Q and A, $30 billion church tax breaks
Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 2:52PM 
God is not only bullshit, his agents are tax cheats.
The expert scholars who have written the papers quoted below are happy to answer questions.
February 7 Q and A for those who missed it.
February 8 me talking on radio with Paul Bevan on 1223 ABC Newcastle
We could rebuild QLD after the devestating floods caused by with the $30 billion dollars raised by removing tax exempt status to religion CLICK, CLiCK, CLICK
We here have made a clock for you to demonstrate how much religion is gouging from Australia's spending.
It's only fair considering God started it by sending the floods for punishing us for Julia Gillard being an atheist and Bob Brown being gay.
(Statistics can be easily massaged – $30 billion is in theory possible but $500m+ is more likely. If this is not correct can someone supply us all with the figure that supports religion (not charity, not all charity work is religious) costs us. For more info on the shameful amount we fund religion read The Purple Economy by Max Wallace)
Some other ways to raise money off the top of my head...
Cut the national school chaplaincy program, there's $437 million for relief efforts right there.
Reader Comments (31)
Hopefully Ron Williams will do the job of stopping the waste on the chaplaincy program
"The Purple Economy: Supernatural Charities, Tax and the State" by Max Wallace goes into graphic detail, the money we're slugged to fund religiosity is sickening.
Wallace talks about it being an "economy" because it goes well beyond the donations tin. All manner of business and real estate dealings are conducted tax free, under the paltry guise of "religious charity".
You can get it through Embiggen books.
I was there last night on Q&A and probably one of the few Christians who were present. I disliked your comment about removing tax exempt status from religious organisations. Thanks to Gerard Henderson for standing up to you!
Briefly: When people give to a religious organisation (no matter what kind of religion or denomination), they give willingly and freely. Just like if I choose to give money to someone who needs help, just like if I decide to give money as a gift to someone getting married (as it's the tradition for many cultures), just like if I decide to give to any cause that I believe in. Whatever I give, it is my choice, nobody forces me and I know who I am giving my money to, I know pretty much where it is going and I am not sure why I would want the government to tax it. If I want to give to an organisation that helps struggling Aussies, it is my choice; if I want to give money to an organisation which simply preaches the Christian Gospel, that is my choice too. I worked for the money, I have already being taxed on my income, so why should my money be taxed twice?
If you get sick and you have friends who decide to raise money for your treatment, should that be taxed? What if the money is raised by a religious organisation? Should the government install cameras in every religious building to spy on every weekly offering? Are you asking Australia to become a police state? Your comments are requesting for more government control in our lives.
Most decent religious groups are involved in some form of charity – people donate to them, and they support other more needy causes, but how will the government decide whether that group should be tax exempt or not (based on your comments above). Above all, it just adds more red tape to any decent religious organisation. Furthermore, will the government employ a biased atheist to oversee the monitoring or a biased believer in God?
Most Australians are part of some religion, even if their expression of it is only once or twice a year (which is their choice as well). If they want to give to their congregation of choice, it should be their free right to do so!
Religious organisations are currently registered, but if the government decides to take control of how they should run their ministries, then congregations don't need to register; they can go 'underground' as they have in different parts of the world today and have done so during various stages of history.
Now saying the above, I do not have a problem if the government investigates religious groups with evidence of money going to terrorist organisations, or even individuals funding their own multi million dollar lifestyles (e.g. Christian Science, Hillsong, C3) who may not be declaring everything that is given to them (they may not have anything to hide, but they may – I said it should be based on evidence). That is theft, that is deception, that is a crime, and they are not fit to be leaders of religious organisations, they should be dealt with! But we should not hinder every decent religious organisation because a very small number may be guilty of fraud.
Your comments are personal, not sensible! I think North Korea still teaches that there is no God – why don’t you go and live there? You can entertain the unbelieving communists all you want and live in some building coloured in those boring blue/green shades. Of course you have your following here and they can clap for you all they want, but Catherine, you will not win fighting against God!
