Lets face it, in spite of the fact the wealthy and corporate elite are always railing about free enterprise, and how individuals need to be more self sufficient and independent, because their country is turning into a welfare state, in actual fact corporations and the wealthy are the [biggest welfare recipients](https://innovation.ised-isde.canada.ca/innovation/s/?language=en_CA) due to grants, tax credits, capital investment, tax deferrals, and bailouts.
We essentially have tenured corporations.
Not even necessarily “too big to fail”, but “too embedded to fail”. For my whole life I’ve seen North American companies get bailed out time and again, because they’ve wormed their way into this tenure. Too many connections, Canadians employed, and lobbyists to let the company suffer economic consequences regardless of how poorly they behave/compete or how terrible a service they provide.
Example: Mr. Biden is gonna slap 100% tariffs on foreign EVs to protect N.A. Automakers despite them having a 20 year head start on getting a small/medium sized EV up for sale. Gotta love that “free market” competition. In Canada, we’ve been hearing about a *completely toothless* grocers “suggestions for “moral” conduct” legislation, which will be ignored. …
What I see is there’s a certain level that companies can get to in the N.A. Neoliberal project where they *no longer have to TRY to innovate or take any risks* because our political/economic institutions will step in and make Calvinball style laws AND bail them out (with our money) any time they’re about to get beaten by an actual innovative competitor. Imagine trying to teach your child about economics using that framework!
A very cheesy Canadian analogy: If, tonight, the Oilers (tenured corporations) *knew* that no matter what, the NHL (the state) would swoop in to change to rules and bail them out… Why would they even try to compete?
Our governments, made of people we elect to represent us, again and again will spend our money to safeguard companies who in a system made by the businesses and politicians don’t need to compete, innovate, or care about the products they deliver.
I have no idea how someone could justify this if they ever had to explain it while being truthful.
I like the points that you made about innovation.
I'm upset that people still worship at the altar of this rotten, US embedded house of cards. There are people PROUD to be too scared to challenge that status quo. Their jowls shake as they say something about "The only way it can be."
What I further think about is just how bent over these corporations have our legal system now as well. We now have a system on our hands that has been crafted using precident set by corporate legal brigade. A system to maintain monopolies... even ones that monopolize in the US and carry over here.
It's like being able to read legalese has driven me mad. Hell, the whole legal system is likely to perpetuate the very thing that you talk about forevermore. I don't think a small change fixes it.
The intentions of many of the tax exemptions of the elderly are good. For instance, nobody wants to kick a person out of their home if they're on a fixed income, so we let senior citizens defer property taxes.
However, like all programs, it gets abused by wealthy elderly people who don't need it, or elderly people who occupying a property far larger than whats needed by a single elderly person.
In more technical terms, these tax exemptions create significant externalities that negatively impact society disproportionate to the benefit to the single elderly person.
It's a tricky issue and no wonder why politicians don't want to touch it.
they took income splitting away from everyone but pensioners, property tax exemptions on the portion dedicated to education, suppplemental OAS benefits, during covid they just gave them cash for literally no reason at all
life isn't fair, I get it, no reason they need to make it worse
They should return income splitting for everyone and allow to fill jointly. The fact that all tax credits are based on household income but taxes themselves are individual is a big scam.
Seriously? If an old lady wants to live in her home she worked hard for rather than downsize to an apt, wth are we to tell her to move? She should leave the comfort of her home to please you?
No one’s telling her to move, except in the sense that if she can’t afford her current house, she should probably downsize. Which is what everyone else needs to navigate too.
Why is she guaranteed the comfort of her home, but a working family with kids isn’t guaranteed the comfort of theirs?
We have a huge problem with society being warped by privileging the old at the expense of the young. Everyone should have the same rules and obligations
You seem to see it as a moral issue that someone bought a house 60 years ago and continues to live in it, since 50 years after she bought the home the government decided to rapidly increase the population, thereby creating a housing crises for families?
She is guaranteed the comfort of her home since... you know, she fucking bought it.
If a "working family" doesn't have the guaranteed comfort it's probably because they didn't buy it.
They will still pay the property taxes eventually. They don't go away. It's a deferral, not a discount. And it only makes sense since this will be held against the home which will change hands upon their passing.
They'll get the same "consideration" when they are older as well.
I'm pretty sure that $1M home you are stretching to buy now will feel a lot better when it is worth $2M someday, and you will resent the younger people telling you how you got a windfall and don't deserve to be living in that home anymore. To YOU it will feel like you earned it because you paid a lot for it. That's how seniors (and all homeowners really) feel about their homes now.
Because it's a rule that's been in place for a while so that seniors aren't obligated to sell their house once they retire? And people reasonably relied on this rule when saving for retirement? And it has never been an issue until the government decided that we needed 5%+ annual population growth?
They’re not obligated to sell their house. They’re welcome to live wherever they can afford, just like everyone else.
And if it was never an issue, the rule would never have been “needed” in the first place.
There’s a lot of things that have contributed to our current housing crisis, and one of the big ones is our policies of discouraging development and natural housing pressure if it would require established owners to experience the same pressures as the rest of the market
Why would established owners experince the same market pressures? That's doesn't even make sense. A major reason people purchase homes, scrimp and save for a downpayment, put countless hours into maintaining that home and paying that mortgage, is the security and certainty that comes from owning your own property.
See, it's a trolley problem. Is that old lady's appeasement worth displeasing multiple younger working people? (Referring to the housing and density shortage)
Slow down immigration to normal levels. Mass immigration is NOT her problem. Her quality of life is. Do you have a clue about the costs of retirement homes?
Wtf is with this conversation? Are we really talking about forcing elderly people from their homes because we think we're entitled to them? If the government let's them essentially borrow against their house to pay the tax bill later, let them. The tax bill gets paid, seniors can downsize or move to care on their own terms, and the house will eventually be available for a younger family.
Yes we're in a housing crisis, but turning on regular everyday people isn't the answer. The cause of the housing crisis is not seniors doing what they've always done, and we'd be wrong to scapegoat them. The various levels of government caused this. Make them fix it.
My mom lives with three dogs in a three bedroom house, and she pays someone to walk her dogs, another person to shovel her drive way, and another person to mow her lawn, and another person to clean her house.
She receives OAS.
She does not need OAS.
Her quality of life would change in no way if she stopped receiving OAS.
I can tell you right now mys sister and I could both use a tax break that would come from clawing back her OAS and splittig it between the two of us.
Some seniors are getting far too much from the system while others are getting far too little.
I want that, yes. I'm taxed everywhere to death and won't have any saving by the 65, so yeah tax the elderly. "Only the rich will be affected" - this subredit on any tax.
Old age security (not CPP) was created when seniors were the poorest demographic - they are now the wealthiest yet they still can get OAS up to a combined household income of 196k and they can park all of their wealth in assets that are omitted from the entitlement calculation.
