Church Tax-exempt status be revoked

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I'm 25.

Wanting churches to be taxed is one thing, but if you want to throw a fit about me using the word fair then you have other problems  lol

Gay people not being able to get married when others can is unfair. I guess they complained about it. 

The concept of fairness is not a snowflake thing it's a value that most in our society try to adhere to. 

Making it relevant to topics about right and wrong, and therefore laws. 

 

No, you are wrong about the word fair.  The gay people didn't stand around complaining that it was not fair that they couldn't marry legally, they did something about it and got the laws changed and they had a lot of help from non-gays because if marriage is a legal issue it needs to encompass everyone, not just certain people.  The concept of fairness is misused constantly to make one small group determine the outcome of the whole group.  Someone whines loud enough those in charge shut them up by making what they want more important that what is healthy for the group.  That is the what the concept of "fair" has been doing in our society.  People are allowed to make choices, if laws aren't right then they need to be changed and there is a process for that.  Because of that it would be a good idea to learn to express yourself without using the phrase "it's not fair".

As for churches being tax exempt, fairness is not relevant as some would say "it is not fair that churches are tax exempt."  So please, expand your argument and explain why you think churches should be tax exempt without using the word "fair" or the concept of "fairness".

[+Desertrat56]

9 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The NAACP, Green Peace, and the NRA all are filed as nonprofits.

There groups are in the business of spreading an ideology and advancement of the groups goals. 

If those can count as nonprofits I do not see why churches would be different, churches which serve as actually social fabric for many peoples lives. 

No one said churches can't be considered non-profit, some of the work they do falls in that category and if they had the same rules as non-profit business like you mention, they still would have money coming in that could be taxable.  It is not black and white, nothing like this ever is.  Yes, there are groups that abuse the system, just like many organized religious groups abuse the system.  Many have been named in the previous posts by several people.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Desertrat56
spelling

[spartan max2]

46 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

As for churches being tax exempt, fairness is not relevant as some would say "it is not fair that churches are tax exempt."  So please, expand your argument and explain why you think churches should be tax exempt without using the word "fair" or the concept of "fairness".

Churches are not for profit organizations and meet the criteria for a nonprofit, like the diverse range of other nonprofit organizations.

Religious institutes are often beneficial and serves as strong social fabrics for many communities. 

So it seems "unfair" to exclude religious organizations imply because of religion. 

 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by spartan max2

[+Desertrat56]

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Churches are not for profit organizations and meet the criteria for a nonprofit, like the diverse range of other nonprofit organizations.

Religious institutes are often beneficial and serves as strong social fabrics for many communities. 

So it seems "unfair" to exclude religious organizations imply because of religion. 

 

 

 

That wasn't the concept, it was more about removing them from special dispensation as far as taxes go.  There are a lot of things they can do to be equal to not for profit, or non-profit organizations.  Most of us don't have a problem with that, it is the organizations like PTL club, 700 club, "church" of scientology etc.  And even smaller organizations that can operate all areas of their business tax free by claiming the religious organization status. That is what needs to go away.

And by the way, there are a lot of non religious organizations that do as much for strengthening the social fabrics for communities.  That is not a church's first responsibility as it is for other organizations.  Their first responsibility is recruitment and survival, second is taking care of their congregation, and third might be community outreach or some other charitable action.  It is not their sole reason for existence and that is the problem I see for them being tax exempt.

[Golden Duck]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

If you're just gonna ignore the fact that the Catholic church tried to cover up and relocate pedophiles rather than bring them to justice, then that moral burden is on you dude.

And you're ignoring all the other organisations that do the same thing.

Don't talk to me about burdens when your morally bankrupt and prejudiced.

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I mean, all you're doing here is doubling down on your position without addressing a single point I've raised in the slightest, so I suppose that's a checkmate.