>When people give to a religious organisation (no matter what kind of religion or denomination), they give willingly and freely.
When I buy stuff from a shop (no matter what kind of shop), I give them money willingly and freely.
>Just like if I choose to give money to someone who needs help, just like if I decide to give money as a gift to someone getting married (as it's the tradition for many cultures), just like if I decide to give to any cause that I believe in. Whatever I give, it is my choice, nobody forces me and I know who I am giving my money to, I know pretty much where it is going and I am not sure why I would want the government to tax it.
I don't necessarily want the government to tax me when I buy stuff. When I buy a cheeseburger, I know exactly where my money is going. To McDonalds. That is my free choice. Yet there's still a tax. Deal with it.
>If I want to give to an organisation that helps struggling Aussies, it is my choice; if I want to give money to an organisation which simply preaches the Christian Gospel, that is my choice too. I worked for the money, I have already being taxed on my income, so why should my money be taxed twice?
Just repeated the same point.
>If you get sick and you have friends who decide to raise money for your treatment, should that be taxed? What if the money is raised by a religious organisation?
That is massive false equivalence. Religious organisations are no different to businesses; they raise capital, they build things, they provide services. The Catholic Church is NOT a small bunch of private people sharing their money.
>Should the government install cameras in every religious building to spy on every weekly offering? Are you asking Australia to become a police state?
What kind of red herring is this? The government doesn't spy on businesses. It just taxes them. Like it should tax religious organisations.
>Most decent religious groups are involved in some form of charity – people donate to them, and they support other more needy causes, but how will the government decide whether that group should be tax exempt or not (based on your comments above).
This is so ridiculous. Big W of Woolworths Limited give a lot of money to the Sydney Children's Hospital. McDonalds runs Ronald McDonald house for families of kids with cancer. Does that mean Woolwoths Limited and McDonalds should be tax exempt, because they give some money to good causes? No.
>Above all, it just adds more red tape to any decent religious organisation. Furthermore, will the government employ a biased atheist to oversee the monitoring or a biased believer in God?
What do you mean by a biased atheist? Let's suppose they appointed a practising Chrisitan. Well, that Christian is still an ATHEIST with respect to Islam, Hinduism and all the other religions that people in Australia follow. So they're still biased atheists according to you, lol.
>Most Australians are part of some religion, even if their expression of it is only once or twice a year (which is their choice as well). If they want to give to their congregation of choice, it should be their free right to do so!
Most Australians only buy a car every couple of years, even less. A minority have no car at all. Should car companies be tax free? By the way, you're massively overstating the religiosity of Australians; there aren't enough church seats to accodate all the people who write 'christian' on the census.
>Religious organisations are currently registered, but if the government decides to take control of how they should run their ministries, then congregations don't need to register; they can go 'underground' as they have in different parts of the world today and have done so during various stages of history.
This has nothing to do with the government controlling how they run their ministries. The church would just be required to report how much revenue they raised, and pay tax. That would be all.
You don't think people do cash in hand business to avoid tax too? That would be a small minority. Good luck getting the Catholics and Anglicans 'underground'.
It's interesting that you pick on Hillsong and Christian Science. Just because they are less popular than the Catholics doesn't make them any difference. They're all bullshit. North Korea teaches state worship, it's a religious equivalent.
Thank you Kieran! Unbelievable the outrage religious people feel and they do not even attempt to understand the issues! No-one is suggesting taxing gifts! But perhaps, say, taxing all the profits on the massive windfalls from the property portfolio of the Catholic Church, for example.....real profits untaxed of a religious organisation. It is a shame our Constitution is not drafted properly to enforce the seperation of church and state to ban this archaic and unfair practice in a modern secular society.
Nick, if you think losing tax exemption on religious donations means you are getting taxed twice, then you really don't understand how it works and probably should not comment on things you know so little about.
