Tax the church!

Xluna

In an era of Irish history where we are undergoing a recession,a generation of Irish people have been robbed of opportunites by the politicians and Financiers and have been told the Catholic church have raped,literally, the previous generation. I ask you, is it not time to tax the church?

Is it possible and is this a goal of Athiest Ireland?

ChocolateSauce

Yes we should tax all churches. AI should press for it, but it's a long way off. I can't think of any country which taxes religions, (excepting Germany taxing scientology, but they consider it a cult, not a religion.)

For the money they can prove goes on secular-natured charity, standard tax exemptions should apply.

jhegarty

What taxes are you suggesting apply that don't at the moment ?

robindch

jhegarty wrote: »

What taxes are you suggesting apply that don't at the moment ?

Removing their "charitable" status, and slapping them with the same corporation tax that the rest of the country's businesses have to pay.

5uspect

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Yes we should tax all churches. AI should press for it, but it's a long way off. I can't think of any country which taxes religions, (excepting Germany taxing scientology, but they consider it a cult, not a religion.)

For the money they can prove goes on secular-natured charity, standard tax exemptions should apply.

In Germany you pay a tax if you're a member of any church but iirc that money goes towards the church.

jhegarty

robindch wrote: »

Removing their "charitable" status, and slapping them with the same corporation tax that the rest of the country's businesses have to pay.

I can't imagine the church has made a profit in years.

axer

5uspect wrote: »

In Germany you pay a tax if you're a member of any church but iirc that money goes towards the church.

I think ChocolateSauce is referring to the fact that Germany officially sees scientology as having a main purpose of making money rather than being a charity thus are taxed as such. It would be great if they were treated the same way here.

With regards taxing the church, I have no problem with the church having charitable status in a country where there is proper separation of church and state i.e. when the majority of the public schools are secular etc.

The Mad Hatter

jhegarty wrote: »

I can't imagine the church has made a profit in years.

Yeah, the pope's down to one palace.

rccaulfield

jhegarty wrote: »

I can't imagine the church has made a profit in years.

In the vatican hq, theres a lump of red marble from egypt the size of a soccer goals thats more valuable then gold per sq inch. Thats in one little room.

MrPudding

rccaulfield wrote: »

In the vatican hq, theres a lump of red marble from egypt the size of a soccer goals thats more valuable then gold per sq inch. Thats in one little room.

I tihnk you will find that they are asset rich and cash poor. I expect this is intentional due to an institutional desire not to pay for the damage they have done in the past.

MrP

jhegarty

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Yeah, the pope's down to one palace.

rccaulfield wrote: »

In the vatican hq, theres a lump of red marble from egypt the size of a soccer goals thats more valuable then gold per sq inch. Thats in one little room.

Right, but we don't tax assets held in foreign countries for any other business.

For the Church to pay corporation tax they need to make a profit this year in this country.

--amadeus--

Lets assume that the average church has 3 services per weekend.

Let's assume each one is attended by 250 people on average (keeping the numbers round and small). And that every second person puts €5 in the plate.

That's (750*5)/2=€1,875 per weekend. Masses during the rest of the week will be a lot smaller but will probably top you up to €2k. Then you have the weddings, funerals, baptisms and 1st communions that generate additional donations (I know we were discretely pressured to offer a substantial donation when we were married). Lets assume one event per week with an additional €250.

Then there are the seasonal offerings that come in the door (uninvited). Assume the 375 people is from a pool of 500 families (not everyone goes every week) and that 75% throw in €50 once per year (I think we get envelopes at least twice per year). Thats (500*.75)*50=€18,750.

So we have the €18,750 from teh offerings, €104,000 from teh weekly collection and €13,000 from "events". Totals up to €135,750.

Multiply that up by the number of churches in this country... And yes a lot of small county churches will have smaller numbers but other will have bigger.

panda100

I would be more in favour of a members tax than the actual church per se.
I think that the religious should be bound,under law, to give a certain amount of their salary each month to their church.

In my opinion If you truly believe in something then you will help fund it and make that financial sacrifice to see it flourishing.

The Mad Hatter

jhegarty wrote: »

Right, but we don't tax assets held in foreign countries for any other business.

For the Church to pay corporation tax they need to make a profit this year in this country.