I wasn't aware we were competing.  The topic is open to anyone to give their opinion pro and con.  You are con and that's your right.  That doesn't mean you are correct, just that you feel your reasoning is superior.  It will be a decision made by our representatives and at some point I fully expect it to happen.  The point I was making was that the revenue it would raise will not offset the good being done in communities.  If a person feels churches do no good or that the fact they spread their beliefs is somehow a negative then obviously, that person will be for punishing churches.  And yes, despite your continual referencing of mega churches, they are an extremely narrow part of this group and most churches struggle to keep things together.  The point you made about them probably "needing to fail" (I paraphrase) because they cannot generate enough funding to support themselves, is an example of the difference in the way a church member views the world vs how a person who thinks churches are a net negative or are unnecessary in today's culture will see their function.

Most churches are small, multi-family congregations that are self supporting but have little more than that.  The point that if their intake is so little then they might be exempt by numbers alone is interesting and I'd have to see the numbers on that but I still say that once the government has that door open they eventually will abuse that authority.

I'll reiterate my final and most encouraging belief about the effects of government meddling in the free exercise of religion - throughout the history of Christ's church, every time the church has been fat and happy with few stresses it has atrophied and fallen into becoming more like the world.  When it has faced persecution of any kind but especially the life and death variety - think Rome or modern Sudan or the M.E. - it has exploded with growth and fervor.  Congregations coming under pressure that might cause them to close their doors will probably lead to much more devout and strongly supported home churches.  A perfect example of this is found in China, today.  

[+Desertrat56]

4 minutes ago, and then said:

I wasn't aware we were competing.  The topic is open to anyone to give their opinion pro and con.  You are con and that's your right.  That doesn't mean you are correct, just that you feel your reasoning is superior.  It will be a decision made by our representatives and at some point I fully expect it to happen.  The point I was making was that the revenue it would raise will not offset the good being done in communities.  If a person feels churches do no good or that the fact they spread their beliefs is somehow a negative then obviously, that person will be for punishing churches.  And yes, despite your continual referencing of mega churches, they are an extremely narrow part of this group and most churches struggle to keep things together.  The point you made about them probably "needing to fail" (I paraphrase) because they cannot generate enough funding to support themselves, is an example of the difference in the way a church member views the world vs how a person who thinks churches are a net negative or are unnecessary in today's culture will see their function.

Most churches are small, multi-family congregations that are self supporting but have little more than that.  The point that if their intake is so little then they might be exempt by numbers alone is interesting and I'd have to see the numbers on that but I still say that once the government has that door open they eventually will abuse that authority.

I'll reiterate my final and most encouraging belief about the effects of government meddling in the free exercise of religion - throughout the history of Christ's church, every time the church has been fat and happy with few stresses it has atrophied and fallen into becoming more like the world.  When it has faced persecution of any kind but especially the life and death variety - think Rome or modern Sudan or the M.E. - it has exploded with growth and fervor.  Congregations coming under pressure that might cause them to close their doors will probably lead to much more devout and strongly supported home churches.  A perfect example of this is found in China, today.  

changing the status of taxation for religious organizations is not government meddling, it is something that needs to be done.  No matter how small the church organization is, it is still not primarily in the business of supporting the whole community it exists in.  The primary function is to teach or share a religious ideology, community within the congregation usually is second priority, not always and the outside community is last on the list.  Any missionary work is actually recruitment.  A soup kitchen sponsored by a church is rarely not recruiting or at the very least expecting to be allowed to preach while people eat.  That is not the same as a secular soup kitchen that is in the business of making sure people (no matter their faith or willingness to listen to a sermon) get fed.

[Aquila King]

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

Wanting churches to be taxed is one thing, but if you want to throw a fit about me using the word fair then you have other problems  lol

I actually see both sides on this issue with you and @Desertrat56 and the word "fair."

We should indeed strive for fairness in everything, though simply saying something isn't "fair" can come off as rather childish and complainy rather than seriously focusing on bringing about greater justice and equality.