And telling someone who doesn't believe what you believe to go and live in Nth Korea qualifies you for entry into any oppressive regime you may like to pluck out of the air with little relevance to the discussion
And as for winning a fight against god, you can't fight something that doesn't exist, but you can stand up for a rational approach to thinking . . . . and taxing.
It would be wise to look into the origins of any tax excemption that organisations such as Churches, Not for Profit, Charities etc receive. All the churches I've been to have all paid taxes in some shape or form so it's not a license to print money as you might think, most of these churches are poor financially but in my opinion contribute greatly to society.
There is one single and vitally important distinguishing feature of the abovementioned organisations and a registered business.... The purpose of the business is to generate income. I think that's an important point that would remain relevant in deciding if ANY organisation should be taxed on it's functions or not. I mean, there needs to be exceptions, otherwise we'd get the Gov't to tax itself for it's wealth generated?
Maybe some of you should visit a struggling chruch and witness the charity going on before implying there are pots of gold stashed away under the pews the Gov't could tap into.
I suppose a spiritual tax could be applied to the spiritual wealth being accrued?
I wholeheartedly agree with Nic's sentiment. If you people want to tax religious organisations then Green Peace and every other charity must be too. As well as all cancer research et al. I actually work with homeless people in Sydney with the Presbyterian church (for free). The Salvos are also a Christian organisation. Are you bloggers going to knock such works as these?
As for the comment that churches are businesses is complete garbage. Yes, Hillsong should be taxed and anyone who is a minister earning more than 100K should be taxed too, do not get me wrong. But other churches should not be thrown into the mixer with these charlatans. If such people are found to be excessive then by all means tax them. But if the church is singleminded in helpng the community then why tax them?
In the end the reason why these taxes are being raised is because of Labor mismanagement. The usual story unfolds again and yet people vote these morons back in again. How about the political parties throw the donations they receive into the mixer???
Cathrine you blame GOD but you say GOD is BULLSHIT, make up your mind. You are forgetting about the DEVIL. The only reason you dont beleive in GOD so you can continue your Lifestyle. Your reasoning makes NO sence, I could Debate the Issue if there is a GOD or NOT and I would WIN. Are you up for the Challange, I AM...I can prove many PROOFS and people will see you for who you are..When you Slag OFF about GOD you do not Insult me you Insult Yourself..With a Debate there is NO room for Slander, Just the TRUTHS..Bring it ON...Bring it ON...
Benny the devil is bullshit as well.
By the way put your proof forward if you really have one and leave the bluffing aside please.
@BENNY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA! Oh made me cry! So freaking funny. Please bring on the TRUTHS and the PROOFS and make some sence (sic) of it all for me...
*not existing*
*still not existing*
Okay, Benny.
God is a man-made construct. Rebut.
Lets have the debate, put it on TV, Get a Audience that are undecided and ask for there vote. Then I will show the Proofs.
Lets have the Debate, put it on TV. Get a undecided audience to share their opion.I can show many Proofs. I dont expect Catherine to take it serious, She has a book to sell.. This could be free advertising for your book..NO you will just delete my comment like the Last one..
Benny you are a pathetic example of a Christian (not sure if it can be otherwise though).
I can read at least three comments from you so I don't think they have been deleted (now looks like you are lying).
The only one that has to put proofs is whoever says such thing as a god exists.
There is no evidence for such a thing Benny, sorry. In the meantime is just that: Bullshit.
No need to go to TV to make a fool of yourself.
1. Seems like the only schools receiving grants are religious schools. That's definitely unfair because I think non-religious public schools should also get some money. Unless they are already receiving money that's not being represented in your figures...
2. It seems Chaplains are a waste of money. Perhaps young people who need counselling can remain uncounselled. What's a few more suicides or vandalism? I'm sure young people naturally know how to be generally good, or perhaps we can spend more money on psychologists instead... the options are plenty.. (though will these options necessarily be more effective or cheaper?)