Sorry, sometimes I quip before I think.

Glenster

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Lets assume that the average church has 3 services per weekend.

The Catholic Church in Ireland does not make a profit. It pumps it's money back into repairs, buildings and support services and sends about a quarter of its money abroad annually to fund poor parishes.

If the charity staus of the church in ireland was revoked they would still not end up paying tax. They would just spend a lot more money on accountants moving the money around the worldwide corporation.

hiorta

If that is so, isn't it about time they produced certified Annual Accounts and Statements of their finances?
They are major landowners receiving huge rentals from these possessions.

They've got away with hiding many aspects of many things from public scrutiny for far too long, giving in return absolutely nothing, contributing nothing of value to the society that had loyally supported them for centuries.

--amadeus--

Glenster wrote: »

The Catholic Church in Ireland does not make a profit. It pumps it's money back into repairs, buildings and support services and sends about a quarter of its money abroad annually to fund poor parishes.

If the charity staus of the church in ireland was revoked they would still not end up paying tax. They would just spend a lot more money on accountants moving the money around the worldwide corporation.

Lots of companies here have expensive upkeep and costs but we still corporation tax thier profits before they are repatriated.

Now either the church doesn't make a profit, despite it's constant begging bowl waving. Or it sends a quarter of it's money overseas. It can't do both. And if it's sending a quarter of it's money overseas then it's making a 25% profit that it can pay tax on.

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

sends about a quarter of its money abroad annually to fund poor parishes.

I'm assuming that this cash is also used to fund salaries + church building + repair, but where is this 25% documented?

Glenster

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Now either the church doesn't make a profit, despite it's constant begging bowl waving. Or it sends a quarter of it's money overseas. It can't do both. And if it's sending a quarter of it's money overseas then it's making a 25% profit that it can pay tax on.

the church doesn't make a profit because it reinvests any money it makes back into itself.

Glenster

robindch wrote: »

I'm assuming that this cash is also used to fund salaries + church building + repair, but where is this 25% documented?

My religion teacher in school told me when we asked him where the churches collections went.

On second thought the 25% might only refer to collections in mass.

Admittedly not the most concrete of sources, I dont do the churches management accounts or anything.

Dades

Glenster wrote: »

the church doesn't make a profit because it reinvests any money it makes back into itself.

If I reinvest my salary back into myself and maybe improving my house does that mean I don't have to pay tax? Cool!

jhegarty

Dades wrote: »

If I reinvest my salary back into myself and maybe improving my house does that mean I don't have to pay tax? Cool!

If you own a company (and by house you mean factory/office) , yes you can.

--amadeus--

Glenster wrote: »

the church doesn't make a profit because it reinvests any money it makes back into itself.

Glenster wrote: »

My religion teacher in school told me when we asked him where the churches collections went.

On second thought the 25% might only refer to collections in mass.

Admittedly not the most concrete of sources, I dont do the churches management accounts or anything.

As impeccably informed as your teacher doubtless is that perhaps isn't a source that we can trust.

And I would be careful about going down the "reinvests in itself" route. Are you trying to claim that not one single cent that enters the catholic church (or indeed any church) ever leaves it?

Not for any reason or cause?

Like charitable donations, for example? And that's before we get into corporate structures and ownership issues.

And I'm no accountant but spurious spending to avoid turning a profit would surely go down as tax evasion, wouldn't it? Certainly when my companies returns are analysed I have to justify every penny spent.

Dades

jhegarty wrote: »

If you own a company (and by house you mean factory/office) , yes you can.

And the revenue will take my word for it, right?

Mr. Incognito

The church as a religious institution has a charitable status as most of it's work is seen as charitable work.

I can't really see what aspect of it could not be viewed objectively as charitable.

Priest are subject to PAYE and PRSI the same as any other employee. In fact there was a case recently of a priest that had undeclared income from cash in hand he recieved at weddings etc.

Priest base salary's are very low anyway so they are generally under the thresholds for PAYE and PRSI, however when you take the BIK's that they get, a car and free accomodation, they should, theoretically be over the threshold and would have to apply PAYE and PRSI on these benefits. I am unaware of whether they do or don't as I haven't experience in priest payroll.

To be honest, the way things are with this government expenditure I'd rather the church have the money to distribute than see it squandered on HSE middle management salaries.

