Tax the rich?

[In Focus]

Opens thread, looks in. Closes it quietly, tiptoes away...

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

Back when i was a younger lad and idealistic i made up a graph of a big circle it went democracy leads to fascism or in this case centralized wealth and power which leads to Communism or the rebelling of the lower classes which then leads to fresh democracy rule of the people by the people which then leads back to fascism or the centralization of power by the new leaders and rinse and repeat. Whether any of it comes to pass in australia remains to be seen and i doubt it will but for other country's it seems to be a good fit.

that is absolutely true . but the power has always been with the masses , and its always been the masses who have taken back the power and stabalised the nations , when the political minority parties fail .
the masses are the 3rd party, they form a union which marches over all , then implement a policy , and the cyle starts all over again

[cheap]

Heck - if only just, if only just one of those +200 "we will be surplus" promises from Wayne Swan had some truthfulness ...

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by cheap

Heck - if only just, if only just one of those +200 "we will be surplus" promises from Wayne Swan had some truthfulness ... And people now want to blame the Libs - what form of reality do some people live in?

if only you were right . our AAA CREDIT RATING WOULDNT BE THERE IN OUR FACES THEN

[BHDOGS]

The real truth is democracy and capitalism dont need to go hand in hand and if anything should be kept as separate as possible just like religion and democracy however both are unavoidable in real life. Capitalism's biggest flaw is theres no end to growth its either keep growing or stagnate and if continued growth means moving offshore cutting jobs, sending your money to tax havens ect. ala apple and google ect. then so be it they become so big there effectively beyond government control which is worrying in itself nothing should be allowed to become so big it becomes to big to fail. Just like one person should not be able to control so much money billionaires are unnecessary however can i think of a better way to impart wealth around to other less fortunate people no i cant but i know enough to know things have to change.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

if only you were right . our AAA CREDIT RATING WOULDNT BE THERE IN OUR FACES THEN

Nice try with the Unicorn. Where are those Wayne Swan surpluses?

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by cheap

Nice try with the Unicorn. Where are those Wayne Swan surpluses?

TO BE HONEST . LIKE YOU I DONT KNOW !! I can only look at the facts , and if its as bad as tony , hockey , alan and hadley say , then our biggest burden on society @40 billion pa ,Is the pension !!! ohhhhh wait a minute , that's about to be surpassed by wealthy superannuation benifits surpassing 40billion to the top 10% of the nations wealthiest people paid by tax payers JEEZ , HOCKEY MUST'VE FORGOT TO MENTION THAT ONE !!!!
like you i have to listen to what i hear , and then look at the facts , like ASX , and COUNTRIES CREDIT RATING .these things are telling us we're doing quite well , the other our govt is trelling us we're all F'D

[BHDOGS]

The fact we have a aaa credit rating regardless of the political point scoring partys try to take the credit for it shows there is no budget emergency however it does make it easier for the current government to bringing in unpalatable policy's. As for the partys themselves they are all self serving entity's that would rather rip each other down and enforce there ideologues rather then enact long term thoughtful policy clive palmers just the newest self interested twat to join the game. Having a big cry because his rail road wasn't prioritized hes now using the classic technique of promising the world to get votes.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by chevypower

You also get no choice. They decide who gets the work and who doesn't, it's not based on what consumers want, how good the price is, or the quality of the product or service. If you don't like it, you can't do anything about it. Free-market capitalism is great because it promotes competition and choice.

All previous socialist governments have been corrupt through greed the idea of socialism itself is a government for the people, we should vote that party out otherwise the same we do with our current system, that shouldn't change it should remain democratic. I'd strongly argue the 2 major current parties along with all the big companies have their own interests at heart before ours. If the government controlled the means of production millions of dollars wouldn't be wasted in marketing and competitive research, both wouldn't exist and billions would be saved and better invested into technology, quality, wages/workers rights and everyone would be better off. Such nations are even currently trialing 6hr work days in aim for a happier quality of life. While ours currently wants the working class to work longer and pay more tax..

Norway and other Scandinavian countries are perfect examples of working socialist type governments, they found an oil reserve and instead of pawning the asset off for some private tycoon to capitalize off and make billions (and to sequester in some offshore bank account/collapse the economy), the profit was injected into the country's pension/super program and all their citizens practically retire as millionaires. Millions of retired citizens also spending the money everyday to survive, ensuring the economy is well stimulated and the capitalist-esque backbone remains healthy.

