Jump to content

Canadians forced to pay $35 million for Pope's visit


Recommended Posts

Considering that the Vatican is a political-religious corporation and possibly the wealthiest corporation in the world, why do Canadians have to foot the bill for the last Pope's visit to Canada?  The book The Vatican Billions by Avro Manhattan, which is free to read online if you find the right website, describes how they accumulated massive wealth including real estate around the world.  Yet when they travelled to Canada on a purely Roman church visit, the taxpayers of Canada are expected to pick up the tab of $35 million dollars.  This was a visit for the business of the Catholic church and should have been paid for by them.  It would have been an insignificant cost out of their finances.  No other churches leadership or organizations that visit Canada get that kind of treatment.  Considering their history I don't really think Canadians should be doing this.

I would also say since many PMs and Canadian government members, particularly Liberals are metaphorically card-carrying members of the Roman church, it would appear there is an obvious conflict of interest involved in forcing Canadian taxpayers to pay for these trips.   This fact plus the fact of the Vatican's enormous wealth would underline why it is outrageous that Canadian taxpayers should pay for this.

This book online is a stunning exposition of Vatican's wealth and how it was achieved.  

The Vatican Billions : Two thousand years of wealth accumulation from Caesar to the Space Age , Avro Manhattan (1983), fullbook : Avro Manhattan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

While we’re on the topic, all churches should be taxed as well.  They receive huge taxpayer subsidies.  

Actually that is not factual at all.   Churches are not profit-making businesses first of all.  The money that churches receive come from the members when they put their donations in the collection plate.  That money was donated by ordinary citizens who already paid income taxes on it.   So the donations churches receive have already been taxed.  When you go to buy something or donate to any cause, you don't pay income taxes on that money twice.  You already paid income taxes on it.

The money is not used for any nefarious purpose.  The money is used to pay for the purchase of the church property, the upkeep of the building, the heat, and utilities and the salary of the minister.  Part of the income might also go to charities in many cases.  The accounting records are maintained, all regulations are followed, and in many churches, annual meetings are held with the financial statement given to every member.

"Churches in Canada are generally exempt from federal, provincial and municipal taxes. This is due to the special status of churches in Canada as “place of public religious worship”. There are a few exceptions to this rule, including property taxes, which are levied on all non-residential properties. However, the vast majority of tax obligations for churches fall outside of these categories. This doesn’t mean that churches don’t pay taxes – they do. But it does mean that their tax burden is relatively minimal compared to other types of businesses. In fact, according to the 2017 Canadian Tax Profile report, the top five tax contributors to churches were income tax (27%), property tax (21%), sales tax (13%), GST/HST (10%) and import duties (5%)."

Are Churches Taxed In Canada (churchreaders.com)

Churches do not receive taxpayer subsidies.  That is pure nonsense.  An exemption from certain taxes is not the same as a subsidy which is a cash payment.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If they aren't paying property taxes, they aren't supporting the infrastructure and services they use.

Places of worship have historically been exempt from property taxes.  They would still pay for the utilities such as heat and water.  Churches are in general considered a benefit and contribute to law and order in a civilized society.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

I agree with you about paying for the visit.  The pope should pay his own way.  Whether there are Catholic Liberals is irrelevant though. 
 

While we’re on the topic, all churches should be taxed as well.  They receive huge taxpayer subsidies.  

Finally we agree. Perverts aren't welcome here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aspect of Canadians being forced to pay $35 million dollars for the Pope's recent PR visit to Canada is this gives preferential treatment to one religion at the expense of all Canadians, millions of whom do not belong to this religion.

Statistics I found show the percentage of Canadians as Catholic in 2021 was about 44%.  In Quebec it is much higher.  Montreal listed at about 78%, Quebec City and Sherbrooke about 95%.  Is this also another way of placating Romanist Quebec where many of the Romanist liberal politicians and PMs come from?  Of course they support billing the rest of Canada for this PR trip.  They are the ones doing the billing.

In forcing all Canadians to pay for the Pope's visit, I think this could be viewed as a form of religious discrimination against non-Catholics or people of other religions in Canada.  It certainly is favouring one particular religion at the expense of the others.

What is predicable is the silence of Catholics on this issue.  Of course if they are bowing and obedient to their Pope, they will remain silent and question nothing.  Just shows the lack of ethics of Romanism-supporting liberals.  

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, myata said:

Was it a state or government visit? Or just so? Still 35 million airfare and accommodation seems a tad expensive.

