Religious Tax Exemption

[Mighty AC]

I also disagree with calling advancement of religion as being charitable.

Helping the poor, disadvantaged, improving the environment etc... are clear acts of charity.

Thanks for the info and I also agree with the statement above. Churches would then have to provide enough beneficial services to qualify for exemptions.

[Mighty AC]

I don't see churches getting that much of an advantage over other charities, except for the fact that the priest doesn't have to claim living in residence as a benefit.

There isn't much point in changing the status of churches - nor is there any political reason to.

For me the major advantage is the government would no longer have to determine what is or isn't a religion. They would also have to abide by the same rules that govern charitable organizations, like having to refrain from political activism.

[Michael Hardner]

It doesn't matter if you agree with the content - it's still a charity.

[dre]

It doesn't matter if you agree with the content - it's still a charity.

No PART of what the church does is charity work and THAT activity should be tax deductible. I dont see any legitimate case for other activity to be tax exempt.

[Michael Hardner]

That is entirely subjective.

[dre]

That is entirely subjective.

Not really. Some expenditures are directly related to charitable work, and some arent.

[jacee]

This is a more practical reason for scrutinizing churches ...

assets remain in the shadows.

Growing Questions About Church Funding

Now all of this wealth is becoming a political issue,however. The unemployed,recipients of housing assistance,families,communities, businesses,the military -- in the coming years, the federal government plans to deprive them all of billions of euros. But the church,of all things,is being spared,and hardly anyone questions the generous support it receives from the government.

http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-700513.html#spRedirectedFrom=www

[Michael Hardner]

Not really. Some expenditures are directly related to charitable work, and some arent.

I'm not sure why my point isn't getting across -> "charity" "charitable works" "good works" ... all are subjective

Documenting old architecture in a city ? Charitable.

Singing songs to young kids in the park ? Charitable.

Reading bible stories to old people ? Charitable.

Unless you think it's not helpful to do those things. Hence, the subjectivity.

[Michael Hardner]

This is a more practical reason for scrutinizing churches ...

assets remain in the shadows.

Growing Questions About Church Funding

Now all of this wealth is becoming a political issue,however. The unemployed,recipients of housing assistance,families,communities, businesses,the military -- in the coming years, the federal government plans to deprive them all of billions of euros. But the church,of all things,is being spared,and hardly anyone questions the generous support it receives from the government.

http://m.spiegel.de/...irectedFrom=www

Yes, it sounds like the German church had a few priest embezzlers. Back to Canada, though, I'm still waiting for something more substantial.

[segnosaur]

I'm not sure why my point isn't getting across -> "charity" "charitable works" "good works" ... all are subjective

The problem is not that your point isn't getting across. The problem is that you're somehow not understanding the concept of 'charity'.

To be charitable, you have to do something to help others, not just yourself. However, not everything that a church does will be done to help others, much/most of it is to help the paritioners themselves.

Documenting old architecture in a city ? Charitable.

But if its your job to document old architecutre, and you're getting paid to do so by some real estate developer, then your work is not 'charitable'. You are doing it for your own self interest.

Singing songs to young kids in the park ? Charitable.

But if you're getting paid to sing songs in the park, and the kids are charged admission to listen to you sing, then your work is not 'charitable'. You are doing it for your own self interest.

So, a church and priest/minister that just caters to members of the church (and only uses donations to maintain the church or pay the minister's salary, i.e. it does not run soup kitchens, or help orphans, or sing songs to children in the park) is not doing charity. the people in the church are paying for a service through their donations (be it mass, confession, or sermons) and they are receiving said service. Its no more 'charity' than if someone pays to go see Tony Robbins speak.

[Mighty AC]

Charity is certainly subjective. We already have people at the CRA (I assume) who determine what qualifies as charity. In my opinion, a regular church service would not be a charitable activity. However, volunteering to going off site to deliver a service to a senior's residence or prison inmates would be.

It's possible that under my proposed plan churches would have to do more than simply attempt to spread their own version of religion to qualify as a charitable organization. They may have to feed, shelter, clothe, the homeless and poor. They may provide tutoring services, indoor play facilities for kids, etc. I'm not a church goer but I would guess that most already perform activities like these.

The point is it is far more difficult to determine what qualifies as religion than charity. Let's get out of the business of sanctioning religion. Let's also stop subsidizing the spread of a religious message and instead subsidize community assistance.

[Michael Hardner]

The problem is not that your point isn't getting across. The problem is that you're somehow not understanding the concept of 'charity'.

To be charitable, you have to do something to help others, not just yourself. However, not everything that a church does will be done to help others, much/most of it is to help the paritioners themselves.

As I said, my point isn't getting across.

A church helping its parishioners is helping people - which is the point. People who attend the parish, people who donate to the parish - are people.

But if its your job to document old architecutre, and you're getting paid to do so by some real estate developer, then your work is not 'charitable'. You are doing it for your own self interest.

If the developer is donating to the 'old architecture charity' which is paying you to do it, then... well we're back at Square One (not Mississauga) aren't we ?