Howard would've sold it to opec in a heart beat and we would've received none of the profit. I don't see how that's good at all. Better than China but they're more corrupt than socialist, when I think socialist I look at the Scandinavian countries and not China, Russia, Germany etc.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by comagutsa

and then we get stung more in WA as we pay most of the GST but now we only get back stuff all now so the state taxes go up also and cut back to try and make up for the short fall

As someone that grew up and lived most of my life in WA... And for the previous 100 years to that WA was a net benefactor that got back lots more than they put in so suck it up princess.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

not China, Russia, Germany etc.

Ask a Russian person whether life was better in the good days of the USSR or the Russian Federation today with their "democracy".

Interesting answer because the ones I've spoken to said they preferred the USSR when times were "good" compared to Russia today.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by ford man xf

Aren't these rich people the same ones that employ most of us?

Isn't income taxed on a progressive percentage basis?

Don't low income earners have a tax offset which means they pay less tax?

What is with Australians and complaining, how good do we have it in this country, the amazing lifestyle we have has to be paid for, people were more than happy to take the government handout Mr Rudd gave out, some even praised him as the greatest Prime Minister we've ever had, did you not think that one day this would have to be paid back? No such thing as a free lunch I'm afraid.

I do believe if your successful in a capitalist society like Australia you do have to do your bit to contribute, which rich people do, the more successful your company is then the more you contribute and this happens, yes there are loopholes, Kerry Packer had a good quote once on this.

The problem has never been about most people paying their fair share. The problem always has been that those at the top of the food chain have always managed to pay less. The Kerry Packers of the world can bleat and carry on all they want, they pay far less tax as a percentage of the total income they would "earn" in a year than most of the country.

And someone on $80-100k is nowhere near the top of the food chain. Someone whose income is measured with at least seven digits, they are getting close. The ATO and govco in its current guise will never go after these people.

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There are two big lies about the economy that the government is telling us all the time.
The first lie we are being told is that debt is bad.
The next big lie is that we should compare a country or state debt to your household budget.
Nope...when it comes to a country or a state, DEBT IS GOOD...you NEED to occasionally go into debt to build big projects or do things for your country. A country isn't a household...a household with a primary breadwinner or two has a finite working life before they retire so it's vitally important not to go into too much debt as you only have so much time of a decent income coming in to service that debt.
However, a nation or a state can access finance at low rates, paid off over several decades. Australia in fact still has a AAA credit rating because we are such a good risk for debt.

If you MUST compare a country or state to your household budget, then think of it this way: it's no use getting yourself to a point where you are "debt free" (maybe by cutting back on eating food or not paying your electricity bill so you sit in the dark and selling everything that isn't nailed down) when the house is falling down around you because you refuse to spend on repairs, and your kids are starving. Hey, you'll be "in surplus", but would you really want to live there...?

Getting and keeping a strong surplus means only one thing: either you're not spending enough on the country or state, or you're collecting TOO MUCH TAX.

Economists have also said that taxation returns to the government are increasing at 7% a year, but costs to the government are only increasing at 3% a year. If we cut back on the big promised funding (like the paid maternity leave and national disability scheme and other stuff) and did nothing, the debt would take care of itself in only a couple of years. That's if the government maintains what it's spending now, and just stops increases in spending on promised big funding projects for a couple of years.

When govco says debt is bad, they aren't lying. But... what they are omitting to mention is something of much greater import. If the government was responsible for the issuance of the monetary unit of the nation (and not a so-called independant entity whose ownership and allegiances are mired in a cloud of out and out bullshittery) with 100% reserve requirements for banks, it wouldn't need to ever go into debt to anyone.

Tie the monetary unit to the economic output of the nation, have government be sufficiently big enough to provide for the essentials, but small enough for minimal taxation to be levied (I am speaking about import tariffs and tobacco, alcohol and drug excises) on the nation and budget crises become a thing of the past, infrastructure can be paid for without borrowing and the nation is incentivised as a whole to be productive and make full use of the brain power we are blessed with.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Free market capitalism also promotes corporate corruption, greed and consumerism to drive the machine.

Also if the gap between the haves and the have-nots grows too wide things will turn to **** quickly with violence etc.

Maybe we need a bit of both rather than one or the other.

