Pacland's Philippine Boxing Forum

Discussion on boxing and other sports, Filipino greats and anything under the sun.
It is currently Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:33 pm

All times are UTC + 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

SHOULD THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BE TAXED?
YES 64%  64%  [ 9 ]
NO 36%  36%  [ 5 ]
Total votes : 14
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:10 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 11455
Location: KSA
PeluBoy wrote:
mea culpa, I meant revenue, since hindi pa nababawas ang expenses and other deductions
PeluBoy wrote:
pilyo2bay wrote:
Hindi naman income yan ang 1 million, savings yan, it is an asset under their cash account, same with the other companies na meron silang cash in bank, Assets is not taxable if you will not sell it with gain, maliban lang kung real property na subject siya sa real property tax.


brad baka medyo hindi tayo nagkakaintindihan sa tinutukoy natin pareho....

yung example ko above, let's say P10M ang donation na nakalap ng isang "church" for a given one-year period, and for the same given one-year period, again, P9M ang sumatotal ng kanilang charity expenses, church upkeep, living allowances, lahat yan na expenses, and sa donations na nakalap nila for that period na one year, P1M na lang ang natira nila.....there is no reference here on any assets of this "church" that is already in their books prior to this considered one year period, wala tayong assumption doon for our example here on church income taxation....meron man ang "church" na yan na properties, financial instrument investments, real assets, and yes, even cash on hand na nasa bank account na nila prior to the year na tinutukoy natin ngayon :shock: hindi natin yan kino-consider on this particular example on income taxation, although of course these other existing assets should actually be applied with the appropriate taxes, eg withholding on interests, documentary stamps etc...so far ok ba, malinaw?

..samakatuwid ang P10M na yan, all incoming money yan just for the year considered.....you can call it whatever is mre palatable, pero that is incoming money, additional yan and being added to the account of the "church"....ano ba ang tawag sa ganun, it's income ....


now....the "church" which is self-declared as "non-profit", has failed to spend all of its incoming donations (P10M) with a remaining amount of P1M in a span of one year.....so, therefore, how should it be treated, this remaining "donations"? dadagdag lang ba simply to the existing "CASH ON HAND" sa bank account ng "church" na yan? it's incoming money, net of ALL applicable expenses and deductions already...hindi ba yan income, and if it is income, should it not be subjected to income taxation? :shock:


I think it is self explanatory, the fact that an organization is "non-profit" and thus, wala nga dapat profit.....

dapat nga sinasauli ng "church" yan sa members niya, for a given year na hindi na-consume ang mga donations, because it is only going to serve as temptation to those who administer the "church", dahil it is NON-PROFIT :shock:


Mahaba hapang usapan to brad, dapat may san mig light :D :D As as long as hindi nagbebenta ng goods and services ang church eh wala tayong maituturing na income, dagdag lang yon sa cash nila reserve for future charity project, wala naman nagmamay-aring individual non. Temptation ba kamo for the members ang cash? Dyan mo dapat i compare ang government natin kung bakit ang simbahan na umaasa lang sa abuloy ay nagkaroon ng savings, samantalang ang gobyerno natin ay walang savings kundi utang pa. So it is obvious that the corruption in churches are minimal. How are you going to treat it as income and be subjected to taxes eh wala ngang mga invoices, walang receipt, kasi nga abuloy lang. It so happen na magaling lang ang pagka manage ng pera. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 10:46 am
Posts: 11455
Location: KSA
Ang pwede lang i tax dyan if there is an income derived from investments, tulad ng sinabi mo na may natitirang 1M, ano ba ang composition ng pinanggagalingan ng 1M na yan? kung puro donasyon lang yan hindi na siya itatax, pera sa simbahan yan. :D Ipinagkaloob ng mga miyembro yan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:24 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight

Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 7:07 pm
Posts: 7255
Basta pinagkikitaan, dapat.



La kong nakikitang rason bat naiba yang mga yan

_________________
Usain Bolt owns the land. Michael Phelps owns the waters

Soon as we learn to fly, watch out you damn birds we takin the skies!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2018 2:59 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 4407
Location: Piero Pelù
pilyo2bay wrote:
Mahaba hapang usapan to brad, dapat may san mig light :D :D As as long as hindi nagbebenta ng goods and services ang church eh wala tayong maituturing na income, dagdag lang yon sa cash nila reserve for future charity project, wala naman nagmamay-aring individual non. Temptation ba kamo for the members ang cah? Dyan mo dapat i compare ang government natin kung bakit ang simbahan na umaasa lang sa abuloy ay nagkaroon ng savings, samantalang ang gobyerno natin ay walang savings kundi utang pa. So it is obvious that the corruption in churches are minimal. How are you going to treat it as income and be subjected to taxes eh wala ngang mga invoices, walang receipt, kasi nga abuloy lang. It so happen na magaling lang ang pagka manage ng pera. :D

maganda yan san mig light na yan brad haha! mas maganda siguro kung ikaw na mag-organize ng next EB :D para walang requirement na naka-trunks daw yung aattend wahahaha :lol:

yun kasing case ng "church", it's a special case, kaya nga right now, wala pa silang taxation...

