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. If investing please consider our affiliate links for new accounts: Sharesies or Hatch. To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

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

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

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1675315 22-Nov-2016 08:33

dafman:

MikeB4:
sxz:
Geektastic:

sxz:

If churches wanted to do good they would pay tax.

I'm not sure the government is always the most effective spender of other people's earnings to be honest.

A country can't run without income. I pay my tax, I'm sure you do too. So do businesses. Why shouldn't a church? I'd love to be able to choose where and how my tax money is spent, but I can't. What makes a church so special?

Anyway, they would only be paying a portion of their income on tax, they would still get to send the best majority wherever they want.

It's an outdated law for outdated ideals

You response does not address the extensive charity work they do.

Lots of organisations and individuals other than 'churches' do extensive charity work. And they pay tax as well!

Examples please?

AliExpress

Affiliate link

Affiliate link: Buy anything now at AliExpress.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1675357 22-Nov-2016 09:02

MikeAqua:

I see tax exemption as a subsidy from government.

I'd happily see taxable charity stripped from any charity that engages homophobia, racism, sexism etc. I don't want govt to subsidise this behaviour.

Whoever you are if you repeatedly make derogatory statements about whole groups of people, you risk charitable status.

Organisation would be free to continue with their freedom of speech, they would just have to pay tax.

Then what happens when the rules are changed to behaviour that challenges the government?

My concern is that Destiny Inc. is making huge profits and these are being spent on their Bishop.

This seems to skirt around FBT just because the church is a charity, this is where the loop-hole should be tightened, those that take from the church should be taxed accordingly, the $60,000 holiday, Mercedes etc. should attract FBT.

This way you are able to offer tax free status to the churches that continue to contribute to the community as a whole via their charities while wheeling in the renegades that have their hand in the collection plate.

MikeAqua

6900 posts

Uber Geek

#1675367 22-Nov-2016 09:30

joker97:

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

An agnostic is someone who says we are unable to know anything about god(s) including whether they exist. It's a view that cannot occur in a state of naivety.

Mike

dafman

3746 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1675495 22-Nov-2016 13:00

dickytim:

MikeAqua:

I see tax exemption as a subsidy from government.

I'd happily see taxable charity stripped from any charity that engages homophobia, racism, sexism etc. I don't want govt to subsidise this behaviour.

Whoever you are if you repeatedly make derogatory statements about whole groups of people, you risk charitable status.

Organisation would be free to continue with their freedom of speech, they would just have to pay tax.

Then what happens when the rules are changed to behaviour that challenges the government?

My concern is that Destiny Inc. is making huge profits and these are being spent on their Bishop.

This seems to skirt around FBT just because the church is a charity, this is where the loop-hole should be tightened, those that take from the church should be taxed accordingly, the $60,000 holiday, Mercedes etc. should attract FBT.

This way you are able to offer tax free status to the churches that continue to contribute to the community as a whole via their charities while wheeling in the renegades that have their hand in the collection plate.

Small point re above. Tamaki is no more a bishop than I am the Queen of Sheba. Self-declaring yourself a bishop does not make.

sxz

738 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1675498 22-Nov-2016 13:03

dickytim:

dafman:

MikeB4:
sxz:
Geektastic:

sxz:

If churches wanted to do good they would pay tax.

I'm not sure the government is always the most effective spender of other people's earnings to be honest.

A country can't run without income. I pay my tax, I'm sure you do too. So do businesses. Why shouldn't a church? I'd love to be able to choose where and how my tax money is spent, but I can't. What makes a church so special?

Anyway, they would only be paying a portion of their income on tax, they would still get to send the best majority wherever they want.

It's an outdated law for outdated ideals

You response does not address the extensive charity work they do.

Lots of organisations and individuals other than 'churches' do extensive charity work. And they pay tax as well!

Examples please?

NZRU. Not a charity, spends the majority of its profit on club and grassroots rugby

Lostja

235 posts

Master Geek

#1675521 22-Nov-2016 14:15

sxz:

dickytim:

dafman:

MikeB4: You response does not address the extensive charity work they do.

Lots of organisations and individuals other than 'churches' do extensive charity work. And they pay tax as well!

Examples please?

NZRU. Not a charity, spends the majority of its profit on club and grassroots rugby

Without investment in lower level rugby their most important product, the ABs, wouldn't be worth nearly as much as it is currently. I'd say the investment is part of their business model, just like it is for other sports organisation. There is a significant self interest to making this investment.

Sam91

620 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1675531 22-Nov-2016 14:53

dickytim:

dafman:

MikeB4: You response does not address the extensive charity work they do.

