Religious Tax Exemption

[dre]

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 ?

I would start by making them pay property tax. Property taxes are not taxes on profit they are taxes collected so that we can have roads, sewers, water, and, fire departments, etc.

[dre]

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.

It has nothing to do with "getting back" at anyone.

[cybercoma]

Who really thinks MADD should be a charity? How exactly does that organization really help the public?

I have a hard time believing you're serious here. MADD has done an extraordinary amount of work helping to reduce intoxicated driving. Their campaigns have been quite effective at saving people's lives. Do you really not see how reducing drunk driving helps the public?

[Boges]

I have a hard time believing you're serious here. MADD has done an extraordinary amount of work helping to reduce intoxicated driving. Their campaigns have been quite effective at saving people's lives. Do you really not see how reducing drunk driving helps the public?

It's common knowledge that drinking and driving is very dangerous. If you don't know this, you probably shouldn't have a license.

MADD has evolved into a prohibitionist Group. Even it's founding members have left because the initial purpose of the group have been bastardized. I bet if you let MADD create legislation there would be zero tolerance for driving with any alcohol in your system. That would create many more "criminals" of people that just had a glass of wine with dinner.

http://www.alcoholfa...urseOnMADD.html

The founding president of MADD, Candy Lightner, left in disgust from the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." 5 Ms. Lightner has emphasized the importance of distinguishing between alcohol and drinking on one hand and drunk driving on the other. 6

Ms. Lightner has apparently put her finger on the problem when she says that if MADD really wants to save lives, it will go after the real problem drivers. 7Instead, it has become temperance-oriented.

The people who overwhelmingly kill people behind the wheel are alcoholics that can't be appealed to by a charitable organization. MADD focuses much of its attention on criminalizing social drinkers.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Boges

[cybercoma]

It's common knowledge that drinking and driving is very dangerous. If you don't know this, you probably shouldn't have a license.

It is common knowledge... today. It sure as hell wasn't when MADD began.

The people who overwhelmingly kill people behind the wheel are alcoholics that can't be appealed to by a charitable organization.

They can and they have been. It has also been largely successful in encouraging policy changes and actions by the government to reduce drunk driving.

MADD focuses much of its attention on criminalizing social drinkers.

First, I don't believe that and secondly, so what if they do? That doesn't make them any less charitable.

Edited October 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

I would start by making them pay property tax. Property taxes are not taxes on profit they are taxes collected so that we can have roads, sewers, water, and, fire departments, etc.

Well, the OP talked about Income Tax I think but... we're in the same boat here. Other organizations have property tax exemptions - which I think is handled by the province.

[Michael Hardner]

It has nothing to do with "getting back" at anyone.

If you follow how the conversation started and progressed, you'll see that Religions were the target of the reform on this thread, even though many organizations fall into the same category with regards to the complaints... the thread wasn't titled 'BC Astrological Society should not have charity status'.

[WIP]

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.

Okay, I'm just taking a quick scan through this thread, and it appears that you are obfuscating and deliberately missing the point! As you apparently are well aware...whether or not you admit it, is that secular, non-church affiliated charities are audited and have more restrictions regarding tax-exempt property and employees, whereas churches are only subject to investigation when they start showing obvious signs of abuse: building brand new buildings like schools, auditoriums and their own recreation facilities; and pastors and other top church officials buying mansions. As long as they keep below the radar, no one knows what they are doing with all the money coming in!

And it's not just nondenominational megachurches who are the offenders either! Earlier this year in Hamilton, our local newspaper featured a scandal when it was discovered after a slum tenement burned down that the owner was a Catholic priest who owned a number of slum, substandard dwellings that were unkept and charging obscene rents from desperate tenants with no credit. If I turn down my irony meter and set the moral issues aside, how does a Catholic priest, whom the hierarchy informs us only earn modest salaries to pay for a few luxuries and incidental expenses, afford to buy tracts of real estate in the first place? I would say it's time to do an audit of the whole Catholic Church....right up to the Vatican, and especially the Vatican Bank! And that's just one, what about the rest of them? This is why churches and religious institutions have to be reigned in on what they are able to hide from the taxman, just like everyone else in this era of austerity where public services are cut, and taxes are likely to be raised.

[Michael Hardner]

As you apparently are well aware... charities are audited and have more restrictions

No - we had an excellent post from msj above - I just looked at it again and that wasn't mentioned.

