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: Charity Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Freedom Party
Status[?]: defeated
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: May 2167
Description[?]:
| The Federal Parliament of Rutania CONSIDERING that religious organisations are not, primarily, charitable organisations CONSIDERING that tax deductions for charitable organisations ought to be reserved for 'true' charity. BELIEVING that the Rutanian State should be consistent in its endorsement of the separation between church and state. CONCERNED about recent reports of abuses of alledgedly charitable funds by the Rutanian church ENDORSES the current policy of treating religious organisations as corporations REFORMS the tax system so that religious organisations may not be used as charities URGES people of faith who wish to contribute to charity to start clearly separate organisations for that purpose. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: Religions are treated as companies, and all profit is taxed, however, charitable donations are not taxed.
Current: No religions are taxed.
Proposed: All religious income, despite the use, is taxed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:53:41, January 03, 2006 CET | From |  Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | Meh. This is ok. The UN resolution format is terrible though. |
| Date | 18:14:52, January 03, 2006 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | The separation of Church and State means that the State should not treat the Church differently from other organisations, this, however, would make a clear distinction between non-religious charitable organisations and religious charitable organisations. In other words, you discourage religion, a blatant violation of the freedom of religion. The State must take no stance towards a certain religion, this would promote atheism and agnosticism. |
| Date | 18:23:57, January 03, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | "CONSIDERING that religious organisations are not, primarily, charitable organisations" That is why there is a distinction between charitable and non-charitable religious organisations. "CONSIDERING that tax deductions for charitable organisations ought to be reserved for 'true' charity." There can be charities inspired by religious values, the Order of Saint-John (OOC: the Order of Malta) is an excellent example of this. "BELIEVING that the Rutanian State should be consistent in its endorsement of the separation between church and state." I agree, which is precisely why I am against this bill. The State must neither encourage nor discourage religion and must treaty religious organisation in the same manner it treats non-religious organisations, that includes religiously-inspired charitable organisations. They should be treated in the same manner as charitable organisations which are not affiliated with any religion, in other words: if we don't tax the non-religious charitable organisations, we can't tax the religious charitable organisations either. If we did, the State would favour organisations that are secular, while the principle of the separation of Church and State says that the State musn't favour either secular or religious organisations. "ENDORSES the current policy of treating religious organisations as corporations" There is no reason to do so, they are just treated in the same manner as any other organisation. The fact that they are religious organisations should make no difference, otherwise you are in violation of the separation of Church and State and/or the freedom of religion. "REFORMS the tax system so that religious organisations may not be used as charities" This literally says that you DISADVANTAGE religion, as in discouraging it. That is a blatant infringement upon the freedom of religion and a violation of the separation of Church and State. Under this bill, the State would favour atheism and agnosticism. Not only would this bill disadvantage religious charities, it would annihilate them, it would make them ILLEGAL. "URGES people of faith who wish to contribute to charity to start clearly separate organisations for that purpose." The State has no right to tell religous people that they can't donate to religious charitable organisations, the State has no right to tell the Church they can't encourage charity. |
| Date | 20:16:41, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | In response to the objections raised, the solution for religious charities is quite clear. If religious people wish to engage in charitable activities they can found charitable institutions of their own. (Rutanian Catholics For Beluzia, for example) These institutions can function under all aspects of Rutanian law as charities. We oppose, however, giving money to the Church itself as a charity with government support. This is inconsistent with the separation of church and state (tax deductions to promote religion) and it leads to an unhealthy mixing of funds. |
| Date | 21:33:56, January 03, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | We will oppose, in line with our Cult influence and religious undertones |
| Date | 21:38:52, January 03, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | Why can't a Church receive charitable donations? A football club is treated as a company under the law, yet if they experience financially difficult times there may be fans who wish to support their club financially by making a charitable donation. And that charitable donation is not taxed. Why should it be different for religious organisations? Religious organisation musn't be advantaged or disadvantaged by the State, they must be treated in the same manner as any other organisation. Right now, many religious communities rely on charitable donations for maintaining their building, by pursuing this you want to make sure they are dissolved. Which is a blatant violation of both the separation of Church and State and the freedom of religion. And why are you saying they are "charities with government support"? That is not true. NO charitable donations are taxed, by making a difference for religions you are violating the separation of Church and State. Just because charitable donations are not taxed doesn't mean the State promotes them. If people consciously want to donate to a charitable cause, the State has not got the right to make a distinction between a sports club or a religion, the State has not got the right to say "we want you to donate it to that" or, as this bill would do, "we don't want you to donate it to that". Our citizens must be able to decide freely, without government interference, to which charity they wish to donate. Now, then, and what is wrong with religiously-inspired charitable institutions? The proposal clearly states "all religious income", that can only be interpreted to include the income of religious charitable organisation such as the Order of Saint-John. While they can do valuable work, you are punishing them because of their religious nature. |
| Date | 19:00:41, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | "In other words, you discourage religion, a blatant violation of the freedom of religion." Then by taxing secular business you are discouraging secularism, a blantant violation of freedom of religion. Clearly, this is absurd and wrong. |
| Date | 21:13:50, January 04, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | Cease your bullshit, we propose that all organisations, whether they are religious or not, are treated in the same manner by the State. We propose to treat them EQUALLY, in other words we want to neither discourage nor encourage. If we tax both secular businesses and religious businesses, we are not discouraging or encouraging anything. But I'm pretty confident you'll find that religions are not businesses, they are not-for-profit organisations. This bill would still create a distinction between religious and secular charities though (which is what we oppose), but charities are de jure not-for-profit organisations. We do not want this government to make a distinction between secular and religion, as it should. |