...pero ano nga ba ang inaasahan in return ng isang nagdonate, nagbigay, nag-abuloy sa simbahan? ang turo ng Katoliko, wag daw mag expect ng kapalit sa binigay, ang kapalit sa langit na, ang kabutihan ay gugulong lang pabalik din eventually sa gumawa ng mabuti, and so on....pero deep inside, bakit nga ba nag-aabuloy ang isang karaniwang tao? pag nagbigay ang isang tao sa "church", implicit na duon ang kagustuhan na maging mabuti sa tingin ng Maykapal, and so on....this may be controversial pero very simply, for lack of a better analogy and to shorten the discussion you can look at it as like buying one's way to heaven :? so yung donations na yun, they are actually an indirect way of increasing the donor's chances to go to heaven, right? wala nga siguro resibo kailangan dun, unless we count yung post ni brad Jabz na pastor nagbebenta ng literal ticket to heaven :lol: plus, kasi nga sensitive ang matters about faith, so parang taboo naman talaga yan......and thus, in the same manner, very vulnerable to abuse :?


yun savings na meron ang "church" vs. seeming lack of it in govts, I wouldn't say that it is purely because magaling mag-manage ng pera ang "church" and yung gobyerno waldas....not because hindi waldas ang gobyerno or what, I do not intend to be an apologist for any govt or admin, in fact may katotohanan naman na ang gobyerno sa atin, in any admin, marami corruption, kahit naman yun nasa taas malinis ang gusto marami pa din sa nasa mismong mga positions of opportunity ang gusto ay magnakaw

....ang tingin ko lang bakit hindi automatically na magaling mag-manage ang church kaya may "savings" ay una, tax-exempt nga sila, pangalawa, anuano nga lang ba ang pinagkakagastuhan ng mga "churches" for example, ang pinakamalaki nga dito sa Pinas, ang Roman Catholic Church? yung mga regular opex--operating expenses--living expenses ng mga pari at workers, upkeep ng premises and physical churches, tapos mga charity nila, educational grants, etc....if I'm not mistaken, they even regularly conduct fund-raising drives specifically to cover these....abunado kaya ang isang simbahan o parokya, or break-even ba sila, or may sobra? for me, I think may sobra sila considering the expenses, and the revenue (donations)


yung sinabi mong dagdag lang yung sobra nilang cash in one year for future charity project, I already mentioned yung ganyan way of thinking earlier, kasi when you apply that thinking to income (if you want to call it excess donations in a year, ok din) year after year, making the excuse that the excess is for "future charity projects" guess what, it will amount to BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in assets, like what has happened to the Archdiocese of Manila.....pano ba natin maire-reconcile yung pagka-"nonprofit" status ng Roman Catholic Church na yan with the amount of assets they have, pls note that yung Archdiocese of Manila pa lang yan, iba pa yung mga ibang archdioceses if I'm not mistaken headed by separate bishops



pilyo2bay wrote:
Ang pwede lang i tax dyan if there is an income derived from investments, tulad ng sinabi mo na may natitirang 1M, ano ba ang composition ng pinanggagalingan ng 1M na yan? kung puro donasyon lang yan hindi na siya itatax, pera sa simbahan yan. :D Ipinagkaloob ng mga miyembro yan.

yung P1M sa example na ginamit ko, they are all revenue from donations, then less the expenses and deductions thus making it "income", as I said yung other "existing assets" like investments, cash on bank, etc, ay hindi covered ng income taxation...

...I understand na medyo mahirap, or taboo ba, or parang nakakaasiwa yung concept na tratuhin na may "income" ang isang "church", most of us have been brought up paying proper respect to the institutions that nurture our faith and so on, pero hindi din naman bawal ang mag-isip di ba, for example, non-profit means, walang income, lahat bigay sa nangangailangan...mahirap din mareconcile yung BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in assets, in wealth, lying around at the disposal of the administrators of the Archdiocese of Manila, while there are thousands of Catholic faithful dying of sickness, suffering hunger, without homes, sources of income, no education etc....

kung tutoong walang nag-mamay-aring indviduals ang assets na yun, does it mean bawat Roman Catholic faithful part-owner nun? Katoliko ako, puwede ko ba ma-withdraw yung parte ko dun sa Billions na yun? kung hindi, sino-sino lang pala ang tutoong me control dun? bakit ganun, aren't they supposed to be non-profit? bakit umabot sa ganun halaga ang assets nila, have they been abusing their status for so long?

_________________
Litfiba


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:40 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:38 am
Posts: 25115
Location: Southeast Asia
Let's agree...

Any business must be taxed...

Pls comment...

