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: Religious Institution Taxation Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Green Manalishi 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: August 2226
Description[?]:
| We currently offer a great level of freedom in all areas of religion and therefore feel that there needs to be some form of equilibirum in this relationship. If one citizen decides to go to the cinema on a sunday and another decides to go to church, why should the cinema be taxed on its profits only? If we don't now financially support sports clubs which provide a communal service to citizens then why should religious institutions be supported through a full tax break? There has been a lot of take in this area (from the government's non-invasive approach AND tax breaks) but not an awful lot of give in return. Why should we discriminate against non-religious organisations and their customers that decide to "follow" them instead of an organised religion? It is a question of civil liberty and what people choose to do with their free-time. If these services have their profits taxed then why shouldn't religious institutions that make profit? We are not proposing that we touch the charitable donations religious institutions receive, and this forms a very large proportion (if not majority) of their income; sports clubs that provide a valuable service in the community don't have it so good in this respect either. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change
Taxation of religious institutions.
Old value:: No religions are taxed.
Current: All religious income, despite the use, is 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 | 19:23:56, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Growth and Prosperity Party | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | "If one citizen decides to go to the cinema on a sunday and another decides to go to church, why should the cinema be taxed on its profits only? Because the cinema is a for-profit enterprise while the church is not. This is the same reason why a restaurant is taxed but not a school cafeteria. Most religions spend their donations on non-profit goals; when they violate this, the person responsible can and will be sent to jail for tax fraud. Reverent Moon is a great example of what happens when you play around with tax-exempt status. "If we don't now financially support sports clubs which provide a communal service to citizens then why should religious institutions be supported through a full tax break?" This isn't even a proper analogy. We don't financially support EITHER the sports clubs or the religious institutions. Since all sports clubs are now private, one would imagine that whether or not they are taxed will depend on whether or not they are run for-profit. For example, Jelbanian Sports Club Inc. will be taxed on their profits under Jelbanian law, while the YMCA sports club will not be. Since both the religion and the YMCA are non-profit, and therefore are not taxed is both consistent and logical. The GPP is a strong supporter of individual rights, particularly regarding matters of the faith. We do not feel that allowing religions to operate on the same rules as other non-profits infringes on individual rights in a significant fashion but does maximize the charitable works that the religions can accomplish. The GPP opposes this bill, and encourages both secular and religiously-oriented parties to vote against it. |
| Date | 19:51:30, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | If all religions are so selfless and altruistic with their finances as the GPP idealizes then how do they explain the wealth of the extravagant Opus Dei HQ or the fact that the Kaballah centre founders and many of its managerial staff are now millionaires. As well as mega-donations from dubious sources these organisations also receive huge tax breaks. We believe that as citizens - both religious and secular - pay taxes into the system, they deserve to know where they go and why other groups are exempt. This proposal favours more transparency in the area. If a large proportion of this money is going towards charitable work then that is fine because a reciprocal proportion of the institutions income comes from (still) untaxed donations also. However, we don't see much difference between a cinema that makes money from people choosing to watch a film and a Kaballah centre that makes money, in the name of religion, from selling related merchandise or an Evangelist roadshow that makes millions by doing the same. If people are offering charity donations to these organisations then that's fine, but where they are profiteering from it without atleast being taxed like all other organisations then there's a problem. |
| Date | 19:55:06, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Free Conservative Party | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | No, i don't think so. We all know your stances on religion, but imposing them forcefully on citezens is not right. Either way, though, how much "profit" does a church make? Just about all money they get is a donation. |
| Date | 20:08:43, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | How is this imposing "my stance" on citizens? (very nearly half of our citizens are also on the secular side of the fence by the way). The GMP is not seeking to ban religion or lead a witch hunt? We are promoting transparency and equality of the tax system though. If "just about all the money the get is a donation" then just about all the money they get will also be untaxed! That's basic logic. The proposal doesn't seek to steal all their profits, it only sets the precedent that where a religious institution decides to make profit then they should expect to be taxed on that profit like any other profit-making organisation. At the moment there are countless millionaires that make their money through religion in one way or another, that is FACT, and at the moment most of those are also probably laughing at the fact that our current taxation system allows such a huge loophole for to aid them. |
| Date | 20:11:29, May 10, 2006 CET | From | Green Manalishi Party | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | By the way "imposing your stances on citizens" means making certain beliefs and/or esoteric groups (that your party believes in) invincible from taxation, criticism etc. whilst all other beliefs are taxed and regulated. |
| Date | 03:35:14, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Jelbék Zemojad Lofrkad Prta | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | We oppose. We also apologise for our recent lack of verboseness, but all our parliamentary members are very tired at the moment, on account of the national Democratic Labour every-night-for-a-month fundraising rave. |
| Date | 16:49:02, May 11, 2006 CET | From | Centre Démocratique | To | Debating the Religious Institution Taxation Bill |
| Message | We oppose as well. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 625 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Alduria, Rildanor and Lourenne all have Canrilaise (French) cultures. |
| Random quote: "They can call us communists and fascists all they want but, their words are of a hollow ring with the blood of innocence at their feet." - Mathew Jameson, former Hutorian politician |