| Date | 04:02:26, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | I'm pretty sure the RDSP opposition is based on a misunderstanding. A Rutanian donating to a religigiously-inspired charitable organisation would still be entitled to a tax cut, however a Rutanian donating directly to a church organisation (which is treated like a corporation) would not. |
| Date | 13:07:56, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | "Cease your bullshit, we propose that all organisations, whether they are religious or not, are treated in the same manner by the State. We propose to treat them EQUALLY, in other words we want to neither discourage nor encourage. If we tax both secular businesses and religious businesses, we are not discouraging or encouraging anything. But I'm pretty confident you'll find that religions are not businesses, they are not-for-profit organisations. This bill would still create a distinction between religious and secular charities though (which is what we oppose), but charities are de jure not-for-profit organisations. We do not want this government to make a distinction between secular and religion, as it should." You treat them equally by not taxing their profit whereas everyone elses' profit is taxed? If they are truely non-for-profit then they will not pay any tax under this system, as only profit is taxed. If they are not non-for-profit then they will pay, and so they should. |
| Date | 15:44:21, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | "I'm pretty sure the RDSP opposition is based on a misunderstanding. A Rutanian donating to a religigiously-inspired charitable organisation would still be entitled to a tax cut, however a Rutanian donating directly to a church organisation (which is treated like a corporation) would not." That makes no difference, a charitable donation IS a charitable donation, wherever it goes to. If someone wants to save a company by making a charitable donation, the donation is not taxed whereas the company is treated like a corporation. The same should apply for church organisations. "You treat them equally by not taxing their profit whereas everyone elses' profit is taxed? If they are truely non-for-profit then they will not pay any tax under this system, as only profit is taxed. If they are not non-for-profit then they will pay, and so they should." Again, I must ask you to cease your bullshit, we do want their profit to be taxed, just like everyone elses' profit is taxed. We just don't want charitable donations made to the religious organisations to be taxed, just like all other charitable donations are not taxed. And apparantly under current legislation, the religions are not considered as not-for-profit organisations, but as companies. That is a small mistake we made, but that still does not change anything. Charitable donations to non-religious companies, institutions, corporations or organisations are not taxed, so charitable donations to religious organisations, institutions, etc... should be taxed neither. THAT is equal treatment. |
| Date | 15:45:33, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | Charitable donations to non-religious companies, institutions, corporations or organisations are not taxed, so charitable donations to religious organisations, institutions, etc... should be taxed neither. THAT is equal treatment. |
| Date | 15:54:27, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | OOC: Do you really need to consistently quote everything? It is really quite annoying. In a political debate in a parliament people do not constantly quote the other person either. |
| Date | 16:08:50, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | "Again, I must ask you to cease your bullshit, we do want their profit to be taxed, just like everyone elses' profit is taxed. We just don't want charitable donations made to the religious organisations to be taxed, just like all other charitable donations are not taxed." Charitable donations to religious organisations are only taxed if they lead to profit. Ie. they're only taxed if the church / whatever actually keeps the money as profit. "And apparantly under current legislation, the religions are not considered as not-for-profit organisations, but as companies. That is a small mistake we made, but that still does not change anything. Charitable donations to non-religious companies, institutions, corporations or organisations are not taxed, so charitable donations to religious organisations, institutions, etc... should be taxed neither. THAT is equal treatment." Why should religions automatically be considered not-for-profit organisations regardless of whether or not they actually make profit? And actually, "donations" to companies ARE taxed, they just never happen. "OOC: Do you really need to consistently quote everything? It is really quite annoying. In a political debate in a parliament people do not constantly quote the other person either." OOC: In a real political debate everyone takes proper turns to speak so you dont *have* to point out what you're actually responding to. |
| Date | 17:44:11, January 05, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | "And actually, "donations" to companies ARE taxed, they just never happen." It's not the organisation which makes the donation "charitable", it's the person who gives it. If a person decides to give money to a company in order to save that company, that donation qualifies as "charitable" and hence is not taxed. It SHOULD be the same with religious organisations, if people give a charitable donation it should not be taxed. That is why we oppose this bill. "Charitable donations to religious organisations are only taxed if they lead to profit. Ie. they're only taxed if the church / whatever actually keeps the money as profit." Donations for maintaining the church's buildings lead to an increase in money of the church, and the church is the "charity", so such donations are charitable. A charity is not always keeping people alive or something like that, a charity can also be keeping a company or a football club in business, or contribute to a church. ;-) This bill would tax charitable donations to religious organisations, but not those to non-religious organisation (including companies and sports clubs), and that is not fair. That is discouraging religion. And it's not like religious organisations make much profit anyways, mostly they are entirely dependent upon charitable contributions of their members. This bill would virtually outlaw religion, how could any "liberal" or "libertarian" support that? |
| Date | 19:10:46, January 05, 2006 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the Charity Reform Act |
| Message | OOC: or you could, you know, assume the other person is speaking. It makes your debates really annoying to read, and frankly when I post something I say it in one sitting, I do not pause for you to pick it apart. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 276 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 294 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 29 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to prevent confusion by ensuring unofficial or outdated bills labelled as "Cultural Protocols" are removed from their nation page. |
| Random quote: "I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's need to think." - Adolf Eichmann |