25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, it is clearly in the public interest. However, if that cathedral were privately owned and not open to the public, I would not support the use of tax relief to aid its renovation.
Yes there is certainly a disparity between the legal sense and what actually happens in reality. The church could of course argue that it needs to maintain its property in order to function as a charity and it seems that it would of course be hard to argue against this as most organisations don't meet in dilapidated surroundings. Do you feel that i ...[text shortened]... he public interest to maintain large cathedrals a buildings of immense historical significance?
The public benefit test cannot be used to try and redefine what a charitable purpose is in a legal sense.
Put it another way, I do not believe that the Charity Commission could ever say 'we don't think the 'advancement of religion' is now of any benefit to the public (because we are all atheists)' and therefore all churches are denied tax relief.
25 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo I set up a religion that has only two principles:
The fact that you are doing charitable works in application of religious principles does not make the advancement of that religion a charitable purpose.
I think it does.
1 Help the poor
2 Kill all rich non-believers
Is advancing this religion a charitable purpose?
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would never deny that religion helps many people, but from my prospective it comes at a very high price,unquestioning belief,creationism etc depending on the religious organisation,this I think places limitations on on thinking .Now you may disagree with thus point view as is your absolute right,but in a society of many different view points why should one have a financial advantage? With regard to taxes do you not think a key point is that we no choice in the payment of tax, so I think a tax payer has a legitimate right to question how it is spent.
why not, what if the advancement of religion is helping persons overcome all manner of adversities?
This point needs clarifying although what relevance it has i cannot say, anyhow, they are not your taxes, they are the governments taxes, its a nonsense for people to speak in terms of the tax payers money. As son as you give your taxes to the gov ...[text shortened]... does it become, yours or the banks? It is exactly the same with taxation in accounting terms.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI didn't say it wasn't charitable. I am more than happy for tax relief to be provided to enable this type of work to continue.
we are not talking of what motivates, but the application of religious tenets. If my religion dictates that of necessity I must look after fatherless boys and widows and I make it a habit to visit the elderly, how will you say that my going there is not charitable. Have I not given up my time and my resources in order to act charitably?
I am also happy for the Church to receive tax relief for, say, an advertising campaign encouraging everyone else to do the same.
But, if the Church added the words 'because the Bible tells you to do this and is the true word of God and you will go to hell if you don't', then you have added something which is not charitable in nature and therefore should be denied relief. Which at present I don't think you would.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by OdBodYou are asking the wrong person, I am a Christian, I am under duress to pay tax regardless of what the governments use it for even if that use contradicts my faith and the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience as it does in many instances. It goes back to my point with Rank Outsider, they are no longer in any real sense, our taxes, they are the government's taxes and the government may do as they please with them for its their business.
I would never deny that religion helps many people, but from my prospective it comes at a very high price,unquestioning belief,creationism etc depending on the religious organisation,this I think places limitations on on thinking .Now you may disagree with thus point view as is your absolute right,but in a society of many different view points why should one h ...[text shortened]... n the payment of tax, so I think a tax payer has a legitimate right to question how it is spent.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI feel reluctant to get drawn into this personally, but look at it from my perspective, i am a Jehovahs Witness, I will not take up arms but look at how much taxation is expended on procuring armaments, what can i do , absolutely nothing, I simply must pay the tax and trust that the government does what's within the best interests of the country despite the fact that killing transgresses my religious beliefs and my conscience. I also do not approve of salaried clergymen, its anti Christian and anti scriptural, its an abomination in fact, but what can i do, I must pay the tax and if the church gets tax relief, its a matter not for me, but the government.
I didn't say it wasn't charitable. I am more than happy for tax relief to be provided to enable this type of work to continue.
I am also happy for the Church to receive tax relief for, say, an advertising campaign encouraging everyone else to do the same.
But, if the Church added the words 'because the Bible tells you to do this and is the true n nature and therefore should be denied relief. Which at present I don't think you would.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am making the point that some religious principles are charitable and some are not.
how is killing anything within the public interest?
I want to give tax relief to a church based on how much of its activity actually relates to charitable purposes. Not based on an assessment of whether, overall, it is a 'good thing'. Lots of things are 'good things' but don't get tax relief.
Spreading the message that God exists is not a charitable act. It may be many things, but it is not that.
