Strip Destiny Church from tax free status

Please note this sub-forum does not provide professional finance advice. You should seek advice from a licensed financial advisor.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification.

If investing please consider our affiliate link for new accounts: Sharesies.

Forums › Finance and wealth management › Strip Destiny Church from tax free status

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1674932 21-Nov-2016 12:33

MikeB4:

Some here have put forward the notion of a blanket removal of the exemption so where would that leave the likes of the Salvation Army, the homes of Compassion etc If you are going to remove the exemptions just on the church based charities you are embarking down a slippery slope, what would be next, removal of exemptions for other charities like Red Cross, CCS, IHC, SPCA?

My proposal was that they get paid to do whatever good works they currently do. That already happens with some organisations like the Sallies. I expect that the Sallies would get paid at least as much more as their tax-exempt status currently saves them, so that everyone (except Tamaki) would be better off.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1674938 21-Nov-2016 12:50

NonprayingMantis:

dumb question time:

If churches (and other charities) are non-profit entities, and corporate tax is only levied on profits, then why do they need special 'tax exempt' status. Surely as long as they make no profit they will pay no tax regardless.

If they do make a profit, then they shouldn't have a status of 'non-profit'.

so why have a special status? Either they make profit, in which case they should be taxed. Or they don't make profit, in which case they wouldn't pay tax anyway.

Its not 'profit', it's a non-taxable 'surplus'.

Mike

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1675033 21-Nov-2016 15:26

Geektastic:

I'd go a step further and say that charities cannot be religious and must be secular.

Because you're atheist everyone must be?Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the belief that there are no deities.

MANY charities are run by people doing good because they believe it's the right thing to do,and/or because their 'faith' leads them to do good. Why should people who do good for others need to only do so if bound by YOUR religious beliefs? (any more than you should[n't] be bound by mine)

Atheists are people who believe that God or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.

Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/

deadlyllama

1283 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 476

Trusted

#1675064 21-Nov-2016 16:42

Geektastic:

I'd go a step further and say that charities cannot be religious and must be secular.

How on earth would you force a charity to be not at all religious? Staff must keep their beliefs to themselves even if they're all nuns, and the charity was started early last century by people attempting to look after the poor because they read Matthew 25:31-46? That's heading into freedom of speech territory.

If you don't like what Destiny does, particularly about how Tamaki appears to profit from the donations of poor people...

... do you know that your local sports teams probably get grants from NZCT i.e. poor people spending their money on pokies? Much much more than Destiny's turnover. No one seems to protest this quite direct transfer of wealth from the poor to support the middle class.

... do you think Tamaki would be any less odious if his followers weren't eligible for tax rebates on their donations? Because Destiny would probably still meet the definition of a non-profit, if not a charity.

A charity (or non-profit) must not be carried on for the private pecuniary profit or benefit of any individual. Maybe you could argue Destiny was? Or maybe Tamaki is just as well paid as some CEOs... and no one seems to be beating the "excessive CEO pay" drum terribly strongly. By the standards of private businesses, his presence does make Destiny perform very well financially, if he was the CEO of a private company I'm sure his pay would be defended as appropriate to such a rock star leader. Our current political leaders are not going to jump on the "that person is paid too much" bandwagon, they'd have to remove some rather large logs from their own eyes and those of their funders.

A charity owning a company which makes a profit is conceptually no different to a charity holding a large term deposit.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Christian. With a science degree (MSc, VUW) and half of a theology degree (BTheol, Otago). Attending a small suburban church in the provinces whose annual turnover is orders of magnitude below Destiny's. Details of our finances are available to any member who wants to see them, filed with the Charities Commission, and freely discussed at our AGM.)

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1675065 21-Nov-2016 16:44

A-theism is not an active belief, is literally the absence of belief. The clue is in the 'A' prefix.

A naive person is (without any particular belief) an a-theist.

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675079 21-Nov-2016 16:56

MikeAqua:

A-theism is not an active belief, is literally the absence of belief. The clue is in the 'A' prefix.

A naive person is (without any particular belief) an a-theist.

