school. This dwarfs the tax-free component of any other private school in Australia, and acts as a de facto second government subsidy to Exclusive Brethren schools. At other comparable small Christian schools, tax-free payments by parents make up between about 1 and 4 per cent of income. The tax office has ruled that if parents seek a special agreement with an ordinary private school to pay their fees as a distribution from a family trust, it constitutes tax evasion. But the Exclusive Brethren obtained legal advice in about 2006 that their arrangement, which covers all their members, was legal. Only Brethren children attend these schools, and in the theology of the sect, they are constantly warned to stay separate from the outside world. They are told that ''worldly'' people are dangerous, and will ''defile'' and ''contaminate'' them. As a result, many grow up in fear. They are also all but barred from going to university.The sect, whose leader is Sydney-based businessman Bruce D. Hales, is adept at what it describes as ''spoiling the Egyptians'' — or taking as much money from the public purse as it can legally manage. Exclusive Brethren spokesman Bob Lawrence, of PR firm Jackson Wells, denied the system was specifically set up to avoid tax. ''The schools and parents follow all appropriate tax, education and other guidelines and comply with Australian law,'' he said. Senator Xenophon said the tax office ''needs to tell Australian taxpayers whether this sort of arrangement is sanctioned''. ''If what the Exclusive Brethren is doing is more broadly applied it could cause a multi-billion dollar hole in tax revenue,'' he said.

FRED. wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 11:02am: Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 10:45am: But these pastors you say are making millions from books etc, they dont have tax free status.  So the ones you claiming are becoming rich, are actually paying tax anyway. Ive already explained to you what a not for profit is, but your claim the millionaire pastors are getting a free ride is false. You are obfuscating it. Is the money put into the offering plate each sunday taxed or not ?? I'm not talking about the free loaders and parasites who pay themselves a wage from that money. I am talking about the money that comes through the door and put into the offering plate. If I run a business and sell something then I have to pay GST to the Government. What GST does the church pay on its takings ?? NO YOU DON'T  THE PURCHASER DOES ALL YOU DO IS PASS IT ON

And how much does the church pass on ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 11:50pm:

Uncle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 11:14pm: Jesus Christ was a socialist http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m242/axiemeluv/Smiley/nod.gif hahahha - try reading the NT imho, all religions should be subject to taxes set by the govt. they may be permitted to offsets due to donations of the needy, but if they are profitable (which is good), they should pay tax on the net profit. Which is fine.

if you are talking abotu church run bunsinesses they already pay tax. if your are talking about non-profit arms of the church they are subject to the same rules as every other group. there is only ONE seciotnparticluar to the church and that is tax empltion for goods and services specifically for 'religious worship' the amount is small.

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 8:31am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 3:44pm: Verge wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 3:19pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:48pm: ... wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:39pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 1:33pm: Yes churches should pay tax, but they never will. They will create safe havens and tax breaks to get around it. I've seen how they operate. They develop a business and claim that it is an arm of the church so they operate tax free. They can have 20 or 30 businesses all making big profits and all running tax free. Religion is part of the 1% that don't contribute to the country. Ahh but do religious based charities do unpaid work that benefits society?   They do and so do non religious charities which are usually not for profit organisations. Some religious organisations could be not for profit, but I know a lot that are not and they make huge profits without paying tax. Now if the huge profits went back into charity, good thing, but it usually goes into hoarding real estate and other investment schemes. You do realise that not for profit doesnt mean they dont make a profit, it means the profits are not distributed and retained by the organisation soley. Might be worth learning that. OK. So let them pay tax on their profit, that's fair. Churches are supposed to be charities, isn't that the whole following Jesus idea. They pay tax like everyone else and they help the needy like they are supposed to do. You miss the point though.  You can only disperse profits to owners/shareholders, they receive an dividend. If they pay tax, who are they able to disperse the income to by way of dividend, and pass on any imputation credit as well to, like any other business you say? For example, ANZ pays tax, disperses income to my wife and those dividends have already had the tax paid on them at the corporate rate.  My wife then gets a refund on them. Who does the church do that with if they dont have anyone to disperse the income to?

non-profits dont disburse surpluses. that is one theing they are NOT permitted to do. all surpluses must remain by law within the entity and used for the purpose of the non-profit. that is why they dont have to pay tax on their surplus.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 8:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:53pm: and now we get right down to it. lets not care one iota about feeding the poor or helping the sick. this is about a handful of pastors who are good enough authors to make enough money to buy a nice house and a good car. so when this entire rant is boiled down it is done to ENVY? how disappointing. I wish I could say I was surprised. but these threads ALL boil down to this. You dont care for the poor yourself but you do at least abuse those that do. How altruistic of you. BTW one of Gods favoured people in history was David - a very rich king follwed by his son who was much loved by God and the richest person in all of history. both were made this way by God. your biblical theology is as bad as your disinterest in the poor. yes but you should read ALL of your bible. Where does Jesus charge people money to listen to him ?? Why are these scammers charging money to spread the word of god ?? surely it would be minimal overhead to setup a website and offer all of the music, video and literature as free downloads or just enough to cover the website !!

