Would you be in favour of a church tax?

axer

I am in Germany where people that are members of religious institutions pay a church tax that is taken directly out of their wages. Here about 9% of one's annual wages goes to their religious group in the tax (I believe it only applies to the larger religions). Those monies go directly to the appropriate church (I believe the costs of collecting the tax are deducted from the final figure). Apparently about 70% of the church revenues comes from this tax here.

I think it is a good idea since if you want to be a member of say, the catholic church, then everyone should pay their fair share.

On the average salary of €22,000 a single person would pay maybe €300 in church tax annually @ 9%.

Galvasean

Isn't that what Scientologists do?

I think if people really want to contribute to their church they will without having to pay tax.

philologos

Does this take into account those with less income, or is it a static tax for all?

PDN

No, I believe giving to a church should be voluntary, and the State has no business getting involved in that process.

Malari

PDN wrote: »

No, I believe giving to a church should be voluntary, and the State has no business getting involved in that process.

How does it work if you are not involved in a religion? Or not one of the major ones? You don't pay this tax? What if you are a member of a big church but don't want to pay this tax? I remember asking a German about this before actually, but they didn't know!

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

Does this take into account those with less income, or is it a static tax for all?

It is based on your income tax. If you pay no income tax then you pay no church tax. Children and young people without income, old people with small pensions and unemployed do not pay any income tax, and consequently no Church tax. Apparently only 30% of catholics actually have to pay it or something like that.

axer

PDN wrote: »

No, I believe giving to a church should be voluntary, and the State has no business getting involved in that process.

In Germany I believe each religion is free to collect the tax themselves but many choose to use the state services to do it for them (for which they get a cut).

Tim Robbins

Malari wrote: »

How does it work if you are not involved in a religion? Or not one of the major ones? You don't pay this tax? What if you are a member of a big church but don't want to pay this tax? I remember asking a German about this before actually, but they didn't know!

One aspect I like abuot Church tax, is that it would force people to consider their beliefs a bit more. All these non - practising Catholics in this state, who turn up to use the Church for Weddings, Funnerals perhaps might think a little more. I'd love to see how many RC Weddings there'd be if they had a rule you had to attend confession before getting hitched!

I think in Germany if you are an atheist you can divert your taxes to other causes.

axer

Malari wrote: »

How does it work if you are not involved in a religion?

Then you don't pay it. You must leave the church to stop paying - there is a form to fill out.

Malari wrote: »

Or not one of the major ones?

Only some are covered by this tax. The others have to do it their own way.

Malari wrote: »

You don't pay this tax?

Nope, neither does my girlfriend (she is neither baptised nor a member of any church).

Malari wrote: »

What if you are a member of a big church but don't want to pay this tax? I remember asking a German about this before actually, but they didn't know!

It comes out of your wages automatically. In order to not pay it you have to leave the church. I'm sure you could still go to the church if you wanted but technically you are not part of the church anymore. Not sure on how the other's in your religion treat you or whether they would have access to know if you are not paying it.

I have removed my calculations per month and per week above since I think they are wrong.

Malari

That's interesting. I don't like the idea of state involvement though. I assume a lot of people just let it be paid, rather than actively removing themselves from the church.

seamus

That's a curious practice. I can see a whole pile of pros and cons on it.

My wonder is what benefit the German government gets from it (aside from the small bit of skimming that they're doing) - i.e. where's the social benefit of forcing people to contribute to their church?

Are there other restrictions, i.e. are churches allowed to do fundraising, are they permitted to receive extra donations?

As far as I can see, the only benefit I can see to this is that it gives the government a good overview of who's getting what, and can prevent anyone from gaining too much power through large donations.

It may also be a backdoor method of taxing the institutions - i.e. don't directly tax their incomes* but just skim off what's needed.

* I would imagine the Germans are a bit afraid of appearing to have a Government which is that cold and controlling

philologos

One can see a huge difference between the standard of maintenance on churches in Germany and in Ireland for example, but then again I think this could be achieved by donations.

axer

seamus wrote: »

My wonder is what benefit the German government gets from it (aside from the small bit of skimming that they're doing) - i.e. where's the social benefit of forcing people to contribute to their church?

I believe 3% or 4% is what they get out of it. I also believe financially the German churches are very well off because of it. It also gives stability to those churches.

seamus wrote: »

Are there other restrictions, i.e. are churches allowed to do fundraising, are they permitted to receive extra donations?

