Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why Are Religions Tax-Exempt?
Options
Comments
-
prinz The point I was making is why use the name of an uninvolved organisation that has nothing to do with the topic and who may have alleged crimes committed by its staff, to some how rationalise some point about convicted selfadmitted child rapist priests.
Actually there is. We all know what happened. However very few people realise just how much abuse goes on in the world. The RCC are the only organisation to have released information about abuse perpetrated by its members. According to the insurance companies who cover religious organisations in the US for example they see no difference in the number or amount of settlements between the RCC there and any other denomination across a number of religions. This was a discussion on taxing religions there was no need to bring abuse or anything else into it besides laziness and ignorance. The vast amount of sexual and other violence perpetrated in this country is done no by priests at all.Second There is no such thing as a free meal, the price of their altruistic social deeds eg weddings is not open to "all" in fairness. It comes with the price of Signing a form to guarantee their right to educate/poorly your children thereby ensuring their powerfull role in our educational system OUR tax pays for, their dominance in which has a dubious clash with the Irish constitution too from what i've seen (for all the constitution is worth).
Have a problem with that? There's a simple solution.... get up and walk out and get married somewhere else. It's not rocket science. Why should the RCC provide locations and services for people with no interest or affiliation to the faith? Should Hindus be obliged to allow their temples be used simply because someone thinks it 'looks nice' in a photo? Are you acknowledging that some people are spineless gormless morons who like looking for the easy scapegoat?I did not actually say to tax "all" charitable donations if you read what i said I merely suggested the efficiency of charitable donatioon usage is not very tansparent and in these time of corrupt executive behavior the religious organisations are certainly not exempt despite their sunday soap box and moralising.
Ever gone looking for their accounts? Get in touch with them and ask? You know plenty of parishes make their acounts available online right? Otherwise you can get in touch and ask, and you may receive. How have you tested this transparency to come to the conclusion it's not very good? What have you done?Go into any shop in the country and you'll see collection boxes for the romans, thousands of them every chipper, filling station etc, I have yet to see bhuddists, muslim or scientologists collecting the countrys spare change on such a vast scale. If these other organisations were so prolific at gathering the coinage the same attitude would apply but thats not the reality and i dont just mean collection boxes. In light of the fact the tax payer of all religions or none will be helping out to compensate the ould rapists facilitators it's time the aligence with our national favourite was broken and the boundry between religion and politics was respected as is the intent in our constitution.
LOL seriously? There's nothing stopping anyone from collecting for anything. As for taxpayers paying - that's a government issue. You can use your vote on that. Lay blame where blame is due.No other religion has been allowed have much effect on the day to day life and as many representative making the laws of the land and the institutions we regret are not operating as amazingly well as we'd all love ha ha, thats why i refered to them most prinz , simple as that. quite a bit off topic but answers your question honestly,tis only my opinion.
Firstly numbers chappy numbers. Secondly it's debateable. One of the primary reasons we have a Seannad in this country was that it was seen established as a means to give a voice to the Church of Ireland community originally.And the argument that people should be allowed to give their money to whoever they want and therefore it shouldn't be taxed, is ridiculous. People voluntarily give their money to businesses or organisations all the time yet are still taxed on these 'donations'.
Do they receive a good or service for that? Yeah, I thought so.0 -
hotmail.com wrote: »3k!! Where do I sign up.
That's money that could be going into the economy. How much on average do these loyal/sheep mass goers give?
:pac: I worry for humanity.0 -
"The RCC are the only organisation to have released information about abuse perpetrated by its members." They have been scrutinised into doing so by the media hardly a voulentary thing
"This was a discussion on taxing religions there was no need to bring abuse or anything else into it besides laziness and ignorance."
Well when an independant organisations name is used in an arguement to justify crimes of a different nature by the church, crimes which have no relevance why not lay the cards on ther table, ignorance indeed, lazy or relevant to the point?
"The vast amount of sexual and other violence perpetrated in this country is done no by priests at all."
I hope "y" so but the fact is Vast amounts of tax payers money is going to be used to compensate the victims of church crimes.
"Are you acknowledging that some people are spineless gormless morons who like looking for the easy scapegoat?"
Yes single person is a spineless gormless moron, You just have to look at the person in the right angle to see them in your terms, I know noone who has ever claimed to be brave and wise in all dealings do you claim that? Easy scapegoat, there is nothing easy about pointing out in a debate, the visible damage that has been done and the resistance to change which is evident as your retorts prove.
"Firstly numbers chappy numbers. Secondly it's debateable. One of the primary reasons we have a Seannad in this country was that it was seen established as a means to give a voice to the Church of Ireland community originally."
Chappy ? Whats that all about, some sort of derogatory term getting a bit personal are we, have a bit of manners?
The Seannad is approaching farce they achieve almost nothing money/jobs for the boys and rare bluster as the last few months have shown, many proposals from all sides to overhaul it root and branch as its inneffective.0 -
Well when an independant organisations name is used in an arguement to justify crimes of a different nature by the church, crimes which have no relevance why not lay the cards on ther table, ignorance indeed, lazy or relevant to the point?
