We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Taxation of Religions
Details
Submitted by[?]: Scientific Libertarian Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2361
Description[?]:
| In the past, in other countries, this particular proposal has seen a great deal of resistance, so we are including it seperately, and not as a rider. We wish leave non-profit organizations untaxed, but tax for-profit religions. Think about it for a moment. If an organization is non-profit and secular, then it goes untaxed. If an organization is non-profit and religious, it also goes untaxed. If an organization is for-profit and secular, then it is taxed as befits a corporation. If an organization is for-profit and religious, then it should be taxed. Why should religions get a free pass in this matter? Is there really such a thing as a for-profit religion? I don't know, probably. But whether they exist or not, it is the principle of the matter that we are concerned with. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Recognized religions are not taxed.
Current: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Proposed: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:36:59, February 12, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | No, religious establishments make very little money as it is, they support themselves, and most religions will give what money that do not need to charity. I shall not support |
| Date | 23:13:14, February 12, 2007 CET | From | Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | If religions operate as you say they do, then this change will not affect them in the least. On the other hand, if there are certain religions which operate on the basis of mass-market televangelism, with all the stereotypes one thinks of in terms of televangelists with solid gold Rolls-Royces or whatever, well, this will do away with that abuse. Not all religions are as honest and good as you seem to think. Rather than be forced to declare whether or not a given religion is, in fact, a religion, we feel it is wiser to treat religions the same as we would treat any other non-profit organization. Say a multimillion-dollar corporation up and declares itself to be a religion. On the one hand, this is obviously fraud, right? Well... what if it genuinely is a legitimate religion? Declaring it not to be would be a violation of religious freedom, which may be reasonable, but we would rather avoid it nonetheless. However, allowing it to get away with tax-exempt status would be an obvious unfairness, and we would soon have all the corporations in the nation declaring themselves to be religions. We simply wish to do away with the dilemma entirely by establishing a precedent for there being no difference between a religion and any other organization, non-profit or otherwise. |
| Date | 23:44:40, February 12, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | really, from what you have said, you are opposed to all taxes |
| Date | 00:10:23, February 13, 2007 CET | From | Scientific Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | I am opposed to all taxes, but I am even more opposed to favouritism and unfairness. |
| Date | 08:27:34, February 13, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | There is a certain logic to this proposal that the JLSP appreciates. There are non-religious organisations that perform the same functions, charitable or otherwise, as religious organisations. To fully seperate the church from the state, I think this proposal is neccesary. Otherwise the state ultimately becomes involved in deciding what a religion is. This proposal would make it so religion isn't a factor in your duties. If you're a charity, the government will recognise this. If you're just a business, then you're a business. What the UDA suggests about supporting themselves and giving to charities may be a valid point; but I would suggest that such things also apply to certain non-religious organisations, such as charitable organisations. Making both, or all, subject to the same rules would not neccesarily be a bad thing. Ultimately, I think this opinion is born from the fact that religion should always be something of the people, not of the government, and making legislative exceptions for religious purposes may run contrary to this ideal. |
| Date | 23:42:31, February 13, 2007 CET | From | United Democrats of Jakania | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | To me it just my moral values, my position is stated and will not be swayed |
| Date | 12:41:42, February 14, 2007 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Taxation of Religions |
| Message | We can accept the views of the UDA, but feel we may need to agree to disagree. We can't support that religious ideals or practices be given special treatment or consideration over similar ideals and practices carried out by a non-religious party. If someone gives to the poor in the name of god or in the name of goodwill, we should give both parties equal treatment. If someone sells t-shirts in the name of god or in the name of profit, both should be given equal treatment. We believe that to do otherwise is to discriminate against one party or the other. But these are the personal beliefs of our party, we do not wish to sway the members of the UDA if they have already reached their conclusion. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 224 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 43 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 213 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected." - Will Rogers |