3. If a church is going to be taxed, I think the people who put the money into church should have a tax-deduction. It seems only fair. The receipts that has to be given out and any additional administrative costs should also be tax-deductible for the church. Any money that the church does not keep but give to help the community should also be claimable as a tax-deduction.
4. Whether or not God exists, it doesn't matter to Him if someone thinks He doesn't exist. He's not going to lose either way.
Churches should not be confused with businesses. Churches exist primarily to help the community. Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making a profit. Businesses may donate money to charity but the donation is ultimately a commercial decision (despite the best intentions of any individuals within the company). The donation is ultimately a commercial decision to promote the company as a responsible and caring citizen and increase its profile. Do not be fooled by the marketing, these companies may donate large sums (larger companies have larger marketing budgets) but their ultimate goal is to make money and they often take advantage of the weak and vulnerable in the pursuit of profit.
There are many non-profit organisations that seek to address a variety of community needs, such as medical research, hospices, addiction support etc. Just like churches, these organisations own assets such as buildings and equipment needed to carry out their operations. Just like churches, these organisations hold funds to run their operations and invest these funds to assist in the ongoing funding of their activities. Unlike many churches, if someone donates to one of these other non-profit organisations they can also claim a tax deduction for the donation.
I will probably never need the services of some of these non-profit organisations. The activities of some of these organisations I do not agree with and may even oppose. Yet I would not be so selfish to say that just because I do not need or agree with a particular organisation, that the organisation should be hindered from servicing the community by removing tax breaks. Also, If I have ever donated to a non-profit organisation then claimed a tax refund, I would not be so hypocritical to speak out against tax breaks for non-profit organisations.
In keeping with Australian values of equality and a fair go, the appropriate course of action would be to remove the tax breaks for donations to non-profit organisations thereby ensuring equality to all. It seems that many people are only interested in discriminating against organisations they do not agree with.
On a side note, I agree with concerns about certain churches (not aimed at any particular church). The concern relates to churches where the leader (or small group of leaders) of the organisation move beyond being just the administrative head but claim personal ownership of church assets and pay themselves well in excess of what is normally considered to be appropriate.
If we are living in a diverse and tolerant society, it does not seem that God (having created the diversity) is being tolerated much.
Do we dare be likewise intolerant of other "gods"?
*still not existing*
I won’t respond to everything everyone said, but here are my responses to a few things that was said about my comments. I am not ignoring anything that I haven’t replied to (honestly), I just don’t want to spend writing all day on a Saturday:
@ Will S. You said: It's interesting that you pick on Hillsong and Christian Science. Just because they are less popular than the Catholics doesn't make them any difference.
For the record, I wasn’t writing a thesis here, I just gave you some examples. Hillsong is a business. Anyone can pick up a Bible, even members of their own congregation, read it and find out that what they hear from the pulpit is not what the Bible teaches – even if you don’t agree with what it says! I would personally like to know where all the money goes. I can tell you without a doubt that every member from the fellowship that I attend receive an annual report of the finances, every dollar is recorded, nothing is hidden.
I actually wasn’t even thinking about the Catholic church – they are another story all-together. It may not may matter to Deveny and followers… But the Catholic church is an empire! We call it a church, but it is an empire! And it does not plan to go away or be pushed and shoved by a few individuals who have a problem with it… Yes, it is a massive business too... See my other comment below…
I can respond to a whole lot more but it will gets tedious and repetitive. You have misunderstood a few things that I said and I want to spare you an essay at the same time; maybe I went too far with the ‘spy cameras’ inside the church but I guess you don’t know where I was coming from.
@ Cakey. You said: No-one is suggesting taxing gifts! But perhaps, say, taxing all the profits on the massive windfalls from the property portfolio of the Catholic Church, for example....