It does indeed have a relevance when you take heed of what came before it and why it was posted. The taxation policy towards businesses and organisations does not depend on the actions of a tiny minority of activists/employees. Arguing this reasoning against the RCC is baseless as a similar argument falls flat when applied to any other organisation.I hope "y" so but the fact is Vast amounts of tax payers money is going to be used to compensate the victims of church crimes.
Indeed. So take it up with the government and politicians.Yes single person is a spineless gormless moron, You just have to look at the person in the right angle to see them in your terms, I know noone who has ever claimed to be brave and wise in all dealings do you claim that? Easy scapegoat, there is nothing easy about pointing out in a debate, the visible damage that has been done and the resistance to change which is evident as your retorts prove.
So you accept that people who go asking the RCC to marry them have no backbone, and they are incapable of getting married anywhere else? If I had an objection to anything that came attached with it I'd get up and walk out and get married somewhere else? What's wrong with the Church asking it's adherents to comply with certain things? Are they holding a gun to your head to go to them in the first place and ask them to conduct the ceremony and host your wedding? Typical nonsense. No one is forcing you to get married in a RCC so you better rethink your argument on that score?Chappy ? Whats that all about, some sort of derogatory term getting a bit personal are we, have a bit of manners?
Obviously more than some.The Seannad is approaching farce they achieve almost nothing money/jobs for the boys and rare bluster as the last few months have shown, many proposals from all sides to overhaul it root and branch as its inneffective.
Don't disagree with anything there. Then again not really relevant to the actual point. Starting to become a habit that.0 -
cos god don't like paying taxes. and why should he?0
-
Advertisement
-
Taxed on what exactly? An existence tax is what you and others seem to be implying.There's absolutely no reason why a church shouldn't be taxed.
Occasionally? Just because you aren't on the receiving end of any of their charitable works does not make it "occasional".Occasionally doing charitable work does not make them a charity.
Yeah I make a €100 donation to KFC every month... :pac:And the argument that people should be allowed to give their money to whoever they want and therefore it shouldn't be taxed, is ridiculous. People voluntarily give their money to businesses or organisations all the time yet are still taxed on these 'donations'.
You do realise the major flaw in your argument, don't you? You don't seem to understand the difference between a voluntary contribution/donation and payment as part of a sale contract. When I give money to a business I give it to them as part of the contract of sale between me and them.0 -
Income.partyatmygaff wrote: »Taxed on what exactly? An existence tax is what you and others seem to be implying.
The point being that charity isn't their reason for their existence. As said already, if they want to be treated like a charity then they can register as a charity.partyatmygaff wrote: »Occasionally? Just because you aren't on the receiving end of any of their charitable works does not make it "occasional".partyatmygaff wrote: »You do realise the major flaw in your argument, don't you? You don't seem to understand the difference between a voluntary contribution/donation and payment as part of a sale contract. When I give money to a business I give it to them as part of the contract of sale between me and them.
People give money to the church so that the church can continue to provide the services that they avail of. sure it might not be compulsory, but that's ultimately what the 'donations' are for.0 -
-
There is no single entity (As far as i'm aware ) in Ireland known as the "Roman Catholic Church". Each organisation is kept seperate and almost all are already registered as a Charity.The point being that charity isn't their reason for their existence. As said already, if they want to be treated like a charity then they can register as a charity.0 -
hotmail.com wrote: »3k!! Where do I sign up.
That's money that could be going into the economy. How much on average do these loyal/sheep mass goers give?
2 priests, 5 churches. Thats 5 sunday masses & 3 saturday evening masses.
If you get an average of 100 people at mass, thats 800 subscribers weekly. Some give €5, some give €2. Average appears to be about €3.50 with €20 common for the 'special' collections.
You would think they could afford to turn on the heat!0 -
Advertisement
-
The taxation policy towards businesses and organisations does not depend on the actions of a tiny minority of activists/employees. Arguing this reasoning against the RCC is baseless as a similar argument falls flat when applied to any other organisation.
You read too deep there prinz, I was making the point not to use the name of an independant company to make a point, not the tax analogy which it a pretty distant derivision from the simple point of not smearing a name the abuse stuff thrown in was just packing.
"Take it up with the politicians"
sure but still relevant to a debate here about the reasoning behind religious groups costing the state money not being taxed ... could you give me a rock solid reason why that should not be mentioned here?, money out vs money in, simples.
"No one is forcing you to get married in a RCC so you better rethink your argument on that score?"
Yet again..... calm down,that was never my point my initial post said it should be taxed as an entertainment company would be taxed for hiring a premisis for a function, not an unacceptable point nor would it break the churches id imagine. And I agree with you to some extent that if everyone who is not interested in being a statistic for, decided to get a civil service it would be more honest but girls love big ceremonies etc wouldnt you agree most girls or fellas'd have an impossible challenge persuading brainwashed parents and older fragile generation family they may want to upset greatly, get real some people have different circumstances huge stigmas still apply in many rural areas also.
