Should the Government remove the Churches Tax exemption

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Seeing as the Catholic Church is a self sufficient stock portfolio holder, with a considerable amount of wealth at its disposal, should they still enjoy tax exemptions, as they do?

Do you know how hard it is to find any information on the worth of the Catholic Church? They are not very forth coming, lol.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,833509,00.html
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/16-Mar-2006.html
http://www.cephasministry.com/catholic_vaticans_billions_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_Bank
http://www.cloakanddagger.de/media/where_the_vatican_wealth_is_stor.htm
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/pfw121605.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029154
This one is my personal favourite, what tripe!!!
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=242http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2002/06/29US2.html
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
That's funny stuff, Bear.

Didja know that during WW2, the Catholic church was a slumlord in London? Howzzat for helping the poor? Used to have the link for that and I'll look for it, but in the meantime I gotta say it's similar to the banks all saying that they have the welfare of the poor in mind (after more record breaking profits this year).
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Amazing!

Natives get jumped on, but one of the wealthiest organizations on the planet has tax exemption as a charity, which is utterly ridiculous and the hypocritics go silent.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
No.

They are non-profits.

Non-profits should not be taxed.

You beat me to the punch Toro. Non-profit organizations serve the community.
Ya right, non profit. So I guess the extensive stock portfolio growing daily is mythical? Or some how not applicable because it's the church?

A non profit should be just that, not just at the pulpit, but to the core.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Ya right, non profit. So I guess the extensive stock portfolio growing daily is mythical? Or some how not applicable because it's the church?

A non profit should be just that, not just at the pulpit, but to the core.

You mean like the Red Cross, Amnesty International and others? I have news for you, these are all NGO's (non-profits). And their assests are in the billions.

Now I don't agree with the church having wealth, it should be distributed amongst the poor. That doesn't mean however they shouldn't qualify as a non-profit organization.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Im all for Non-Profit organizations being tax exempt..

But the Catholic Church turns a profit...

I fail to see how you can consider it a non-profit organization. Lots of other corporations help the poor too, hell even Tim Hortons has its hordes of Charities..They are still organizations for Profit.

Please explain what makes them non-profit, as they build and maintain profit, and face no penalties for using their funding however they wish (Amnesty International for instance can't use their money to open a string of Donut Shops, the Catholic church can)
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Ya right, non profit. So I guess the extensive stock portfolio growing daily is mythical? Or some how not applicable because it's the church?

A non profit should be just that, not just at the pulpit, but to the core.
Exactly. Non-profit organisations should keep just enough of what they collect to keep themselves going and use the rest to help whoever. Outfits like the catholic church are just plain indulging in the second cardinal sin, gluttony.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
70
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
At any rate, IMO churches should actually use their profits to help people not stash it away in fancy duds n baubles like the RCC. I bet the pope (or anyone else in the VC) ain't lunching down on a bowl of rice a day. That reminds me of a thing I read in the latest Scientific American (digital issue):

Our planet is filled
[FONT=EHYTMP+Sabon-Roman,Sabon]with marvelous science-based opportunities for improving human welfare at a tiny cost, but these opportunities are often unrecognized by policymakers and the public. There is no better example than treatment of a group of tropical diseases that maim and kill millions, but which are largely unknown to Americans and Europeans.
Experts formally refer to them as the "neglected tropical diseases," or NTDs. They are hellish infections whose combined impact on disease, disability and death rivals the impacts of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, yet they are far less known, partly because they are diseases that afflict only the poor in the tropics.
Seven of the diseases are caused by helminths (worm infections): hookworm, trichuriasis, ascariasis, schistosomiasis and dracunculiasis (guinea worm), onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis. Another three are protozoan infections: leishmaniasis, trypanosomiasis and Chagas’ disease. Three more are bacterial: leprosy, trachoma and Buruli ulcer.
Of these 13 diseases, nine (the seven helminth infections, plus leprosy and trachoma) have powerful, low-cost preventive or curative interventions that are easy to administer. As President Jimmy Carter has shown through his steadfast personal leadership over 20 years, filtering water through cheesecloth can dramatically reduce the burden of dracunculiasis. Insecticide-treated bed nets, which cost just $5 and last for five years, can break the transmission of lymphatic filariasis and greatly reduce the transmission of malaria.
Medicines can handle all the helminths other than guinea worm by keeping the number of worms infecting an individual at a tolerably low level through routine treatments. For example, where the helminth infections and schistosomiasis are prevalent, all schoolchildren should be treated with deworming medicine up to three times annually. The pharmaceutical companies have stepped up to do their part. Merck & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Novartis and Sanofi-Pasteur have donated medicines and made other contributions to the fight against various illnesses. All these companies eagerly support the expansion of control programs.
It is time for governments to join in, too. The U.S. has recently committed $15 million to the fight against NTDsa start but still less than one tenth of the $250 million or so a year needed for a comprehensive campaign for Africa. The best strategy would be to link the control of the NTDs with malaria control. The same bed nets and community health workers can attend to both malaria and the NTDs, which have a very high geographic overlap throughout the tropical countries. Moreover, millions of children in Africa are "polyparasitized," infected with both malaria and combinations of the NTDs. These multiple infections seem to be especially injurious.
Our policymakers should ponder that effective disease control does more to promote global stability and goodwill, via economic development, than do vastly larger outlays for military approaches after instability has broken out. Targeted disease-control measures have been highly effective in the past, even in the poorest countries. Smallpox was eradicated, and polio has been brought down 1,000-fold worldwide by vaccine efforts, led notably by Rotary International.
Comprehensive, Africa-wide control of malaria and NTDs together would probably cost no more than $3 billion a year, or just two days of Pentagon spending. If each of the billion people in the rich world devoted the equivalent of one $3 coffee a year to the cause, several million children every year would be spared death and debility, and the world would be spared the grave risks when disease and despair run unchecked. A new Global Network for Neglected Tropical Disease Control (see www.gnntdc.org) is helping to make this opportunity a reality.
-
Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

