Catholic Church to pay Taxes :O

[Hermit]

the Vatican is now facing a new €600m-a-year tax bill as Rome seeks to head off European Commission censure over controversial property tax breaks enjoyed by the Church.

As the EC heads closer to officially condemning the fiscal perks enjoyed by the Catholic Church and introduced by the Berlusconi administration, Prime Minister Mario Monti has written to the Competition Commissioner, Joaquin Almunia, saying that the Vatican will resume property tax, or Ici, payments.

Mr Almunia said in 2010 that the exemption amounted to state aid that might breach EU competition law.

More here.

[Warren Dew]

Now if the idea will catch fire and extend quickly around the world. There's a church down the street that I'd like paying property taxes to our city.

[Seth]

Is the Vatican (being a sovereign state) a signatory to the EU?

[Seth]

Now if the idea will catch fire and extend quickly around the world. There's a church down the street that I'd like paying property taxes to our city.

If the idea catches fire, it will be Atheists setting fire to churches...and the parishoners inside them...soon enough. We don't tax churches not because it's unconstitutional to do so, but because taxation has historically been the primary method for government (often religious government) to oppress disfavored religions and destroy them and we as a nation have eschewed that blunt-force instrument of religious (or atheistic) repression because of the great evil that always proceeds from interfering with the free exercise of religion by all, particularly when performed by government using the Mace of State as its weapon of choice.

[Pappa]

Is the Vatican (being a sovereign state) a signatory to the EU?

No. And it's status as a sovereign state is pretty ambiguous too.

[MrJonno]

The Vatican is a state in the same way the Mafia or Al Queda is.

[Svartalf]

Is the Vatican (being a sovereign state) a signatory to the EU?

No. And it's status as a sovereign state is pretty ambiguous too.

It's more like a protectorate... it's given many perquisites of a sovereign state (its own coins, military and diplomatic apparatus)... but in other ways, it's still beholden to Italy (it's a de facto EU member because Italy is, uses the Euro, though it's represented by Italy in all EU agencies etc).

Basically, it's a courtesy state, the same as French nobility is allowed to use its traditional titles by courtesy. It doesn't mean a thing in matters practickal, but its polite to let it be that way.

@jonno, sorry, but the maff and aq don't have state structures, like a capital or official head of state, or administrations... the Vatican has all those and more, had them when many European states were still a collection of barbarian tribes... (ok, I'm exagerating a bit there, as Church became really structured as a state only in Merovingian or carolingian times)

[Hermit]

Is the Vatican (being a sovereign state) a signatory to the EU?

No. And it's status as a sovereign state is pretty ambiguous too.

Besides, since when does not being a signatory to the EU constitute eligibility for EU tax exemption?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The Vatican is a state in the same way the N.A.M.B.L.A. or Al Queda is.

[Warren Dew]

Is the Vatican (being a sovereign state) a signatory to the EU?

I don't think the article is talking about the Vatican itself. I think the "about 100,000 properties, classed as non-commercial, including 8,779 schools, 26,300 ecclesiastical structures and 4,714 hospitals and clinics" the article mentions are the ones scattered throughout Italy that are owned by the Catholic Church.

[Warren Dew]

If the idea catches fire, it will be Atheists setting fire to churches...and the parishoners inside them...soon enough. We don't tax churches not because it's unconstitutional to do so, but because taxation has historically been the primary method for government (often religious government) to oppress disfavored religions and destroy them and we as a nation have eschewed that blunt-force instrument of religious (or atheistic) repression because of the great evil that always proceeds from interfering with the free exercise of religion by all, particularly when performed by government using the Mace of State as its weapon of choice.

Property taxes on churches that are the same as property taxes on other equivalent properties don't disadvantage religion; they just avoid giving religion an unfair advantage. The Supreme Court is pretty good at differentiating between level playing fields and laws specifically targeting churches.

[maiforpeace]

If the idea catches fire, it will be Atheists setting fire to churches...and the parishoners inside them...soon enough. We don't tax churches not because it's unconstitutional to do so, but because taxation has historically been the primary method for government (often religious government) to oppress disfavored religions and destroy them and we as a nation have eschewed that blunt-force instrument of religious (or atheistic) repression because of the great evil that always proceeds from interfering with the free exercise of religion by all, particularly when performed by government using the Mace of State as its weapon of choice.

Property taxes on churches that are the same as property taxes on other equivalent properties don't disadvantage religion; they just avoid giving religion an unfair advantage. The Supreme Court is pretty good at differentiating between level playing fields and laws specifically targeting churches.

Indeed.

Like the Catholic church would ever get destroyed. And if it does, it wouldn't be atheists, it would be the Christian fundies.

[Robert_S]

Now if the idea will catch fire and extend quickly around the world. There's a church down the street that I'd like paying property taxes to our city.

If the idea catches fire, it will be Atheists setting fire to churches...and the parishoners inside them...soon enough. We don't tax churches not because it's unconstitutional to do so, but because taxation has historically been the primary method for government (often religious government) to oppress disfavored religions and destroy them and we as a nation have eschewed that blunt-force instrument of religious (or atheistic) repression because of the great evil that always proceeds from interfering with the free exercise of religion by all, particularly when performed by government using the Mace of State as its weapon of choice.

Shiiiit. It's been just in the last four or five years that it's been legal to buy liquor or beer before noon on Sunday around here. That was religion saying "Fuck You" to the guys who keep the streets safe and the electricity working all through Saturday night. But it would be horrible to have them pay their fair share of taxes...

The only way religios people as such have been treated poorly these days is that we haven't been persecuting them properly:

Matthew 5:10-12 (NKJV) Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 "Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

[Drewish]

My hatred of religion is only slightly eclipsed by the bullshit that are property taxes. You never own your property, you're merely renting from the state.

[Svartalf]

I hear that in England, there still is (or used to be) a property regime by whoch some landowners are reputed to be full owners of their lands, and not to be holding them as fief from the crown (the so called 'fee simple' regime which is the basic way to own land in common law countries). Unlike fee simple landlords,allodial owners owners are/were not bound to land taxes, nor were their lands subject to being seized by the crown or any intermediary liege lord, short of an outright act of war and banditry.