no one gets charged to hear preachers preach. the money they earn on the private speackers circuit is a different matter. Our pastor is in high demand to speak to non-church groups and businesses

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 9:09am:

Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:43am: Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:36am: Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 8:31am: You miss the point though.  You can only disperse profits to owners/shareholders, they receive an dividend. If they pay tax, who are they able to disperse the income to by way of dividend, and pass on any imputation credit as well to, like any other business you say? For example, ANZ pays tax, disperses income to my wife and those dividends have already had the tax paid on them at the corporate rate.  My wife then gets a refund on them. Who does the church do that with if they dont have anyone to disperse the income to? Just like any other small business pays tax by selling a product or service to the public. The church sells gold passes to heaven so let them pay tax on the income received for such a bold promise ;) So? Its not for you to determine what others see value in because it doesnt fit your beliefs. It's got nothing to do with what I believe in, that is what the church offers its parishioners and expects to be paid accordingly. What is the difference between a church offering a gold pass to heaven and any other business offering a service or a product ??

the difference is that this 'gold pass' you talk about does not exist nor is it sold. no one pays for salvation. it is a free gift.

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:18am:

non-profits dont disburse surpluses. that is one theing they are NOT permitted to do. all surpluses must remain by law within the entity and used for the purpose of the non-profit. that is why they dont have to pay tax on their surplus

what does "non-profit" mean ?? That could mean anything. It looks like the churches just make it up to suit themselves. They are good at doing that. They have been making things up and twisting the sh.t in the old book for 1000's of years. They are experts at it and taking money from gullible people like yourself.

Is this what non profit means ??


Quote:

Brian Houston The founding pastor of the wealthiest church in Australia, Hillsong Church, and president of the Assemblies of God (AOG). Houston owns a waterfront property in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, a house in Glenhaven, and he is a silent partner in various property developments. He makes part of his money from overseas speaking engagements at other charismatic churches. He also receives the royalties from the “Christian resources” sold at the front of the church. Houston rides a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, appears on his own television programme, which is broadcast around the world, writes books and has the pulling power to attract visits to Hillsong by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and Treasurer, Peter Costello. Hillsong has 18,000 members and made $40 million last year. Nabi Saleh Elder of Hillsong Church, a director of Southern Cross College of the AOG, a director of Jerry Savelle Ministries International, and a director of Kenneth Copeland Ministries Eagle Mountain International Church. He has a 50% share in the fast-growing coffee shop franchise Gloria Jean’s Coffees, which is valued by BRW at more than $40 million. The other partner, Peter Irvine, is a member of Hillsong. Saleh has stakes in many businesses (see the brains of the operation, page 41). Phil Pringle Pastor of Christian City Church at Oxford Falls in Sydney, which has a congregation of more than 7000 and revenue of more than $38 million a year. He has set up churches all over the world. Pringle makes most of his money selling books and travelling the world, speaking at other contemporary churches. Pringle is an artist who sells his art through the church’s gallery at Oxford Falls. His church is not part of the AOG. Phil Baker Pastor of Riverview Church in Perth and president of the coalition of charismatic and contemporary churches Australian Christian Churches. Baker appears on television every week in 50 countries, writes books, gives motivational speeches to business leaders and travels the world as a guest speaker at contemporary churches. Baker has a congregation of more than 3700, which generates more than $3.5 million a year in revenue. His goal is to create a new brand of church that is non-denominational but brings together all contemporary churches, as well as some Uniting and Baptist churches. This organisation would replace the Australian Christian Churches and represent at least 400,000 people. Baker would head the new body, which he says will be launched within the next five months. Ashley Evans Pastor of Paradise Community Church in the Adelaide suburb of Paradise, and an executive director of the AOG. Evans has doubled the size of Paradise to 6000 members in five years. It generates annual revenue of more than $5.3 million. Evans makes much of his money from “love offerings” paid to him by other Pentecostal churches when he appears as a guest speaker. Evans works on the basis of visions from God. The previous pastor of Paradise was Ashley’s father, Andrew, who left to set up the Family First Party. He won a seat in the South Australian Legislative Council. His brother Russel is a director and senior pastor of the Pentecostal Planetshakers City Church in Melbourne. Neil Miers International president of Christian Outreach Centre. Miers was one of handful of people who built up this church into one of the biggest Pentecostal groups in the country. In 1977, he founded the Suncoast Christian College and church. Today there are more than 1000 churches under the Christian Outreach Centre umbrella, located throughout Australia and overseas. The church in Australia generates more than $48 million a year in revenue. In his role as international president, Miers has helped export the church to New Zealand, South Africa, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Germany, South America, Tonga, Western Samoa and Spain. Miers travels the world as a guest speaker at various conferences and churches. Adele Ferguson