So you're saying an atheist does not believe in anything or does not believe in gods. If an atheist does not believe in gods s/he won't care whether anyone believes in one or not. A set of complementary passive behaviour. The fact that they care that those who believe in gods are nutters means atheists believe there is no god - such behaviour is active, or seeking to tear down the other party (or at least that's how it is portrayed*). Hence it is closer to a belief in an absence of god rather than absence of a belief in god. See below:

A naive person without any particular belief is more closely known as agnostic.

* don't get me wrong, this behaviour is reciprocated very well by the other parties, eg jihadists - but atheists have no problem with those guys, just seems to be more antichristian more than atheist or any other business

HP

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

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675092 21-Nov-2016 17:12

For the record I consider myself agnostic rather than atheistic, because I cannot disprove god(s), and accept the possibility that there are things out there that we don't potentially understand. However I think it's _way_ more likely were either all in a giant simulation or that humanities gods are merely extra terrestrials (although it's fair to say I'm also highly sceptical about UFO's, little grey men and anal probes) than that god(s) as traditionally portrayed exist.

In general I absolutely do consider that humanity would be better off today, that if religion had never existed, particularly the trilogy of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. I will not deny that some religious people do good works, but I believe that the net effect, over the course of known history, is that religion has been the cause of more suffering, misery and evil than it has been for good.

If you want to believe in faeries and goblins and play make believe, I'll look at you a little strangely but hey it's not hurting anyone else, what's the harm.
If you tell me that because you believe in faeries and goblins and play make believe, other people should also in faeries and goblins and play make believe, I have a problem with that.
If you tell me that because you believe in faeries and goblins and play make believe, you are a better or moral person than me or anyone else, I have a problem with that.
If you tell me that because you believe in faeries and goblins and play make believe, you deserve to not pay taxes, I have a problem with that.
If you tell me that because you believe in faeries and goblins and play make believe, I should not be able to mock your beliefs, or say things that offend you, or draw picture of your god performing homoerotic acts, I have a problem with that.

So in summary, people can believe what they want, but the second they demand special treatment, or try and shove their views down others throats, I will take issue.

I'm a geek, a gamer, a dad, a Quic user, and an IT Professional. I have a full rack home lab, size 15 feet, an epic beard and Asperger's. I'm a bit of a Cypherpunk, who believes information wants to be free and the Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. If you use my Quic signup you can also use the code R570394EKGIZ8 for free setup. Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1675095 21-Nov-2016 17:39

The reason there are tax exemptions for charities is the work they do saves the Government considerably more money than they forego by giving the exemptions. For example the work done by The Salvation Army, Women's Refuge and Ronald McDonald House would probably cost the government an additional 20% on the MSD and Health Service budgets.

Are those advocating eliminating tax exemptions will to pay more tax to fund these services?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1675096 21-Nov-2016 17:39

deadlyllama:

Geektastic:

I'd go a step further and say that charities cannot be religious and must be secular.

How on earth would you force a charity to be not at all religious? Staff must keep their beliefs to themselves even if they're all nuns, and the charity was started early last century by people attempting to look after the poor because they read Matthew 25:31-46? That's heading into freedom of speech territory.

If you don't like what Destiny does, particularly about how Tamaki appears to profit from the donations of poor people...

... do you know that your local sports teams probably get grants from NZCT i.e. poor people spending their money on pokies? Much much more than Destiny's turnover. No one seems to protest this quite direct transfer of wealth from the poor to support the middle class.

... do you think Tamaki would be any less odious if his followers weren't eligible for tax rebates on their donations? Because Destiny would probably still meet the definition of a non-profit, if not a charity.

A charity (or non-profit) must not be carried on for the private pecuniary profit or benefit of any individual. Maybe you could argue Destiny was? Or maybe Tamaki is just as well paid as some CEOs... and no one seems to be beating the "excessive CEO pay" drum terribly strongly. By the standards of private businesses, his presence does make Destiny perform very well financially, if he was the CEO of a private company I'm sure his pay would be defended as appropriate to such a rock star leader. Our current political leaders are not going to jump on the "that person is paid too much" bandwagon, they'd have to remove some rather large logs from their own eyes and those of their funders.

