24 Jan 13
We recently purchased a house and had pay insurance to cover us against a possible claim for church repairs due to an old land covenant .It is not a large sum and I think the use of reasonable covenants is valid.However,the religious organisation who owns the church enjoys a number of financial advantages which my business does not,being a Humanist this I feel this unreasonable. .
24 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodYou or your business are not a registered charity I presume. Religious organisations get 'tax breaks', on their donations because they do charitable (or should do) charitable works. The HMRC 'gift aid', arrangement is used so that tax payers can claim 20% back on their charitable contributions from the government either through self assessment or direct from the respective Tax office. You are perfectly entitled to do the same providing that your organisation is non profit and a registered charity. The fact that you are a humanist is to all intents and purposes, irrelevant and i cannot see why you feel that it should be a justifying cause for you also to receive tax relief.
We recently purchased a house and had pay insurance to cover us against a possible claim for church repairs due to an old land covenant .It is not a large sum and I think the use of reasonable covenants is valid.However,the religious organisation who owns the church enjoys a number of financial advantages which my business does not,being a Humanist this I feel this unreasonable. .
24 Jan 13
Originally posted by OdBodIn answer to your title thread,
We recently purchased a house and had pay insurance to cover us against a possible claim for church repairs due to an old land covenant .It is not a large sum and I think the use of reasonable covenants is valid.However,the religious organisation who owns the church enjoys a number of financial advantages which my business does not,being a Humanist this I feel this unreasonable. .
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Tax the b********ds into oblivion.
If they don't want to pay tax then close them down.
24 Jan 13
3 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyYou fail to understand the taxation. Charitable organisations can claim a percentage back from the government on donations which they receive and which the HMRC terms , a 'tax relief'. That the government should be willing to help charitable organisations in this way is bad , why? If you are not making a profit, you cannot nor should not be taxed.
In answer to your title thread,
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Tax the b********ds into oblivion.
If they don't want to pay tax then close them down.
24 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt is you who has misunderstood.
You fail to understand the taxation. Charitable organisations can claim a percentage back from the government on donations which they receive and which the HMRC terms , a 'tax relief'. That the government should be willing to help charitable organisations in this way is bad , why? If you are not making a profit, you cannot nor should not be taxed.
I have no problem with real charities trying to help others.
I have a problem with religious organizations who masquerade as charities.
24 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI whole heartedly agree with charity and give to many causes,but charitable donations from any organisations tend to reinforce and legitimise those bodies in the eyes of others.
You or your business are not a registered charity I presume. Religious organisations get 'tax breaks', on their donations because they do charitable (or should do) charitable works. The HMRC 'gift aid', arrangement is used so that tax payers can claim 20% back on their charitable contributions from the government either through self assessment or di ...[text shortened]... ot see why you feel that it should be a justifying cause for you also to receive tax relief.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyforgive me , it was not easily discernible from your text.
It is you who has misunderstood.
I have no problem with real charities trying to help others.
I have a problem with religious organizations who masquerade as charities.
Tax the b********ds into oblivion.
If they don't want to pay tax then close them down.
25 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodOf course, why else would a donor donate if they did not think that the recipient of their respective charity was legitimate? The fact that we may or may not perceive them as being legitimate is of no consequence, for it is the individuals prerogative to evaluate which is legitimate and which is not. If you donate to charity and you are a tax payer, it would be prudent to utilise the gift aid program so that your chosen charity may receive an extra 20 percent on your donation.
I whole heartedly agree with charity and give to many causes,but charitable donations from any organisations tend to reinforce and legitimise those bodies in the eyes of others.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou should know me by now.
forgive me , it was not easily discernible from your text.
There is a big difference between someone who actually offers practical help
and a priest who just passes around a plate or a hat.
Secularism is the only answer to the likes of your religion
and all other religions which are simply man made organizations
designed to control populations and bleed them of their assets.
25 Jan 13
3 edits
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyreally, secularism? enter any Sikh temple and you will receive a free meal anywhere in the entire the world. Perhaps you can direct me to a secular organisation which offers the same. Also, what about all those persons who have been helped to overcome all manner of difficulties, from prostitution to drug abuse by religious charities motivated primarily by a humanitarian conscientiousness borne of their religious convictions? What will motivate the secularist Johnny? Shall we cite examples which attempted to install a purely secularist government, like the Khmer Rouge which killed millions of innocent people in an attempt to establish an atheistic state? Shall we talk of Communist China, Stalinist Russia? Albania? Shall we Johnny? Secularism is façade. It fails to recognise that we as humans have a spiritual need and should be free to explore that need, it masquerades under the guise of celebrating diversity while imposing conformity, embracing freedom while being intolerant of anything which opposes it tenets.