It's a minor gripe either way, but thought I'd give my 2 cents worth on the topic.  Especially since Desert basically responded to you and others in generally the same way I would on the other issues discussed.

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, Desertrat56 said:

changing the status of taxation for religious organizations is not government meddling, it is something that needs to be done.  No matter how small the church organization is, it is still not primarily in the business of supporting the whole community it exists in.  The primary function is to teach or share a religious ideology, community within the congregation usually is second priority, not always and the outside community is last on the list.  Any missionary work is actually recruitment.  A soup kitchen sponsored by a church is rarely not recruiting or at the very least expecting to be allowed to preach while people eat.  That is not the same as a secular soup kitchen that is in the business of making sure people (no matter their faith or willingness to listen to a sermon) get fed.

I disagree.  The greatest leverage any government can exercise to deter or to promote desired behaviors in the population is the tax code.  The free exercise of religion, including the ability of members to gather together in a common location to worship and teach is fundamental to that free exercise and those abilities will be hindered, often removed altogether if small churches are taxed.  It's also important to note that in a 3 trillion dollar economy we aren't talking about a revenue stream that anyone would likely even notice yet for many it seems critical that fairness be the rule.  I contend that our Founders valued the contributions of religious institutions to the growth and strengthening of the Republic so much that they wanted to nurture and promote their growth in the country.  The greatest change that will signal a reversal of that desire is the growth of a culture that is openly hostile to churches.  Mind, I did not say religious institutions.  Just churches.  In the short term, I think, ironically, that the issue will be confounded and impeded by those who attend mosques and synagogues.  I mean, it would be rather blatant to tax only one faith.  Time will tell and whatever comes will cause a strengthening of the church.

[Aquila King]

22 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

And you're ignoring all the other organisations that do the same thing.

No I'm not. I'm just ignoring your false equivalency and attempt to change the subject.

Moreover, there's a stark difference between a pedophile or two working unbeknownst to an organization, vs a bunch of pedophikes being protected by that organization and having their actions covered up to protect the organization's reputation. 

Name me any other organization out there that had the same widespread pedophilia cover up as the Catholic church and that didn't go under. I can't think of a single one.

You might be able to name a few examples of Pedophiles like that Jared dude who advertised for Subway, but again, these are isolated incidents that the company had no knowledge of whatsoever. There wasn't a widespread Subway pedophile cover up conspiracy.

29 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Don't talk to me about burdens when your morally bankrupt and prejudiced.

WTF????  Where the hell did that come from? I mean I actually kinda funny given how randomly out of left field this is.  But mmostly I'm just confused... 

Care to actually back up your ad hominems here bud?

[+Desertrat56]

12 minutes ago, and then said:

I disagree.  The greatest leverage any government can exercise to deter or to promote desired behaviors in the population is the tax code.  The free exercise of religion, including the ability of members to gather together in a common location to worship and teach is fundamental to that free exercise and those abilities will be hindered, often removed altogether if small churches are taxed.  It's also important to note that in a 3 trillion dollar economy we aren't talking about a revenue stream that anyone would likely even notice yet for many it seems critical that fairness be the rule.  I contend that our Founders valued the contributions of religious institutions to the growth and strengthening of the Republic so much that they wanted to nurture and promote their growth in the country.  The greatest change that will signal a reversal of that desire is the growth of a culture that is openly hostile to churches.  Mind, I did not say religious institutions.  Just churches.  In the short term, I think, ironically, that the issue will be confounded and impeded by those who attend mosques and synagogues.  I mean, it would be rather blatant to tax only one faith.  Time will tell and whatever comes will cause a strengthening of the church.