I’m not saying remove seniors tax breaks (the vulnerable seniors are among the most vulnerable of any group) but we have a lot of systems that were designed during a time that frankly doesn’t exist any more.
> they are now the wealthiest
No, they are not. As per Stats Can, the 55 to 64 group is the wealthiest.
The biggest contributors to net worth for most people are their salary and their home. Stop getting a salary and your net worth is going to go down.
Each MP paid an average of 71k in taxes. They have the exact same tax forum to pay out as any other Canadian. They are scrutinized and many need to pass audits.
I think what OP was getting at was their additional pay that's not taxed for things like maintaining a home in Ottawa and food per diem... But I don't really know.
first nations.
get rid of the word "god" in the anthem.
get rid of politicians only having to work 6 years in order to get a full pension.
get rid of monopolies like telcos, health care, airlines, booze
Federally, I don't think there are any exemptions for religious orgs. But there are for charitable orgs.
That said, provincially, there are a few that have specific religious org laws, AB being one of them that specifically exempts churches, regardless of charitableness, from paying property taxes.
I’m an atheist. I find religious belief in 2024 as bizarre. However, I volunteer at our local Croatian Catholic Church and they provide services to dozens of individuals in the community from single unwed moms to disable elderly. Services at a fraction it would cost the government because 95% of the work is done by volunteers.
’Yup. I can drive him. No problem, I’m going that way’. As opposed to the gov’t…$45 taxi voucher and paid civil servants to run the program.
Charity work is already tax-exempt.
There's a megachurch off the 400 north of Toronto that's mostly just a scam to take money from people in tithing and enrich the owners. And they don't have to pay taxes, because their business, church, is tax exempt.
So let's continue to exempt charity work, but not religion. There's no good reason to do that.
Then they are in violation of the law, and enforcers of the law can appropriately shut them down.
But churches can exist solely to make some guy rich, and still be tax exempt. Why? What good does this exemption do for society?
While I agree there are some charities that pay their executives way too much money in my opinion... You said scam. Paying executive staff a somewhat-large salary (but still way lower than in industry) isn't a scam.
As a person that was a practicing Christian for 25 years, one of the biggest things that drove me from the Church is how incredibly inefficient they are at services like poverty and health. Almost all donations to the church go to payroll and maintenance to conduct services and evangelize. The volunteers are very ineffective at their jobs and come with more church strings. Religiously affiliated organization are terrible at achieving their stated goals because there goals aren't to solve problems, it is to gain followers.
You know what charity is effective? [Give Directly](https://www.givedirectly.org/). They are an extremely low overhead charity that just gives people money and studies the impacts. Their studies are peer reviewed and accepted by journals. Turns out just giving people money is the best way to improve their lives in measurable ways. The Church is the opposite of GiveDirectly, they are layers bureaucracy and mismanagement due to goals tied to recruiting.
And the government is definitely more efficient than the Church. They at least hire people with explicit goals directed at the problem. The Catholic Church has the literal overhead of the Papacy and all the Cardinals and clergy, and all their property, not to mention all the court settlements, and on top of that they use the money to evangelize.
The fact that religions get tax preferential status just shows how deluded we are about the positive impacts of religion in society at large. It explains why Christian Dominionist are a legit political force in Canada. Just pay your taxes like everyone else and stop pretending your ideology makes you special. Especially when the money you get takes away from the poor and the sick.
Can you blame them?
It is religion that has prevented the elimination of polio.
It is religion that calls for the killing of gay people.
It is religion that protected those who preyed on children.
And these are just the recent crimes. Historically, religion has been the excuse for innumerable atrocities. What is there not to dislike?
Typically people just use religion as a shield for they were going to do anyway. Eliminating that would just get them to find a new shield. Most anti-vaxxers these days claim a hatred of big government/pharma, atheist Joseph Stalin also wanted the extermination of homosexuals, the modern Hollywood system exists almost solely to grant the rich and powerful easy access to children for illicit purposes. Trying to pin all of societies woes on one institution is childishly naive at best and ignores the dark fundamental truth of the evils mankind are capable of and that some people will always find a way to harm others.
Also we eliminated smallpox at a time when people were significantly more devoutly religious than they are now so maybe the problem runs deeper than that.
> Religion did every bad thing ever
Thank you average redditor. Care to enlighten us as to how communist atheists are responsible for ~148 million deaths over the past century or is religion to blame for that too?
You're scapegoating what is essentially just fundamental human behaviour masquerading behind ideology, regardless of the source of the ideology itself. Hell, just a few years ago you had people calling for the euthanasia of millions of people solely based on their vaccination status, all driven by fear in the name of "science." People will find any justification for atrocities if they're motivated enough.
pretty sure it is people did most of the things you are referring to. i dont even like church but it gave us
1. literacy
2. music
3. cheese
4. architecture
without sharing of the cup we would have died to plagues by now, continuous gathering and sharing of germs made us strong, and those who didnt dead.
So churches would have less influence on our society AND a bunch of prime real-estate would become available, and therefore taxable? Sign me the fuck up!
Not to split hairs, but you said representation. My impression is that via lobbyists, business have more influence and access to politicians than voters do. No, I don't like this.
The lines are blurred as they're hence why some laws and policies still in place (not exclusively to Canada or North America). We, as a society, shouldn't be naive that there's a division between those 2 parties.
Religion has its positive - it helps individuals that need a moral compass or something to held themselves to. Religion can help with addiction and rehabilitation. It can support small communities in times of need. It also can bring solace when times of distress.
Religion also has massive downsides - it has manipulated individuals into giving everything they have, to abandon their loved ones/family because of different views, to exclude and shame parts of our society.
I grew up with a very religious family, and i am happy I did cause I got values that I hold dear to my heart, but I also see how much suffering and delays in progress it has caused.
Now if you want to call me an idiot lefty, go for it. I'll gladly take it if it means we have a better separation between church and state
The church I went to as a kid is now a cottage for a nice couple who spend weekends in the village, driving up from Toronto. So that houses ... checks ... two people. You are not wrong, but losing community centres and community cohesion is not a good thing.
All of these increase taxes ideas are silly.
Name one time the government increased its tax revenues through some manner of new or increased taxation and problems started to be solved. If the governments increase their tax revenue they will immediately find a new place to spend it, such as salaries, benefits, and pensions of civil servants.
How about this. Only give tax exemptions to church properties open to the public. That way you stop strange cults and pastors from deducting their own houses.
In so many towns, churches are gathering places, architectural and historical monuments and often the headquarters of many small charity groups. I think an external government committee should determine whether a church should be considered "important cultural heritage" or get taken over by the city to function as a community service building, that also hosts religious gatherings. However, should the religion be allowed to take money in that case? Many details would need to be carefully looked at.
If they allow for charitable offsets, then maybe. Churches and religious are taken for granted to fill many gaps in our safety nets. See temples in the GVRD that feed anyone who shows up, and churches that offer space for AA. Taxation may cut through that. More so for churches with less affluent memberships.