You should know me by now.
There is a big difference between someone who actually offers practical help
and a priest who just passes around a plate or a hat.
Secularism is the only answer to the likes of your religion
and all other religions which are simply man made organizations
designed to control populations and bleed them of their assets.
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWould I be right in assuming that religious organisations usually suggest certain advantages might be had by dealing with them (eg redemption etc)?. Many other charitable organisations offer nothing other than to help others.This might suggest an unfair advantage.On a lighter note, the office space used by say the church of England is a little bit bigger than say the offices of the charity Children in Need.I would also suggest that the benefits obtained by clergy may be worthwhile (taxable benefit in kind?).
Of course, why else would a donor donate if they did not think that the recipient of their respective charity was legitimate? The fact that we may or may not perceive them as being legitimate is of no consequence, for it is the individuals prerogative to evaluate which is legitimate and which is not. If you donate to charity and you are a tax payer, ...[text shortened]... e gift aid program so that your chosen charity may receive an extra 20 percent on your donation.
25 Jan 13
1 edit
Originally posted by OdBodHelp takes many forms. It appears to me that the Church of England is somewhat ostentatious for a so called charity, their lands and buildings are certainly imposing. I have no idea what kinds of benefits clergy receive for I am of the opinion that a minster of God should be self sufficient, providing for his own needs rather than being paid a salary by parishioners. I cannot recall Christ ever receiving payment and I certainly recall Peter disdaining silver as payment for services rendered.
Would I be right in assuming that religious organisations usually suggest certain advantages might be had by dealing with them (eg redemption etc)?. Many other charitable organisations offer nothing other than to help others.This might suggest an unfair advantage.On a lighter note, the office space used by say the church of England is a little bit bigger than ...[text shortened]... also suggest that the benefits obtained by clergy may be worthwhile (taxable benefit in kind?).
25 Jan 13
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, the charitable donations tax relief is not dependent on doing charitable works.
You or your business are not a registered charity I presume. Religious organisations get 'tax breaks', on their donations because they do charitable (or should do) charitable works. The HMRC 'gift aid', arrangement is used so that tax payers can claim 20% back on their charitable contributions from the government either through self assessment or di ...[text shortened]... ot see why you feel that it should be a justifying cause for you also to receive tax relief.
To qualify for relief, the organisation must be formed exclusively for the purpose of various specified activities. One of these is for the 'advancement of religion'. So a church can spend all its money on itself and still be subsidised by the taxpayer.
I am not against churches getting tax relief per se, but it should be conditional on this money being used exclusively for the other listed charitable activities and not for the promotion of that religion. The 'advancement of religion' should be removed from the list of specified activities.
Do you agree?
25 Jan 13
Originally posted by Rank outsiderOne must however be a registered charity and it therefore begs the question how one attains the status without doing charitable works. It appears to me , that like any scheme it may be open to abuse. I don't see why the advancement of religion should be removed if indeed the advancement of that religious conviction is bring benefit to the recipients in some tangible way. Does it provide education, counselling, guidance etc etc etc and indeed, if one is getting benefit in some way, as does happens, through the advancement of a religion then why should it be exempt. Surely this is the whole point of adopting a particular religious stance in the first instance in that it bestows benefits not only on the adherent but on others as well? Of course a case may be made against those that are purely self serving, but to remove the clause entirely is somewhat Draconian and it appears to me that a focus should be made on the charitable works themselves as being a legitimising factor as to whether one should receive tax relief or not. So no I do not agree. I still stand be my stance that religious organisations and especially religious ministers should be self sufficient, it irks me immensely that the most basic spiritual guidance should be subject to a fee in some form or another.
Actually, the charitable donations tax relief is not dependent on doing charitable works.
To qualify for relief, the organisation must be formed exclusively for the purpose of various specified activities. One of these is for the 'advancement of religion'. So a church can spend all its money on itself and still be subsidised by the taxpayer.
I ...[text shortened]... ement of religion' should be removed from the list of specified activities.
Do you agree?