In this case they aren’t even saying they should lose the status because they are horrible people, it’s because they haven’t filed their annual returns that charities are required to file.
Unfortunately NZ has advancing religion = charity enshrined in law, and it’s political suicide to touch it.
Which I think is stupid because most small town churches will still qualify under one of the other categories. Just need some party to make the change when they are already on the way out.
Yes exactly. A charitable purpose only needs to meet the very generic criteria of being beneficial to the community (or the others, relieving poverty or advancing education).
If a church is a net positive for the community, or helps those in poverty, it would still qualify. So let’s get rid of the specific religion clause and let churches prove they are a net benefit to the community.
I would even question whether “a church” as in catholic or lutheran or scientology etc should be granted charitable status. They have to show their branch in NZ to be benefitting the community. Their efforts elsewhere should not count.
For sure. As each church is an independent entity, each one should have to register and pass the criteria. I don’t think granting, say, the Catholic Church as one NZ entity is the right way. Instead, each of the Catholic churches around the country should apply on their own merits. Surely some will be feeding and housing the homeless and some will be using tithes to by lamborghinis so they should be assessed individually since they have individual finances.
In this case they aren’t even saying they should lose the status because they are horrible people, it’s because they haven’t filed their annual returns that charities are required to file.
Unfortunately NZ has advancing religion = charity enshrined in law, and it’s political suicide to touch it.
Which I think is stupid because most small town churches will still qualify under one of the other categories. Just need some party to make the change when they are already on the way out.
If they can show charitable work they can qualify as a charity and be subject to the same regime as every other charity.
Yes exactly. A charitable purpose only needs to meet the very generic criteria of being beneficial to the community (or the others, relieving poverty or advancing education).
If a church is a net positive for the community, or helps those in poverty, it would still qualify. So let’s get rid of the specific religion clause and let churches prove they are a net benefit to the community.
I would even question whether “a church” as in catholic or lutheran or scientology etc should be granted charitable status. They have to show their branch in NZ to be benefitting the community. Their efforts elsewhere should not count.
For sure. As each church is an independent entity, each one should have to register and pass the criteria. I don’t think granting, say, the Catholic Church as one NZ entity is the right way. Instead, each of the Catholic churches around the country should apply on their own merits. Surely some will be feeding and housing the homeless and some will be using tithes to by lamborghinis so they should be assessed individually since they have individual finances.