Crony capitalism promotes corporate greed. With free market, you have a choice on who to support. We don't have a free market system, everything is regulated heavily, keeping the competition down. I agree that we need a little bit of both. Eg. You can't have free market capitalism running the road network, because you can't have competing roads and registration offering competitive pricing for the same locations. It just wouldn't work. You also need a safety net for the poor. But if you really want to help people, you need to make it incentivizing for business to open up with a prosperous reward or there would be no point in doing it. The benefits are more people employed, more products and services, more competition, lower cost of living and cost of doing business, better pricing. Can there be a perfect system? Absolutely not. There will always be corrupt people, and imperfect people make an imperfect system. At least with free market capitalism, it goes bad to having a choice. I try to buy from small local businesses, but most people choose to fill up their cars at big chains, eat at McDonald's etc, actively supporting big corporations getting bigger.

[FPVS3]

Originally Posted by Starlightblue

Tax the churches and all religions

Problem fixed

Why should they get a free ride?

And, tax the companies they own. A religious group here owns a large company and pay no taxes. Classed as a "charity".

[FPVS3]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Ask a Russian person whether life was better in the good days of the USSR or the Russian Federation today with their "democracy".

Interesting answer because the ones I've spoken to said they preferred the USSR when times were "good" compared to Russia today.

Democracy in Russia probably won't work well due to corruption which is part of their culture. Their experiment in communism which is the ultimate in socialism wasn't sustainable. That was brought to a head when Reagan, Lech Walesa, the Pope and Gorbachev did their thing and the USSR couldn't keep up as it was.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

I PAY ALL MY TAXES AND SALES TAXES FEES ETC , and i have anet income left , if i pay a mechanic to service my car , he has to pay tax out of what i pay him , even though i've already paid tax out of what i earn . WHY SHOULD A CHURCH BE ANY DIFFERENT

But like I said, people who go to church pay all those same taxes you do. Church members consist of a mix of employers, employees, and unemployed just like non-church-goers. There is no exemption on taxes because you attend a church. You advocate putting an additional tax because church members gather one day a week in the name of a church entity. Monday to Friday they are out making money and paying taxes just like you. Much of the money they collect voluntarily goes to help the needy anyway (without all the bureaucracy, overhead, and wasteful spending of the government). Churches are not hurting the economy, they are lightening the load for the government to have to intervene. If it's all about fairness, it's still fair because we pay taxes on our incomes just like you do. You don't penalize people with more taxes because they choose to meet together in the same building once a week. If you do that, then I'm sure some churches just won't register themselves as churches. You don't want that because they will meet unofficially in private homes instead of a commercial building (bad for safety reasons). Put it this way. With the system as it is now, atheists don't have to pay a tax for not going to church and religious people don't have to pay a tax for going to church. It's already "fair."

[FPVS3]

Originally Posted by chevypower

But like I said, people who go to church pay all those same taxes you do. Church members consist of a mix of employers, employees, and unemployed just like non-church-goers. There is no exemption on taxes because you attend a church. You advocate putting an additional tax because church members gather one day a week in the name of a church entity. Monday to Friday they are out making money and paying taxes just like you. Much of the money they collect voluntarily goes to help the needy anyway (without all the bureaucracy, overhead, and wasteful spending of the government). Churches are not hurting the economy, they are lightening the load for the government to have to intervene. If it's all about fairness, it's still fair because we pay taxes on our incomes just like you do. You don't penalize people with more taxes because they choose to meet together in the same building once a week. If you do that, then I'm sure some churches just won't register themselves as churches. You don't want that because they will meet unofficially in private homes instead of a commercial building (bad for safety reasons). Put it this way. With the system as it is now, atheists don't have to pay a tax for not going to church and religious people don't have to pay a tax for going to church. It's already "fair."

I've heard of people in the US having their own "church" to simply avoid taxes. The "church" was an entity they created with no religious purpose at all.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by FPVS3

I've heard of people in the US having their own "church" to simply avoid taxes. The "church" was an entity they created with no religious purpose at all.

Yeah I've heard that too. I believe it. Those people get what they deserve, should be charged and jailed for fraud. Churches and non-profit clubs (not non-profit companies) should be considered the same for tax purposes, and I think they are (but could be wrong). So if you want to start a car club that meets every week, you don't have to pay additional taxes either. If anybody uses a church or non-profit club for personal gain (income, assets), the status of the entity should be removed and the people should be fined. Non-profit companies are different because they have owners and employees who benefit personally from incomes and other benefits.