I think you just don't understand how money works in a church.  You make donations so that the minister can have a salary, maybe you hold bake sales etc.  You donate to fix something in the building or hold a rummage or bake sale.  You, as a member of the congregation have made a choice to support the church.  The money that is used for the things you donate to give you a tax break but if there is money left over that sits in a savings account for future use, the interest on that money should not be tax free, unless it is used within the year.  The PTA works that way, so what is wrong with having the churches work the same way.  I think you are just misunderstanding the whole issue because it appears to threaten something you hold dear.  There is nothing wrong with the existence of organized religion and religious freedom in this country is a given no matter what the tax code is.  You still haven't given me a good enough reason to agree that religious organizations should hold special status in any way.  Special status is what causes larger organizations think it is ok to reach outside of their organization and try to take control over things they have no business controlling, like public schools, and government.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Desertrat56

[Aquila King]

46 minutes ago, and then said:

The greatest leverage any government can exercise to deter or to promote desired behaviors in the population is the tax code.

Literally the only desired behavior anyone is pushing for is that churches pay taxes.

You're overblowing this whole issue into colossal proportions...

[Golden Duck]

11 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

No I'm not. I'm just ignoring your false equivalency and attempt to change the subject.

Moreover, there's a stark difference between a pedophile or two working unbeknownst to an organization, vs a bunch of pedophikes being protected by that organization and having their actions covered up to protect the organization's reputation. 

Name me any other organization out there that had the same widespread pedophilia cover up as the Catholic church and that didn't go under. I can't think of a single one.

You might be able to name a few examples of Pedophiles like that Jared dude who advertised for Subway, but again, these are isolated incidents that the company had no knowledge of whatsoever. There wasn't a widespread Subway pedophile cover up conspiracy.

WTF????  Where the hell did that come from? I mean I actually kinda funny given how randomly out of left field this is.  But mmostly I'm just confused... 

Care to actually back up your ad hominems here bud?

You were the one that raised child sexual abuse in this thread, in the context of the OP it is a strawman. But the Royal Commission is a matter of public record. The most famous organisation secular organisation that's still going would be DFAT, IMO. Other that is listed among the Royal Commission is ADFA/RMC and Swimming Australia.  

The Royal Commission shows that this type of abuse happens with organisations that deal with children; including the Salvation Army.

Even, at the international level UN workers have been involved in scandal where the organisation maintained they couldn't even take administrative action.

I can also say that I have not received one phone call for a donation from a traditional church. I can't say the same for a secular NFP that simply won't take no for an answer. They also develop emotive scripts and target younger females because of a likelihood of empathy. They ask for continuing direct debit contributuon over one-off donations; its, a matter of remaining a going concern; and, there are people that forget to cancel their automatic deduction. It's a strategy reminiscent of scammers.

We could also ask why McDonalds was able to get "Heart Smart" certification. 

You could also read the reports of toxic culture in Amnesty International. 

These organisations don't attract the top people. But, the one organisation you are focussing generally has the lowest salaries. 

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

You were the one that raised child sexual abuse in this thread, in the context of the OP it is a strawman. 

Just one sentence into your post and there's already multiple falsehoods...

1) I was addressing @spartan max2's post, not the OP.

2) spartan max2 was using his local Catholic church as an example of a religious organization doing good charitable work that they do with regards to providing a soup kitchen etc.

All I did was state that the Catholic church is a bad example to use as an organization that's positive and charitable towards the community given the fact that it's widely known that they covered up decades of pedophilia that they knew about but did nothing to stop.

I countered his example with a counterexample of the same organization doing the exact opposite of what he claimed. Like it or not, I raised a valid point.

3) A strawman argument is when you knock down an argument that the other person wasn't making to begin with. That's not what this argument of mine was in the slightest. 

Spartan gave an example of a religious organization doing good, then I countered with an example of that exact same religious organization doing bad. His underlying premise was that religious organizations do good and he ge an example, and I countered it this negating his underlying premise here (at least in regards to that specific example). That's it.

None of that in any way qualifies as a straw man. Not to Spartan, and definately not to the OP who I wasn't even addressing with this.

