Are not religions corporations?

Clive Durdle · #1 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 15, 2012 10:33 am

I wonder if all religions should be forced to become corporations, liable to follow all company and trade obligations, nationally and internationally.

What do they do? They promote sets of ideas and rituals, often in clearly branded structures, have income streams, clear marketing processes.

They say their works are charitable, but are they? How many schools do they actually run that teach full secular curricula, how many hospitals, how many houses do they build?

The catholic mass, anglican liturgy, muslim haaj should be treated as equivalent to weight watchers programmes and taxed accordingly.

There would be none of this rubbish of oh you must respect the religion, like all hotels and products, comments would be freely available.

Religions are getting away with a whole series of monopolistic and cartel like practices, just because the are somehow older. Just because the trade mark of the cross or crescent is older than the golden arch, why are they treated differently?

It is the religio superstitio distinction writ large.

And if the Advertising Standards Authority and trading standards seriously asked some questions?

Clive Durdle · #2 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 15, 2012 10:41 am

I suppose the way to force this would be for Virgin Health clubs to declare themselves a religion and therefore exempt from corporation tax...

Zwaarddijk · #3 by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 15, 2012 11:58 am

Clive Durdle wrote:
The catholic mass, anglican liturgy, muslim haaj should be treated as equivalent to weight watchers programmes and taxed accordingly.

So you're saying US should be able to tax Saudi Arabia?

Religions are getting away with a whole series of monopolistic and cartel like practices, just because the are somehow older. Just because the trade mark of the cross or crescent is older than the golden arch, why are they treated differently?

The cross is less protected by trade mark legislation than the golden arch - anyone can set up a church with the cross as its symbol without paying any royalties or following any corporate regulations.

Clive Durdle · #4 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 15, 2012 6:41 pm

I'm trying to establish some principles before discussing implementation!

Zwaarddijk · #5 by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 15, 2012 9:23 pm

Clive Durdle wrote:I'm trying to establish some principles before discussing implementation!

But you're presenting the situation as worse than it is.

Clive Durdle · #6 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 15, 2012 11:05 pm

http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/late ... ttle/14380

Really?

Clive Durdle · #7 by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 15, 2012 11:07 pm

And according to my understanding of free market economics, cartels and monopolies are in principle anathema. If they exist, treat them like everyone else.

james1v · #8 by **james1v** » Jan 16, 2012 12:45 am

They should be taxed like any other organisation, that employs people to promote goods and services. Also, if the contributions they receive from their congregations are not used within a certain time frame (say six months) to help the poor etc, the contributions should be sequestered, by governments, and used for the purposes they were given (to help the poor etc). After reasonable expenses of course.

james1v · #9 by **james1v** » Jan 16, 2012 12:46 am

Zwaarddijk wrote:
Clive Durdle wrote:
The catholic mass, anglican liturgy, muslim haaj should be treated as equivalent to weight watchers programmes and taxed accordingly.

So you're saying US should be able to tax Saudi Arabia?
Religions are getting away with a whole series of monopolistic and cartel like practices, just because the are somehow older. Just because the trade mark of the cross or crescent is older than the golden arch, why are they treated differently?

The cross is less protected by trade mark legislation than the golden arch - anyone can set up a church with the cross as its symbol without paying any royalties or following any corporate regulations.

My large...

Stop writing daft shit.

ginckgo · **#10** by **ginckgo** » Jan 16, 2012 12:49 am

I don't think a religion (or church) per se should be considered a charitable or non-profit organisation. However they could make their activities that are demonstrably charitable and non-profit tax-exempt (held to the same standards as all other organisations) - I'm sure that most sects would end up with almost no tax-exemption.

Zwaarddijk · **#11** by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 16, 2012 9:31 am

james1v wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:
Clive Durdle wrote:
The catholic mass, anglican liturgy, muslim haaj should be treated as equivalent to weight watchers programmes and taxed accordingly.

So you're saying US should be able to tax Saudi Arabia?
Religions are getting away with a whole series of monopolistic and cartel like practices, just because the are somehow older. Just because the trade mark of the cross or crescent is older than the golden arch, why are they treated differently?

The cross is less protected by trade mark legislation than the golden arch - anyone can set up a church with the cross as its symbol without paying any royalties or following any corporate regulations.

My large...

Stop writing daft shit.

It is not daft, it follows from the original post. How else would you get the hajj taxed?

Zwaarddijk · **#12** by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 16, 2012 9:32 am

Clive Durdle wrote:http://blogs.channel4.com/snowblog/late-put-radical-genie-bottle/14380

Really?