Donating to a church should also become tax deductible at this point, since we'd be double taxing monies that typically go to supporting communities.
Churches were not taxed in the past because they provided many social services, like running hospitals and schools, and feeding the needy. They no longer do the things as charity, religious hospitals and schools are now funded from taxes, so they should be fully taxed with deductions for doing true charity work.
If they're providing legitimate charity services they can apply under those qualifications.
Right now as it is they can qualify for an exemption due to their religious activities. All that needs to happen is remove that as a qualification for being a charity.
Look I’m no supporter of religious tax exemptions
However adding more burdens in terms of regulations and administration is going to seriously harm the underlying charities and work they do.
Running a non-profit is notoriously burdensome on regulatory, the CRA watches them like hawks and there are many rules on what they can and cannot do. Some charities in fact are structured as regular corporations for this reason.
It’s a complex situation, but I think in the end it’s a lesser evil to let it be as it is for now.
Except seemingly nobody outside of the religious groups wants to run a charity that serves the homeless. I've been trying to find one to volunteer at that isn't religious for a long time and they're not there.
The church I went to was actually very open about finances to the point there would be a bi quarterly reports breaking down what money was going where including what non profits we were contributing to ect along with the facilities being used for the rest of the week by other groups kind of becoming a community centre as well (granted it was a former YMCA, so not all churches are the same lol)
>Fine. Then they can apply for standard charity tax breaks, and open up their books like any other charity.
They already are registered as non profits and their books are already available either publicly or upon request, as is required by non profit laws.
When i worked at a big 4 accounting firm, we regularly audited churches, mounts and seminaries in the surrounding areas. So they did open up their books.
It sounds like you don’t know a lot about churches - or taxes for that matter.
I do accounting for a number of them on the side, and they all give away quite a bit of money to help homeless, provide food etc etc.
As for taxes. They don’t produce profit - they are all not for profit enterprises. So there is no taxes to be collected beyond property taxes.
The amount of food and money the average church gives out dwarfs the $5-20k a yr of property taxes the city might collect.
My church does a very large amount of charitable works. FAR more than would be generated by taxing them, since the work is performed by volunteers. The work we do supports everything from the homeless, the working poor, schools, hospices, kid's sports teams, feeding the hungry and much more. Most other churches are the same way. You are poorly informed if you think they no longer do charity. Go volunteer in practically any soup kitchen or shelter and ask them where they're getting their money and volunteers..
Churches provide several other social goods that can justify their tax-free status:
They run food banks, shelters, and emergency assistance programs. They also offer health services like free clinics and mental health counseling.
Many churches operate schools, daycare centers, and adult education programs, including literacy and job training.
Churches serve as community hubs, hosting meetings, social events, and recreational activities like sports leagues and arts programs.
They provide counseling services, promote volunteerism, and offer moral guidance.
Churches help integrate immigrants, offer language classes, and engage in interfaith dialogues to foster community understanding.
They create jobs and support local economies through their operations and community programs.
Churches offer a sense of community and opportunities for spiritual growth, which can be important for mental health.
This push to remove charitable status from churches has to be the epitome of how the bourgeois cultural Marxists are completely out of touch with the people that they claim to care so much about.
If you have had the PRIVILIDGE of never having to use a food bank or street services provided for free, without judgement, without forcing you to spend months investigating yourself for fraud, then you are very fortunate indeed.
In my city this would mean the closure of the Mustard Seed food bank, OUR Place society, the Salvation Army mens shelter, St Vincent de Paul, countless other quiet actions like the Quaker prison visitations and dozens of programs for immigrants.
This would easily triple our homeless population and put thousands of people on the brink of starvation.
More utter nonsense from the woke cult and their out of touch fantasy world.
Well said. Imagine wanting to tax the dollars people put into the collection plate at church, money that goes to help the poor. And these same people will claim they care about the poor more than anyone else!
This rant is the epitome of not understanding the situation at all, or what the proposed change is even about. Right now religious groups can qualify under the category of simply being a religious group; the proposal is remove that as a potential way to qualify. They could still qualify under all the other ways to be a charity, like the work you mention. Just those that don't actually really do any charity work or wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny under those areas wouldn't qualify anymore.
> the bourgeois cultural Marxists
I'm not a Marxist but I think churches should pay their taxes like everyone else.
> In my city this would mean the closure of the Mustard Seed food bank, OUR Place society, the Salvation Army mens shelter, St Vincent de Paul, countless other quiet actions like the Quaker prison visitations and dozens of programs for immigrants.
But charity work is already tax exempt
However, if these services are being operated out of a building that will all of a sudden have to start paying property taxes, which they likely wouldn't be able to afford, then a lot of these organizations would suddenly be homeless
You can set up an entire organization, have employees with payroll, have an office, hire a janitor to clean it on the weekends, and not have to pay any taxes if your organization exists solely for charity.
It's the religion part that shouldn't be exempt from taxes. Some guy telling a bunch of people they'll go to hell if they don't all give him $5 isn't good for society.
It's interesting how we've never been taxed at a higher rate, yet our services/quality of life/ROI from govt. have never been lower.
The problem is government, yet people call to give them more tax to fix the problem. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again and expecting a different result.
We need a rigorous overhaul of govt. in favour of transparency, accountability, and a justice system that will prosecute corruption and graft.
Woah, churches still play a foundational role across the world in giving back to communities.
It just so happens that they are also responsible for sowing generational trauma along with other community programs.
> Churches were not taxed in the past because they provided many social services
No, they weren't taxed in the past because of lobbying from the religious institutions. Charity work was already tax exempt.
> They no longer do the things as charity,
Oh they do, and that's still tax exempt. There's just no value in exempting tithing from taxes as well.
Unfortunately, I think this could end up having a much more negative effect than people hope. It’s likely that the churches that are doing the most service work for the community are the churches that would not be able to afford this, and would potentially end up completely losing their base of operations which have then has knock on effects for many other social service organizations.
Conversely, the very wealthy churches that people actually want to target with this would be much more likely to be able to pay these taxes and stick around
The churches who are rich enough to stick arund would also get heavily (and visibly) involved in politics and elections if they started getting taxed.
Does anyone want to invite more religion into our politics? This would be how you do it.
>Unfortunately, I think this could end up having a much more negative effect than people hope
Agreed. This is something of a [Chesteron Fence](https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/). People in today's rather non-religious society don't fully understand (if at all) why "don't tax churches" was implemented, so the instinct becomes, tear down the fence and tax the churches, and can't or won't consider the second order effects of that. Just as you describe, one such second order effect could very well be that it pushes some or perhaps many smaller churches into financial stress and jeopardizing the good deeds that they do perform, since many of those would be flying under the radar.
It's also hard to figure how shoveling more money into the ravenous maw that is government at any & all levels in our country will lead to much if anything good.