But if you're getting paid to sing songs in the park, and the kids are charged admission to listen to you sing, then your work is not 'charitable'. You are doing it for your own self interest.

Your example is confusing. Who is paying who to sing the songs ?

So, a church and priest/minister that just caters to members of the church (and only uses donations to maintain the church or pay the minister's salary, i.e. it does not run soup kitchens, or help orphans, or sing songs to children in the park) is not doing charity. the people in the church are paying for a service through their donations (be it mass, confession, or sermons) and they are receiving said service. Its no more 'charity' than if someone pays to go see Tony Robbins speak.

Well... you might have a point here. But if bringing Tony Roberts to speak is considered a benefit to the community - even if they have to pay to see him - they the charity is fulfilling the broad definition in the law. Whether that happens in practice is a different question.

Actually - I just came up with an example that shows your supposition is wrong: The Canadian Opera Company issues tax receipts for donations, so it is legally a charity and you have to pay to attend the opera.

And - in any case church service is free so your example wouldn't have applied anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

In my opinion, a regular church service would not be a charitable activity.

This is why the CRA doesn't defer to your opinion in these matters.

Basically, let's cut to the chase: you don't like religion and think it's propaganda so you think it shouldn't be allowed to register as a charity even if they do some works that you consider charity. Fine, but like all politics there is a subjective element here and as with Libertarians who think that only roads and military should be funded, you're in the same boat as everyone else.

I don't even think a plan to bar religions from registering as charities would pass a constitutional challenge.

They may have to feed, shelter, clothe, the homeless and poor. They may provide tutoring services, indoor play facilities for kids, etc. I'm not a church goer but I would guess that most already perform activities like these.

Right - setting churches above the bar relative to every other charity. As I said, it's just a reflection of your distaste for these institutions.

The point is it is far more difficult to determine what qualifies as religion than charity. Let's get out of the business of sanctioning religion. Let's also stop subsidizing the spread of a religious message and instead subsidize community assistance.

Charities don't have to assist the community either. I'm still not sure why my point isn't getting through here. They have to state their case - their subjective opinion - as to how their existence benefits the community. Churches can easily do that.

edited to add: I may not like accordions, I may not see the value in a Historical Accordion Society but if someone can make the case for it then it can be set up as a non-profit or a charity. Whether or not I consider Historical Accordion discussions to help the community is beside the point - the law is set up for them to make the case subjectively.

[Boges]

As I've said before people just question to benefit of Churches as charitable organizations because they hate religion.

Churches don't charge people to attend. You can receive free council at most any church.

Why should the donations people give freely to a church be subject to taxation because some question the legitimacy of the benefits to society churches provide.

[Mighty AC]

Mike, you're missing my point here. I want churches to be charities. I don't want the government to have to determine what qualifies as a religion; instead I want the CRA to decide if they qualify as charities. My opinion certainly does not matter in terms of what the CRA determines is a charitable activity. However, it is still my opinion and I added it to the 'charity is subjective' discussion. I don't think churches should have to go beyond what is required by other charities to qualify for charitable status. I think they should follow the exact same rules.

[Michael Hardner]

Mike, you're missing my point here. I want churches to be charities. I don't want the government to have to determine what qualifies as a religion; instead I want the CRA to decide if they qualify as charities. My opinion certainly does not matter in terms of what the CRA determines is a charitable activity. However, it is still my opinion and I added it to the 'charity is subjective' discussion. I don't think churches should have to go beyond what is required by other charities to qualify for charitable status. I think they should follow the exact same rules.

I am missing the point - there is only one difference in said rules outlined so far on this thread - and that difference is for religious practitioners.

What are you looking to change, then ?

[segnosaur]

As I said, my point isn't getting across.

The thing that's getting across is that you don't seem to understand the concept of "charity".

Charity involves helping others. Other people who need help. Not just the people who donate and/or attend the church.

Please, tell me, what about that concept do you find difficult to understand?

A church helping its parishioners is helping people - which is the point. People who attend the parish, people who donate to the parish - are people.

But if the people receiving the church service are the same people that are donating, then its not charity. They're paying (through their donations) for something that they themselve are receiving.

Its no more "charity" than if I go buy my own ticket to listen to Tony Robbins speak, or visit a psychiatrist to talk about "my problems", or go to the bar to complain to the bartender.

But if its your job to document old architecutre, and you're getting paid to do so by some real estate developer, then your work is not 'charitable'. You are doing it for your own self interest.

If the developer is donating to the 'old architecture charity' which is paying you to do it, then... well we're back at Square One (not Mississauga) aren't we ?

Unless of course the developer is making a list of old buildings to know what he can tear down/redevelop.

But if you're getting paid to sing songs in the park, and the kids are charged admission to listen to you sing, then your work is not 'charitable'. You are doing it for your own self interest.

Your example is confusing. Who is paying who to sing the songs ?

Not sure why its confusing....

The kids are paying. They're buying tickets to get in to the park to listen to you sing the songs. In which case you doing the singing is not "charity" any more than Britney Spears putting on a concert at the local arena is "charity".