Tim Robbins

How many other organisation with charitable status would maintain it if there was a plethoria of child abuse scandals and cover ups associated with them?

It's simply shocking what Irish people put up with.

robindch

Glenster wrote: »

Admittedly not the most concrete of sources, I dont do the churches management accounts or anything.

The Church of England publishes similar figures and from its accounts, around 90% of their money is spent on salaries, building + repair, and around 10% goes abroad, with the majority of that going on salaries, building + repair. Almost nothing goes to the disadvantaged and I've no reason to believe that the catholic church is any different (and I have checked this with catholics involved in church accounts).

In the USA, I believe that between 1 and 2 percent of the religious economy of around $110 billion per year goes to disadvantaged in the broadest sense, with the remainder being spent -- yet again -- on salaries, buildings and repair. The odd televangelist's corporate jet and airport notwithstanding.

Wow -- an airport for Jesus!

Mr. Incognito

Hmmmmm,

I'm an athiest myself and could care less about the church and what it does with it's money but priest do a lot of good in the community. I know myself when my father died the parish priest was a great person to come up and talk to the family and give a bit of support.

Yes, there are paedo priests, but there are bad eggs in every lot. To tear down the entire institution of the church will leave a vacuum that may be filled by something a lot worse- psychics etc.

I say live and let live, I don't bother them, they won't bother me and like I said before I'd rather the church distribute some collections that the government.

Glenster

robindch wrote: »

Almost nothing goes to the disadvantaged and I've no reason to believe that the catholic church is any different (and I have checked this with catholics involved in church accounts).

Clearly I dont have your connections with those involved in the preperation of church accounts.

I never said that the money expatriated went in the pockets of the needy, it funds churches and that in poor areas.

I dont know why we would dismiss out of hand my old religion teacher's assertion that 25% of mass collections go to disadvantages parishes (I'm trying to remember if he said to poor countries or to poor parishes - cant remember - I assumed it was to Africa and that), presumably he would know more about that sort of thing than most of us but.............

I do know that the church does not operate on a profit making basis so the revenue that the state is missing out on is mainly VAT.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

The Church of England publishes similar figures and from its accounts, around 90% of their money is spent on salaries, building + repair, and around 10% goes abroad, with the majority of that going on salaries, building + repair. Almost nothing goes to the disadvantaged and I've no reason to believe that the catholic church is any different (and I have checked this with catholics involved in church accounts).

Did you consider that the product of the money that goes to pay for salaries, buildings and repair might actually benefit the disadvantaged?

The church I attend works directly with the children of those living with AIDS. The have rented a building specifically where family members can come and unburden themselves of their troubles or even drop the kids off while the parent(s) go and get treatment. Apart from this the church also operates a prison ministry, and on a lighter note, parents can stimulate their tots and aid their development by bringing them to a weekly interactive music session (food and refreshments provided) - the cost is an outrageous €2 per family. You should bring your kid, robin.

The extent of the services provided is probably little more comprehensive than what your simple breakdown of the accounts suggests.

axer

Glenster wrote: »

I dont know why we would dismiss out of hand my old religion teacher's assertion that 25% of mass collections go to disadvantages parishes

Maybe because there is nothing to back it up

Glenster wrote: »

I do know that the church does not operate on a profit making basis so the revenue that the state is missing out on is mainly VAT.

It depends what you consider profit. I would consider using their excess cash to purchase land and store priceless artwork and to maintain a palace for the king of the catholics as using their profit to pay the directors/shareholders.

I always wondered why churches spend so much on big fancy buildings that cost a fortune to heat and maintain when that money could be used for much better uses or the churches could be used to house the homeless etc? Why can't they worship in a normal building and use the extra savings for the poor?

Glenster

axer wrote: »

Maybe because there is nothing to back it up

There's nothing to back up what anyone else said either! I think you just dont like it.

axer wrote: »

I always wondered why churches spend so much on big fancy buildings that cost a fortune to heat and maintain when that money could be used for much better uses

Why does anyone spend money on anything when there are poor to be helped?

axer

Glenster wrote: »

There's nothing to back up what anyone else said either! I think you just dont like it.

:eek:

Glenster wrote: »

Why does anyone spend money on anything when there are poor to be helped?

