Charitable organisation: chemtrails, vaccine and fluoride?

Forums › Health and fitness › Charitable organisation: chemtrails, vaccine and fluoride?

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#138650 12-Jan-2014 12:45

Seriously, something is wrong in this country. Just read "Who is funding the anti-fluoride High Court action" and who are the companies|entitities behind it.

Yes, there you go... The same folks that believe in chemtrails and anti-vaccine are the ones running companies with interest in alternative medicine and "natural" stuff.

The bad thing as disclosed in that blog is that this entity is registered as a charitable trust, meaning it's exempt of tax.

Indeed.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

1 | 2

18678 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#965449 12-Jan-2014 13:30

Imho ending water fluoridation is still a valid legal purpose for a charity. Same as providing a home for invisible pink unicorns. Still legally valid I presume. IIUC they are still liable for GST on any services provided/contracted, any employees are still liable for income tax. The blogger does not really explain why (or even if) he thinks this particular entity contravenes the Charities Act, or why providing a home for invisible pink unicorns should not be tax deductible or provide any draft criteria for deciding tax deductible/charity status in doubtful cases. I expect this is a problem in many countries.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#965450 12-Jan-2014 13:32

No big surprise. In the UK, the largest group campaigning against wind power is fully government funded.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#965452 12-Jan-2014 13:33

gzt: Imho ending water fluoridation is still a valid legal purpose for a charity. Same as providing a home for invisible pink unicorns. Still legally valid I presume. IIUC they are still liable for GST on any services provided/contracted, any employees are still liable for income tax. The blogger does not really explain why (or even if) he thinks this particular entity contravenes the Charities Act, or why providing a home for invisible pink unicorns should not be tax deductible or provide any draft criteria for deciding tax deductible/charity status in doubtful cases. I expect this is a problem in many countries.

So you are fine with tax exemptions to an entity that posts in their website videos from "Conspiracy Con" about chemtrails?

If they want to advocate that, fine with me. Just don't get a tax free ride.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#965455 12-Jan-2014 13:39

Here in NZ the definition of charity seems to be totally different to the definition of the word in many other countries, including where I am from.

IMO a charity is an organization which is setup to provide help or raise money for the needy. Having a look at the dictionary it seems my definition is correct.

These nutters should not be exempt from tax.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#965462 12-Jan-2014 13:41

freitasm:
gzt: Imho ending water fluoridation is still a valid legal purpose for a charity. Same as providing a home for invisible pink unicorns. Still legally valid I presume. IIUC they are still liable for GST on any services provided/contracted, any employees are still liable for income tax. The blogger does not really explain why (or even if) he thinks this particular entity contravenes the Charities Act, or why providing a home for invisible pink unicorns should not be tax deductible or provide any draft criteria for deciding tax deductible/charity status in doubtful cases. I expect this is a problem in many countries.

So you are fine with tax exemptions to an entity that posts in their website videos from "Conspiracy Con" about chemtrails?

If they want to advocate that, fine with me. Just don't get a tax free ride.

I'd give them a 25% tax break if the videos were produced in NZ.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#965466 12-Jan-2014 13:48

Klipspringer: Here in NZ the definition of charity seems to be totally different to the definition of the word in many other countries, including where I am from.

IMO a charity is an organization which is setup to provide help or raise money for the needy. Having a look at the dictionary it seems my definition is correct.

These nutters should not be exempt from tax.

So, an organisation that exists to protect an endangered species, or to provide shelter for abused animals, or to perform medical research should not count?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

gzt

18678 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#965471 12-Jan-2014 13:50

freitasm:
gzt: Imho ending water fluoridation is still a valid legal purpose for a charity. Same as providing a home for invisible pink unicorns. Still legally valid I presume. IIUC they are still liable for GST on any services provided/contracted, any employees are still liable for income tax. The blogger does not really explain why (or even if) he thinks this particular entity contravenes the Charities Act, or why providing a home for invisible pink unicorns should not be tax deductible or provide any draft criteria for deciding tax deductible/charity status in doubtful cases. I expect this is a problem in many countries.

So you are fine with tax exemptions to an entity that posts in their website videos from "Conspiracy Con" about chemtrails?

Not really. But I do think some objective criteria is needed otherwise we risk somewhat arbitrary discrimination on the basis of things we disagree with.

jpoc: I'd give them a 25% tax break if the videos were produced in NZ.

Lollolols : )

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#965472 12-Jan-2014 13:52

jpoc:
Klipspringer: Here in NZ the definition of charity seems to be totally different to the definition of the word in many other countries, including where I am from.

IMO a charity is an organization which is setup to provide help or raise money for the needy. Having a look at the dictionary it seems my definition is correct.

These nutters should not be exempt from tax.

So, an organisation that exists to protect an endangered species, or to provide shelter for abused animals, or to perform medical research should not count?

I agree that these services should be exempt from Tax.

But under the definition of the word no they should not be charities.

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#965484 12-Jan-2014 14:13

I don't see any issue here. We live in so called democratic system - everyone should have the same right to believe whatever they want. Just because we think they are 'wrong' it does not make them less entitled than us.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41030

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#965490 12-Jan-2014 14:35

nakedmolerat: I don't see any issue here. We live in so called democratic system - everyone should have the same right to believe whatever they want. Just because we think they are 'wrong' it does not make them less entitled than us.

They can believe in whatever they want. When their belief (which is not founded on any scientific study) gets incentives from the state then it's wrong. There must be a separation between state and belief.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#965491 12-Jan-2014 14:38

nakedmolerat: I don't see any issue here. We live in so called democratic system - everyone should have the same right to believe whatever they want. Just because we think they are 'wrong' it does not make them less entitled than us.

Thats not the issue.
I think the real issue here is with the tax exemption.

Everybody in this country is able to believe what they want last time I checked.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

nakedmolerat

4631 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 874

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#965496 12-Jan-2014 14:45

freitasm:
nakedmolerat: I don't see any issue here. We live in so called democratic system - everyone should have the same right to believe whatever they want. Just because we think they are 'wrong' it does not make them less entitled than us.

They can believe in whatever they want. When their belief (which is not founded on any scientific study) gets incentives from the state then it's wrong. There must be a separation between state and belief.

Religion can never be proved scientifically, should we stop grants/incentives given to associations affiliated to religion etc? Eg: salvation army - provide food for homeless etc

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 286
Inactive user

#965497 12-Jan-2014 14:50

nakedmolerat:
Religion can never be proved scientifically, should we stop grants/incentives given to associations affiliated to religion etc? Eg: salvation army - provide food for homeless etc

Why not. All the money I get back from my donations to our church each year goes right back to the Church anyway.

KevinL

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20

Trusted

#965498 12-Jan-2014 14:52

nakedmolerat: Religion can never be proved scientifically, should we stop grants/incentives given to associations affiliated to religion etc? Eg: salvation army - provide food for homeless etc

Yes, if the grants/incentives are targetted towards religious activity. If the activities are charitable and not contingent on their religious status (i.e. any charitable organisation would do similar activities regardless of affiliation) then I don't see the issue.

gzt

18678 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7809

Lifetime subscriber

#965501 12-Jan-2014 15:08

Current wording of the act: "Meaning of charitable purpose and effect of ancillary non-charitable purpose" : "(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, charitable purpose includes every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community".

I do not see any need for tax exemption for any of that.

What is the argument in favor of tax exemption?

1 | 2