[karj]

Originally Posted by chevypower

But like I said, people who go to church pay all those same taxes you do. Church members consist of a mix of employers, employees, and unemployed just like non-church-goers. There is no exemption on taxes because you attend a church. You advocate putting an additional tax because church members gather one day a week in the name of a church entity. Monday to Friday they are out making money and paying taxes just like you. Much of the money they collect voluntarily goes to help the needy anyway (without all the bureaucracy, overhead, and wasteful spending of the government). Churches are not hurting the economy, they are lightening the load for the government to have to intervene. If it's all about fairness, it's still fair because we pay taxes on our incomes just like you do. You don't penalize people with more taxes because they choose to meet together in the same building once a week. If you do that, then I'm sure some churches just won't register themselves as churches. You don't want that because they will meet unofficially in private homes instead of a commercial building (bad for safety reasons). Put it this way. With the system as it is now, atheists don't have to pay a tax for not going to church and religious people don't have to pay a tax for going to church. It's already "fair."

I suspect that no-one is advocating for an additional tax on church members or those who attend church, and I suspect that no-one actually has a problem with tax exemptions for genuine charitable organisations (including charitable religious organisations).

The problem is when a church owns a commercial business and channels the profit of that business into church activities of no charitable merit. For example, Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh-day Adventists and therefore exempt from company tax. Sanitarium generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year (tax-exempt) that goes directly to the Church to be spent however they see fit. There are no regulations that require this tax-free money be spent on genuine charitable endeavours and there is no requirement for transparency or independent oversight regarding how the money is spent... How much of Sanitarium's profit is spent on genuine charitable endeavours and how much on non-charitable church endeavours? I have no idea, and I doubt they make that info public.

An additional dimension to the tax exempt status of church owned commercial businesses is that it is fundamentally anti-competitive. If you take Sanitarium as an example, it is more difficult for other breakfast cereal manufacturers to compete because they are required to pay company tax. From that perspective, it's not fair.

[2011G6E]

Nobody suggested churchgoers pay extra tax (although the do...what do you think the collection dish is for?), but that churches and religious institutions themselves actually start paying taxes and rates and charges that the rest of us do.
One word is all that's needed to show how lucrative it all is..."Hillsong". Go look up their finances and be staggered by the scope of the scam, and then realise they pay no taxes on any of it.

Some people say "communism" as a solution to capitalisms problems.
If you listen to the words of Karl Marx, he said "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need"...which sounds perfectly fair and equitable, and a good way to run things.
However, if you think a minute, there's a big problem...someone else decides what you are "capable of" for a job, and more worryingly, someone else get to decide what you "need"...

[cheap]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Ask a Russian person whether life was better in the good days of the USSR or the Russian Federation today with their "democracy".

Interesting answer because the ones I've spoken to said they preferred the USSR when times were "good" compared to Russia today.

It was so "good" that people risked barbed wire, attack dogs, bullets and life long Siberian imprisionment wanting to leave rather than stay. Can't really say I've heard of to many people before the collapse of the Soviet Union actually banging on the gates wanting to be let in so as to participate in that "good" place. Do you suposse North Korea is a great place too?

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by karj

The problem is when a church owns a commercial business and channels the profit of that business into church activities of no charitable merit. For example, Sanitarium is owned by the Seventh-day Adventists and therefore exempt from company tax. Sanitarium generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year (tax-exempt) that goes directly to the Church to be spent however they see fit. There are no regulations that require this tax-free money be spent on genuine charitable endeavours and there is no requirement for transparency or independent oversight regarding how the money is spent... How much of Sanitarium's profit is spent on genuine charitable endeavours and how much on non-charitable church endeavours? I have no idea, and I doubt they make that info public.

Yeah that would be different, and the company should be (and obviously is) operated under a separate legal entity from the church, even if the church owns the company. It should be taxed according to whether or not it is for profit or non-profit. If it puts all the profits back into the church, donates it, reinvests it, then I am assuming it would be a non-profit company. A flat tax would be a lot simpler and would ensure no discrimination. It would be a level playing field for all companies, employees, and the self-employed. The problem is, some people on the bottom end of the SES want to punish the wealthy to make life seem more fair. Unfortunately, when we screw others, we end up screwing ourselves. How many people want to stick it to the big oil companies? Let's face it, we all do. Then we hate it when fuel prices go up. They just pass on the increased costs to the consumer.