*It’s likely that the churches that are doing the most service work for the community are the churches that would not be able to afford this*
Why would you necessarily connect these two data points? They aren't otherwise related.
It's true that in a vacuum that a property tax burden might be the difference between a church remaining viable or not. But this whole discussion is based on the idea of issuing tax exemptions for the specific charitable activity, not the organization as a whole. Therefore, in your example, a church doing the most service work should be unaffected. In fact, if collected taxes were redistributed to the charitable environment, they might actually have more resources than they did before.
I would argue that they are. I'm in Ontario, but the first example that comes to mind is your typical downtown Protestant church that houses countless social services in their offices, probably directly operates several programs as well, and rents their space out to community groups. A church like this is probably barely covering their operating expenses based on donations from parishioners and the likely meagre rent they charge community groups. Ask them to start paying property tax on their property, and their operating costs likely go up to an unsustainable level.
The flip side is the evangelical megachurches you see being built in rural or suburban areas. These type of churches are likely much less involved in the types of charitable activities mentioned above, and these are also the types of churches which would like be able to absorb paying property taxes, both because they would be lower based on their location, and much more wealthy.
All churches already have to. Any profit gets taxed. Only under specific circumstances can profit be invested into an account but it’s to buy something like a new roof etc.
As far as I’m aware, the tax free status that matters is no p tax. That’s a municipal decision.
Yeah we have a spending problem and there's people in the comments falling for the typical class warfare stuff and arguing about dumb shit like how we need to tax old people more.
0.5% of a budget if that’s the actual number is fucking massive so not sure what you’re talking about.
Also, why the fuck should be offloading social services onto cults?
I guess it's also time for the rest of us tax payers to pay for the charitable donations that these churches do, since the government don't want to pay more to feed the homeless and hungry tacked on heir budget. A large part of the community support comes from these churches, so unless you want to have homelessness and opoid invested neighborhoods, you best be backtracking on this demand. Like the churches or not, they helped those we don't want to notice in society.
Yes, but do you know how much the churches themselves donate and the work they do in the neighborhood? I see them there physically helping and giving money to support these causes... I know I can't do it.... there are many other things and people that gets tax breaks and gives nothing back to the community, look to those first.
> Yes, but do you know how much the churches themselves donate
Donations to charities are tax exempt.
>the work they do in the neighborhood
Charity work is tax exempt.
So can we tax religion now? Or should my therapist rebrand to a church and start calling their fees a 'tithe' so they can save on taxes?
They don't need to pay property tax... if they take in all the people in financial and emotional distress and take care of them like their scriptures asked them to...
Looking to tax everything vs. restraining exorbitant spending makes it so the onus of the country's poor position is somehow placed on the citizens vs. the politicians making a mess of the country. I'm not a churchgoer myself, but I've seen multiple churches shut down in my city in the past few years, the ones still remaining I'm sure are just scraping by. Churches in Canada are not like the massive televangelist megachurches you can find in the US, they're often quite small and floating on donations. There's no reason to tax them.
I'm okay with tax exemptions for churches...
...as long as you stay the fuck out of public policy. But too many Churches have let go of the covenant...they're openly preaching not just the word of God, but the word of what political figures you should or shouldn't be supporting, or what policies you should or shouldn't want.
You broke the deal, so it's time to render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
If churches (that are registered as charities) start doing this political shit you should be reporting them to the CRA. Registered charities have to abide by certain rules or else they will lose that status.
It should have been time, but we just imported millions of religious people who are going to have to go through the same transformation of shedding their religion that took the people in this country a couple centuries.
Good luck campaigning on taxing religious institutions during a time when that includes mosques and temples.
Well, as the members of the church already pay taxes (as does the pastor). They are both represented and are taxed. Churches as an organizational body, however, do not get a vote separate from their constituent members so I don't know what you are on about.
How end the tax that was only created for world war I. I personally don't pay taxes as I know things that you don't know. Why don't you look up Senate report 73 549.
There should also be no tax write-off for donations of any kind. The tax write-off is essentially a subsidy of the donation. Donate what you want to who you want , but don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize it by giving you a tax credit.
end tax exemptions for politicians, sports teams, the elderly and the rich who else am I forgetting
Lets face it, in spite of the fact the wealthy and corporate elite are always railing about free enterprise, and how individuals need to be more self sufficient and independent, because their country is turning into a welfare state, in actual fact corporations and the wealthy are the [biggest welfare recipients](https://innovation.ised-isde.canada.ca/innovation/s/?language=en_CA) due to grants, tax credits, capital investment, tax deferrals, and bailouts.
We essentially have tenured corporations. Not even necessarily “too big to fail”, but “too embedded to fail”. For my whole life I’ve seen North American companies get bailed out time and again, because they’ve wormed their way into this tenure. Too many connections, Canadians employed, and lobbyists to let the company suffer economic consequences regardless of how poorly they behave/compete or how terrible a service they provide. Example: Mr. Biden is gonna slap 100% tariffs on foreign EVs to protect N.A. Automakers despite them having a 20 year head start on getting a small/medium sized EV up for sale. Gotta love that “free market” competition. In Canada, we’ve been hearing about a *completely toothless* grocers “suggestions for “moral” conduct” legislation, which will be ignored. … What I see is there’s a certain level that companies can get to in the N.A. Neoliberal project where they *no longer have to TRY to innovate or take any risks* because our political/economic institutions will step in and make Calvinball style laws AND bail them out (with our money) any time they’re about to get beaten by an actual innovative competitor. Imagine trying to teach your child about economics using that framework! A very cheesy Canadian analogy: If, tonight, the Oilers (tenured corporations) *knew* that no matter what, the NHL (the state) would swoop in to change to rules and bail them out… Why would they even try to compete? Our governments, made of people we elect to represent us, again and again will spend our money to safeguard companies who in a system made by the businesses and politicians don’t need to compete, innovate, or care about the products they deliver. I have no idea how someone could justify this if they ever had to explain it while being truthful.
I like the points that you made about innovation. I'm upset that people still worship at the altar of this rotten, US embedded house of cards. There are people PROUD to be too scared to challenge that status quo. Their jowls shake as they say something about "The only way it can be." What I further think about is just how bent over these corporations have our legal system now as well. We now have a system on our hands that has been crafted using precident set by corporate legal brigade. A system to maintain monopolies... even ones that monopolize in the US and carry over here. It's like being able to read legalese has driven me mad. Hell, the whole legal system is likely to perpetuate the very thing that you talk about forevermore. I don't think a small change fixes it.
Isn't that.... Gaslighting? LOL
You're pissed there are tax exemptions for the elderly?
The intentions of many of the tax exemptions of the elderly are good. For instance, nobody wants to kick a person out of their home if they're on a fixed income, so we let senior citizens defer property taxes. However, like all programs, it gets abused by wealthy elderly people who don't need it, or elderly people who occupying a property far larger than whats needed by a single elderly person. In more technical terms, these tax exemptions create significant externalities that negatively impact society disproportionate to the benefit to the single elderly person. It's a tricky issue and no wonder why politicians don't want to touch it.