Yes, they are allowed to fundraise and to receive extra donations.

seamus wrote: »

As far as I can see, the only benefit I can see to this is that it gives the government a good overview of who's getting what, and can prevent anyone from gaining too much power through large donations.

I like that it weeds out the bystanders from those who actually believe. From a government point of view, it goes back as far as the germanic tribes where the leaders paid the priests and thus taxed those who were members for the cost of paying the priests (or something like that) thus it is still around today. I guess the churches won't complain when they are receiving good money.

seamus wrote: »

It may also be a backdoor method of taxing the institutions - i.e. don't directly tax their incomes* but just skim off what's needed.

* I would imagine the Germans are a bit afraid of appearing to have a Government which is that cold and controlling

Im not sure if they are "making" any money out of it but I would presume they would be. The money that they take also is used for funding things such as maintenance of the old religious buildings that are protected etc.

axer

Jakkass wrote: »

One can see a huge difference between the standard of maintenance on churches in Germany and in Ireland for example, but then again I think this could be achieved by donations.

But the problem with donations is they can neither be planned for nor guaranteed.

Pgibson

We used to have a "church tax" in Ireland.
The tax was called the "Irish Tithe"

Most people in Ireland HAD to give one tenth of their wages to the Church of Ireland.Catholics and atheists included!

Not a popular tax...to put it mildly.

Quote: " By the early 1800s resentment had become very serious. Tithes had been part of the cause of rural unrest in the late 1700s; in the 1830s, the disruptions came to be called the Tithe War".


Read all about it here:

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=8586





.

MrPudding

Tim Robbins wrote: »

One aspect I like abuot Church tax, is that it would force people to consider their beliefs a bit more. All these non - practising Catholics in this state, who turn up to use the Church for Weddings, Funnerals perhaps might think a little more. I'd love to see how many RC Weddings there'd be if they had a rule you had to attend confession before getting hitched!

Exactly what I was thinking.

MrP

Pgibson

As an athiest I recognise only one religion.

Described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition .

Why should I even be asked by any government to subsidise that religion?

Flamed Diving

Wasn't this the whole point of the French Revolution?

Pgibson

Indeed...the Church Tax called the "Tithe" played a very large part in the historical events which led to Irish independence.

.

philologos

The tithe is nowhere near the German church tax system being discussed.

Pgibson

"The tithe is nowhere near the German church tax system being discussed."

Quote:
"Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave "
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax )


Isn't that very "Christian" of them. Not so "different" at all.

MooseJam

I voted before I read the whole thing - voted yes - but of course I would vote no after reading it

axer

Pgibson wrote: »

"The tithe is nowhere near the German church tax system being discussed."

Quote:
"Some communities refuse to administer marriages and burials of (former) members who had declared to leave "
(From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax )


Isn't that very "Christian" of them. Not so "different" at all.

I think refusing to administer marriages and burials is a good thing. If someone wants to leave the church then why would they want a church wedding or funeral? Either your a catholic/protestant (or whatever) or you are not.

Pgibson

Anyway,following the religious horror story that was the History of Ireland for the past 400 years, I would prefer if the Irish Legislature butted out of personal religious beliefs altogether.

It amazes Irish people that the heir to the English throne legally forfeits his/her claim to the crown just by marrying a Catholic.

How Christians love one another!

Ha Ha.



.

Fratton Fred

Pgibson wrote: »

Anyway,following the religious horror story that was the History of Ireland for the past 400 years, I would prefer if the Irish Legislature butted out of personal religious beliefs altogether.

It amazes Irish people that the heir to the English throne legally forfeits his/her claim to the crown just by marrying a Catholic.

How Christians love one another!

Ha Ha.
.

Really? there are a lot of things that amaze me, a legacy to a byegone era isn't one.

That ruling is being reviewed iirc, in fact it already may have been changed.

Pgibson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

a legacy to a byegone era .

Wish it was that simple.

Thanks to that lovely bloke who always showed Christian kindness to women,King Henry VIII, the English monarch must also be the head of the Church of England.

A Catholic declaring himself/herself the head of the Church of England wouldn't go down too well members of that church or..... with that fella (Whatsisname) who rules the Vatican either.

Thats what happens when the state and religion get entangled.


.

Malari

Pgibson wrote: »

that fella (Whatsisname) who rules the Vatican either.