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 10:45am: But these pastors you say are making millions from books etc, they dont have tax free status.  So the ones you claiming are becoming rich, are actually paying tax anyway. Ive already explained to you what a not for profit is, but your claim the millionaire pastors are getting a free ride is false. You are obfuscating it. Is the money put into the offering plate each sunday taxed or not ?? I'm not talking about the free loaders and parasites who pay themselves a wage from that money. I am talking about the money that comes through the door and put into the offering plate. If I run a business and sell something then I have to pay GST to the Government. What GST does the church pay on its takings ??

Its obvious the money is not taxed.

The difference between your business and the church is after you pay your tax, you can do with it as you please.  Go on a holiday, buy a toy model car, whatever.

The Church must retain the funds, and use them for the sole purpose of running the church.

That my friend is the difference between not for profit and private enterprise.

Its not the same as any business, because any business gets to use the money and disperse for business OR private purposes.  The Church can not.  Any dispersements to employees of the church are taxed accordingly.

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:23am:

longweekend58 wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 11:18am: non-profits dont disburse surpluses. that is one theing they are NOT permitted to do. all surpluses must remain by law within the entity and used for the purpose of the non-profit. that is why they dont have to pay tax on their surplus what does "non-profit" mean ?? That could mean anything. It looks like the churches just make it up to suit themselves. They are good at doing that. They have been making things up and twisting the sh.t in the old book for 1000's of years. They are experts at it and taking money from gullible people like yourself.

Not for profit means profits are not distributed to shareholders or owners, and are to be retained for future use.  

Those people all would have paid tax on their income from speaking engagements and business enterprises.

Nothing new there nail.

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:26am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 11:02am: Verge wrote on Nov 11th, 2011 at 10:45am: But these pastors you say are making millions from books etc, they dont have tax free status.  So the ones you claiming are becoming rich, are actually paying tax anyway. Ive already explained to you what a not for profit is, but your claim the millionaire pastors are getting a free ride is false. You are obfuscating it. Is the money put into the offering plate each sunday taxed or not ?? I'm not talking about the free loaders and parasites who pay themselves a wage from that money. I am talking about the money that comes through the door and put into the offering plate. If I run a business and sell something then I have to pay GST to the Government. What GST does the church pay on its takings ?? Its obvious the money is not taxed. The difference between your business and the church is after you pay your tax, you can do with it as you please.  Go on a holiday, buy a toy model car, whatever. The Church must retain the funds, and use them for the sole purpose of running the church. That my friend is the difference between not for profit and private enterprise. Its not the same as any business, because any business gets to use the money and disperse for business OR private purposes.  The Church can not.  Any dispersements to employees of the church are taxed accordingly.

what rubbish. They are profiting. Just look at their property portfolios and bank accounts as well as all of other bits and pieces that they buy such as cars, food etc just like any other business.

You must be blind if you can't see this. They sell gold passes to heaven and they don't pay any tax in their takings :( Read their sign boards next time which are their advertisements for their products !!

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Those people all would have paid tax on their income from speaking engagements and business enterprises. Nothing new there nail.

you are full of it.


Quote:

Like all religions, the Pentecostals have a big advantage over the commercial world in that they do not have to pay tax, they do not file tax returns, they get government concessions and grants, much of their workforce is voluntary so they have relatively small wage bills, and there is little accountability and transparency about what they do or how they spend the money. It is these tax breaks, the millions of dollars rolling in the doors of these churches, and the lack of accountability, that is fuelling a growing body of critics. “Many of these ministers have made themselves multi-millionaires. They are no more than business magnates who benefit from the tax-free status of corporations that they lead. They are not ‘pastors’ but business managers who have cashed in on a loophole in the Western governmental tax system.”

Churches should be fined for false advertising and banned as a health hazard. At the least 'branding' should be banned and nobody should be allowed to pray within a 100 metres of anybody else. The dangers of passive preying should be publicised. Think of the children.

Verge wrote on Nov 11^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Those people all would have paid tax on their income from speaking engagements and business enterprises.

Not if the income was given to the Church or a Trust of the Church.