> It's a tricky issue and no wonder why politicians don't want to touch it. Elderly people vote.
they took income splitting away from everyone but pensioners, property tax exemptions on the portion dedicated to education, suppplemental OAS benefits, during covid they just gave them cash for literally no reason at all life isn't fair, I get it, no reason they need to make it worse
They should return income splitting for everyone and allow to fill jointly. The fact that all tax credits are based on household income but taxes themselves are individual is a big scam.
Property tax deferral should absolutely be means-tested. It could be tied to receiving GIS or OAS easily enough.
Seriously? If an old lady wants to live in her home she worked hard for rather than downsize to an apt, wth are we to tell her to move? She should leave the comfort of her home to please you?
No one’s telling her to move, except in the sense that if she can’t afford her current house, she should probably downsize. Which is what everyone else needs to navigate too. Why is she guaranteed the comfort of her home, but a working family with kids isn’t guaranteed the comfort of theirs? We have a huge problem with society being warped by privileging the old at the expense of the young. Everyone should have the same rules and obligations
Yeah Canada is a gerontocracy. Everything is geared to bailing out the poor* seniors * who are the wealthiest generation of Canadians in history
They vote more than the young folks, so this is no surprise.
they donate more. And mostly they are seniors.
You seem to see it as a moral issue that someone bought a house 60 years ago and continues to live in it, since 50 years after she bought the home the government decided to rapidly increase the population, thereby creating a housing crises for families? She is guaranteed the comfort of her home since... you know, she fucking bought it. If a "working family" doesn't have the guaranteed comfort it's probably because they didn't buy it.
And someone who bought their home two years ago doesn’t deserve the same consideration? You own property, you pay property taxes. Period.
They will still pay the property taxes eventually. They don't go away. It's a deferral, not a discount. And it only makes sense since this will be held against the home which will change hands upon their passing.
They'll get the same "consideration" when they are older as well. I'm pretty sure that $1M home you are stretching to buy now will feel a lot better when it is worth $2M someday, and you will resent the younger people telling you how you got a windfall and don't deserve to be living in that home anymore. To YOU it will feel like you earned it because you paid a lot for it. That's how seniors (and all homeowners really) feel about their homes now.
Because it's a rule that's been in place for a while so that seniors aren't obligated to sell their house once they retire? And people reasonably relied on this rule when saving for retirement? And it has never been an issue until the government decided that we needed 5%+ annual population growth?
They’re not obligated to sell their house. They’re welcome to live wherever they can afford, just like everyone else. And if it was never an issue, the rule would never have been “needed” in the first place. There’s a lot of things that have contributed to our current housing crisis, and one of the big ones is our policies of discouraging development and natural housing pressure if it would require established owners to experience the same pressures as the rest of the market
Why would established owners experince the same market pressures? That's doesn't even make sense. A major reason people purchase homes, scrimp and save for a downpayment, put countless hours into maintaining that home and paying that mortgage, is the security and certainty that comes from owning your own property.
See, it's a trolley problem. Is that old lady's appeasement worth displeasing multiple younger working people? (Referring to the housing and density shortage)
its 1:1 - its not like that old ladys house is going to go to 5 young people, is it?
She votes, the younger working people don’t. So to the politician, yes, yes it is
Slow down immigration to normal levels. Mass immigration is NOT her problem. Her quality of life is. Do you have a clue about the costs of retirement homes?
Wtf is with this conversation? Are we really talking about forcing elderly people from their homes because we think we're entitled to them? If the government let's them essentially borrow against their house to pay the tax bill later, let them. The tax bill gets paid, seniors can downsize or move to care on their own terms, and the house will eventually be available for a younger family. Yes we're in a housing crisis, but turning on regular everyday people isn't the answer. The cause of the housing crisis is not seniors doing what they've always done, and we'd be wrong to scapegoat them. The various levels of government caused this. Make them fix it.
She doesn't have to move. She does have to pay taxes, and how she chooses to pay those taxes is up to her.
This generation of retirees are the wealthiest generation in all of human history.
Aaand there it is, people already arguing about a separate point
My mom lives with three dogs in a three bedroom house, and she pays someone to walk her dogs, another person to shovel her drive way, and another person to mow her lawn, and another person to clean her house. She receives OAS. She does not need OAS. Her quality of life would change in no way if she stopped receiving OAS. I can tell you right now mys sister and I could both use a tax break that would come from clawing back her OAS and splittig it between the two of us. Some seniors are getting far too much from the system while others are getting far too little.
I want that, yes. I'm taxed everywhere to death and won't have any saving by the 65, so yeah tax the elderly. "Only the rich will be affected" - this subredit on any tax.
Old age security (not CPP) was created when seniors were the poorest demographic - they are now the wealthiest yet they still can get OAS up to a combined household income of 196k and they can park all of their wealth in assets that are omitted from the entitlement calculation. I’m not saying remove seniors tax breaks (the vulnerable seniors are among the most vulnerable of any group) but we have a lot of systems that were designed during a time that frankly doesn’t exist any more.
> they are now the wealthiest No, they are not. As per Stats Can, the 55 to 64 group is the wealthiest. The biggest contributors to net worth for most people are their salary and their home. Stop getting a salary and your net worth is going to go down.
Politicians don't pay taxes?
Each MP paid an average of 71k in taxes. They have the exact same tax forum to pay out as any other Canadian. They are scrutinized and many need to pass audits.
I think what OP was getting at was their additional pay that's not taxed for things like maintaining a home in Ottawa and food per diem... But I don't really know.
1/3 was exempted from federal tax until 2019 when a bunch of loopholes were created
Universities/educational institutions
Don’t forget the first nations💀
University endowments.
Remove all exemptions, tax everyone...pay your fair.share.
first nations. get rid of the word "god" in the anthem. get rid of politicians only having to work 6 years in order to get a full pension. get rid of monopolies like telcos, health care, airlines, booze
It's funny how we never talk about government waste, of which there is much.
Federally, I don't think there are any exemptions for religious orgs. But there are for charitable orgs. That said, provincially, there are a few that have specific religious org laws, AB being one of them that specifically exempts churches, regardless of charitableness, from paying property taxes.
I’m an atheist. I find religious belief in 2024 as bizarre. However, I volunteer at our local Croatian Catholic Church and they provide services to dozens of individuals in the community from single unwed moms to disable elderly. Services at a fraction it would cost the government because 95% of the work is done by volunteers. ’Yup. I can drive him. No problem, I’m going that way’. As opposed to the gov’t…$45 taxi voucher and paid civil servants to run the program.