The Papacy is a political-religious system and also has its own tiny state.  The visit was both political/religious.  He came to Canada as head of the Papal system as a public relations exercise to further the interests of the RC system.  RC politicians likely believe if they pay for the Pope's visit with taxpayer money they will receive some time off in purgatory and if they opposed it they might burn in hell.  Many RC people would likely think the same way because the Papal system has indoctrinated that way of thinking on them for 1,700 years.  That's why the Vatican is the richest institution in the world, worth billions.  After all Popes claim to be God on earth.  What RC person would question the spending?

The Vatican Billions : Two thousand years of wealth accumulation from Caesar to the Space Age , Avro Manhattan (1983), fullbook : Avro Manhattan : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

vatican billions avro manhattan 1983_0000.jpg

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, myata said:

There's a standard practice for a host country to pay for official state visits of foreign officials as I understand. Is it a blank cheque though, no clue.

I wouldn't call it a state visit, although I'm sure Trudeau and Liberals would call it that.  He is obviously primarily a religious leader and that is what he came for.   But we the suckers must pay.  This is worse than Trudeau's $6,000 a night hotel in London recently.  35 million dollars!!!     What for exactly?    I don't think Canada should be paying for Papal visits.  That is a religious leader and religious visit.  It's a huge scam.

The media says quite a bit about the Trudeau $6,000 a night hotel for the Queen's funeral, but says absolutely nothing about 35 million dollars for the Pope's PR visit.  Much like the Papal goons on here.  Strangely silent.  Seems like we are being run by the Italian mafia.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The prime minister’s family vacation to Jamaica over the New Year cost taxpayers nearly $160,000, according to documents obtained by the National Post — including just under $14,000 in support costs from the Privy Council Office."

Seems like the Liberal government can throw millions of dollars around for everything under the sun with no problem and no questions asked.  35 million for the Pope's visit, 160 thousand for the PM's holiday trip to Jamaica.  Everyone else has to pay for their holidays out of their own funds.  Then there's the governor generals trips we hear cost hundreds of thousands to take the GG entourages.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 3:51 PM, TreeBeard said:

I agree with you about paying for the visit.  The pope should pay his own way.  Whether there are Catholic Liberals is irrelevant though. 
 

While we’re on the topic, all churches should be taxed as well.  They receive huge taxpayer subsidies.  

We didn't give the pope 35 million.  This came up elsewhere, he's being very dishonest here.  The 35 million went to first nations to organize events around the pope apologizing for the church's role in residential schools. The first nations wanted the pople to come apologize - he did - they got money so that they could have events and such connected with that.

He's trying to make it sound like we gave teh pope 35 million for coming over.

Now - fun fact we did pay 20 million or so for his security. But he's the head of a state, and he was here on political business. Of course we paid for the security.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 8:06 PM, blackbird said:

Places of worship have historically been exempt from property taxes.  They would still pay for the utilities such as heat and water.  Churches are in general considered a benefit and contribute to law and order in a civilized society.

Which is tax deductible. And when they close and sell the church, it is all profit.

Churches do not , in any way contribute to law and order. As a matte=r of fact, they sometimes harbour criminals as they claim sanctuary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2023 at 1:12 PM, blackbird said:

"The prime minister’s family vacation to Jamaica over the New Year cost taxpayers nearly $160,000, according to documents obtained by the National Post — including just under $14,000 in support costs from the Privy Council Office."

Because they can. What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Which is tax deductible. And when they close and sell the church, it is all profit.

Churches do not , in any way contribute to law and order. As a matter of fact, they sometimes harbour criminals as they claim sanctuary.

Not to pick a fight but it's worth just mentioning a couple of things, and it's not to defend churches per se but just to add some clarity to why they are tax exempt. There's some reasons beyond this but these address your points above.

Expenses are tax deductable for "For Profit" businesses.  There's no tax deduction for a church because it pays no income tax.  But - unlike a business for example, as a not for profit it DOES pay taxes like GST on everything it buys and it's unable to pass that along.  So to be clear, churches DO pay tax.  just not revenue based taxes. And tax 'deductions' don't benefit them.

When a church sells it's building for a 'profit' (ie more than it paid), that money must remain in the church. It can't actually be USED as profit.  A business could take that money and give it to the owners of the business - but the church cannot do that. So while there's "profit" nobody can touch it.  Now - they can use it to pay salaries and the like and of course buy new buildings and such but it's not "profit" the way it is for a business who could then distribute it to the owner of the business.

But the main reasons a church is exempt are this -

1) - you can't "Charge" people for their faith. You can't "tax" people for their religious beliefs.  Churches don't SELL their services, they recieve DONATIONS.  Donations is another word for 'gift'.  We don't tax gifts, because the giver has already paid taxes on that money and is simply gifting the money to someone else.

2) churches DID provide a public service for centuries. They were the official 'agent of record" for communities. When someone got married it was recorded in the church, not the gov't office. Deaths and births likewise were so. And even after the gov't started keeping records the church records were considered important and definitive, often gov't records were lost but the church records were considered proof.