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

But the Royal Commission is a matter of public record. The most famous organisation secular organisation that's still going would be DFAT, IMO. Other that is listed among the Royal Commission is ADFA/RMC and Swimming Australia.

Okay, this part I actually had to do a bit of research on since I'm an American boy and don't know too much about Australia or it's various groups therein. Never heard of any of the examples you named before, but now I know.

However upon researching the organizations you mentioned, all but one of them are departments of the Australian government itself, which is a different beast entirely. I asked you to name another organization, but perhaps I should be specific. Name a private organization that has committed a mass cover-up of widespread pedophilia and protection of said pedophiles, and still existed despite that.

Departments of any official government are a different thing altogether, because you can't disband the entire government over a widespread sex abuse scandal. Literally the only option is to reform it. With any sort of private business or non-profit or religious organization, it's entirely possible for the organization to disappear because of it. A government? Hell no. So naming government organizations as examples is an argument in bad faith.

The Swimming Australia organization though was indeed a good example. From what I've read on it, there have been multiple allegations that not only did sexual abuse happen, but the higher ups knew about it and covered it up. So far no one has been prosecuted. It doesn't seem to be nearly as prevalent as the Catholic church, but it is a good example nonetheless.

Regardless, my overall point here wasn't as much to claim that the Catholic church was uniquely bad when it comes to child sexual abuse cover-ups. My point was that the Catholic church was aiding and abetting child predators, so it's hypocritical to claim them as a positive force for the community when the reality is, they're in many ways an incredibly negative force as well.

Anyway, this whole topic here has gone way too far and gotten out of hand. I never intended to go into a long ass discussion on the Catholic child sex abuse scandal, I merely used the scandal as a quick example in a single post that you then decided to blow up into all this. The main topic of this thread and this discussion is whether or not religious organizations should have tax exempt status, and that's what I'll attempt to focus on from now on. I've made my point on this side topic clear enough already.

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

I can also say that I have not received one phone call for a donation from a traditional church. I can't say the same for a secular NFP that simply won't take no for an answer. They also develop emotive scripts and target younger females because of a likelihood of empathy. They ask for continuing direct debit contributuon over one-off donations; its, a matter of remaining a going concern; and, there are people that forget to cancel their automatic deduction. It's a strategy reminiscent of scammers.

Okay, this is just childish and silly. This is all completely anecdotal and therefore invalid, but it's so comically obvious how biased this view is that it borders on being a caricature. Might as well say "Religious Groups GOOD, Secular Groups BAD!" 

For every example you name here, there's a counterexample of the complete opposite. There are plenty examples of traditional churches calling people for donations, plenty who won't take no for an answer, plenty who use scripts, plenty who use strategies similar to scammers, etc. Just as there are plenty of examples of secular organizations who don't do that. Again, this is borderline caricature.

3 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

the one organisation you are focussing generally has the lowest salaries. 

The Catholic church is literally the wealthiest Christian denomination / Christian organization on earth. You seriously want to look at the salaries of priests as some indicator of them being a non-profit? Seriously?... smh...

[Golden Duck]

15 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Just one sentence into your post and there's already multiple falsehoods...

1) I was addressing @spartan max2's post, not the OP.

2) spartan max2 was using his local Catholic church as an example of a religious organization doing good charitable work that they do with regards to providing a soup kitchen etc.

All I did was state that the Catholic church is a bad example to use as an organization that's positive and charitable towards the community given the fact that it's widely known that they covered up decades of pedophilia that they knew about but did nothing to stop.

I countered his example with a counterexample of the same organization doing the exact opposite of what he claimed. Like it or not, I raised a valid point.

3) A strawman argument is when you knock down an argument that the other person wasn't making to begin with. That's not what this argument of mine was in the slightest. 

Spartan gave an example of a religious organization doing good, then I countered with an example of that exact same religious organization doing bad. His underlying premise was that religious organizations do good and he ge an example, and I countered it this negating his underlying premise here (at least in regards to that specific example). That's it.