A charity owning a company which makes a profit is conceptually no different to a charity holding a large term deposit.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Christian. With a science degree (MSc, VUW) and half of a theology degree (BTheol, Otago). Attending a small suburban church in the provinces whose annual turnover is orders of magnitude below Destiny's. Details of our finances are available to any member who wants to see them, filed with the Charities Commission, and freely discussed at our AGM.)

Just a couple of points in response:

Putting aside the issue of addiction, people spending their money on pokies do so as a discretionary spending choice. People who give money to Destiny are told that they will burn in the eternal fires of hell if they don't stump up; there is no discretion.

Similar point in comparing Tamaki to a successful CEO. To be successful, a CEO needs to persuade consumers that a product or service is worthy of their discretionary spend. Tamaki, on the other hand, tells his people they will burn in the eternal fires of hell if they don't pay up. Again, no comparison.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1675098 21-Nov-2016 17:41

dafman:

deadlyllama:

Geektastic:

I'd go a step further and say that charities cannot be religious and must be secular.

How on earth would you force a charity to be not at all religious? Staff must keep their beliefs to themselves even if they're all nuns, and the charity was started early last century by people attempting to look after the poor because they read Matthew 25:31-46? That's heading into freedom of speech territory.

If you don't like what Destiny does, particularly about how Tamaki appears to profit from the donations of poor people...

... do you know that your local sports teams probably get grants from NZCT i.e. poor people spending their money on pokies? Much much more than Destiny's turnover. No one seems to protest this quite direct transfer of wealth from the poor to support the middle class.

... do you think Tamaki would be any less odious if his followers weren't eligible for tax rebates on their donations? Because Destiny would probably still meet the definition of a non-profit, if not a charity.

A charity (or non-profit) must not be carried on for the private pecuniary profit or benefit of any individual. Maybe you could argue Destiny was? Or maybe Tamaki is just as well paid as some CEOs... and no one seems to be beating the "excessive CEO pay" drum terribly strongly. By the standards of private businesses, his presence does make Destiny perform very well financially, if he was the CEO of a private company I'm sure his pay would be defended as appropriate to such a rock star leader. Our current political leaders are not going to jump on the "that person is paid too much" bandwagon, they'd have to remove some rather large logs from their own eyes and those of their funders.

A charity owning a company which makes a profit is conceptually no different to a charity holding a large term deposit.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Christian. With a science degree (MSc, VUW) and half of a theology degree (BTheol, Otago). Attending a small suburban church in the provinces whose annual turnover is orders of magnitude below Destiny's. Details of our finances are available to any member who wants to see them, filed with the Charities Commission, and freely discussed at our AGM.)

Just a couple of points in response:

Putting aside the issue of addiction, people spending their money on pokies do so as a discretionary spending choice. People who give money to Destiny are told that they will burn in the eternal fires of hell if they don't stump up; there is no discretion.

Similar point in comparing Tamaki to a successful CEO. To be successful, a CEO needs to persuade consumers that a product or service is worthy of their discretionary spend. Tamaki, on the other hand, tells his people they will burn in the eternal fires of hell if they don't pay up. Again, no comparison.

Do you have evidence that they are told this by Destiny Church?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675105 21-Nov-2016 18:06

MikeB4:

The reason there are tax exemptions for charities is the work they do saves the Government considerably more money than they forego by giving the exemptions. For example the work done by The Salvation Army, Women's Refuge and Ronald McDonald House would probably cost the government an additional 20% on the MSD and Health Service budgets.

Are those advocating eliminating tax exemptions will to pay more tax to fund these services?

No. I'm not sure that negates the suggestion that certain things should not get tax exemption because it's not either/or - the third option is that they just don't provide the services.

In any case, I do not see any suggestion that at least two of those you cite would be affected by the discussion as they are neither religious nor quasi-religious.

HP

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

geocom

597 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 143

Subscriber

#1675115 21-Nov-2016 18:20

MikeB4:

The reason there are tax exemptions for charities is the work they do saves the Government considerably more money than they forego by giving the exemptions. For example the work done by The Salvation Army, Women's Refuge and Ronald McDonald House would probably cost the government an additional 20% on the MSD and Health Service budgets.