Lots of organisations and individuals other than 'churches' do extensive charity work. And they pay tax as well!

Examples please?

Toms
Eat My Lunch
Bell Gully, Countdown, Vodafone, The Warehouse and Microsoft.

JimmyH

2738 posts

Uber Geek

#1675592 22-Nov-2016 18:01

PhantomNVD:

And yet a lot of "Science" IS religion (by definition) as in many cases it's based on faith in scientific theories.
Much of it IS proveable (and reproduceable) but much is also 'current best guess' theorisation, and Science is, and MUST always be, open to correction as very few things are irrefutable and new information consistently arises and changes the basis in which the facts are interpreted.

The flat earth theory was a worldwide "FACT" for most of history, and likely totally uncontestable in scientific circles, but still turned out to be patently rediculous in the end.

Ummmm ..... no. Any decent scientist knows that proper scientific theory is just simply the best available explanation for the available data, and a proper scientific theory is falsifiable and will be replaced if data inconsistent with that theory comes along, which means that it has to be jettisoned and a better theory found. No theory is a fact, and no proper scientist has a blind religious, or quasi-religious, faith in a theory as being some kind of holy writ.

Newton's laws held up well, until some inconsistencies were found. Einstein's came up with an explanation. If something major is found that Einstein's theories don't explain then they will be junked and a better theory found. And so on.

While it would be funny to see the newtonian's denouncing the relativists as heretics, and asserting their doctrine as the one true faith of astrophysics irrespective of evidence, proper science doesn't work that way.

Coming back on topic, I consider that Tamaki is a boorish oaf, and his comments are nutty and repugnant. However, I also favour free speech, so I don't favour using State coercion or the threat of tax bills to censor speech just because I find it stomach churning. There are examples of governments that behave like that, both present and past, and it never seems to end well. Destiny is a church, albeit a somewhat nutty one. But it should be treated the same as other churches (either all of them are taxed or none of them are), and it's treatment shouldn't change just because it's leader is a boorish demagogue.

Batman

Mad Scientist
28025 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675594 22-Nov-2016 18:16

watch this. scientists start somewhere around the 25th minute.

Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.

dafman

3746 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1675616 22-Nov-2016 19:15

JimmyH:

PhantomNVD:

And yet a lot of "Science" IS religion (by definition) as in many cases it's based on faith in scientific theories.
Much of it IS proveable (and reproduceable) but much is also 'current best guess' theorisation, and Science is, and MUST always be, open to correction as very few things are irrefutable and new information consistently arises and changes the basis in which the facts are interpreted.

The flat earth theory was a worldwide "FACT" for most of history, and likely totally uncontestable in scientific circles, but still turned out to be patently rediculous in the end.

Ummmm ..... no. Any decent scientist knows that proper scientific theory is just simply the best available explanation for the available data, and a proper scientific theory is falsifiable and will be replaced if data inconsistent with that theory comes along, which means that it has to be jettisoned and a better theory found. No theory is a fact, and no proper scientist has a blind religious, or quasi-religious, faith in a theory as being some kind of holy writ.

Newton's laws held up well, until some inconsistencies were found. Einstein's came up with an explanation. If something major is found that Einstein's theories don't explain then they will be junked and a better theory found. And so on.

While it would be funny to see the newtonian's denouncing the relativists as heretics, and asserting their doctrine as the one true faith of astrophysics irrespective of evidence, proper science doesn't work that way.

Coming back on topic, I consider that Tamaki is a boorish oaf, and his comments are nutty and repugnant. However, I also favour free speech, so I don't favour using State coercion or the threat of tax bills to censor speech just because I find it stomach churning. There are examples of governments that behave like that, both present and past, and it never seems to end well. Destiny is a church, albeit a somewhat nutty one. But it should be treated the same as other churches (either all of them are taxed or none of them are), and it's treatment shouldn't change just because it's leader is a boorish demagogue.

I totally agree - Destiny's tax status should not change just because its leader is a boorish demagogue.

However, Destiny's tax status should change because religion in organisations should not be a reason for not paying tax. All organisations, religious or otherwise, should pay their fair share of tax and the law should be changed to reflect this.

Geektastic

16812 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1675735 22-Nov-2016 22:52

dafman:

JimmyH:

PhantomNVD:

And yet a lot of "Science" IS religion (by definition) as in many cases it's based on faith in scientific theories.
Much of it IS proveable (and reproduceable) but much is also 'current best guess' theorisation, and Science is, and MUST always be, open to correction as very few things are irrefutable and new information consistently arises and changes the basis in which the facts are interpreted.