[/FONT]
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Please explain what makes them non-profit, as they build and maintain profit, and face no penalties for using their funding however they wish (Amnesty International for instance can't use their money to open a string of Donut Shops, the Catholic church can)

There is a common misconception that non-profit organizations aren't supposed to make a profit. Of course they make a profit, otherwise they wouldn't have the resources to fund their programs. Another misconception is that non-profits are automatically tax-exempt, that is also not the case. A non-profit organization gets taxed less, much less than an ordinary corporation. Tax-exempt organizations do not get taxed on their revenue, at all. They are also exempt from real-estate, sales, transfer and other taxes (yes, their are some taxes they aren't exempt from).

A non-profit organization doesn't have shareholders, nor does it issue stocks, it has a Board of Directors making it impossible for anyone to make a profit. Here lies the main difference.

And as a side note in Canada, tax-exempt organizations are defined as Charities by Revenue Canada, in the US they are defined as Tax-Exempt by the IRS. In both Canada and the US, non-profits as defined by Revenue Canada and the US are NOT tax-exempt.
 

McDonald

Nominee Member
Jan 23, 2006
80
1
8
Chicoutimi, Québec
www.myspace.com
I think that a lot of churches would not be able to operate if they were faced with taxes. And you can't just cut off the Catholic church becuase that wouldn't be fair, you would have to force all churches to pay, including the Anglicans, Presbyterians, the Synagogues and Mosques etc... The Catholic church itself has lots of money, but that doesn't mean all its parishes are equally funded. Some are very poor and can't even afford to hold a daily mass as it is... if they were forced to pay taxes on their electric bills, water bills, etc... they wouldn't make it.
 

ottawabill

Electoral Member
May 27, 2005
909
8
18
Eastern Ontario
I think that a lot of churches would not be able to operate if they were faced with taxes. And you can't just cut off the Catholic church becuase that wouldn't be fair, you would have to force all churches to pay, including the Anglicans, Presbyterians, the Synagogues and Mosques etc... The Catholic church itself has lots of money, but that doesn't mean all its parishes are equally funded. Some are very poor and can't even afford to hold a daily mass as it is... if they were forced to pay taxes on their electric bills, water bills, etc... they wouldn't make it.

Totally agree, maybe the Catholic Chruch is rolling in money..dunno, but I am on a coucil for our Anglican Church, and as we look at the books we are atbest breakeven each year. That is not because we throw money in tax shelters or buy lots of things to keep us non-profit..it is because our expenses go up every year while we receive the same amout from the congregation each year..their expences go up to...

Beyond that our money go to much more then oil, minister's salary etc. We fund world vision children, community outreach programs, help food banks, and will give money to local people who really need it...this is our mission..this is what Jesus asked of us..we try to do as much as we can and break even..If we had to pay taxes it would be at the expense of the community we try so hard to serve.

It's not all about funding expensive salaries and gold roofs...Thats the part you hear about on the news...

Crashing planes...not the ones that landed