1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • Should Religious Organizations Be Tax-Exempt?

    From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 16 06:32:24 2024
    In other countries, religious organizations are classed as “nonprofits”, and enjoy tax concessions. However, one of the conditions on such a status
    is that they do not engage in political lobbying.

    Brian Tamaki’s Destiny Church clearly does not obey such a condition. So should Destiny Church lose its tax-exempt status? Seems reasonable it
    should.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Tue Apr 16 20:21:03 2024
    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 06:32:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    In other countries, religious organizations are classed as �nonprofits�,
    and enjoy tax concessions. However, one of the conditions on such a status
    is that they do not engage in political lobbying.

    Brian Tamaki�s Destiny Church clearly does not obey such a condition. So >should Destiny Church lose its tax-exempt status? Seems reasonable it
    should.

    Eftpostle Tamaki has certainly not impressed many people with many of
    his actions - most recently his support for a granddaughters husband
    arrested for painting over a rainbow pedestrian crossing. It is not
    an easy issue to deal with and for all we know that "Church" may be
    the reason why Luxon has announced a review.

    For the United States there is a ban on lobbying activities - see https://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/item/14005-churches-and-political-lobbying-activities

    Here is a summary from NZ Parliament from 2012: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLLawRP12041/lobbying-regimes-an-outline

    In New Zealand Churches are required to ensure that substantial
    commercial activities are operating through a tax paying entity - the Sanitarium operation being the best known example, but I am not aware
    of any requirement not to lobby.

    Under New Zealand law, section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms
    that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the
    freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any
    kind in any form.

    The ACT Party has made a feature of our long-standing tolerance of
    others having different views, but National has traditionally chafed
    at "Freedom of Speech" when it does not suit them, and given that the "mainstream" Christian churches do publicly research and lobby on
    issues such as support for the poor, the needy, immigrants, run
    foodbanks, etc, etc that may be an irritant to a government currently
    making life harder for the majority to handsomely benefit a small
    number of already wealthy New Zealanders. While we now know that the
    policies of all three political parties in government have links to
    the Atlas Network, polling may well be indicating that a significant
    number of National Party members in particular are concerned that the
    major financial policy direction of the Government is decidedly "Off
    Track" - certainly churches have been heard expressing concern about
    social policy issues recently. Certainly under Luxon they have moved
    far from the "compassionate conservatism" of Bolger and Holyoake.

    I suspect that when someone draws our Human Rights Act to Luxon's
    attention the issue may just quietly go away.

    May Tamaki, and the leaders of some of the other "Churches" that are
    designed to take money off the gullible be found guilty of crimes such
    as endangering pedestrians though intimidating tactics on a motorbike,
    or not paying the minimum wage to "interns" etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 17 00:38:53 2024
    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:21:03 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    Under New Zealand law, section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom
    to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

    That applies to human beings--individuals. It doesn’t have to apply to organized entities--religious organizations, corporations, etc.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rich80105@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Apr 17 15:03:25 2024
    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:38:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:21:03 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    Under New Zealand law, section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms that
    everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom
    to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any
    form.

    That applies to human beings--individuals. It doesn�t have to apply to >organized entities--religious organizations, corporations, etc.

    I agree, but instead of a submission from Destiny Church, there could
    easily be a submission from Brian Tamaki - would there be much of a
    difference? More importantly, would such a requirement improve
    knowledge as to who was making submissions?

    It is possibly getting a bit away from whether religious organisations
    should be tax exempt - most of them would have been regarded as
    charitable organisations, but some may view them as a gathering of
    people with a common belief (and the cost of churches being more a
    shared social and spiritual gathering than having any charitable
    purpose) - and may wish to limit tax-free activities to collecting
    money that is spent consistently with registered charities - it may
    for example pay for pastoral care, and assistance to people in genuine
    need, but not time spent on preparing and delivering a sermon.

    What is your view on Luxon's potential source of additional tax,
    Lawrence?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lawrence D'Oliveiro@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 17 03:30:40 2024
    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:03:25 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:38:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:21:03 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    Under New Zealand law, section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms
    that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the
    freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any
    kind in any form.

    That applies to human beings--individuals. It doesn’t have to apply to
    organized entities--religious organizations, corporations, etc.

    I agree, but instead of a submission from Destiny Church, there could
    easily be a submission from Brian Tamaki - would there be much of a difference?

    Yes. It would be a difference between his personal lobbying efforts, and
    those of an entire organization directed by him.

    E.g. would he talk about it in a sermon? I would say, at that point, he is encouraging his followers to get mobilized on the issue, and that would constitute political involvement on the part of the organization.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Crash@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Wed Apr 17 20:28:25 2024
    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:30:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:03:25 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 00:38:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <[email protected]d> wrote:

    On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:21:03 +1200, Rich80105 wrote:

    Under New Zealand law, section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms
    that everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the
    freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any
    kind in any form.

    That applies to human beings--individuals. It doesn�t have to apply to
    organized entities--religious organizations, corporations, etc.

    I agree, but instead of a submission from Destiny Church, there could
    easily be a submission from Brian Tamaki - would there be much of a
    difference?

    Yes. It would be a difference between his personal lobbying efforts, and >those of an entire organization directed by him.

    E.g. would he talk about it in a sermon? I would say, at that point, he is >encouraging his followers to get mobilized on the issue, and that would >constitute political involvement on the part of the organization.

    That would depend on how Destiny Church as an organisation is separate
    from Tamaki as an individual. Is the church a separate entity with
    Tamaki as the hired help doing a gig each Sunday, or is Tamaki the
    driving force with the Church as a gig-venue? Who can ever know?

    The situation is clearer with Churches that include multiple venues
    and multiple gig-practitioners, along with conventional leadership
    structures that are independent of said gig-practitioners.
    Conventional religions such as the Anglicans and Catholics have a
    clear separation between leaders and those who preach.


    --
    Crash McBash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)