You don't hear me preaching it! My point is they are hypocrites and people cannot assume just because they are repairing and maintaining churches that that is somehow helping the vulnerable in society.

Glenster

axer wrote: »

:eek:

You don't hear me preaching it! My point is they are hypocrites and people cannot assume just because they are repairing and maintaining churches that that is somehow helping the vulnerable in society.

fair enough, repairing churches and that isn't about helping people but it would be foolish to say that priests dont help the most vulnerable members of society.

I know that there is a church-sponsored feed the homeless thing near where I grew up that is run by a priest.

axer

Glenster wrote: »

fair enough, repairing churches and that isn't about helping people but it would be foolish to say that priests dont help the most vulnerable members of society.

I know that there is a church-sponsored feed the homeless thing near where I grew up that is run by a priest.

Oh, I agree. I actually think they should have charity status as long as they butt out of the running of our country and education system etc.

iUseVi

axer wrote: »

Oh, I agree. I actually think they should have charity status as long as they butt out of the running of our country and education system etc.

I don't know anything about the RCC, but my old evangelical church got tax back on tithes, because of them being free donations. Maybe OT but I found that slightly malodorous, possibly because tithes didn't seem particularly voluntary to me. Anyhoo, off topic.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

the cost is an outrageous €2 per family. You should bring your kid, robin.

At first I was like "Hey, that's actually pretty cool", but the very fact that you need to charge them is sad. The Church has billions in precious relics and they're still charging two euro for these events.

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

At first I was like "Hey, that's actually pretty cool", but the very fact that you need to charge them is sad. The Church has billions in precious relics and they're still charging two euro for these events.

Different church me thinks...

MrP

panda100

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Hmmmmm,

I'm an athiest myself and could care less about the church and what it does with it's money but priest do a lot of good in the community. I know myself when my father died the parish priest was a great person to come up and talk to the family and give a bit of support.

Yes, there are paedo priests, but there are bad eggs in every lot. To tear down the entire institution of the church will leave a vacuum that may be filled by something a lot worse- psychics etc.

Or be filled with something a lot better like community,youth and social workers.

Your right, at the moment the church IS playing a massively important role in community life. Priests in rural Ireland have so many different roles and functions that being a theological and spiritual guider to their flock really probably is one of the least used of their functions.
I read an article recently which said that on a weekly basis priests have young men and women, who are not religious at all, breaking down in the confessional,talking of their suicidal thoughts, desperate for help from someone.

Priests aren't trained for these sort of roles but unfortunately they are the only ones to provide these services in rural communities because there is such a dire lack of social services.
The goverment are quite happy for priests,who free of charge, continue burderning the pressure of dealing with the communities social as well as spiritual problems.

If we tax the church perhaps the goverment would have enough money in their purse to get proper trained proffesional to help promote and sustain a better community life for all,instead of leaving it up to priests.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did you consider that the product of the money that goes to pay for salaries, buildings and repair might actually benefit the disadvantaged? [...] family members can come and unburden themselves of their troubles

Out of interest, is this unburdening done entirely free of all religion, or do you take the opportunity to evangelize the sick and their upset relatives?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

on a lighter note, parents can stimulate their tots and aid their development by bringing them to a weekly interactive music session (food and refreshments provided) - the cost is an outrageous €2 per family. You should bring your kid, robin.

And is this also entirely free of religion, or is there evangelization here too? If the latter, then I think I'll keep my kid away until her brain is careful enough to be able to deal with religion.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The extent of the services provided is probably little more comprehensive than what your simple breakdown of the accounts suggests.

Within the three headings I used, I think I'm about right. If you can help break down these into further into areas (say, those which help the propagation of religion and those which don't), then I'd certainly love to hear them.

.

axer

I am also interested in robindch's questions.

They need to get people in to get new members. It is cheaper than other forms of marketing.

Dades

^^ I can't believe you ninja edited your original "work their magic" comment.

axer

Dades wrote: »

^^ I can't believe you ninja edited your original "work their magic" comment.

I thought it might have been a bit too much

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

At first I was like "Hey, that's actually pretty cool", but the very fact that you need to charge them is sad. The Church has billions in precious relics and they're still charging two euro for these events.