Similarly, a minister giving a sermon to people who have given donations is not an example of charity.

Well... you might have a point here. But if bringing Tony Roberts to speak is considered a benefit to the community - even if they have to pay to see him - they the charity is fulfilling the broad definition in the law.

I'd be the one paying to see him, I'd be the one benefitting. So... not charity.

Actually - I just came up with an example that shows your supposition is wrong: The Canadian Opera Company issues tax receipts for donations, so it is legally a charity and you have to pay to attend the opera.

The fact that the Canadian Opera Company is considered a charitable organization does not justify considering a church as a charity. What it means is that the government should remove the charitiable status of the Canadian Opera Company.

And - in any case church service is free so your example wouldn't have applied anyway.

But people donate to the church, get those donations as a tax break, and often provide no benefit to anyone outside the congregation.

[segnosaur]

In my opinion, a regular church service would not be a charitable activity.

This is why the CRA doesn't defer to your opinion in these matters.

What, so you're claiming that all laws are perfect and should never ever be changed?

Sorry, sometimes bad laws are made and need to be updated/changed. The idea of charitable deductions for churches is one such law.

And keep in mind that church donations have not always been tax exempt... I believe that provision was added in the 1930s. If we were in the 1910s/1920s, would we be correct in keeping church contributions taxable because "that's what the government has been doing"?

Basically, let's cut to the chase: you don't like religion and think it's propaganda so you think it shouldn't be allowed to register as a charity even if they do some works that you consider charity.

The problem is the whole "some works" part... its pretty much impossible to separate the charitable portion of what the church does from the non-charitable "cater to the people who are paying donations" bit.

Charities don't have to assist the community either.

Actually charities regularly get audited by the government to ensure that they are acting in a transparent manner.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cgd/fndrsng-eng.html

Furthermore, when you are dealing with a "regular" charity, it is easy to see what portion goes towards its mission and what portion is "overhead". That can't easily be done with a church.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing that's getting across is that you don't seem to understand the concept of "charity".

Charity involves helping others. Other people who need help. Not just the people who donate and/or attend the church.

Please, tell me, what about that concept do you find difficult to understand?

What I find difficult to understand is where this definition comes from. The CRA doesn't use it and I don't buy into it. Is it yours ?

If so, then it's subjective.

But if the people receiving the church service are the same people that are donating, then its not charity. They're paying (through their donations) for something that they themselve are receiving.

The church doesn't charge admission, so yes these are different groups of people. Even if they weren't, though, we could still have a charity by the legal definition.

The fact that the Canadian Opera Company is considered a charitable organization does not justify considering a church as a charity. What it means is that the government should remove the charitiable status of the Canadian Opera Company.

Then why isn't this thread called 'Charity Tax Exemptions need to be re-examined' ? I'll tell you why - for the same reason that folks who are anti-immigrant pretend to be anti-crime. The 'problem' is never what it seems to be.

But people donate to the church, get those donations as a tax break, and often provide no benefit to anyone outside the congregation.

I think you finally clued in, as evidenced by your response to the COC example.

So let's have a new thread, then - 'Re-examining what constitutes a charity in Canada' ok ?

[Michael Hardner]

Ok - my post was so good that you came back with TWO replies, I guess...

Furthermore, when you are dealing with a "regular" charity, it is easy to see what portion goes towards its mission and what portion is "overhead". That can't easily be done with a church.

Right - I think we dealt with this above. Your problem - or so you claim - is that some charities aren't really charities. Let's take religion right out of the question, then and have a new thread.

[Michael Hardner]

By the way - we had a charity called the BC Astrological Society until it was revoked for failure to file.

[Boges]

Who really thinks MADD should be a charity? How exactly does that organization really help the public? It's a political lobby group for the most part.

I'd like some of the anti-church as getting charitable status provide some studies to prove that churches often don't try and help the public at large. The last church I went to was all about local and international charitable organizations.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Boges

[Michael Hardner]

This is what would happen in a discussion of 'what is a charity' ?

Environmental groups, lobby groups, safety groups... all would be challenged as well as religions... and... everything...

[dre]

I'm not sure why my point isn't getting across -> "charity" "charitable works" "good works" ... all are subjective

Documenting old architecture in a city ? Charitable.

Singing songs to young kids in the park ? Charitable.

Reading bible stories to old people ? Charitable.

Unless you think it's not helpful to do those things. Hence, the subjectivity.

Your point is getting across fine. But you seemed to be suggesting that this was too subjective to be in a tax code, but its not. Theres already tax law dealing with what kind of activity is exempt as charitable activity and what isnt.

[Michael Hardner]

Your point is getting across fine. But you seemed to be suggesting that this was too subjective to be in a tax code, but its not. Theres already tax law dealing with what kind of activity is exempt as charitable activity and what isnt.

Ok, but then we're back to "what constitutes a charity ?" which has nothing to do with religion. Unless somebody here would like to be open about it and admit they want to reassess all charities, just to get back at religious ones.