Chappy ? Whats that all about, some sort of derogatory term getting a bit personal are we, have a bit of manners?
"Obviously more than some"
Break that down there for me what you really mean there, your talkin bible speak.
relevancy : you keep reitterating to say it to the politicians this is a discussion not a finna failure referal room:) politicians have a short term left no point saying anything to that bunch.0 -
partyatmygaff wrote: »There is no single entity (As far as i'm aware ) in Ireland known as the "Roman Catholic Church".
so they're franchises? They all answer to a single entity... the Vatican. It doesn't matter if the entity they're answerable to is in Ireland or not.partyatmygaff wrote: »Each organisation is kept seperate and almost all are already registered as a Charity.
Fair enough if true, but where can I find out if it is true?0 -
They aren't franchises. A franchise is a business and try if you will but you will convince few others that a Church is a business under law.so they're franchises? They all answer to a single entity... the Vatican. It doesn't matter if the entity they're answerable to is in Ireland or not.
http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/charities_numeric.pdfFair enough if true, but where can I find out if it is true?0 -
2 priests, 5 churches. Thats 5 sunday masses & 3 saturday evening masses.
If you get an average of 100 people at mass, thats 800 subscribers weekly. Some give €5, some give €2. Average appears to be about €3.50 with €20 common for the 'special' collections.
You would think they could afford to turn on the heat!
Wo, what a waste of money.0 -
af_thefragile wrote: »Also the church isn't a business
its one of the most lucrative businesses around0 -
-
They receive a service. Payment may not be compulsory, but without the payment the service wouldn't exist. so in a sense it is compulsory because these people want the service to continue.
Actually you don't. It's a voluntary contribution which enables other people to avail of services. Just like paying a subscription to join a club or society isn't taxed.You read too deep there prinz, I was making the point not to use the name of an independant company to make a point, not the tax analogy which it a pretty distant derivision from the simple point of not smearing a name the abuse stuff thrown in was just packing.
.....is there something against making points? AFAIK there's nothing applicable in the charter in relation to this point.sure but still relevant to a debate here about the reasoning behind religious groups costing the state money not being taxed ... could you give me a rock solid reason why that should not be mentioned here?, money out vs money in, simples.
Where did I say it shouldn't be mentioned? It's a valid argument, but the people to level it at are the politicians who decide these things. On the other hand it's not a valid reason to base taxation policy of anybody/organisation on. Lot's of people cost the State money.Yet again..... calm down,that was never my point my initial post said it should be taxed as an entertainment company would be taxed for hiring a premisis for a function, not an unacceptable point nor would it break the churches id imagine.
In which case they'd have to charge set fees, prices etc. Religions should not be reserved for those who can pay.And I agree with you to some extent that if everyone who is not interested in being a statistic for, decided to get a civil service it would be more honest but girls love big ceremonies etc wouldnt you agree most girls or fellas'd have an impossible challenge persuading brainwashed parents and older fragile generation family they may want to upset greatly, get real some people have different circumstances huge stigmas still apply in many rural areas also..
So spineless it is then. "Girls love big ceremonies" lol. So the RCC is supposed to bend their faith because Mary Mc wants the big white church wedding..just because. Typical.Break that down there for me what you really mean there, your talkin bible speak..
English actually.relevancy : you keep reitterating to say it to the politicians this is a discussion not a finna failure referal room:) politicians have a short term left no point saying anything to that bunch.
Then say it to the next bunch and promise them your vote. Otherwise do what most people do and get comfortable in that armchair.0 -
a slight aside. i worked in a number of churches back in the day (many moons ago in a trade capacity)
and boy was i shocked at the lifestyle. i remember one church - in Arklow I think, big one, and the priests were finishing dinner. 5 course,(saw the dishes) red and white wine glasses, mints and coffee to finish. this was an ordinary wed lunchtime. i am not exaggerating. (In fairness, the nuns threw us up a great feed in the pantry. )
if i'd a known the lifestyle...0 -
I’ve been reading this thread with interest and wondered what today’s views are 9 years later. What was not mentioned in the thread was the amount of cash that goes into the priest’s back pocket, cash from mass cards, sympathy cards etc, cash for conducting weddings, funeral, cash for saying mass for somebody. Priests expect cash payments. I was always under the impression this went into church funds but recently I discovered this was not the case. This is not small change. For example 50 mass cards for one deceased with £20 given to the priest to sign (which would be the norm in rural communities) is £1000. Plus cash for conducting the funeral. There were 100 mass cards when my father died. Priests get a significant amount of non-salaried non- taxed cash into their back pockets and they all have tax advisers to advise what to do with this cash and how to avoid tax. These same priests build huge houses for their retirement. How have they got away with it. Why is the taxman not investigating these priests. Are they putting these properties in other people’s names – e.g. family members? This is a scam that should be investigated. And the fact that this is not even mentioned in this thread…………0
Advertisement