And it's not just nondenominational megachurches who are the offenders either! Earlier this year in Hamilton, our local newspaper featured a scandal when it was discovered after a slum tenement burned down that the owner was a Catholic priest who owned a number of slum, substandard dwellings that were unkept and charging obscene rents from desperate tenants with no credit. If I turn down my irony meter and set the moral issues aside, how does a Catholic priest, whom the hierarchy informs us only earn modest salaries to pay for a few luxuries and incidental expenses, afford to buy tracts of real estate in the first place? I would say it's time to do an audit of the whole Catholic Church....right up to the Vatican, and especially the Vatican Bank! And that's just one, what about the rest of them? This is why churches and religious institutions have to be reigned in on what they are able to hide from the taxman, just like everyone else in this era of austerity where public services are cut, and taxes are likely to be raised.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this story of a scandal, though.

[dre]

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

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.

I would focus on the activity and not classifying whole organizations. The Hells Angels do these toy drives where I live and a lot of charity stuff (bikers for kids events etc), but they are also a private club where their members can go and hang out, and they also own a fair bit of real property.

An organization does not have to be a "charity" or "not a charity". It simply needs to claim deductions qualifying expenditures and receipts, and not on other ones.

[Michael Hardner]

I would focus on the activity and not classifying whole organizations. The Hells Angels do these toy drives where I live and a lot of charity stuff (bikers for kids events etc), but they are also a private club where their members can go and hang out, and they also own a fair bit of real property.

An organization does not have to be a "charity" or "not a charity". It simply needs to claim deductions qualifying expenditures and receipts, and not on other ones.

Sure... charitable activities. And, again, the OP targets religion only... and why is this a problem right now ? Or is it ? We're not talking about fake charities, just charities that don't distribute soup, presumably...

[msj]

Okay, I'm just taking a quick scan through this thread, and it appears that you are obfuscating and deliberately missing the point! As you apparently are well aware...whether or not you admit it, is that secular, non-church affiliated charities are audited and have more restrictions regarding tax-exempt property and employees, whereas churches are only subject to investigation when they start showing obvious signs of abuse: building brand new buildings like schools, auditoriums and their own recreation facilities; and pastors and other top church officials buying mansions. As long as they keep below the radar, no one knows what they are doing with all the money coming in!

Not sure what you are talking about.

The charity rules apply equally to all charities. The government does not require charities or NPO's to be audited.

Just as they do not demand that corporations to be audited.

Any charity can opt out of being audited if they like (and if their members agree). Just like many small businesses opt out of having an audit (hint - to save money).

Of course, many non-religious charities do end up having an audit since they are required to in order to receive funding from the government. These are merely financial statement audits which should not be confused with value for money audits.

Also, there are rules with respect to "accumulating property" however I do not know anyone who actually knows exactly what they mean, how limitations apply etc... IOW, there is a black hole here that the Canada Revenue Agency should be making more transparent.

[segnosaur]

The charity rules apply equally to all charities. The government does not require charities or NPO's to be audited.

...

Any charity can opt out of being audited if they like (and if their members agree). Just like many small businesses opt out of having an audit (hint - to save money).

I thought that Canada Revenue did random audits of registered charities. (Not all of them would be examined, but some would.)

See: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4118/t4118-08e.pdf

[dre]

Sure... charitable activities. And, again, the OP targets religion only... and why is this a problem right now ? Or is it ? We're not talking about fake charities, just charities that don't distribute soup, presumably...

It IS a problem, because these exemptions are being used by churches to amass unimaginable wealth, and wealth, at least on some level equals political power. Its also a matter of fairness... I read that in the US they lose 71 billion dollars per year because of these exemptions. Somebody else is forced to make up the difference. I see now reason why I should have to pay taxes on behalf of a private club. I have no problem with real charity work being exempt, but I DO have a problem with private clubs using those exemptions to amass massive troves of private treasure.

Churches today are a lot different than in the past as well. Some of them are huge financial institutions with investment arms, loans divisions, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

It IS a problem, because these exemptions are being used by churches to amass unimaginable wealth, and wealth, at least on some level equals political power. Its also a matter of fairness... I read that in the US they lose 71 billion dollars per year because of these exemptions. Somebody else is forced to make up the difference. I see now reason why I should have to pay taxes on behalf of a private club. I have no problem with real charity work being exempt, but I DO have a problem with private clubs using those exemptions to amass massive troves of private treasure.

Right... and the points you bring up don't apply to non-religions somehow ? Do you have a figure for what charities 'cost' us, other than religious institutions ?

