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

by Mattieu 153 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  debator

  MMXJV

  Are you saying people without jobs are only found in the witness faith? Taxation allows for a certain percentage of society to be not working for various reasons due health, age, lack of jobs etc. I'm sure a percentage of witnesses fall into this catagory and they reflect the percentage found in any given group so again why are you saying that jobless witnesses mean they should pay taxes on their faith but a jobless catholic, Mormons or baptist members shouldn't?

  First other than your clear bias, you offer no prove that witnesses in anyway pay less taxes and given our adherence to biblical teachings to render "Caesars's things to Caesar" and not play illegal games respecting authority. I could probably argue we pay more taxes than most who have no moral teachings to encourage them not to tax dodge.

  France is being illegal by not treating Witnesses the same as any other religion. They will have to recognise this and my thoughts are they will end up taxing all religions rather than give up the money.

  Like I said this is France doing slyly what Russia is doing publically. Both are saying as secular governments they have the right to dictate our religious identity as a people.
• 

  MMXIV

  Debator or should I call you PicnicShortofaHamperrrr

  It's fairly simple. You stated:

  The People that donate to religions have already paid taxes to the governments

  I'm stating that your wrong. Not all people who donate to religions have already paid taxes to the governments. Your sweeping statement is wrong - that's all. There's no bias in that - I never stated an opinion. It's that simple - you made a sweeping statement as though it was fact and you're wrong. What part of that don't you understand and I'll s p e l l i t o u t f o r y o u?

  MMXIV
• 

  debator

  Hi bohn

  I am not a scientolgist, I'm not even sure they qualify as a religion from their belief which seem to be a mix of vague ritual with aliens instead of God at the end of it.

  I am a witness and I know that every penny we get donated gets ploughed back into our religion and spreading Jehovah's message.

  What is your definition of abuse? that someone doesn't preach what you personally believe in?

  France is clearly picking and choosing which religions they tax and which religions they don't. One of france's most popular religions Catholism openly uses donations for feathering the nests of it leaders including palaces, jewelry, rich clothing, private jets, servants.

  The community has an unalienble right to religion and witnesses provide that. If you are saying that is not enough why aren't other religions taxed for the same reason?

  France is victimising Witnesses because they don't like their faith and Scientology for the same reasons. I think scientology is a nuts religion but I uphold any humanities right to choose for themselves what to believe.

  If a religion breaks the law that is different but a human rights court upheld our rights as a religion on every count.

  Our shepherds get flats in a building block and enough money to live on and not even huge wage packet that most recognise official religions give their church leaders.

  Once you go down the strawman of comparing religions especially monetarily, witnesses come out better than the majority. Even property, can our kingdom halls and bethels compare to the vast landholdings of other churches? catholics own their own country, mormons their own city and both charge rents and taxes on them.

  You are pointing a finger at witnesses that you are clearly not doing for other religions.
• 

  bohm

  Debator: I think this question: "Explain to an australian tax-payer why scientology should not have to pay taxes." might have been to hard for you. Instead, lets move on to something simpler:

  Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the non-profit status of a religion which ABUSE said status?

  I wonder if you will be able to answer it, otherwise i think your name was not very well-chosen.

  UPDATE: I can see you ask for definition of abuse. Well, you first used the word one page back, so i kind of assumed you knew what it mean back then. Perhaps it slipped your mind? It might help you in a debate to refrain from using words you dont know.

  Anyway. Lets see. Abuse could mean the religion is repeatably engaging in unethical acts. It could be it brain-wash its members. It could be that its build like a get-rich scheme for some people on the top. It could be it only does token community work and give very little to non-members.

  But since my question was centered around the words "non-profit", an obvious use could be that the religion act and behave like a pro-profit company.

  So yes and no? Can you manage a yes or no answer to a GENERAL question without another tirade on persecution and very SPECIFIC references to your own religion?
• 

  debator

  Hi MMXIV

  Your point cannot be used as a reason to tax our religion unless you can say that the preportion of witnesses who don't qualify to pay taxes is because they are witnesses not because they fall into the set catagories that society allows for that don't pay taxes.
• 

  debator

  Hi bohn

  The official definition of non-profit is as follows...

  A non-profit organization (abbreviated as NPO, also known as a not-for-profit organization [1] ) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.

  I can see you are trying to say just having surplus funds means profit but this clearly goes against the meaning of the word.

  All of witness funds get ploughed into our goals and that includes people right to hear the bible's message. (other religons I think do abuse this clearly giving surplus funds to the leaders to enjoy in personal pleasure and if countries looked at this, the last religon that would qualify would be witnesses). You may not like our message from the bible but our money gets spent on sending it around the world not buying jewels or palaces or bodyguards.

  France is using personal dislike of a religion to redefine who they tax. They do not tax other religions that preach messages they do actually like.

  They are clearly picking and choosing in a very arbitary undemocratic and discriminative way against witnesses that has very little to do with taxing.
• 

  MMXIV

  Debator,

  My point also cannot be used as a reason why the sky is blue and fresh bread smells good. I'm not trying to make a point other than your statement is wrong. It's that s i m p l e.

  But I would be interested in...

  I could probably argue we pay more taxes than most who have no moral teachings to encourage them not to tax dodge.

  (you might want to leave out the sweeping statements though - I think we both know they're not your strong point)

  MMXIV
• 

  bohm

  Debator: Look. It was a GENERAL YES/NO question, your answer was two things

  • CUT AND PASTE of something irrelevant (NOT a yes/no answer)
  • answering about a SPECIFIC religion.

  It have got to be obvious for even babies and the more intelligent of farm animals that there was no way those two things could be constructed as an answer.

  Once more where you dont pretend you lack basic reading skills:

  Yes or no. Should a government be able to REVOKE the non-profit status of a religion which ABUSE said status?
• 

  debator

  To be honest MMXIV

  While I think that sweeping statement is true it is unprovable as most general statements are. But then arguing the effect of bible morality on people is always a difficult topic because people will always point to the exceptions who ignore it in a religion rather than the normal one that put it into practise.

  I reiterate (subject to our abiltiy by society's standards) Witnesses pay taxes like anyone else our religious identity has nothing to do with this.

  We have 3 men working at a office in france, all doing the same type of job and on the same wage level. They all pay taxes as per governmental requirement.

  They all have a surplus 10 Euro's

  Mr A (an atheist) puts it in his bank getting interest. (doesn't pay further tax on it)

  Mr B ( a catholic) Puts it in a passing donation plate at his church. (Doesn't pay tax on it)

  Mr c (a witness) puts it in a donation box at the back of the kingdom Hall. (The money gets taxed because france doesn't like witnesses)

  how is this scenario in anyway fair and honest?
• 

  debator

  Hi bohm

  Alright I'll say a qualified "Yes" because It is open to mis-use if a Government decides to redefine established understandings of what surplus can be spent on. Which france is clearly doing.

  It is one thing to say "You can't spend money on palaces, and jewels for leaders usage and enjoyment and clearly nothing to do with your religious goals."

  Quite another to say "I don't like what you preach so I will tax you to stop you".

  I think I have said my case and I hope a few agree, that no secular government has a right to use taxation or other unscrupulous methods to curtail people's right to choose their religious Identity or lack of it.