None of that in any way qualifies as a straw man. Not to Spartan, and definately not to the OP who I wasn't even addressing with this.

Okay, this part I actually had to do a bit of research on since I'm an American boy and don't know too much about Australia or it's various groups therein. Never heard of any of the examples you named before, but now I know.

However upon researching the organizations you mentioned, all but one of them are departments of the Australian government itself, which is a different beast entirely. I asked you to name another organization, but perhaps I should be specific. Name a private organization that has committed a mass cover-up of widespread pedophilia and protection of said pedophiles, and still existed despite that.

Departments of any official government are a different thing altogether, because you can't disband the entire government over a widespread sex abuse scandal. Literally the only option is to reform it. With any sort of private business or non-profit or religious organization, it's entirely possible for the organization to disappear because of it. A government? Hell no. So naming government organizations as examples is an argument in bad faith.

The Swimming Australia organization though was indeed a good example. From what I've read on it, there have been multiple allegations that not only did sexual abuse happen, but the higher ups knew about it and covered it up. So far no one has been prosecuted. It doesn't seem to be nearly as prevalent as the Catholic church, but it is a good example nonetheless.

Regardless, my overall point here wasn't as much to claim that the Catholic church was uniquely bad when it comes to child sexual abuse cover-ups. My point was that the Catholic church was aiding and abetting child predators, so it's hypocritical to claim them as a positive force for the community when the reality is, they're in many ways an incredibly negative force as well.

Anyway, this whole topic here has gone way too far and gotten out of hand. I never intended to go into a long ass discussion on the Catholic child sex abuse scandal, I merely used the scandal as a quick example in a single post that you then decided to blow up into all this. The main topic of this thread and this discussion is whether or not religious organizations should have tax exempt status, and that's what I'll attempt to focus on from now on. I've made my point on this side topic clear enough already.

Okay, this is just childish and silly. This is all completely anecdotal and therefore invalid, but it's so comically obvious how biased this view is that it borders on being a caricature. Might as well say "Religious Groups GOOD, Secular Groups BAD!" 

For every example you name here, there's a counterexample of the complete opposite. There are plenty examples of traditional churches calling people for donations, plenty who won't take no for an answer, plenty who use scripts, plenty who use strategies similar to scammers, etc. Just as there are plenty of examples of secular organizations who don't do that. Again, this is borderline caricature.

The Catholic church is literally the wealthiest Christian denomination / Christian organization on earth. You seriously want to look at the salaries of priests as some indicator of them being a non-profit? Seriously?... smh...

The examples of the NFP fund raising are something I have second hand experience with.  My ex-worked with one of Australia's charities and my current girlfriend worked for their fund raising.  It's not entirely anecdotal as you try assert.  I've got knowledge of the scripts and intended cohort from both sides.  You're again making an appeal to common sense without any examples.

If you know the accounting equation and understand the principal of liquidity you realise that calculating the equity for a church is folly.  Like I've already stated an asset is not an asset if you can't realise it.  What's your literal valuation on Vatican City; how much does it exceed your valuation of, say, the LDS Church?

Nevertheless, you want to tax an organisation on your caricature rather than business they carry out.  That's prejudice.

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

The examples of the NFP fund raising are something I have second hand experience with.  My ex-worked with one of Australia's charities and my current girlfriend worked for their fund raising.  It's not entirely anecdotal as you try assert.  I've got knowledge of the scripts and intended cohort from both sides.  You're again making an appeal to common sense without any examples.

Second hand anecdotes are even less credible than first hand ones...

Do you even know how logic works dude?...

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If you know the accounting equation and understand the principal of liquidity you realise that calculating the equity for a church is folly.  Like I've already stated an asset is not an asset if you can't realise it.  What's your literal valuation on Vatican City; how much does it exceed your valuation of, say, the LDS Church?

