Catholic Church to pay Taxes :O

[Seabass]

Then there are so-called charitable organisations that actually reject donations on the grounds that the funds come from atheists.

Good lord. That's almost too absurd to believe.

[Azathoth]

Have some Hitch on Catholic "altruism and charity"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSvFCwGm ... re=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0UpVoSP ... re=related[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pei8lSi ... re=related[/youtube]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

O Gawdzilla, look what you've done! You've set it off again. My scroll wheel is rapidly approaching the 10,000 turn service.

He avoids answering my posts.

That's because is too busy shifting goal posts.

Are you surprised?

No, amused.

[Seth]

Then there are so-called charitable organisations that actually reject donations on the grounds that the funds come from atheists.

Good lord. That's almost too absurd to believe.

That's because it's not true, according to the story cited, which is full of speculation and assumptions but which, when you read the actual quotes from the American Cancer Society, turn out to be nothing but a seemingly deliberate and mendacious mischaracterization on the part of the author.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

The Catholic Church should pay taxes becoz the Pope is a Cunt.

FACT.

and that's why Seth pays taxes (no one else does - but don't tell him).


TYPED USING ONLY MY PENIS.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Catholic Church should pay taxes becoz the Pope is a Cunt.

FACT.

and that's why Seth pays taxes (no one else does - but don't tell him).


Posted via TapADick.

[amok]

Leaving aside the debate about whether any taxes are right or wrong, this case doesn't seem to actually be suggesting that churches proper will be taxed the same as commercial properties.

From the link in the OP:

Since 2005 church-run organisations have not been considered ordinary commercial structures and have been exempt. According to Corriere della Sera newspaper, tax authorities will judge how much of a property is used purely for religious purposes and tax it accordingly. Thus a church will remain exempt. But a hostel with a chapel would have to make contributions.

If a hostel is a commercial enterprise, it should be taxed the same as any other commercial enterprise. If a percentage of the property is deemed to be a charitable/religious organization, and if those organizations are exempt, it should only be taxed proportionately.

It should depend on what is done with any money collected from the hostel operations. If that money is used by the non-profit to fund other charitable activities, in other words the profits over expenses of operating the hostel are used to feed or shelter the homeless, then the commercial enterprise is still a non-profit charitable enterprise that's receiving donations (in effect) from hostel users towards other non-profit charitable efforts.

Of course. That stands to reason. It shouldn't be that difficult to produce an audit to determine how the profits of a commercial enterprise owned by any church (not just the Roman Catholic Church) are used. If they're used for charitable purposes, they should get the same sort of exemptions as non-religious charitable organizations get.

To be fair, though, every non-profit, whether religious or secular, should consider it to be reasonable pay for services rendered by either the state or municipality as much as it's reasonable to pay people within their organizations, be they priests or janitors.

What I'm getting at is this: no matter if it's a church or a secular group that provides charitable services to the community, there's a case to be made for a separate consideration re: taxation, but there's also a case to be made that if either group fundraises AND relies on state/municipal services, they should budget to pay their fair share. If a church or secular organization benefits from a tax base that plows the snowy roads to allow people to get to to their churchy or secular charitable events, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for that to be built in to both their overall budgets.

[Seth]

Leaving aside the debate about whether any taxes are right or wrong, this case doesn't seem to actually be suggesting that churches proper will be taxed the same as commercial properties.

From the link in the OP:

Since 2005 church-run organisations have not been considered ordinary commercial structures and have been exempt. According to Corriere della Sera newspaper, tax authorities will judge how much of a property is used purely for religious purposes and tax it accordingly. Thus a church will remain exempt. But a hostel with a chapel would have to make contributions.

If a hostel is a commercial enterprise, it should be taxed the same as any other commercial enterprise. If a percentage of the property is deemed to be a charitable/religious organization, and if those organizations are exempt, it should only be taxed proportionately.

It should depend on what is done with any money collected from the hostel operations. If that money is used by the non-profit to fund other charitable activities, in other words the profits over expenses of operating the hostel are used to feed or shelter the homeless, then the commercial enterprise is still a non-profit charitable enterprise that's receiving donations (in effect) from hostel users towards other non-profit charitable efforts.

Of course. That stands to reason. It shouldn't be that difficult to produce an audit to determine how the profits of a commercial enterprise owned by any church (not just the Roman Catholic Church) are used. If they're used for charitable purposes, they should get the same sort of exemptions as non-religious charitable organizations get.

To be fair, though, every non-profit, whether religious or secular, should consider it to be reasonable pay for services rendered by either the state or municipality as much as it's reasonable to pay people within their organizations, be they priests or janitors.

Well, I believe if you review the actual tax laws you will find that this is pretty much exactly the case, which is why the "churches pay no taxes" mantra is such a ridiculous canard.

What I'm getting at is this: no matter if it's a church or a secular group that provides charitable services to the community, there's a case to be made for a separate consideration re: taxation, but there's also a case to be made that if either group fundraises AND relies on state/municipal services, they should budget to pay their fair share. If a church or secular organization benefits from a tax base that plows the snowy roads to allow people to get to to their churchy or secular charitable events, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for that to be built in to both their overall budgets.

And that's a political decision that's made by the local government in most cases. Different areas have different rules for collecting local taxes, as do the states. From the federal perspective however, what's not taxed by the Feds is the income of churches and non-profits, which is appropriate for all the reasons previously mentioned.

But if a local community doesn't wish to force its churches to pay property tax or sewer assessments or sales tax, that's a choice that the people of the community get to make through their elected representatives, isn't it?