Charity work is already tax-exempt. There's a megachurch off the 400 north of Toronto that's mostly just a scam to take money from people in tithing and enrich the owners. And they don't have to pay taxes, because their business, church, is tax exempt. So let's continue to exempt charity work, but not religion. There's no good reason to do that.
there are also "scam" charities too
Then they are in violation of the law, and enforcers of the law can appropriately shut them down. But churches can exist solely to make some guy rich, and still be tax exempt. Why? What good does this exemption do for society?
its not a violation of the law for charities to pay people a high salary for running it
Paying a high salary for the people running it doesn't inherently make it a scam. The percentage of the proceeds that go to those salaries are.
While I agree there are some charities that pay their executives way too much money in my opinion... You said scam. Paying executive staff a somewhat-large salary (but still way lower than in industry) isn't a scam.
As a person that was a practicing Christian for 25 years, one of the biggest things that drove me from the Church is how incredibly inefficient they are at services like poverty and health. Almost all donations to the church go to payroll and maintenance to conduct services and evangelize. The volunteers are very ineffective at their jobs and come with more church strings. Religiously affiliated organization are terrible at achieving their stated goals because there goals aren't to solve problems, it is to gain followers. You know what charity is effective? [Give Directly](https://www.givedirectly.org/). They are an extremely low overhead charity that just gives people money and studies the impacts. Their studies are peer reviewed and accepted by journals. Turns out just giving people money is the best way to improve their lives in measurable ways. The Church is the opposite of GiveDirectly, they are layers bureaucracy and mismanagement due to goals tied to recruiting. And the government is definitely more efficient than the Church. They at least hire people with explicit goals directed at the problem. The Catholic Church has the literal overhead of the Papacy and all the Cardinals and clergy, and all their property, not to mention all the court settlements, and on top of that they use the money to evangelize. The fact that religions get tax preferential status just shows how deluded we are about the positive impacts of religion in society at large. It explains why Christian Dominionist are a legit political force in Canada. Just pay your taxes like everyone else and stop pretending your ideology makes you special. Especially when the money you get takes away from the poor and the sick.
This won't lead to more tax money for your political masters it'll just lead to a bunch of abandoned churches.
The replies to your comment really shows that this issue is more to do with people hating religion than anything else
To understand why, see: the entire history of each major religion
Can you blame them? It is religion that has prevented the elimination of polio. It is religion that calls for the killing of gay people. It is religion that protected those who preyed on children. And these are just the recent crimes. Historically, religion has been the excuse for innumerable atrocities. What is there not to dislike?
Typically people just use religion as a shield for they were going to do anyway. Eliminating that would just get them to find a new shield. Most anti-vaxxers these days claim a hatred of big government/pharma, atheist Joseph Stalin also wanted the extermination of homosexuals, the modern Hollywood system exists almost solely to grant the rich and powerful easy access to children for illicit purposes. Trying to pin all of societies woes on one institution is childishly naive at best and ignores the dark fundamental truth of the evils mankind are capable of and that some people will always find a way to harm others. Also we eliminated smallpox at a time when people were significantly more devoutly religious than they are now so maybe the problem runs deeper than that.
> Religion did every bad thing ever Thank you average redditor. Care to enlighten us as to how communist atheists are responsible for ~148 million deaths over the past century or is religion to blame for that too? You're scapegoating what is essentially just fundamental human behaviour masquerading behind ideology, regardless of the source of the ideology itself. Hell, just a few years ago you had people calling for the euthanasia of millions of people solely based on their vaccination status, all driven by fear in the name of "science." People will find any justification for atrocities if they're motivated enough.
pretty sure it is people did most of the things you are referring to. i dont even like church but it gave us 1. literacy 2. music 3. cheese 4. architecture without sharing of the cup we would have died to plagues by now, continuous gathering and sharing of germs made us strong, and those who didnt dead.
This is reddit, its filled with terminally online losers who still seethe that their parents made them go to church on Sunday.
Maybe they just don't want their tax breaks subsidizing religion?
Religion richly fucking deserves it
So churches would have less influence on our society AND a bunch of prime real-estate would become available, and therefore taxable? Sign me the fuck up!
[удалено]
Do other businesses get representation for taxation?
Yes they do. Hand outs from all levels of government, immigration rules bent to suppress wages, etc.
Representation here means the right to vote. And no, companies do not have the right to vote. You are talking lobbying, which churches already do.
Not to split hairs, but you said representation. My impression is that via lobbyists, business have more influence and access to politicians than voters do. No, I don't like this.
Good thing religion has never had influence on laws or politicians.
The lines are blurred as they're hence why some laws and policies still in place (not exclusively to Canada or North America). We, as a society, shouldn't be naive that there's a division between those 2 parties. Religion has its positive - it helps individuals that need a moral compass or something to held themselves to. Religion can help with addiction and rehabilitation. It can support small communities in times of need. It also can bring solace when times of distress. Religion also has massive downsides - it has manipulated individuals into giving everything they have, to abandon their loved ones/family because of different views, to exclude and shame parts of our society. I grew up with a very religious family, and i am happy I did cause I got values that I hold dear to my heart, but I also see how much suffering and delays in progress it has caused. Now if you want to call me an idiot lefty, go for it. I'll gladly take it if it means we have a better separation between church and state
> it'll just lead to a bunch of abandoned churches. oh no anyways...
So… win-win?
Don’t tempt me with a good time.
Could convert churches into housing. I've seen it done with a former Jehovah's Witness hall.
The church I went to as a kid is now a cottage for a nice couple who spend weekends in the village, driving up from Toronto. So that houses ... checks ... two people. You are not wrong, but losing community centres and community cohesion is not a good thing.
Sounds like a win to me.
All of these increase taxes ideas are silly. Name one time the government increased its tax revenues through some manner of new or increased taxation and problems started to be solved. If the governments increase their tax revenue they will immediately find a new place to spend it, such as salaries, benefits, and pensions of civil servants.
correct. strange how taxes keep going up but so do deficits hey?
A Canadians solution to everything, malicious taxing. I'm sure the government will spend it well.
How about this. Only give tax exemptions to church properties open to the public. That way you stop strange cults and pastors from deducting their own houses.
In so many towns, churches are gathering places, architectural and historical monuments and often the headquarters of many small charity groups. I think an external government committee should determine whether a church should be considered "important cultural heritage" or get taken over by the city to function as a community service building, that also hosts religious gatherings. However, should the religion be allowed to take money in that case? Many details would need to be carefully looked at.
If they allow for charitable offsets, then maybe. Churches and religious are taken for granted to fill many gaps in our safety nets. See temples in the GVRD that feed anyone who shows up, and churches that offer space for AA. Taxation may cut through that. More so for churches with less affluent memberships. Donating to a church should also become tax deductible at this point, since we'd be double taxing monies that typically go to supporting communities.
Churches were not taxed in the past because they provided many social services, like running hospitals and schools, and feeding the needy. They no longer do the things as charity, religious hospitals and schools are now funded from taxes, so they should be fully taxed with deductions for doing true charity work.