So there is some reason why we don't tax churches.  They are a not for profit and it would be an infringement on people's right to religious freedom to tax their income again for their religious beliefs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Not to pick a fight but it's worth just mentioning a couple of things, and it's not to defend churches per se but just to add some clarity to why they are tax exempt. There's some reasons beyond this but these address your points above.

Expenses are tax deductable for "For Profit" businesses.  There's no tax deduction for a church because it pays no income tax.  But - unlike a business for example, as a not for profit it DOES pay taxes like GST on everything it buys and it's unable to pass that along.  So to be clear, churches DO pay tax.  just not revenue based taxes. And tax 'deductions' don't benefit them.

When a church sells it's building for a 'profit' (ie more than it paid), that money must remain in the church. It can't actually be USED as profit.  A business could take that money and give it to the owners of the business - but the church cannot do that. So while there's "profit" nobody can touch it.  Now - they can use it to pay salaries and the like and of course buy new buildings and such but it's not "profit" the way it is for a business who could then distribute it to the owner of the business.

But the main reasons a church is exempt are this -

1) - you can't "Charge" people for their faith. You can't "tax" people for their religious beliefs.  Churches don't SELL their services, they recieve DONATIONS.  Donations is another word for 'gift'.  We don't tax gifts, because the giver has already paid taxes on that money and is simply gifting the money to someone else.

2) churches DID provide a public service for centuries. They were the official 'agent of record" for communities. When someone got married it was recorded in the church, not the gov't office. Deaths and births likewise were so. And even after the gov't started keeping records the church records were considered important and definitive, often gov't records were lost but the church records were considered proof.

So there is some reason why we don't tax churches.  They are a not for profit and it would be an infringement on people's right to religious freedom to tax their income again for their religious beliefs.

Thanks.

Charities get all the HST back.

https://www.canadiancharitylaw.ca/blog/application_of_the_gst_hst_to_canadian_registered_charities-_questions_and_/

 

https://narrativeresearch.ca/canadians-are-split-with-respect-to-whether-religious-institutions-should-be-allowed-to-maintain-their-tax-exempt-status/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Well that was brutally complex to read.  It seems like they get some of the provincial share of the hst back but i'm not sure all (if i'm reading this right

 

Charities resident in Ontario can claim a PSB rebate of 50% of GST and the federal part (5%) of HST. With the introduction of HST in Ontario, charities resident in Ontario will also be entitled to a PSB rebate of 82% of the provincial part (8%) of HST.

Charities resident in British Columbia can claim a PSB rebate of 50% of the GST (5%) and the federal part (5%) of HST. With the introduction of HST in British Columbia, charities resident in British Columbia will also be entitled to claim a PSB rebate of 57% of the provincial part (7%) of HST.

Now - HST was cancelled in BC some time ago and we're back to pst and gst.  BUt - it seems they still have to pay SOME of the tax.

And in ontario they'll be paying property tax (i THINK they already did in bc). 

So there's still SOME taxes paid by a church.  I think - why the hell is it that complex? It's a frikkin' charity, it would be cheaper just to tax them than it is for them to pay for an accountant to figure that crap out.

22 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

 

Edited by CdnFox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christianity is on decline all over the western world and no other creed as much as catholicism. Somewhat telling that the church in France must import its priests from its former colonies as the French people no longer want to be priests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/24/2023 at 6:26 PM, blackbird said:

Considering that the Vatican is a political-religious corporation and possibly the wealthiest corporation in the world, why do Canadians have to foot the bill for the last Pope's visit to Canada?

$35 million?

There are about 35 million Canadians. We each paid 1$ for this trip.

====

We all receive an annual Tax Statement from Revenue Canada.

I have always preferred a statement to show also:

"Your $356.37 tax payment was used to pay part of the hotel cost/limo driver of our PM during his visit in Helsinki."

Or

"Your $356.37 tax payment was given to Donna Smith in Calgary - it was part of her GST refund."

In a civilized society, taxpayers need to see - visibly - how their money is used.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, August1991 said:

$35 million?

There are about 35 million Canadians. We each paid 1$ for this trip.

====

We all receive an annual Tax Statement from Revenue Canada.

I have always preferred a statement to show also:

"Your $356.37 tax payment was used to pay part of the hotel cost/limo driver of our PM during his visit in Helsinki."

Or

"Your $356.37 tax payment was given to Donna Smith in Calgary - it was part of her GST refund."

In a civilized society, taxpayers need to see - visibly - how their money is used.

 

Are you TRYING to make us all lose sleep at night?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,741
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    timwilson
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • User earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • User earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Videospirit earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Videospirit went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...