That isn't even relevant to my response.

james1v · **#13** by **james1v** » Jan 16, 2012 9:41 am

Zwaarddijk wrote:
james1v wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:
Clive Durdle wrote:
The catholic mass, anglican liturgy, muslim haaj should be treated as equivalent to weight watchers programmes and taxed accordingly.

So you're saying US should be able to tax Saudi Arabia?
Religions are getting away with a whole series of monopolistic and cartel like practices, just because the are somehow older. Just because the trade mark of the cross or crescent is older than the golden arch, why are they treated differently?

The cross is less protected by trade mark legislation than the golden arch - anyone can set up a church with the cross as its symbol without paying any royalties or following any corporate regulations.

My large...

Stop writing daft shit.

It is not daft, it follows from the original post. How else would you get the hajj taxed?

One country, cannot "tax" another. (unless its an import tax).

cavarka9 · **#14** by **cavarka9** » Jan 16, 2012 10:01 am

Zwaarddijk · **#15** by **Zwaarddijk** » Jan 16, 2012 1:54 pm

james1v wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:
james1v wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:
So you're saying US should be able to tax Saudi Arabia?

The cross is less protected by trade mark legislation than the golden arch - anyone can set up a church with the cross as its symbol without paying any royalties or following any corporate regulations.

My large...

Stop writing daft shit.

It is not daft, it follows from the original post. How else would you get the hajj taxed?

One country, cannot "tax" another. (unless its an import tax).

Obvious. So how would a tax on the hajj be implemented? What's daft is suggesting that we should tax the hajj, and then not telling how to do it. And it's also daft to think it's daft to even ask that question.

You thinking my question was daft also in part seems to stem from you not getting that it was a fucking reductio ad absurdum - I asked whether we should do X, because I know doing X is impossible. If you don't get that, I think you're not equipped to participate in discussions.

james1v · **#16** by **james1v** » Jan 16, 2012 2:15 pm

Zwaarddijk wrote:
james1v wrote:
Zwaarddijk wrote:
james1v wrote:

My large...

Stop writing daft shit.

It is not daft, it follows from the original post. How else would you get the hajj taxed?

One country, cannot "tax" another. (unless its an import tax).

Obvious. So how would a tax on the hajj be implemented? What's daft is suggesting that we should tax the hajj, and then not telling how to do it. And it's also daft to think it's daft to even ask that question.

You thinking my question was daft also in part seems to stem from you not getting that it was a fucking reductio ad absurdum - I asked whether we should do X, because I know doing X is impossible. If you don't get that, I think you're not equipped to participate in discussions.

There was more than "the hajj" mentioned. In an ideal world, all governments would tax the religious institutions, in their countries. The hajj was a weak argument, i will grant you that. But you asked "so the US should tax Saudi" which is not (as far as i can see) anything to do with the OP.

I read it as more like "the Saudis should tax the hajj"

Ihavenofingerprints · **#17** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Jan 16, 2012 2:24 pm

I see no issue with your average non-profit religious organisation who is genuinely serving the community for whatever charitable purpose, being tax-exempt just like other small non-profit organisations.

The problems arise when massive (for profit) corporations hide behind tax exemption status simply because the definitions are too broad. "Promoting religion" or "promoting sport" can be used by anyone.

How the fuck can an organisation with millions/billions in assets be considered not-for-profit? Sure, there are some big charities who can prove they are spending it all on charitable work, and they are fine. It's the religious organisations and sporting organisations that no longer give two shits about their original charitable goals that should be hit hard.

So to answer the OP, I think they need to tighten the eligibility requirements for tax exemption status, in order to cover the loopholes used by fucking massive multi-national religious corporations, to avoid paying tax. It is amazing how they get away with it.

Clive Durdle · **#18** by **Clive Durdle** » Jan 16, 2012 3:58 pm

I asked whether we should do X, because I know doing X is impossible.

Are you sure it is impossible?

You are again not understanding my point. Many posters have agreed there is a problem - charitable status is defined too loosely. I discussed this with an accountant - the reality under UK law is that religion is a charitable purpose!!!!

As there are no gods, and this is woo, the assumption that religion is charitable is very questionable and does sound like saying snake oil salespersons are charitable.

Next question, as Lenin put it, and many others, what is to be done?

Simple, treat them as companies and get them to prove ay specific activities are charitable. And yes, that does mean taxing the haaj.

How precisely is bowing down to a meteorite charitable?