What "Church" are you talking about? I tell you what, I'll ask one of the evil overlords in the church (small "c") what the deal is with funding and I'll get back to you. Perhaps you could work on not automatically assuming ill of Christians.

Zillah

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What "Church" are you talking about? I tell you what, I'll ask one of the evil overlords in the church (small "c") what the deal is with funding and I'll get back to you. Perhaps you could work on not automatically assuming ill of Christians.

I thought I remembered you being Catholic. Way to throw a hissy fit about it.

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, is this unburdening done entirely free of all religion, or do you take the opportunity to evangelize the sick and their upset relatives?

Ah! The implication is that it is automatically a bad thing!

To answer your question: no, it is firmly based on the principle that Jesus and Christians (the representative of him) play a central role in helping those affected by HIV/AIDS. If you wish I can give you specific details and you can investigate yourself. Would you like to see? It might be possible to give you the guided tour.

robindch wrote: »

And is this also entirely free of religion, or is there evangelization here too?

I don't know the specifics. Again, if you want I can point you in the right direction. Though I'm sure even the evil church would not be as deplorable as to inculcate 9 month old children. Or would they?

robindch wrote: »

Within the three headings I used, I think I'm about right. If you can help break down these into further into areas (say, those which help the propagation of religion and those which don't), then I'd certainly love to hear them.

No! I think we are going to have to disagree. I think that you are wrong. Devaluing their contribution to the downtrodden as salary, building or repair is an insult.

Even if tomorrow I became an raving anti-theist, I believe that if I was being rational I would still have to recognise that these people (care givers) are often found at the cold face of life, dealing with the people most would all rather forget, and offering hope where there is none. It doesn't matter if I think this Jesus thing is all a load of rubbish. The proof is in the pudding! And if they are helping when and where no one else is, I would like to think I would be rational enough to acknowledge that. But then again maybe I would be the type of chap who is so blinkered by my hatred of religion that I would rather seek out the bad in my enemy than acknowledge the good.

Yeah, Jesus and Christianity might be all bunk, but perhaps Matthew Parris said it best.

Fanny Cradock

Zillah wrote: »

I thought I remembered you being Catholic. Way to throw a hissy fit about it.

I'm not throwing a hissy fit. I cheerfully forgive you for the mistake, Zilla. Still, it's interesting how you try and throw your mistake back in my face.

No matter! Now that we all agreed that an interactive music session for tots (snacks included) for €2 is a good thing as long as it's not funded by the "Church".

axer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I don't know the specifics. Again, if you want I can point you in the right direction. Though I'm sure even the evil church would not be as deplorable as to inculcate 9 month old children. Or would they?

I wouldn't put it past the evil Church (with a capital "C").

While they might not be out to inculcate 9 month old children they are out to get their parents which in turn gets the children. Might sound sinister the way I have just put it but in fact it is pretty simple and true in the ultimate scope of things - the priests are out to spread the catholic churches teachings which ultimately means out to spread the catholic church.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Removing their "charitable" status, and slapping them with the same corporation tax that the rest of the country's businesses have to pay.

Usually speaking, a business can claim tax exemption for the cost it incurs in doing it's business: building upkeep, insurance, electricity, etc. It's the profit that's taxed in other word.

The Church (my church anyway) doesn't turn a 'profit'. All the money that's donated by it's members is either:

- used to run the business of church
- given away to charitable causes
- is sat in limbo in an account gathering interest (on which presumably DIRT is paid) awaiting use in either of the two categories above.

I can't see what sense the government would see in penalising the charitable giving of money to charitable causes (indeed, doing so would involve the government shooting itself in the foot). Nor can I see how tax can be applied utilising a model of taxation (taxing profits) that doesn't apply to a church.

Fanny Cradock

axer wrote: »

I wouldn't put it past the evil Church (with a capital "C").

While they might not be out to inculcate 9 month old children they are out to get their parents which in turn gets the children. Might sound sinister the way I have just put it but in fact it is pretty simple and true in the ultimate scope of things - the priests are out to spread the catholic churches teachings which ultimately means out to spread the catholic church.

You do make it sound sinister. I would guarantee that all parents are there out of their own volition.

BTW, I'm not Catholic.

axer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You do make it sound sinister. I would guarantee that all parents are there out of their own volition.

So are all the members of the Church of Scientology.