Oz Govt following UK & French lead on Tax/Charity status

by Mattieu 153 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  debator

  Without exception all religions main goal (on paper at least) is a religious one. If they do charity outside of this it is extra as it is with witnesses, we are not unusual in this respect. And as an established people's right, religion is a recognised one. All people should have access to religion of their own choice!

  I cannot see how you can simply say that any division of religion beyond this is driven by anything beyond personal opinion. likes and dislikes.

  The only exception being if they break common laws.

  The argument that religions are freeloaders is just the position from those that do not value religion and are religiously intolerant.

  The only arguments I see are "all religions should pay tax" from those that are not religious and don't recognise it's value and "Witnesses should pay tax because I don't like them" from people with a grudge against witnesses. These are both arguments from a position of prejudice and not objective at all.
• 

  elm

  Sorry I can not see that if the JW's are taxed it has anything to do with the great tribulation. They are not being banned in the UK or France.

  We know that good hearted faithful followers of JW donate for what ever reason their money to the watchtower society. We also know that for eg Catholic followers also donate their money.

  Am I wrong isn't it what is done with the money that is donated that makes the difference. We have all heard of the cover up for years on the child abuse of the Catholics, but we know that they are now addressing this horrendous issue and providing lots of money for the victims. We know this wont make up for what happened to them, but they are providing money for them and are trying to do something about it.

  What does the WTS do for their victims? they do not even acknowledge a problem.

  When I was a full time pioneer I had a part time job to help me to continue to preach. I thought I was doing it for Jehovah but now of course I know I was doing it for the watchtower which incidentally those at the top the GB live in luxury apartments and don't they get new cars.

  I have never known of any of our donated money coming back to us for the really needy who dedicated their lives and even given their lives for the watchtower's twist on their so called Bible based doctrines.
• 

  OUTLAW

  The only arguments I see are "all religions should pay tax" from those that are not religious and don't recognise

  it's value and "Witnesses should pay tax because I don't like them" from people with a grudge against witnesses.

  These are both arguments from a position of prejudice and not objective at all.....Reniaa/Debator

  The WBT$ has been Ripping Off it`s own people and Free Loading for Decades..

  You don`t see that because,you have no idea what your talking about..

  Your not a JW..

  You escaped from a Zoo..

  Broke into someones home and figured out how to use a computer..

  

  

  .......................... ...OUTLAW
• 

  MMXIV

  Debator,

  Accusing everyone of being biased is a pretty reductive approach.

  And as an established people's right, religion is a recognised one. All people should have access to religion of their own choice!

  Removing their tax free status won't change this - it's not banning religion or stopping access to religion - it just makes it fairer.

  It's not fair that a religious minister doesn't pay council tax when they benefit from the roads, street lighting, drainage, NHS, police, fire and ambulance services. That's totally unfair.

  MMXIV
• 

  bohm

  Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the tax-excempt status for a religion which ABUSE said status?

  Some speculations why The Great Reniaa is unable to answer the above question, and instead rant and run in circles:

  1) No is not only absurd. More importantly, In reniaas mind JW does not abuse the system, but others like Scientology may. A *no* can in her mind only be rationalized as a defence of a false religion which act in an abusive way to cheat the common man. Such a defence is entirely contrary to how she usually think, and since its no longer about the witnesses, she cant find comfort in her usual thought-terminating cliches.

  2) Yes is impossible due to knee-jerk reactions on page1 and the fact Reniaa is to small a person to admit wrong. "DEBATOR" is here to debate, nor learn or teach. He/She cant be wrong, EVER. Secondly it would move the argument into dangerous water when "abuse" is being defined from the actions of other religions which are very hard to rationalize as "justified per default".
• 

  isaacaustin

  Makes me think of how the WT claimed they were persecuted for so many years in Mexico when they were not. They forced their member to operate as a cultural club as opposed to a religous org- not due to persecution but the fact that religious orgs could not hold title to real property.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Excerpt from a typical New Zealand congregration's application

  It really is a stretch to think there is anything charitable about them.

  
• 

  Doubting Bro

  I'm not saying that religion doesn't have value nor am I religiously intolerant. People should be able to worship as they see fit as long as no one else's right to believe what they want is infringed on and no one is harmed.

  Yet, businesses add value to society, don't they? Look at how much longer people live now, how much more comfortable many people live as compared with even 50 years ago. Just because something adds value to society doesn't mean that it should be exempt from taxes. If you follow that logic, then businesses should also be exempt from taxes.

  Taxing profits from religious organizations is not even close to banning religion. It does remove preferential treatment by government for religious entities.
• 

  isaacaustin

  DoubtingBro, you are 100% correct. Religions cry persecution though when it is done because that is how it hurts the relious organization the most- in the wallet.
• 

  besty

  The question this thread raises is whether the taxpayer should subsidize religion.

  In particular, should the taxpayer endure the subsidy burden of religions that offer questionable public benefit.

  This thread is not about whether individual posters support the concept of religion, or whether they hate Jehovah's Witnesses.