This seems to be a problem because the church has become so powerful, although this situation happened over 2000 years of history. Probably a better idea to wait until there's more political will - then you can just strip religious freedom right out of the constitution and get rid of them altogether.

Churches today are a lot different than in the past as well. Some of them are huge financial institutions with investment arms, loans divisions, etc.

That's different than in the past ? Really.

[dre]

Right... and the points you bring up don't apply to non-religions somehow ? Do you have a figure for what charities 'cost' us, other than religious institutions ?

Those things apply to ANY organization. ANY company should be able to claim deductions on real charity work, whether its UNICEF, a Church, or Tim Hortons. But NONE of these organizations should get umbrella protection from taxation for all of their activities, unless all of their activities qualify for those exemptions.

Edited October 23, 2012 by dre

[segnosaur]

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 ?

Its the dictionary defintion of "charity".

From: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/charity

- Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.

- Something given to help the needy; alms.

- Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.

Notice that those defintions specify that its other people who are getting helped, not the person making the donation?

Note that nowhere in there does it say "giving money to someone so that you can get a tangible benefit for yourself".

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.

They're not charging admission but they are getting donations. Without that the church could not stay open. The fact that admission isn't a fixed price is not relevant.

People donate, they get what they want (a sermon, mass, church music once a week, etc.) The fact that payment isn't enforced, and some people pay more than others (or some pay nothing at all) is not the issue. The issue is that the donors themselves are directly benefitting (even if some may be overpaying.)

The only people who could say that church donations are purely charitable are people who give to the church but never attend themselves.

Even if they weren't, though, we could still have a charity by the legal definition.

And once again... there can be a difference between a 'legal defintion' and a 'moral definition'.

If the government said "Stealing under $5 is not a crime", or "kicking pupies is good", that would make both legally true, but not morally true.

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 have no idea why its called what it is. I didn't start the thread.

There is some justification for targeting 'religious exemptions' over others... religious donations make up the biggest single chunk of tax-exempt contributions in Canada (at roughly 40%). If you're going to discuss required changes, it makes most sense to start with ones that make the biggest impact.

See: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012001/t/11637/tbl05-eng.htm

I'll tell you what though, you're more than welcome to start another thread discussing other charities. You can ask "why is Opera/MADD/astrologers/etc. considered charitable organizations"? Heck, I might even respond to it myself. I'll agree that Opera companies and astologer organizations should not be "charities". I rather suspect that it will be a rather dull thread as most people would probably say "yup you're right... that shouldn't be a charity either".

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

No, there were 2 replies because I was responding to 2 different posts you made.

[Michael Hardner]

Note that nowhere in there does it say "giving money to someone so that you can get a tangible benefit for yourself".

Ok - so documenting old buildings and putting on operas is definitely not charity then.

If the government said "Stealing under $5 is not a crime", or "kicking pupies is good", that would make both legally true, but not morally true.

And what is morality if not subjective ?

I have no idea why its called what it is. I didn't start the thread.

There is some justification for targeting 'religious exemptions' over others... religious donations make up the biggest single chunk of tax-exempt contributions in Canada (at roughly 40%). If you're going to discuss required changes, it makes most sense to start with ones that make the biggest impact.

See: http://www.statcan.g...7/tbl05-eng.htm

I'll tell you what though, you're more than welcome to start another thread discussing other charities. You can ask "why is Opera/MADD/astrologers/etc. considered charitable organizations"? Heck, I might even respond to it myself. I'll agree that Opera companies and astologer organizations should not be "charities". I rather suspect that it will be a rather dull thread as most people would probably say "yup you're right... that shouldn't be a charity either".

You didn't start the thread, but what is it about really ? It's about some people who don't like religion, and so much so that they would tax them and hound them out of existence, even if it harms other charitable organizations.

Let's just call it as it is. This is why some people think religious folk are persecuted.

Like I say - bide your time. Within two generations there will be enough critical mass to remove freedom of religion from the constitution.

[dre]

Ok - so documenting old buildings and putting on operas is definitely not charity then.

And what is morality if not subjective ?

You didn't start the thread, but what is it about really ? It's about some people who don't like religion, and so much so that they would tax them and hound them out of existence, even if it harms other charitable organizations.

Let's just call it as it is. This is why some people think religious folk are persecuted.

Like I say - bide your time. Within two generations there will be enough critical mass to remove freedom of religion from the constitution.

No freedom of religion is guaranteed, to remove it you would have to infringe on EVERYONES core constitional rights.... Freedom of thought and belief and freedom of assembly and association. Those are all thats required to allow people to practice faith.