Well it certainly is indeed difficult to calculate the Catholic Church's total equity considering the legal tax exempt loophole that makes public disclosure of all religious organizations financial assets something that's not legally required:

Quote

How Rich Is the Catholic Church?

Nobody really knows, because religious groups don’t need to follow regular accounting and disclosure rules.

https://slate.com/business/2013/03/catholic-church-and-pope-francis-religious-institutions-are-exempted-from-nonprofit-disclosure-rules-so-nobody-knows-how-rich-they-really-are.html

However due to an independent investigation, we can make an approximate estimation on the total net worth of the Roman Catholic Church:

Quote

Catholic Church national wealth estimated to be $30 billion, investigation finds

There are calls for the Catholic Church's tax-free status to be reviewed after a Fairfax investigation revealing the extent of property, assets and investments owned by the church in Australia.

Fairfax's six-month investigation found the Catholic Church was worth more than $9 billion in Victoria alone.

The investigation extrapolated that figure to estimate the church's national wealth at $30 billion.

The Age's journalists obtained property valuations from dozens of Victorian councils.

They found 1,800 church-owned properties, including churches, presbyteries, schools, nursing homes, hospitals, offices, tennis courts and even mobile phone towers.

But beyond real estate, there was superannuation, telecommunications, Catholic Church Insurance and Catholic Development Funds, which serve as an internal treasury.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-12/catholic-church-worth-$30-billion-investigation-finds/9422246

Stop pretending as if the Catholic church is some 100% charitable organization, cause it isn't; or that it isn't rich off it's ass, cause it is.

26 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Nevertheless, you want to tax an organisation on your caricature rather than business they carry out.  That's prejudice.

Apparently you don't know how logic works. Cuz that is statement is completely illogical.

I believe they shoukd be taxed based on what they objectively are. Objectively speaking, religious organizations do not 100% function as a non-profit. I've explained this thoroughly already, as have other posters here. You're just either not listening or not getting it or are just being a stubborn ass.

Regardless, your accusation that this is somehow "prejudice" is a completely baseless assertion anyway, so I won't waste much time on that. I'll simply remind you that I've already stated previously how I used to believe in the same thing that religious organizations should be taxed back when I was still a devout Christian regularly attending church service. What was I, prejudiced against myself? Such nonsense...

[Golden Duck]

8 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Second hand anecdotes are even less credible than first hand ones...

Do you even know how logic works dude?...

Well it certainly is indeed difficult to calculate the Catholic Church's total equity considering the legal tax exempt loophole that makes public disclosure of all religious organizations financial assets something that's not legally required:

However due to an independent investigation, we can make an approximate estimation on the total net worth of the Roman Catholic Church:

Stop pretending as if the Catholic church is some 100% charitable organization, cause it isn't; or that it isn't rich off it's ass, cause it is.

Apparently you don't know how logic works. Cuz that is statement is completely illogical.

I believe they shoukd be taxed based on what they objectively are. Objectively speaking, religious organizations do not 100% function as a non-profit. I've explained this thoroughly already, as have other posters here. You're just either not listening or not getting it or are just being a stubborn ass.

Regardless, your accusation that this is somehow "prejudice" is a completely baseless assertion anyway, so I won't waste much time on that. I'll simply remind you that I've already stated previously how I used to believe in the same thing that religious organizations should be taxed back when I was still a devout Christian regularly attending church service. What was I, prejudiced against myself? Such nonsense...

What you call anecdotes are carry more weight than your assumptions.  It's based on personal experience.  You've shown in the past that you think your assumptions are should be given premium consideration.

Conflating tax loophole with heritage listed premises is silly.  You need to understand that encumbered land decreases undeveloped value.  ST Peter's Basillica can not be liquidated the same goes for Notre Dame Cathedral.

Catholic Superannuation and Catholic Insurance are taxed.  More assumptions on your part proven wrong by reality.