[expathacker]

I would argue that all religious tax-dodges are scams if you're an atheist. My businesses and lack of faith don't get a free-ride, but I have to subsidize that of somebody else's?

By this logic, it's a cool business hack to run a megachurch and buy your own 737 without paying taxes, not a scam?

[bartread]

You aren't really subsidising it, unless you're making the argument that if organisations - such as Hillsong - paid taxes the overall tax rate would be lowered for all? Ideally this might be true but the cynic in me suggests it wouldn't... well, that and the fact that their income within a given country is relatively insignificant as compared to GDP within that country.

Moreover:

1) Hillsong runs substantially on donations and purchases of their merchandise (including music). Most of the people who give or buy their merchandise are taxpayers themselves.

2) Anyone paid as an employee by Hillsong will pay taxes, just like everyone else. I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not.

3) We know Hillsong earn a lot of money but we don't know that they keep very much of it[1]. If they're anything like HTB, they quite likely don't[2]: the vast majority will be spent on staffing, ministry, along with a chunk given to support other organisations and causes. Ministry means everything from what you see on a Sunday and special events through to social initiatives such as food banks, homeless shelters, childrens' work, soup kitchens, and educational initiatives (and more) that many churches either support or run.

Point (3) is important because it's the point that makes a church a net good within society (or not, in the absence of it). If they're not a net good then I'd be more inclined to agree that, yes, they should be taxed as businesses rather than not taxed as though they're charities. Quantifying that is obviously non-trivial.

[1] It's possible they do but I don't have any information to hand on this.

[2] At a pure numbers level this is something that distinguishes a charity from a (healthy) business: one does not generate a profit (which is not to say the money shouldn't be used carefully and beneficially: clearly it should), whilst the other does.

[bartread]

> I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not.

Sadly, if this article is accurate, it may be closer to the above than I'd thought: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-h...

[samontar]

Well, it most certainly is, isn’t it? You get an additional double digit percentage. That’s going to help your margins.

They aren’t scammers, though, because most people want this. Of course it is unfair to you, but most countries have their laws originate in their dominant religious culture and consequently favour that culture.

For instance, the San Francisco MTA legalized parking along the median on the street for church services. It’s just the way that people want it to be, and in democracies, they will inevitably get their way so it’s best to take advantage of the laws they make. Being upset is less profitable than playing the game.

[GuacheSuedeHN]

You can say the same thing about liberal ogansisations. why the hell does someone else have to pay for your abortion ?

[expathacker]

Can you please tell me whose abortion you've actually paying for lately? The laws around Planned Parenthood's funding are quite clear, and government money does not pay for abortions, which is misfortunate. Planned Parenthood is audited more frequently than any other organization in the United States.

What do your tax dollars pay for in regards to Planned Parenthood? Things that Medicare should be paying for, but fails at, specifically, reproductive care for women, including obstetrics, which should go well with your pro-birth agenda (I'm not going to dignify it with the phrase "pro-life" because once the baby comes out, the "pro-lifers" seem to run for cover)

Meanwhile, when it comes to giving my tax dollars as welfare to your religion, your conservative agenda infringes upon my constitutional rights established under the 1st amendment to our constitution (in case of the USA).