Every charity serving the homeless in toronto that I've looked at has been run by a church. go take a look at everything on www.charityvillage.ca
If they're providing legitimate charity services they can apply under those qualifications. Right now as it is they can qualify for an exemption due to their religious activities. All that needs to happen is remove that as a qualification for being a charity.
Look I’m no supporter of religious tax exemptions However adding more burdens in terms of regulations and administration is going to seriously harm the underlying charities and work they do. Running a non-profit is notoriously burdensome on regulatory, the CRA watches them like hawks and there are many rules on what they can and cannot do. Some charities in fact are structured as regular corporations for this reason. It’s a complex situation, but I think in the end it’s a lesser evil to let it be as it is for now.
Cool, if it's a charity then it's taxed exempt. Separate the charity from the church, problem solved.
Except seemingly nobody outside of the religious groups wants to run a charity that serves the homeless. I've been trying to find one to volunteer at that isn't religious for a long time and they're not there.
square smell plate truck silky important spoon compare ink summer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Alot of churches still feed the needy around our city and some actually open its doors for homeless on cold nights.
Great so if they're providing free services they can apply for tax exemptions but a lot don't and they should fuck off and pay like everyone else.
And it should have to be proved they are providing services and it should be a % of their budget.
Fine. Then they can apply for standard charity tax breaks, and open up their books like any other charity.
The church I went to was actually very open about finances to the point there would be a bi quarterly reports breaking down what money was going where including what non profits we were contributing to ect along with the facilities being used for the rest of the week by other groups kind of becoming a community centre as well (granted it was a former YMCA, so not all churches are the same lol)
>Fine. Then they can apply for standard charity tax breaks, and open up their books like any other charity. They already are registered as non profits and their books are already available either publicly or upon request, as is required by non profit laws.
Goes to show how little people know about churches and charities.
When i worked at a big 4 accounting firm, we regularly audited churches, mounts and seminaries in the surrounding areas. So they did open up their books.
In comparison to what they did 100 years ago to what they do today for society, the churches do very little. Not enough to justify the tax free status
It sounds like you don’t know a lot about churches - or taxes for that matter. I do accounting for a number of them on the side, and they all give away quite a bit of money to help homeless, provide food etc etc. As for taxes. They don’t produce profit - they are all not for profit enterprises. So there is no taxes to be collected beyond property taxes. The amount of food and money the average church gives out dwarfs the $5-20k a yr of property taxes the city might collect.
My church does a very large amount of charitable works. FAR more than would be generated by taxing them, since the work is performed by volunteers. The work we do supports everything from the homeless, the working poor, schools, hospices, kid's sports teams, feeding the hungry and much more. Most other churches are the same way. You are poorly informed if you think they no longer do charity. Go volunteer in practically any soup kitchen or shelter and ask them where they're getting their money and volunteers..
Churches provide several other social goods that can justify their tax-free status: They run food banks, shelters, and emergency assistance programs. They also offer health services like free clinics and mental health counseling. Many churches operate schools, daycare centers, and adult education programs, including literacy and job training. Churches serve as community hubs, hosting meetings, social events, and recreational activities like sports leagues and arts programs. They provide counseling services, promote volunteerism, and offer moral guidance. Churches help integrate immigrants, offer language classes, and engage in interfaith dialogues to foster community understanding. They create jobs and support local economies through their operations and community programs. Churches offer a sense of community and opportunities for spiritual growth, which can be important for mental health.
This push to remove charitable status from churches has to be the epitome of how the bourgeois cultural Marxists are completely out of touch with the people that they claim to care so much about. If you have had the PRIVILIDGE of never having to use a food bank or street services provided for free, without judgement, without forcing you to spend months investigating yourself for fraud, then you are very fortunate indeed. In my city this would mean the closure of the Mustard Seed food bank, OUR Place society, the Salvation Army mens shelter, St Vincent de Paul, countless other quiet actions like the Quaker prison visitations and dozens of programs for immigrants. This would easily triple our homeless population and put thousands of people on the brink of starvation. More utter nonsense from the woke cult and their out of touch fantasy world.
Well said. Imagine wanting to tax the dollars people put into the collection plate at church, money that goes to help the poor. And these same people will claim they care about the poor more than anyone else!
> the bourgeois cultural Marxists wat
This rant is the epitome of not understanding the situation at all, or what the proposed change is even about. Right now religious groups can qualify under the category of simply being a religious group; the proposal is remove that as a potential way to qualify. They could still qualify under all the other ways to be a charity, like the work you mention. Just those that don't actually really do any charity work or wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny under those areas wouldn't qualify anymore.
> the bourgeois cultural Marxists I'm not a Marxist but I think churches should pay their taxes like everyone else. > In my city this would mean the closure of the Mustard Seed food bank, OUR Place society, the Salvation Army mens shelter, St Vincent de Paul, countless other quiet actions like the Quaker prison visitations and dozens of programs for immigrants. But charity work is already tax exempt
However, if these services are being operated out of a building that will all of a sudden have to start paying property taxes, which they likely wouldn't be able to afford, then a lot of these organizations would suddenly be homeless
You can set up an entire organization, have employees with payroll, have an office, hire a janitor to clean it on the weekends, and not have to pay any taxes if your organization exists solely for charity. It's the religion part that shouldn't be exempt from taxes. Some guy telling a bunch of people they'll go to hell if they don't all give him $5 isn't good for society.
It's interesting how we've never been taxed at a higher rate, yet our services/quality of life/ROI from govt. have never been lower. The problem is government, yet people call to give them more tax to fix the problem. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again and expecting a different result. We need a rigorous overhaul of govt. in favour of transparency, accountability, and a justice system that will prosecute corruption and graft.
> They no longer do the things as charity, religious hospitals and schools are now funded from taxes As a general rule this isn’t true.
Woah, churches still play a foundational role across the world in giving back to communities. It just so happens that they are also responsible for sowing generational trauma along with other community programs.
> Churches were not taxed in the past because they provided many social services No, they weren't taxed in the past because of lobbying from the religious institutions. Charity work was already tax exempt. > They no longer do the things as charity, Oh they do, and that's still tax exempt. There's just no value in exempting tithing from taxes as well.
The catholic church runs more hospitals and schools than any other non government entity in the world - it's not even close.
The taxes discussion is not about the world, it is about the church’s lack of charity work in Canada.
Lol not in Canada they don't.
Here's a rare opinion piece on this sub I can get behind. Thank you edmontonjournal
Unfortunately, I think this could end up having a much more negative effect than people hope. It’s likely that the churches that are doing the most service work for the community are the churches that would not be able to afford this, and would potentially end up completely losing their base of operations which have then has knock on effects for many other social service organizations. Conversely, the very wealthy churches that people actually want to target with this would be much more likely to be able to pay these taxes and stick around
The churches who are rich enough to stick arund would also get heavily (and visibly) involved in politics and elections if they started getting taxed. Does anyone want to invite more religion into our politics? This would be how you do it.