Emperor Palpatine

Pgibson

Incidentally,

When I said that religious laws represented a Horror Story for Ireland I was not exaggerating.

It was not the Tithe.

It was worse.

Read the list of laws which turned 90% of the Irish people into the world's poorest beggars:

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlker/penallaws.html

.

philologos

Indeed, religion or lack thereof has been used as a political ploy for years unfortunately. However that is the abuse of religion, not the ethics or the beliefs of the religion itself motivating it.

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, evolution has been used as a political ploy for years unfortunately. However that is the abuse of evolution, not the evidence or the theory of the discipline itself motivating it.

:pac:

JimiTime

What is this ATARI JAGUAR option about? I've seen it in a few poles. Apart from being a game system that never took off, what is it? Sorry for interupting, but I gotta know:)

axer

JimiTime wrote: »

What is this ATARI JAGUAR option about? I've seen it in a few poles. Apart from being a game system that never took off, what is it? Sorry for interupting, but I gotta know:)

http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

JimiTime

axer wrote: »

http://wiki.boards.ie/wiki/Atari_Jaguar

Aaahhh I see. Thanks for that axer:)

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

However that is the abuse of religion, not the ethics or the beliefs of the religion itself motivating it.

That's debatable.

However, most historians and sociological researchers believe that there is little more to religion than its use as a political tool. And that the greater part of the most vigorously advertized beliefs and ethics of most religions tend to be those which would have been held by the ordinary punter around when the religion's holy texts were written.

.

Flamed Diving

robindch wrote: »

...according to religious people.

However, most historians and sociological researchers believe that there is little more to religion than its use as a political tool. And that the greater part of the most vigorously advertized beliefs and ethics of most religions tend to be those which would have been held by the ordinary punter around when the religion's holy texts were written.

ergo, the view of women being lesser beings, etc.

Fratton Fred

Pgibson wrote: »

Wish it was that simple.

Thanks to that lovely bloke who always showed Christian kindness to women,King Henry VIII, the English monarch must also be the head of the Church of England.

A Catholic declaring himself/herself the head of the Church of England wouldn't go down too well members of that church or..... with that fella (Whatsisname) who rules the Vatican either.

Thats what happens when the state and religion get entangled.


.

it is that simple.

different forms of christianity were persecuted all over not just in Ireland. ever heard of the Spanish inquisition, or the Hugenots?

is there a point to all this or are you just having a rant?

Pgibson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is that simple.

different forms of christianity were persecuted all over not just in Ireland. ever heard of the Spanish inquisition, or the Hugenots?

is there a point to all this or are you just having a rant?

Just pointing out the damage that legalised religion did to Ireland.


Is it that simple Fred? ..Watch the fireworks going off if Prince Charles
converts from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

.

Pgibson

PS:

I used to have a "Bible" once..many many moons ago.

It was called "De Re Atari".

Great book.

See:

http://www.atariarchives.org/dere/

.

PDN

Pgibson wrote: »

Just pointing out the damage that legalised religion did to Ireland.


Is it that simple Fred? ..Watch the fireworks going off if Prince Charles
converts from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

.

Enforced religion rather than legalised religion.

BTW, I'm still opposed to the church tax idea. Churches should be responsible for funding themselves through the voluntary giving of their members. If their members are not committed enough to keep the doors open then the church should close. Think of it as a religious version of natural selection - survival of the fittest!

Artificial propping up of religion by the State produces an effete and corrupt form of religion that is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the VHI - dominated by the elderly and begging the State to help it fend off younger competitors that are doing a better job.

Pgibson

PDN wrote: »

an effete....form of religion .

Oh!

Are there other types of religion?

Where?

.

Fratton Fred

Pgibson wrote: »

Just pointing out the damage that legalised religion did to Ireland.


Is it that simple Fred? ..Watch the fireworks going off if Prince Charles
converts from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

.

Prince Charles has already publicly stated that he sees the Monarch's role as defender of faith, not defender of THE faith. In British constitutional terms that is a massive change.

If he changed churches then I am sure it would cause a stir, but I don't see any reason to personally. In my church there are almost as many Catholics as Anglicans who worship there, because the reverand is a very popular guy. There is no talk of converting, it is just a different way of demonstrating your faith.