Are those advocating eliminating tax exemptions will to pay more tax to fund these services?

Who here has said that they are for removal of tax exemptions. I have said that I am for the removal of being allowed to become a charitable trust solely based on religious instruction.

All the things people are saying would be lost by doing this is ludicrous as they fall into other sections.

Geoff E

dafman

4054 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2652

Trusted

#1675116 21-Nov-2016 18:21

MikeB4:

dafman:

deadlyllama:

Geektastic:

I'd go a step further and say that charities cannot be religious and must be secular.

How on earth would you force a charity to be not at all religious? Staff must keep their beliefs to themselves even if they're all nuns, and the charity was started early last century by people attempting to look after the poor because they read Matthew 25:31-46? That's heading into freedom of speech territory.

If you don't like what Destiny does, particularly about how Tamaki appears to profit from the donations of poor people...

... do you know that your local sports teams probably get grants from NZCT i.e. poor people spending their money on pokies? Much much more than Destiny's turnover. No one seems to protest this quite direct transfer of wealth from the poor to support the middle class.

... do you think Tamaki would be any less odious if his followers weren't eligible for tax rebates on their donations? Because Destiny would probably still meet the definition of a non-profit, if not a charity.

A charity (or non-profit) must not be carried on for the private pecuniary profit or benefit of any individual. Maybe you could argue Destiny was? Or maybe Tamaki is just as well paid as some CEOs... and no one seems to be beating the "excessive CEO pay" drum terribly strongly. By the standards of private businesses, his presence does make Destiny perform very well financially, if he was the CEO of a private company I'm sure his pay would be defended as appropriate to such a rock star leader. Our current political leaders are not going to jump on the "that person is paid too much" bandwagon, they'd have to remove some rather large logs from their own eyes and those of their funders.

A charity owning a company which makes a profit is conceptually no different to a charity holding a large term deposit.

(Disclaimer: Yes, I am a Christian. With a science degree (MSc, VUW) and half of a theology degree (BTheol, Otago). Attending a small suburban church in the provinces whose annual turnover is orders of magnitude below Destiny's. Details of our finances are available to any member who wants to see them, filed with the Charities Commission, and freely discussed at our AGM.)

Just a couple of points in response:

Putting aside the issue of addiction, people spending their money on pokies do so as a discretionary spending choice. People who give money to Destiny are told that they will burn in the eternal fires of hell if they don't stump up; there is no discretion.

Similar point in comparing Tamaki to a successful CEO. To be successful, a CEO needs to persuade consumers that a product or service is worthy of their discretionary spend. Tamaki, on the other hand, tells his people they will burn in the eternal fires of hell if they don't pay up. Again, no comparison.

Do you have evidence that they are told this by Destiny Church?

Malachi 3:8-10

Lias

5655 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3978

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675119 21-Nov-2016 18:28

MikeB4:

The reason there are tax exemptions for charities is the work they do saves the Government considerably more money than they forego by giving the exemptions. For example the work done by The Salvation Army, Women's Refuge and Ronald McDonald House would probably cost the government an additional 20% on the MSD and Health Service budgets.

Are those advocating eliminating tax exemptions will to pay more tax to fund these services?

My view is that tax exemptions for charities should continue to exist, however, those charities should be secular and separated from any particularly church or religious group. The Charities act would need to be changed so that the advancement of religion is not considered charitable, and require registered charities to be secular.

To take your three examples, two of them are already secular charities and nothing would change. The Salvation Army would need to become two separate entities, one a church that could be taxed on whatever it didn't give to its charity, and one a secular charity.

A separate but related debate needs to be had around charities that are not politically neutral. I personally think there is a strong case to withdraw tax exempt status from charities that actively engage in politics. I think the Supreme Court decision back in 2014 highlighted some serious flaws in the current legislation that parliament needs to do something about. Greenpeace, Amnesty, & the Exclusive Brethren all leap to mind as organisations that have tried to meddle in politics and should lose any charitable registrations or tax exempt status.

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 759
Inactive user

#1675126 21-Nov-2016 18:49

dafman:
Malachi 3:8-10

And vs 5?

I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11