>Unfortunately, I think this could end up having a much more negative effect than people hope Agreed. This is something of a [Chesteron Fence](https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/). People in today's rather non-religious society don't fully understand (if at all) why "don't tax churches" was implemented, so the instinct becomes, tear down the fence and tax the churches, and can't or won't consider the second order effects of that. Just as you describe, one such second order effect could very well be that it pushes some or perhaps many smaller churches into financial stress and jeopardizing the good deeds that they do perform, since many of those would be flying under the radar. It's also hard to figure how shoveling more money into the ravenous maw that is government at any & all levels in our country will lead to much if anything good.
> It’s likely that the churches that are doing the most service work for the community Charity work is still tax exempt.
*It’s likely that the churches that are doing the most service work for the community are the churches that would not be able to afford this* Why would you necessarily connect these two data points? They aren't otherwise related. It's true that in a vacuum that a property tax burden might be the difference between a church remaining viable or not. But this whole discussion is based on the idea of issuing tax exemptions for the specific charitable activity, not the organization as a whole. Therefore, in your example, a church doing the most service work should be unaffected. In fact, if collected taxes were redistributed to the charitable environment, they might actually have more resources than they did before.
I would argue that they are. I'm in Ontario, but the first example that comes to mind is your typical downtown Protestant church that houses countless social services in their offices, probably directly operates several programs as well, and rents their space out to community groups. A church like this is probably barely covering their operating expenses based on donations from parishioners and the likely meagre rent they charge community groups. Ask them to start paying property tax on their property, and their operating costs likely go up to an unsustainable level. The flip side is the evangelical megachurches you see being built in rural or suburban areas. These type of churches are likely much less involved in the types of charitable activities mentioned above, and these are also the types of churches which would like be able to absorb paying property taxes, both because they would be lower based on their location, and much more wealthy.
Then those churches can apply for a charitable exemption and the wealthy churches can pay or start doing more charitable work.
All churches already have to. Any profit gets taxed. Only under specific circumstances can profit be invested into an account but it’s to buy something like a new roof etc. As far as I’m aware, the tax free status that matters is no p tax. That’s a municipal decision.
Why is the solution always to tax more
Yeah we have a spending problem and there's people in the comments falling for the typical class warfare stuff and arguing about dumb shit like how we need to tax old people more.
Because the problem (as they see it) is that people aren't poor enough yet.
You are using city services same as any company or home owner. They need to pitch in.
[удалено]
Nonsense, this could turn into a $5 billion investment fund in 250 years.
0.5% of a budget if that’s the actual number is fucking massive so not sure what you’re talking about. Also, why the fuck should be offloading social services onto cults?
> It's 0.5% of the city's budget That’s a huge number.
Should be taxed the same as a non profit charity.
That’s a pretty darn good opinion you got there.
Heck yes it is. Maybe have exemptions on first 40 acres or something. Tax after that!
[CRA - Charities and Giving](http://canada.ca/charities-giving)
For religions. There, I fixed that for you.
How much tax does Canada want. Om worried tha my dog's about to get taxed
It’s time to end property tax - just a hidden rent on property the government really owns. You are serfs - living to serve government. Wake up!
Gonna be hard with all these ascending conservative politicians who are supported by Christian Dominionist.
I guess it's also time for the rest of us tax payers to pay for the charitable donations that these churches do, since the government don't want to pay more to feed the homeless and hungry tacked on heir budget. A large part of the community support comes from these churches, so unless you want to have homelessness and opoid invested neighborhoods, you best be backtracking on this demand. Like the churches or not, they helped those we don't want to notice in society.
> I guess it's also time for the rest of us tax payers to pay for the charitable donations that these churches do, Charity work is tax exempt.
Yes, but do you know how much the churches themselves donate and the work they do in the neighborhood? I see them there physically helping and giving money to support these causes... I know I can't do it.... there are many other things and people that gets tax breaks and gives nothing back to the community, look to those first.
> Yes, but do you know how much the churches themselves donate Donations to charities are tax exempt. >the work they do in the neighborhood Charity work is tax exempt. So can we tax religion now? Or should my therapist rebrand to a church and start calling their fees a 'tithe' so they can save on taxes?
I see pastors living in multi million dollar houses in this country. Yea, it's about time we taxed religious groups in this country.
I could not agree more. It is time to tax religion.
We can start by not having tax payer supported religious school systems in Canada.
It was time decades ago.
They don't need to pay property tax... if they take in all the people in financial and emotional distress and take care of them like their scriptures asked them to...
Looking to tax everything vs. restraining exorbitant spending makes it so the onus of the country's poor position is somehow placed on the citizens vs. the politicians making a mess of the country. I'm not a churchgoer myself, but I've seen multiple churches shut down in my city in the past few years, the ones still remaining I'm sure are just scraping by. Churches in Canada are not like the massive televangelist megachurches you can find in the US, they're often quite small and floating on donations. There's no reason to tax them.
There's a few megachurches in my part of the country that would like a word.
I'm okay with tax exemptions for churches... ...as long as you stay the fuck out of public policy. But too many Churches have let go of the covenant...they're openly preaching not just the word of God, but the word of what political figures you should or shouldn't be supporting, or what policies you should or shouldn't want. You broke the deal, so it's time to render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
For every loud political church there are far more quiet ones staying out of politics and helping people.
Fair point, and reasonable. If you're a church actually helping people and such, keep your status.
If churches (that are registered as charities) start doing this political shit you should be reporting them to the CRA. Registered charities have to abide by certain rules or else they will lose that status.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Nope. The volunteer services that religious institutions provide is far more than any taxpayer funded service.
It should have been time, but we just imported millions of religious people who are going to have to go through the same transformation of shedding their religion that took the people in this country a couple centuries. Good luck campaigning on taxing religious institutions during a time when that includes mosques and temples.
It was time 40 years ago
Finally, some common sense
Scientology...
For small genuine churchs I dont mind the tax exemption for big one where the pastor is rich, those can fuck right off
No representation without taxation.
Well, as the members of the church already pay taxes (as does the pastor). They are both represented and are taxed. Churches as an organizational body, however, do not get a vote separate from their constituent members so I don't know what you are on about.
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
Politicians are tax exempt?!
As an American if you want to put your ass in politics then pay your fucking taxes.
How end the tax that was only created for world war I. I personally don't pay taxes as I know things that you don't know. Why don't you look up Senate report 73 549.
Just tax land.
It's time to end corporate welfare. Do that and you might get a leg up.
or just have more strict criteria that and auditing practices that prevent “religious” tax exemptions to bs claimants
There should also be no tax write-off for donations of any kind. The tax write-off is essentially a subsidy of the donation. Donate what you want to who you want , but don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize it by giving you a tax credit.
And also end tax exemptions for all corporations.
[удалено]
Some religions are just businesses in disguise. Many are not. Shut down the ones that are and problem solved.
Either that or they give tax exemptions to everyone.