_________________
“YESTERDAY IS HISTORY, TOMORROW A MYSTERY, AND TODAY
A GIFT…THAT’S WHY IT IS CALLED THE PRESENT “.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:13 pm 
Offline
Middleweight
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 502
Location: Sa daigdig ng inyong panaginip
As I have hinted before, this idea of having the Church pay taxes may not happen in our current political system. There is no constitutional mandate for such an action, and Congress cannot even pass laws that will affect the free exercise of religion. Hence, any further discussion on this topic is moot and academic and can be relegated to wishful thinking.

Digressing, therefore, from the original topic, I would like to share some thoughts about this so-called “church meddling” (as described by some here) in the affairs of the state. More often than not, this has been equated to and largely misunderstood as being a violation of the “separation of church and state”.

First of all, let’s get down to the basics. The notion of ‘separation of church and state’ does not imply ‘radical separation’. It was never the intention of the founders of our constitution to prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. In fact, it’s much better to view it as ‘distinction’ between Church and State – instead of ‘separation’. In other words, it’s more of recognizing them as two distinct spheres, the secular being informed by -- but not controlled by -- the religious.

Secondly, the Constitution of the Philippines declares: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. (Article II, Section 6), and, No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Take note that the constitutional command says: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion . . .” Immediately it can be seen that the command is addressed not to the Church but to the State. It is the State, after all, which passes laws. The fundamental meaning of the clause is the prohibition imposed on the state not to establish any religion as the official state religion.

In the words of Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. (Dean Emeritus of the Ateneo de Manila Law School and a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the present Philippine Constitution):

This constitutional command is more than just the prohibition of a state religion. That is the minimal meaning. Jurisprudence has expanded it to mean that the state may not pass “laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.”

That is the “separation part” of the constitutional command. The other part is the “free exercise clause.” Both are embodied in one sentence which says: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

When people see bishops or priests venturing into public or political life, the instinctive question that is often asked is: Is this a violation of the separation of church and state? The question is understandable because of the frequent use of the phrase “separations of church and state” and people often equate church with bishops or priests. But the negative command of the Constitution is addressed not to bishops or priests but to the state and those who exercise state authority. As to bishops and priests, the pertinent part of the constitutional command is the guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

So that’s it. Nowadays many people forget about that second clause. Free exercise of religion means that a person has the right to express and promote his views in the public square.

Unfortunately, the notion of “separation of church and state” has often been interpreted to mean that religion should keep quiet in the public arena, that religion is a strictly private affair. This understanding is not correct. Do you think the church can just keep silent when moral questions are at stake? Remember that the Church and State are ‘separate’ only in the sense that each has its own sphere of authority -- the state over the temporal and the Church over the spiritual. So, do you think the church would not interfere when state authorities pass laws legalizing, for example, abortion and same-sex “marriage”? These are very grave moral concerns.

We hear lectures about how the Church must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one doubts the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group ‘imposing its beliefs’ on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's “ought” becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it is how pluralism works.

Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is somehow the tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.

The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members.

Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now almost -- if not already -- a national epidemic in the Philippines.

Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and non-violently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible.

Finally, let me quote the words of the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen:

“A religion that doesn’t interfere with the secular order will soon discover that the secular order will not refrain from interfering with it.”

Reference Sources:
True Meaning of ‘Separation of Church and State’ – by Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Faith and Patriotism – by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

_________________
Let my thoughts come to you, when I am gone, like the afterglow of sunset at the margin of starry silence. -- Rabindranath Tagore


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:22 am 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 11:38 am
Posts: 25115
Location: Southeast Asia
Catholic Church has billions invested in BPI, Philex, San Miguel


For most of us, it’s a given that the Catholic Church is rich. Obvious proof of that are their sprawling acres of land, large Church-owned structures and buildings, and millions of pesos of cash collected from mass goers every week.

What a lot of people do not know, though, is that part of the Church’s wealth is its multi-billion peso investments in several Philippine companies. In fact, reports submitted to the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) show that the Church and affiliate Catholic groups are top stockholders in companies such as the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Philex Mining Corporation (PX), San Miguel Corporation (SMC), Ayala Corporation (AC), and Phinma Corporation (PHN), among others.

Philippine Church invested in banks, mining, construction, etc.

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, for example, owns more than 300 million shares of BPI and is the bank’s 4th largest owner.

How much are these shares worth? As of May 2011, this is valued at more than P17 billion. Yes, that’s seventeen billion pesos, with a B.

Interestingly, aside from banking, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (RCAM), together with its subsidiary hospitals and companies, is also invested in mining and construction.

As of March 31, 2011, the RCAM is the 15th top shareholder of Philex Mining Corporation (PX), the country’s largest mining firm. It owns 3.2 million shares of PX currently worth more than P66 million.

_________________
“YESTERDAY IS HISTORY, TOMORROW A MYSTERY, AND TODAY
A GIFT…THAT’S WHY IT IS CALLED THE PRESENT “.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline
Heavyweight
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:46 pm
Posts: 4407
Location: Piero Pelù
brad jabz sutil ka talaga :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Litfiba


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 173 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC + 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

philboxing.com | pinoygreats.com
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group