As for funding, I would oppose any state run church tax, if people want to give on a regular basis there are other means such as christian stewardship etc which, like giving to a charity, is tax deductable. Our Church is in a wealthy area and probably has one of the larger Anglican communities in the country, but we struggle so regular contributions are very important to us, how some of the smaller churches cope I have no idea.

compare that to some of the Anglican churches in England and you would be amazed how wealthy some of them are. I know of Anglican, Methodist and Catholic churches that own several office blocks and shops which they receive a regular income from, how they can collect money sometimes is beyond me and as for the vatican.......

Pgibson

Pity its not "Defender of Stamp Collecting".

We Athiests are completely left out of this "Defending Faith" thing.

.

Fratton Fred

Pgibson wrote: »

Pity its not "Defender of Stamp Collecting".

We Athiests are completely left out of this "Defending Faith" thing.
.

They only defend Faith in the UK anyway

PDN

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Prince Charles has already publicly stated that he sees the Monarch's role as defender of faith, not defender of THE faith. In British constitutional terms that is a massive change.

The funny thing is that the whole Defender of the Faith deal was bestowed by the Pope upon Henry VIII for his defence of Catholicism against Protestantism (before he realised that he wanted to divorce or execute any of his wives).

PDN

Pgibson wrote: »

Oh!

Are there other types of religion?

Where?

.

All around you. Only a complete buffoon would see, for example, the religion of William Booth, William Wilberforce, Martin Luther King etc as being effete.

Effete: lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent: an effete, overrefined society.
2. exhausted of vigor or energy; worn out: an effete political force.
3. unable to produce; sterile.

Most of my experience of Christianity has been vigorous, probably too unrefined at times, and able to reproduce at a fast rate.


Also, while I abhor the likes of Fred Phelps or Al Quaeda, they are certainly not effete.

Pgibson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They only defend Faith in the UK anyway

Very True.

Thats why most UK churches are now Bingo Halls.

Bingo is a Sport and Sport is a Religion so it follows I suppose.


.

axer

PDN wrote: »

BTW, I'm still opposed to the church tax idea. Churches should be responsible for funding themselves through the voluntary giving of their members. If their members are not committed enough to keep the doors open then the church should close. Think of it as a religious version of natural selection - survival of the fittest!

Artificial propping up of religion by the State produces an effete and corrupt form of religion that is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the VHI - dominated by the elderly and begging the State to help it fend off younger competitors that are doing a better job.

By having a church tax I don't think the government would be propping up the church since the church only gets the money if people choose to pay the tax thus the government only act as the tax collectors since they are in a position to be able to collect it.

I cannot see a downside to it. Its hardly the penal laws or some sort of forced tax. It would give churches a regular income that they can budget for it would also get people to really think about their beliefs and whether they are really a catholic/protestant or whatever - weed out the rubbish from the real members.

Hagar

seamus wrote: »

My wonder is what benefit the German government gets from it

A full list of who belongs to what religion.
Names and addresses of every Muslim in Germany.
Personally if I were Jewish I wouldn't want to to be on any German Govt list. Leopards, spots etc.

PDN

axer wrote: »

By having a church tax I don't think the government would be propping up the church since the church only gets the money if people choose to pay the tax thus the government only act as the tax collectors since they are in a position to be able to collect it.

I cannot see a downside to it. Its hardly the penal laws or some sort of forced tax. It would give churches a regular income that they can budget for it would also get people to really think about their beliefs and whether they are really a catholic/protestant or whatever - weed out the rubbish from the real members.

That all depends on how it is administrated. Such schemes generally benefit the older churches where people are born into them rather than newer varieties where people join by conversion (personal choice). A lot of people couldn't be bothered filling out forms to opt out or change their official affiliation.

If it were an 'opt in' sustem rather than 'opt out' then that would be different. In such a case people would have to actively fill out a new form every year or two to remain in the scheme. I bet it would thin the numbers out somewhat!

The debate over organ transplant donor cards is one example of the vastly different results obtained from 'opt in' and 'opt out' schemes. http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7051235.stm

Pgibson

As I said before ..Why don't churches butt out of other people's business?

It is their right to believe that the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies was created by a Pixie who lives under the mushrooms at the bottom of the garden.

If they so believe then they should dip into their own pockets to fund their strange rituals.

"Opting-in or Opting-out" should be none of their business.

.

PDN

Pgibson wrote: »

"Opting-in or Opting-out" should be none of their the government's business.

.

Fixed.