[Michael Hardner]

No freedom of religion is guaranteed, to remove it you would have to infringe on EVERYONES core constitional rights....

I don't understand that sentence. Did you mean to say " No - freedom of religion is guaranteed," ?

To remove it, you would have to amend the constitution.

Freedom of thought and belief and freedom of assembly and association. Those are all thats required to allow people to practice faith.

You need to explicitly guarantee freedom of religion, though, in order to guarantee a religion's right to discriminate against other faiths. This is the core of any religion, really - the idea that other religions are incorrect and theirs is correct.

[segnosaur]

Note that nowhere in there does it say "giving money to someone so that you can get a tangible benefit for yourself".

Ok - so documenting old buildings and putting on operas is definitely not charity then.

Paying to have an opera put on, if the main goal is to listen to your opera yourself is not charity.

Paying to document old buildings may or may not be charity... if the purpose is to make records for your local historical society so that future generations know what the city looked like? That might be charity. Doing so because you're a real estate developer who wants to renovate? No, that's not charity.

And what is morality if not subjective ?

Actually, morality is not wholy subjective. There are objective components as well.

Helping others=morally right

Harming others=morally wrong

(Even if there's no objective measure for how much harm is done.) I'm pretty sure that everyone can agree that giving millions to someone who was poor would be moraly right, just as beating someone to death with a crowbar would be morally wrong.

And please don't get caught up on my use of the term 'morality'. I used it merely as a term to differentiate from "legally".

You didn't start the thread, but what is it about really?

Well, its about how some people want to remove tax-exempt statuses from churches.

It's about some people who don't like religion, and so much so that they would tax them and hound them out of existence, even if it harms other charitable organizations.

The fact that someone "doesn't like" religion is irrelevant.

If you had a valid point to make, it should stand on its own, apart from any religious beliefs you might have. Attacking the person's motive rather than their argument does not make you right. It means that you have no leg to stand on in the argument.

I pointed out the problem with giving churches tax-exempt status... That most of the activities of the church do not fit the dictionary definition of "charity" (i.e. helping others) and whatever charitable activies they do engage in cannot be audited in the same way that secular charities are. If you have a counterpoint for that, present it, rather than trying to hid behind the false front of "religious persecution".

Like I say - bide your time. Within two generations there will be enough critical mass to remove freedom of religion from the constitution.

Except taking away "tax exempt" status has nothing to do with "removiing religious freedom". If it were done you'd still be able to worship the way you want, donate to your church the way you want. Its just that the rest of society would no longer be subsidizing your time hanging out in the church.

[dre]

You need to explicitly guarantee freedom of religion, though, in order to guarantee a religion's right to discriminate against other faiths. This is the core of any religion, really - the idea that other religions are incorrect and theirs is correct.

YEah, I mean "No. Freedom of religion IS guaranteed".

And I disagree with your statement. No explicit guarantee is necessary in order to allow descrimination, that is covered by freedom of assembly. A mens or womens club is inherently discriminatory yet we dont need special protection for them in the constitution. I can start a private club at my house, and only invite one-legged mexican lesbians if I want to.

Private clubs can descriminate without those kind of special protections. Hell... Augusta Golf Club allowed its first female members in history only this year, and they didnt need "Freedom of Old White Dudes Golfing" to be allowed to do it.

You just need to have a free society, and people can assemble as they choose, believe what they want, and practice whatever rituals they see fit.

Heres another example....

Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is a private non-profit organization, and thus can legally decide who can and can’t go on its camping trips, right? Right. So confirmed the Supreme Court in 2000, which ruled that the organization’s membership policies are protected by First Amendment association rights.

So theres no need to specifically denominate private clubs in the constitution. This has been rendered completely obsolete by more universal and generic protections that are extended to everyone.

Its also protected by Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Canada and the US are party to.

These specific references to religion are a relic left over from another age.

Edited October 23, 2012 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Well, its about how some people want to remove tax-exempt statuses from churches.

The fact that someone "doesn't like" religion is irrelevant.

Here's an analogy: "It's about people keeping immigrants out of Canada because they are bad for the country. The fact that they don't like immigrants is irrelevant."

Your distaste for religion is driving this as evidenced by the overall purpose - "removing tax exempt status from churches" rather than "improving the charity system for Canada"

If you had a valid point to make, it should stand on its own, apart from any religious beliefs you might have. Attacking the person's motive rather than their argument does not make you right. It means that you have no leg to stand on in the argument.

But their motive is the argument in this case. This is about people who don't like religion taking steps to reduce its influence..

