• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dutch IRS victorious over Scientology

Crovax said:
crushing freedom of expression in every way, how progressive of them
Click to expand...
yeah, to think that even Luciano and Lansky were allowed to spout forth in their time, eh wot?:roll:

They're incidentally not banned from expressing themselves.
 
OrphanSlug said:
As much as I would love to jump on the bandwagon in this thread of being critical of Scientology, we are inching ourselves closer to evaluations of what is faith ("belief") and what is a "public welfare institution" in government terminology. That could be a real problem down the road................
Click to expand...
Actually we're inching ourselves towards defining the criminal scumbaggery encountered. Nothing to do with faith/belief.
 
Ikari said:
Have you seen how rich scientology is? No, it's not an impediment. The only impediment to scientology is intelligence.
Click to expand...
They have a pretty effective psychological bunch of weaponry to brainwash that out of members, once hooked.

No better than the People's Temple they're far better organized. Certainly the elite SS that runs things there and that actually makes them even worse.

Blackmail, torture, extortion has been reported but victims never hold up to testifying. Criminal thugs.

I make a wide swerve around any film that stars Travolta or Cruise, not wishing to contribute a cent.
 
Chagos said:
Actually we're inching ourselves towards defining the criminal scumbaggery encountered. Nothing to do with faith/belief.
Click to expand...

So you say, what makes you think the government will stop in the determination of what is and is not a "public welfare institution?" Scientology down, others are sure to see this same judgement passed forth equating to unequal treatment (in this case, taxation treatment.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
So you say, what makes you think the government will stop in the determination of what is and is not a "public welfare institution?" Scientology down, others are sure to see this same judgement passed forth equating to unequal treatment (in this case, taxation treatment.)
Click to expand...
Governments in Europe are what I was referring to (should have stated that with more precision).

The authorities are looking way beyond tax issues.
 
OrphanSlug said:
So you say, what makes you think the government will stop in the determination of what is and is not a "public welfare institution?" Scientology down, others are sure to see this same judgement passed forth equating to unequal treatment (in this case, taxation treatment.)
Click to expand...

Very easy, like in a court case where a owner of a water sports company (especially for the benefit of handicapped people) who also lost her tax exempt status, just like Scientology lost theirs.

She appealed and from the appeal you can read;

According to the judgement of the court, the plaintiff has, by providing several statements by relevant experts into this field of study, convinced the court that her company is indeed an organization that serves the common good/welfare of the public. She is providing services for the well being of the people her company serves/provides services with the use of water sports activities. The point of view of the taxation office that they were not convinced of the fact that people with a handicap, in order to use/perform water sports activities, need to be serviced by a specialist company like this, has not be substantiated by the tax office. Investigation into the financial books of the company shows that the services it provides to handicapped people are provided at rates/at prices that covers only half of the real world costs made by the company to provide those services. That shows that this company in no way is charging people at a commercial rate. So the complaint of the plaintiff has been found to be valid and the tax office has to restore the tax exempt status.

And that is why this court ruled in favor of this company (because it is not a commercial enterprise with commercial rates) but a company who provides services for handicapped people at below cost rates because in normal companies handicapped people could never participate in water sports activities. Scientology is asking very commercial rates and for that reason the appeal of Scientology has been dismissed, they do not provide help/services to people for below cost/almost free prices. They charge people thousands of dollars and euros for services at a very highly commercial rate. So not a charitable organization and not tax exempt.
 
Crovax said:
It certainly hinders new people from believing in that religion and proselytizing is a big part of a lot of religions
Click to expand...

It does neither of those things. Not getting tax breaks doesn't prevent someone from believing in a religion, nor does it prevent believers from proselytizing.
 
joG said:
You will find in history that the ruling religion will always find good reasons to determine the competitor not to be a religion. That was one of the advances of the US Constitution that it tried to protect every religion.
Click to expand...

And you will find in history that certain organizations will use loopholes and declare themselves "religions" in order to protect their business and not pay taxes. That's what $cientology is and does.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And you will find in history that certain organizations will use loopholes and declare themselves "religions" in order to protect their business and not pay taxes. That's what $cientology is and does.
Click to expand...

That is very much the way a Catholic inquisitor would have argued his point in the late Middle Ages. Not much has changed except the method of interrogation.
 
OrphanSlug said:
My issue is the government deciding by a standard what is and is not public welfare institution. If that thinking carries over into the US, we are talking about a massive evaluation of various organizations out there besides just Scientology. I think we are back to the same problem, tax them all or tax none of them. Taxing some and not others tells me inequality under the Constitution / Law is around the corner and potentially also corruption in ensuring tax exempt status.

Are we sure we want any government deciding something as monumental as standards for systems of belief and public welfare?
Click to expand...

Well, who should decide which organisations are real charities and/or religious/welfare organisations and which are not? Who would you have do it? Someone has to decide who qualifies and who doesn't. All or none is a completely unworkable position since if the former, you kill all non-state welfare activity stone dead, and if the latter you tax no one, since everyone could claim to be engaged in the same work, with no one deciding who really is or isn't engaged in charity.
 
Andalublue said:
Well, who should decide which organisations are real charities and/or religious/welfare organisations and which are not? Who would you have do it? Someone has to decide who qualifies and who doesn't. All or none is a completely unworkable position since if the former, you kill all non-state welfare activity stone dead, and if the latter you tax no one, since everyone could claim to be engaged in the same work, with no one deciding who really is or isn't engaged in charity.
Click to expand...

I have no one do it, is the point. Tax them all, or tax none of them. Once you start down the road of qualifying systems of belief or "public good," that is inherently trouble.

How have you not picked up on this already?
 