Especially as, in most cases, the church will also be spreading the message (expressly or implicitly) that other Gods do not exist.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderreligious teaching exists outside of the realm of whether God exists or not for even if God does not exist, religious teaching does and in most religious teachings, its simply assumed to be the case.
I am making the point that some religious principles are charitable and some are not.
I want to give tax relief to a church based on how much of its activity actually relates to charitable purposes. Not based on an assessment of whether, overall, it is a 'good thing'. Lots of things are 'good things' but don't get tax relief.
Spreading the mess ...[text shortened]... will also be spreading the message (expressly or implicitly) that other Gods do not exist.
Its really quite interesting, If I do volunteer work in the sense that I offer free Bible education, from my own resources and someone happens to give my kid a pound donation and a packet of sweets as has happened not infrequently although i do not solicit in any way for money and i deposit that pound in the contribution box and the government then sees that as a tax payer I am entitled to gift aid and that pound has now turned into one pound twenty pence, what's the deal if i help someone in the process kick smoking and drug or alcohol abuse through the application of religious principles? Am i not in fact saving the tax payers hordes of money by reforming someone who was a burden to the NHS into a productive member of society? the way i see it, the government and society had greatly benefited from me giving up my resources and time in the process and has made a healthy profit at my expense, all for a mere twenty pence in the pound.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is the price of democracy,it has at its heart compromise ,inevitably things will be done with which you do not agree,however,this can be changed or influenced by anybody.It is imperfect and open to abuse,but is recognised as such.This leads to developing checks and balances to help individuals survive and prosper in society. Most religions at their core have a belief system biased on absolute faith without much room for compromise,by definition they are unable to use new ideas that may contradict that faith.I think a secular democratic process offers a better chance to hear and test new ideas.This process requires a taxation system and the rules must be the same for everyone.
You are asking the wrong person, I am a Christian, I am under duress to pay tax regardless of what the governments use it for even if that use contradicts my faith and the natural exercise of the faculty of conscience as it does in many instances. It goes back to my point with Rank Outsider, they are no longer in any real sense, our taxes, they are ...[text shortened]... e government's taxes and the government may do as they please with them for its their business.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by OdBodWe disagree I don't want anyone in government telling me how our wealth is
The leaders of a religion decide where funds are spent and that process is legitimised with reference to a god. Charity enjoys certain tax advantages (and rightly so)which affects EVERYBODY not just religious people ,I for one would prefer a democratically elected secular government to decide how our wealth is redistributed,at least this system has to acknowledge the legitimacy of many view points in order to stay in power.
redistributed. I prefer those that earn it, get to spend it on whatever they want,
and give to charity however they want. I don't need some blowhard in some
other place telling me how I need to redistribute anything I own.
Kelly
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by KellyJayFair enough! How would you organise and pay for all the services we use?
We disagree I don't want anyone in government telling me how our wealth is
redistributed. I prefer those that earn it, get to spend it on whatever they want,
and give to charity however they want. I don't need some blowhard in some
other place telling me how I need to redistribute anything I own.
Kelly
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
25 Jan 13
1 edit
People talk about evidence, evidence, and more evidence when it comes to God.
If you become a Christian, I would wager that one area where you will see the most consistent evidence of God working in your life is in giving a portion of your earnings to His kingdom.
More consistantly then in many other areas, more unfailingly the evidence rolls in - If you give cheerfully a portion to His work, you will be supplied practically from His bounty.
It may not come in the form of money. But it may come in other forms. If you have cheerful faith to give to His work God will honor that and you'll be supplied.
I knew of a professional accountant who knew personal finances inside out. He had seen couples who by the books should not be making it, yet they were making it quite well because of consistent tithing. He said he would stake his reputation on the fact that by the books these givers should not be making it. Yet they were almost miraculously being supplied with all that they needed.
Horde unto poverty.
Give unto adaquacy.
That's the way of the kingdom of God.
"God loves a cheerful giver."
God is very liberal in this regard.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by sonshipUndeclared turnover?
People talk about evidence, evidence, and more evidence when it comes to God.
If you become a Christian, I would wager that one area where you will see the most consistent evidence of God working in your life is in giving a portion of your earnings to His kingdom.
More consistantly then in many other areas, more unfailingly the evidence rolls in ...[text shortened]... om of God.
[b]"God loves a cheerful giver."
God is very liberal in this regard.[/b]