I pointed out the problem with giving churches tax-exempt status... That most of the activities of the church do not fit the dictionary definition of "charity" (i.e. helping others) and whatever charitable activies they do engage in cannot be audited in the same way that secular charities are. If you have a counterpoint for that, present it, rather than trying to hid behind the false front of "religious persecution".

I have already shown it, as have you.

You have certain activities you like, which you have decided is helpful to others and certain activities you don't like which you have decided is not helpful to others. You can't see how subjective it all is.

Recording architecture of buildings = helpful, according to you

Reading old people scripture = not helpful, according to you

Why should I or anyone defer to your tastes in such things ?

Except taking away "tax exempt" status has nothing to do with "removiing religious freedom". If it were done you'd still be able to worship the way you want, donate to your church the way you want. Its just that the rest of society would no longer be subsidizing your time hanging out in the church.

It will just be easier for you to remove the charity status, or to make religion illegal after you get the constitution changed.

[Michael Hardner]

YEah, I mean "No. Freedom of religion IS guaranteed".

And I disagree with your statement. No explicit guarantee is necessary in order to allow descrimination, that is covered by freedom of assembly. A mens or womens club is inherently discriminatory yet we dont need special protection for them in the constitution. I can start a private club at my house, and only invite one-legged mexican lesbians if I want to.

You can't hire people of your religion, for example. There are other examples.

Your example is American and we have been talking about Canada until now. America is a completely different situation. You'll have to wait even longer to change things in America...

[segnosaur]

Here's an analogy: "It's about people keeping immigrants out of Canada because they are bad for the country. The fact that they don't like immigrants is irrelevant."

Your distaste for religion is driving this as evidenced by the overall purpose - "removing tax exempt status from churches" rather than "improving the charity system for Canada"

Thats... not an analogy. At best that's a rather transparent attempt to tarnish my argument by linking it with racism.

Now, if you really do want to go that route... if someone said "keep immigrants out because they're bad for the country" they'd have to give a reason why they're bad... do they increase crime? Do they put more strain on our social services? And whatever reasons were given could be debunked.

I've given a rational argument why churches should have their tax exempt statuses removed. You're responded with hysteria and bizarre accusations (OMG They want to ban religion!!!!)

If you had a valid point to make, it should stand on its own, apart from any religious beliefs you might have. Attacking the person's motive rather than their argument does not make you right. It means that you have no leg to stand on in the argument.

But their motive is the argument in this case.

Actually, the arguments in the opening post were:

- Churches may not help the community at large

- Churches don't have to "open their books"

- If they are to be considered "charities" they should apply for charitable status just as any other organization would

At no point in the opening post was it suggested that churches should be eliminated.

I pointed out the problem with giving churches tax-exempt status... That most of the activities of the church do not fit the dictionary definition of "charity" (i.e. helping others) and whatever charitable activies they do engage in cannot be audited in the same way that secular charities are. If you have a counterpoint for that, present it, rather than trying to hid behind the false front of "religious persecution".

I have already shown it, as have you.

Actually, no you haven't. Or at least any attempt you've made to make a point has been debunked. You've last posts have been largley involving attacks against the arguer rather than the argument.

You have certain activities you like, which you have decided is helpful to others and certain activities you don't like which you have decided is not helpful to others. You can't see how subjective it all is.

Once again, its not completely subjective because I'm smart enough to know when I benefit as opposed to when someone else benefits.

Recording architecture of buildings = helpful, according to you

Reading old people scripture = not helpful, according to you

Why should I or anyone defer to your tastes in such things ?

You see, this is why many hold religious people in such low regard.

Doesn't whatever religious book you follow have some sort of rule against lying? Yet here you are... lying away.

First of all, I never made any comment about whether reading old people scripture was charitible or helpful. So you're lying right then and there.

Secondly, your comment about how I consider "recording old architecutre" to be helpful ignores the part where I actually put it into context... its only helpful (charitable) if its done for selfless reasons.

Except taking away "tax exempt" status has nothing to do with "removiing religious freedom". If it were done you'd still be able to worship the way you want, donate to your church the way you want. Its just that the rest of society would no longer be subsidizing your time hanging out in the church.

It will just be easier for you to remove the charity status, or to make religion illegal after you get the constitution changed.

That part of the post makes absolutely no sense.

Removal of charity status probably would not require a constitutional change. (After all the net result would be the church would be treated as all other organizations... true equality, rather than the situation now where your particular religious beliefs are subsidized by people who have no such beliefs.)