The flat earth theory was a worldwide "FACT" for most of history, and likely totally uncontestable in scientific circles, but still turned out to be patently rediculous in the end.

Ummmm ..... no. Any decent scientist knows that proper scientific theory is just simply the best available explanation for the available data, and a proper scientific theory is falsifiable and will be replaced if data inconsistent with that theory comes along, which means that it has to be jettisoned and a better theory found. No theory is a fact, and no proper scientist has a blind religious, or quasi-religious, faith in a theory as being some kind of holy writ.

Newton's laws held up well, until some inconsistencies were found. Einstein's came up with an explanation. If something major is found that Einstein's theories don't explain then they will be junked and a better theory found. And so on.

While it would be funny to see the newtonian's denouncing the relativists as heretics, and asserting their doctrine as the one true faith of astrophysics irrespective of evidence, proper science doesn't work that way.

Coming back on topic, I consider that Tamaki is a boorish oaf, and his comments are nutty and repugnant. However, I also favour free speech, so I don't favour using State coercion or the threat of tax bills to censor speech just because I find it stomach churning. There are examples of governments that behave like that, both present and past, and it never seems to end well. Destiny is a church, albeit a somewhat nutty one. But it should be treated the same as other churches (either all of them are taxed or none of them are), and it's treatment shouldn't change just because it's leader is a boorish demagogue.

I totally agree - Destiny's tax status should not change just because its leader is a boorish demagogue.

However, Destiny's tax status should change because religion in organisations should not be a reason for not paying tax. All organisations, religious or otherwise, should pay their fair share of tax and the law should be changed to reflect this.

Charities should be tax exempt. Religions should not be. I see no reason why religious organisations cannot undertake charitable work through seperate entities without any suggestion of proselytising.

Paying your ostensible bishop large sums of money, however, is not charitable work by any reasonable definition of that expression.

dickytim

2514 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1675762 23-Nov-2016 07:31

The examples given of organisations that conduct charitable work but pay taxes are actually companies that make a profit AND contribute to the community. The NZRU is an example of this, but then you may find that sporting orginisations have fees paid to them from the grassroots clubs in order to keep going, this certainly happens with Equestrian Sports NZ.

There is a place for charities, and churches often come under this but when the church has substantial investments that bring in huge profits and the "Bishop" is living the life of luxury on the churches teat something is wrong.

I am not saying a Pastor can't draw a wage from the church in order to live, but it would be expected that this was within reason and based on being a Pastor is his/her full time job.

Churches I have been part of in the past have always been open about these thing.

MikeB4

17167 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1675770 23-Nov-2016 08:03

I can tell you from someone who has worked in social services both professionally and volunteer NZ would heavily screwed if it were not for the church based and other charity groups. I get very angry at some of the uninformed posts on this subject and they lead me to believe they are by folks that have little idea of what these organisations do and even what a charity is.

Some folks really need to get the blinkers off and and have a real look around them.

With that flame away at me

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1675796 23-Nov-2016 08:28

MikeB4: I can tell you from someone who has worked in social services both professionally and volunteer NZ would heavily screwed if it were not for the church based and other charity groups. I get very angry at some of the uninformed posts on this subject and they lead me to believe they are by folks that have little idea of what these organisations do and even what a charity is.

Some folks really need to get the blinkers off and and have a real look around them.

With that flame away at me

Should Sanitarium have to pay tax?

sxz

738 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1675797 23-Nov-2016 08:31

MikeB4: I can tell you from someone who has worked in social services both professionally and volunteer NZ would heavily screwed if it were not for the church based and other charity groups. I get very angry at some of the uninformed posts on this subject and they lead me to believe they are by folks that have little idea of what these organisations do and even what a charity is.

Some folks really need to get the blinkers off and and have a real look around them.

With that flame away at me

No one is suggesting Churches should be hindered from helping people (I think).

Stripping a church of charitable status does not prevent a church from doing charity work. Destiny Church could still have a subsidiary charitable company that does do charitable work. That subsidiary company would have no problem getting charitable status. Anyone wanting to fund that charitable company could do so, and the church could still do their good work through that company. Any church money applied to that company would get a tax rebate reducing the tax the church paid. Any churches who do good charity work could be for the most part unaffected (one they put the correct structures in place).

Who would be affected, is churches who don't do a lot of charitable work, and use their money for their own (non charitable) purposes (i.e. "bishop" brian).

I think the problem most people have is that Religions automatically* get tax free status, no matter what. That's dumb, and leaves things open to abuse.

(*not actually automatic, but close enough to it)

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