OrphanSlug said:
I have no one do it, is the point. Tax them all, or tax none of them. Once you start down the road of qualifying systems of belief or "public good," that is inherently trouble.

How have you not picked up on this already?
Click to expand...

I think I both picked up on it and also pointed out how the 'all or none' proposal is a non-starter. Who are the all? All what? All charities? Who decides what a charity is? All religious organisations? Who decides what qualifies as that?
 
joG said:
That is very much the way a Catholic inquisitor would have argued his point in the late Middle Ages. Not much has changed except the method of interrogation.
Click to expand...

No, that is the way a reasonable way the belastingdienst (IRS) determines who has and who has not got the legal right to be exempt from taxation. If you are a religion or charitable institution that complies with the Dutch tax code then you will get a tax exempt status, if you do not comply (like Scientology) you will not get that tax exempt status. It has nothing to do with how accepted your religion is but how your organization complies with the very specific rules regarding tax exempt status.

There is nothing inquisitorial about that, remember, people apply for that exempt status out of their own free will, there is no government agency that forces them to do that, but if you apply for tax exempt status, then you must at least comply with the rules regarding this special tax status.
 
Peter King said:
No, that is the way a reasonable way the belastingdienst (IRS) determines who has and who has not got the legal right to be exempt from taxation. If you are a religion or charitable institution that complies with the Dutch tax code then you will get a tax exempt status, if you do not comply (like Scientology) you will not get that tax exempt status. It has nothing to do with how accepted your religion is but how your organization complies with the very specific rules regarding tax exempt status.

There is nothing inquisitorial about that, remember, people apply for that exempt status out of their own free will, there is no government agency that forces them to do that, but if you apply for tax exempt status, then you must at least comply with the rules regarding this special tax status.
Click to expand...

I will just have to believe that. It is a surprise that the system in Germany should be so different from that of its close and smaller neighbor.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I have no one do it, is the point. Tax them all, or tax none of them. Once you start down the road of qualifying systems of belief or "public good," that is inherently trouble.

How have you not picked up on this already?
Click to expand...

The faith is not being qualified, remember, everyone can start their own faith, this is about a faith or organization taking it upon themselves to want to receive a tax exempt status. To receive that tax exempt status you must comply with the rules regarding that tax free status or else every single person would try and get themselves freed from having to pay taxes and that is not how tax laws work.

You seem to turn the things around, paying tax is the normal way of how things work, if you want to no longer pay taxes because you think you comply with the laws regarding tax exempt status then you can apply for that and prove to the IRS/belastingdienst that you actually do deserve such a tax exempt status.
 
joG said:
I will just have to believe that. It is a surprise that the system in Germany should be so different from that of its close and smaller neighbor.
Click to expand...

That is possible, we are 2 very different countries. Our laws are based on the political system that was left to us from the French because prior to our renewed independence we were part of the French empire with our very own king (a family member of Napoleon). But that is the political system in our region at the time, that is why I think it is so very different than the German system.
 
Crovax said:
You dont think having other religions get tax breaks and not scientology is an impediment to that religion?
Click to expand...

Why does that "religion" need government recognition to be a religion? Doesn't it's practitioners have faith regardless?
 
OrphanSlug said:
As much as I would love to jump on the bandwagon in this thread of being critical of Scientology, we are inching ourselves closer to evaluations of what is faith ("belief") and what is a "public welfare institution" in government terminology. That could be a real problem down the road.

We can talk all day about taxation and any system of faith, and if we took a poll on if systems of faith should be taxed I would say yes. However, what I would not agree to is the government deciding which systems of faith are taxed and which are exempt based on a standards from government. They either are all taxed, or all are not.

I understand we are talking about a Dutch Court here, and in the Netherlands there is a little something added to their freedom of religion. "Everyone shall have the right to manifest freely his religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, without prejudice to his responsibility under the law." Religion or belief, and belief ends up looked at as "philosophy of life." Because that was stated as such, the collision is then philosophy of life against public welfare institution for tax exempt status. Or, a manufactured way for the government to grant tax exempt status on their terms irregardless of Constitutionality.

I will agree with some of the others in this thread that losing tax exempt status does not necessarily mean freedom of religion is impacted. Scientology can still exist in the Netherlands, and they can still have their existing operations. They just now have a tax bill.

My issue is the government deciding by a standard what is and is not public welfare institution. If that thinking carries over into the US, we are talking about a massive evaluation of various organizations out there besides just Scientology. I think we are back to the same problem, tax them all or tax none of them. Taxing some and not others tells me inequality under the Constitution / Law is around the corner and potentially also corruption in ensuring tax exempt status.

Are we sure we want any government deciding something as monumental as standards for systems of belief and public welfare?
Click to expand...
There are plenty of charities out there that don't do much by way of charity work but still have tax exempt status.
 
reinoe said:
Why does that "religion" need government recognition to be a religion? Doesn't it's practitioners have faith regardless?
Click to expand...

There is no need for recognition, this is about a religion wanting special treatment by the government and for that they have to comply with the rules for that exemption and to get that the books are studied to investigate whether or not they comply.
 
Peter King said:
There is no need for recognition, this is about a religion wanting special treatment by the government and for that they have to comply with the rules for that exemption and to get that the books are studied to investigate whether or not they comply.
Click to expand...

Do religious organizations have any privilege in Holland, I was wondering.
 
joG said:
That is very much the way a Catholic inquisitor would have argued his point in the late Middle Ages. Not much has changed except the method of interrogation.
Click to expand...

There's a difference. $cientology is not a religion, and $cientologists aren't being persecuted... in fact, it's $cientologists who persecute folks who denounce their "religion".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom