All religious denominations should pay taxes

[MrBiddle]

---

To tell you about earnings of the Church, much of it is spent for Church maintenance, some of it is for subsidizing parochial schools, the rest go to Charity. I admit that the priest some kind of allowance. These people leave their families and forego marriage. They are entitled to few perks in life. We should be more understanding to them than being cynical.

Not just for church maintanance but for the manufacture of "holy" relics...
long before Ashton Kutcher there was "forgiveness for sale" during the Dark Ages where indulgences were supposedly attained for people who would float a certain amount for the Catholic Church.

Did they pay taxes back then? I'm sorry I'm illiterate with this stuff.

[tarsus]

^dark ages was the best time..hhhm..

[dawn runner]

dawn runner...u really are a runner...wala jud ko ga reklamo ga mirrror ra lagi ko..kabantai ka..?hehe..bai nag live in gani kasabot ka binisaya jud na..tsk..tsk....haha....ingon ana nang mga religous..
kapanahon pa man ka sa mga katsila ug huna2 kid..
nganong mo sibat man ko nga wala man jud ko diha..sus asa jud imong rason..faithful..
i have nothing against your church or relegion..pero respeto lang sab mo sa dli ninyo pariha ug pagtuo..never have i mocked ur church or u.. i thought nga mo rason or explain ka..not run..hino-un runner gani..
by the way..profit jud di-ay kai FEE man ...ikaw ra ga ingon...hmm..
dli jud magkasinabot ang managlain nga relihiyon mentras naa pa mga tao nga sama nimo..auau dong..

Unsay nothing against? Kining pag accuse nimo nga for profit ang simbahang katoliko usa ka pagdaut sa imahe sa among simbahan. Im a devout believer mao na kung maka basa ko ug post nga ingon niani masakitan.

Gimahal nako ug maayo ang simbahan, mao nang masakitan ko kung pasakitan siya sa mga tawong sama nimo. As the saying goes, Im part of the Church, the one mystical body of Christ.

Dont like hypocrites like you who always nitpick on the church. Get lost bay and your worthless posts too.

it was posted already by another guy nga 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES sec. 6 article 2 states that "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolabe"..so dili na mataksan unless mag charter change.

hehe...hypocrites my friend are the ones who shout god in public..
have u heard of fundamentalism?hehe bye..

Why not? If you could shout for a rock singer singing a satanic relic why not shout procliming God of the good, Jesus Christ?

[mannyamador]

MrBiddle wrote:

Not just for church maintanance but for the manufacture of "holy" relics...

Not so. I don't think anyone can show any official document of the Church condoning the manufacture of Holy relics. In fact, the Church condemns this and the sale of religious favor as the sin of simony.

No doubt there were some Catholics and priests guilty of simony. But there are priests and catholics guilty of sin. All of us are sinners. That's not an excuse, but it's not correct to take a few bad examples and make a blanket accusation against an entire Church either.

Religions should be judged on the rationality of the doctrines they teach, not on the actions of a few of their worst members.

As for how the Church spends its money, take note that the Catholic Church runs more services for the poor and sick than any other private organization in the world. It cares for over 20% of all AIDS victims in nthe world. It provides food, shelter, health care, schooling, orphanages, human rights monitors, counselling services, feeding centers, legal assistance, etc. for more people in the world than any other private organization, including the ADB and World Bank. It may even beat the UN in such services.

And it does it all with less money. The national budget of the Vatican is less than that of some archdioceses in Germany! St. Peter's Square is symbolically valued at just ONE EURO!

God bless!

[bfginus]

a church is made up of taxpayers, individuals who meet to worship and minister cooperatively.. it is not a separate profit-making business, but a fellowship of believers.. err to tax a church would be to double-tax individuals who make up the church.. if you look at the picture on a wider perspective

churches are not as rich as some people think.. gifts, not Sales/Revenue, to churches are tithes that are commanded and offerings that are given to ministry the church is supposed to do.. it is a small fellowship of believers who are doing what they are supposed to do.. much was donated by others outside the fellowship who have already paid taxes on the money they gave... err so how can anyone want to double-tax that money?

giver bert, i'm afraid your explanation is too lame, or just plain invalid, to exempt churches (Roman Catholic Church, specifically) from taxation.

[bfginus]

I don't think anyone can show any official document of the Church condoning the manufacture of Holy relics. In fact, the Church condemns this and the sale of religious favor as the sin of simony.

the issue here is the commonly accepted practice of the church selling religious favor, with or without the official document you mentioned. for one, i have yet to hear a roman catholic faithful denouncing the selling of petition candles in their places of worship, or the special or ordinary fees exacted from church members for various church services - as if their classifications would have had any bearing on the quality of "spiritual" salvation of the petitioner.

it's not correct to take a few bad examples and make a blanket accusation against an entire Church either.

the basic fault, mannyamador, is not in the church critics, but in the church itself for failing to make a blanket prohibition of all acts or ommissions by the clergy that resulted in the blanket accusation.

Religions should be judged on the rationality of the doctrines they teach, not on the actions of a few of their worst members.

but don't you know that the wrongful acts of some of the members are but offshots of the irrationalities of the church's own doctrines and dogmas foisted upon said members?

As for how the Church spends its money, take note that the Catholic Church runs more services for the poor and sick

no question about this. the question is how much more of the revenues went to the coffers of vatican?

The national budget of the Vatican is less than that of some archdioceses in Germany! St. Peter's Square is symbolically valued at just ONE EURO!

Interesting. But having less or more national budget than archdioceses do, does not Vatican any poorer make. besides, thou shall not judge Vatican's wealth by the symbolic value of its precious property.

[tarsus]

hala runner boy awa iya gina ingon ni bf ginus dili ka maglagot..hehe.. sakto ra ba..

[giver_bert]

giver bert, i'm afraid your explanation is too lame, or just plain invalid, to exempt churches (Roman Catholic Church, specifically) from taxation.

Not unless, if you have first hand knowledge regarding technicalities of taxation then definitely you'll come up with the same impression.. but you are entitled to your own opinion..

many churches use strategies for outreach that go beyond the typical evangelistic sermon and sunday school program.. they have become more involved in their communities and the lives of their members in a non-threatening way, providing them with various activities and opportunities designed to connect families and strengthen community relationships.. and we can see churches operate bookstores.. others regularly stage concerts and productions.. even few sell products online.. some offer sports-facility memberships.. such activities have the form of common secular businesses for which people are used to paying.. and because no church ever seems to have more money than needs, there is often an effort to make these opportunities self-funding, partially or wholly.. even though the motivation and goal is religious, these church "businesses" present income tax, sales tax and property tax issues.

it is to be clarified that tax exemptions for churches/religious entities aren't boundless (one big tax myth).. income tax, and many other state taxes distinguish between activities related to the exempt purpose of the organization and activities that generate income unrelated to the organization's exempt function.. such laws labels the income from a regularly carried on business unrelated to the organization's exempt purpose as "unrelated business income.."

given a "what if such tax will be imposed on them" scenario.. i think it is but rational to ask ourselves first these questions:
where would the collections go?
are we guaranteed that it will yield more benefits to people than those provided by these entities?
would this even give government officials a greater avenue for corruption?

Could somebody care to answer these…

[M@rv|n]

hmmm i guess we should also impose taxes on charitable institutions and foundations such as childrens hour, <yourname> foundation ... which also ,if not solely, rely on donations if thats the case


fight corrupt officials and tax evaders first

[dawn runner]

giver bert, i'm afraid your explanation is too lame, or just plain invalid, to exempt churches (Roman Catholic Church, specifically) from taxation.

Not unless, if you have first hand knowledge regarding technicalities of taxation then definitely you'll come up with the same impression.. but you are entitled to your own opinion..

many churches use strategies for outreach that go beyond the typical evangelistic sermon and sunday school program.. they have become more involved in their communities and the lives of their members in a non-threatening way, providing them with various activities and opportunities designed to connect families and strengthen community relationships.. and we can see churches operate bookstores.. others regularly stage concerts and productions.. even few sell products online.. some offer sports-facility memberships.. such activities have the form of common secular businesses for which people are used to paying.. and because no church ever seems to have more money than needs, there is often an effort to make these opportunities self-funding, partially or wholly.. even though the motivation and goal is religious, these church "businesses" present income tax, sales tax and property tax issues.

it is to be clarified that tax exemptions for churches/religious entities aren't boundless (one big tax myth).. income tax, and many other state taxes distinguish between activities related to the exempt purpose of the organization and activities that generate income unrelated to the organization's exempt function.. such laws labels the income from a regularly carried on business unrelated to the organization's exempt purpose as "unrelated business income.."

given a "what if such tax will be imposed on them" scenario.. i think it is but rational to ask ourselves first these questions:
where would the collections go?
are we guaranteed that it will yield more benefits to people than those provided by these entities?
would this even give government officials a greater avenue for corruption?

Could somebody care to answer these…

Wow, what a scholarly and intelligent answer. you must be a lawyer. Anyway, the definition of in pursuance of spreading the faith is quite broad. You sell rosaries, you have an income. But the sale of rosaries is part of spreading the faith. Is the BIR going to tax this? If it does then it may violate the Constitutional guarantee on the exemption of religious activities.

My humble opinion.