I agree if organisations, no matter who they are, are dressing themselves up as a charitable group or a religious group and are basically pocketing the proceeds – they should be taxed! But I would hate to see decent organisations taxed when the money going into good causes, even if you all disagree about Christianity. This is a democracy, not a Communist country!
@ Michael. You said: if you think losing tax exemption on religious donations means you are getting taxed twice, then you really don't understand how it works and probably should not comment on things you know so little about.
Can you please tell me what it is that i do not understand? I am writing my views from a small church perspective. We know where every cent goes. We give to two main ministries – one of the ministries we support is a small group of individuals, located in South Africa, who take in sick and rejected kids, kids with AIDS etc! No one has any right to tell me that my gifts towards this organisation should be taxed – I don’t have to give through my church either, I can give directly! The other ministry is just as good but larger and works in most countries around the world! Secondly, I use to run my own business for a few years and I was bound to a crazy amount a legislation, sure I do not know every piece of legislation, but nor do our governments know them who pass them all. I spent days in the office doing administration because of it, even writing letters to the ATO for taxation clarifications… Please tell me which part of the legislation I am not understanding? My business was not a charity – I donated a couple of times through my business, but the majority of times the money came from my own pocket, after I was taxed – again, they are gifts! Our church is not a business! In fact the pastor works 4 days a week because we cannot support him full time!
@ Michael. You said: And telling someone who doesn't believe what you believe to go and live in Nth Korea qualifies you for entry into any oppressive regime you may like to pluck out of the air with little relevance to the discussion
I am sorry Michael, I just thought it was good suggestion since there are more like minded people there and since all types of religion are banned (except of course worshiping their leaders) and there are no problems with this issue that we are discussing! Furthermore, I didn’t know Deveny’s followers were so sensitive considering they find ‘blasphemy’ a laugh! Would you prefer I mentioned other nations which place strict rules Christianity or have banned it or do their best to control it? There are plenty of them…
************************ ************************ ************************
I am not sure why people cannot tell the difference between a 'gift' as opposed to buying something in a store; when you buy something from a store, you are not donating your money to them in exchange for nothing (well technically you are not)... there is a difference. Yes Churches do sell items, but at the same time, I would place the same criteria on them as I have mentioned, if they are legitimate, then that is fine, but if they are parading as a non-profit organisation and are not, then tax them!
I can conclude from people's responses that we need to be taxed more... please send your comments right away to your local member - more taxes, more taxes, more taxes :) That's what hard working Aussies want to hear! Work hard and pay off the debts the incompetent government has created. More taxes and more legislation!
Much appreciated to everyone else who has contributed and tried to balance this argument.
I can keep writing as usual but I need to concentrate on other matters… And overall, I want to say that I loved the fact that people took the time out to respond! I genuinely loved it even if you were against what I said :)
This is a little silly...religions are not for profit, end of story.
Like other charities, if a church spends money on charitable work, it should be allowed a deduction. Churches aren't audited or monitored at all. They present the whole struggling facade but who knows whether this is true.
Then they go into competition against other businesses and undercut because one of their largest expenses, tax, isn't there. If they were donating money back to their charitable arm it would still be tax deductible but who knows what they do with their money. If just disappears into a leaking bucket to be spent on what ever whim pops into the heads of the church leaders.
What about a bit of accountability? If they're doing good for society why hide the books?
In the end they spend money on anti-gay campaigns, political lobbying R-rated games and X-rated videos, and proselytizing. How does this benefit me? If I'm going to pay their share of the tax burden, I want to see them they are pulling their weight.
I suspect that we will find that they are not or as much benefit to society as their proponents would have us believe - DESPITE their RANDOM use OF UPPER case.
I cannot recommend Max Wallace's book enough for insight into this topic. He spent years digging through their obfuscation to get to the bottom of this matter.
But it's the same thing with any organisation that's not for profit, be they schools, academic groups, youth clubs, nursing homes...