Live data from Hacker News

Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

montreal.ctvnews.ca

231–240 of 335 posts

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You should see some Soviet community centers before thinking they can replace anything The concept was good and they did work. In many towns, it's usually the only place where you could run cultural evens,some more important community gatherings and so on. What did happen once the Soviet occupation ended, was the lack of funding of these places. The town I grew up in, 15k population and the culture center large enou…

Churches in USA are not nearly the same as in most other countries. They are funded bottom up and also have to survive by serving their community well. If you need to ask for some community center funded from some abstract government, you don't have the local community, at the first place.

I can't imagine your model working for any town/city except the very smallest ones or those inhabited by rich people only: to have an independent building,where the community could do whatever they think is right for them requires capital and some sort of management. So if it's a small village in the middle of nowhere, building something is probably realistic,but what about a few thousand people town? You'd need a piece of land, substantial amount to build it or even to rent it. And how a larger community would finance it? Joe may want to contribute but Mary won't and so on. Once you have the place,who runs it. Self elected local activist or elected person? How would they decide that events they plan to do fit well within the community, especially if it's more diverse? Whether it's national or local, the main problems around its use would remain the same.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#232

The issue with this is always the same: which taxes ddo you want them to pay? Since most churches don't make a profit in the strict accounting sense, their won't be much Corp tax. And (AFAIK) they already pay payroll taxes (the main place church money. You could maybe tighten that up and make sure everyone is declaring benefits (use of the private jet) properly. But the USA just made that whole mess much more generou…

Real estate taxes would bankrupt the churches.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have secular alternatives, state welfare in many countries. A worse value for money system would be hard to imagine, populated with clock watching, work-to-rule types who actively use bureaucracy to avoid work.

So your telling me that churches are value for money? Could you give an example of one of these state welfare alternatives?

> So your telling me that churches are value for money?

Incredible value for money - 90% of the services provided by our local church are staffed by unpaid volunteers who go above and beyond.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#234

Slightly off topic but I think it would be interesting to observe the German example as I think it's a good "fair" system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax#Germany " The church tax is only paid by members of the respective church. People who are not members of a church tax-collecting denomination do not have to pay it. Members of a religious community under public law may formally declare their wish to leave…

In some countries, like mine, churches are funded by taxpayer money and they are also allowed to have commercial activities with no taxes at all.

In a way there is the irony of atheists providing support for churches, but it's just one of the ways the democracy fails with majority rules (55% religious vote that non-religious people pay taxes for churches) and governments as immoral institutions that exist to rule over people, not to care about them.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#235
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you only tax profits? If a church isn't making any, then there'd be nothing to tax?

I have been on a budget committee for a Methodist church. There is no profit, no money left over the next year, the largest expense is the pastor who is an employee (50k per yr in this case). Mega-churches might have money left over but by law they are supposed to spend their money as their nonprofit charter says or they could get audited by the State and fined or have their charter terminated.

I'll just leave this here as one sample of many:

https://images.cdn.circlesix.co/image/1/1366/0/uploads/posts...

Let's just say that not every church is the same as your Methodist church.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#236
post #38

Churches get a bad rap these days, for many reasons. I want to take a minute to defend them. Right away, I want to say that I am not defending religion-driven bigotry, nor megachurches, nor abuse. I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. churches are still where communities meet, where people connect with the spiritual world, and also the ones doing most of the "heavy lifting" on any kind of charity activity. They…

> where people connect with the spiritual world In the USA, this is quickly becoming an obsolete understanding of religion. Regular church attendance is down from 70% to just over 50% in the last 20 years, according to Gallup. People are leaving the churches. The real question is what will replace them. If people need community, build community centers. There are other solutions that do not rely on continuing to prov…

> If people need community, build community centers. There are other solutions that do not rely on continuing to provide tax exemptions to organizations

Community centres are an order of magnitude more expensive than providing tax breaks to churches.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#237

Churches get a bad rap these days, for many reasons. I want to take a minute to defend them. Right away, I want to say that I am not defending religion-driven bigotry, nor megachurches, nor abuse. I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. churches are still where communities meet, where people connect with the spiritual world, and also the ones doing most of the "heavy lifting" on any kind of charity activity. They…

They also spend a lot of money and effort on promoting their own religion and interests. They could easily create subcharities that are seperate entities designed to do the charitable work while being taxed on their non charitable areas.

Church charities are often marketing in disguise.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#238
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here in USA. Oldest churches are from the 4th century elsewhere. For the record: I don't think that priests should be able to buy $50M jets or keep 40% of total land of x country tax free, but they should not be forced to sell buildings because property tax is too high.

edit: got it wrong as per below comment

I assume they meant "here in USA" with regard to the comment about 300 years, but are pointing out that outside the US there exist churches as old as 4th century.

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Churches in USA are not nearly the same as in most other countries. They are funded bottom up and also have to survive by serving their community well. If you need to ask for some community center funded from some abstract government, you don't have the local community, at the first place.

I can't imagine your model working for any town/city except the very smallest ones or those inhabited by rich people only: to have an independent building,where the community could do whatever they think is right for them requires capital and some sort of management. So if it's a small village in the middle of nowhere, building something is probably realistic,but what about a few thousand people town? You'd need a pi…

Churches already do that organically, no?

Re: Montreal is taxing churches (2017)

#240
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Don't you only tax profits? If a church isn't making any, then there'd be nothing to tax? Land and buildings for one could be taxed. Churches bought or were given land ages ago, before there was a Manhattan or Boston, as we today know it. Go ahead and pay property tax on land worth $250 Million when you barely make income to keep the lights on.

A solution to this is to give back the land to the local city and have it handled as cultural heritage, with an authorization to practice religious activities at specific times, but it’s governed by local administration overall. That’s how some cathedrals are managed in europe for instance.

Thankfully the First Amendment prevents America from doing that here. I prefer American secularism over the weird European theocratic states that you describe.
Post reply on HN