[cheap]

So all the churches charitable work, social services and so on - these things would be a cost of doing business and therefore a tax deduction? Or do people expect religion to be still done for free, how would you cost a can of baked beans V's a Hail Mary? Would GST apply to the Hail Mary I guess it would...

People are on a slippery slope trying to tax religion - mind you I'd like to see the advocates if this theme put their money where their keyboards are, organised with placards and loud hailers street marching through Lakemba and Auburn testing public appetite for their vision.

[russellw]

It always seems such a simple answer. Tax the rich - although I'm not quite sure what is defined as rich these days and it has probably never been the answer anyway.

There are some good suggestions in this thread, some really bad suggestions and some that have me wondering what we've become as a society.

So here's my 10 cents worth.



Let me start by saying that in my view, if the Government uses the additional impost to reduce debt and doesn't use it as an excuse to continue pork barrelling themselves into larger deficits then I have no issue with paying it. This, despite the fact that I've not been a recipient of one single cent of the Government 'initiatives' that created the debt in the first place.

What I do have a problem with is some of the benefits attached to those initiatives that we now consider to be 'rights' in order to support a higher standard of living than previous generations enjoyed.

Without wishing to single out any particular group in society let's start with a simple one that is easy to provide comparisons for - the Baby bonus and associated parenting benefits.

Neither I, nor my parents received anything for having children apart from the rather token couple of dollars a week the Government handed out in Child Allowance (under various guises) but we also didn't have to worry about child care costs because we accepted that having children meant making sacrifices and surviving on one or one and some part time work incomes.

Now, before the bleating about not being able to survive on one income these days crops up let me say this: the average household running cost today as a percentage of income is actually better than it was in the 1950's (my parents time) or 1970's (mine) by a small but measurable amount. Even mortgage servicing costs still make up around the same 20-22% of household income they have over most of the last 50 years. Admittedly they did get lower (to about 17%) during the 1980's but that was against historical trends.

Anyway, back to the point.

Having children and supporting them on a single income does mean making sacrifices. Smaller house (or a worse area); maybe one instead of two cars or two older cars; simple holidays; not much in the way of entertainment that you don't make yourself and others too numerous to mention but having children is a choice that each couple make and there should be no expectation that the Government will be there with handouts and subsidies just so that parents can attempt to maintain a lifestyle. I really struggle to see how we got so far off the fundamental that people are responsible for their own support and welfare was simply a safety net against catastrophe such as illness, disability and genuine unemployment. That some of these benefits aren't even means tested is even worse.

You may ask, why should I care and in many ways I don't. My days of having children are well behind me but when these so called government initiatives keep moving my age of retirement from the 50 it originally was; through the 55 it then was; to the 60 it currently is and (no doubt) the 65 it is going to be before I get to 60 then I am understandably more than a little miffed about the situation. I've worked hard since I was 15 to fund an early retirement only to watch it disappear under the weight of public debt; unfunded retirees and government funded social benefits.

Indeed, I'm currently of the view that I won't be living out my retired years in this country at all as I can only see increased pressure coming from our Government on the pre-1960's generation and more onerous requirements for retirement.


Cheers
Russ

[xxx000]

I'd respect the churches if they genuinely cared about and for the needy. If they did then each church building could house the homeless each night and the hungry would cease to exist.
However the Catholic Church as just one example is worth billions of dollars in NSW only and does a very limited amount of 'good'.
Churches compete with one another for followers and ask for donations from their churchgoers.
They are exempt from many things like rates etc.......why?
As far as I'm concerned they should all start paying their way: tax, rates, land taxes etc. It's got nothing to do with the people who attend services, it's the organization or head office who should be responsible.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by xxx000

If they did then each church building could house the homeless each night and the hungry would cease to exist.

You have to keep in mind there are laws/building codes/zoning that limit the use of buildings. Great idea though, maybe they need to loosen up on those regulations. I heard about regulations concerning donating food to the homeless. There are legal liabilities they can get themselves into for trying to do the right thing.

[cheap]

Originally Posted by xxx000

I'd respect the churches if they genuinely cared about and for the needy. If they did then each church building could house the homeless each night and the hungry would cease to exist.
However the Catholic Church as just one example is worth billions of dollars in NSW only and does a very limited amount of 'good'.
Churches compete with one another for followers and ask for donations from their churchgoers.
They are exempt from many things like rates etc.......why?
As far as I'm concerned they should all start paying their way: tax, rates, land taxes etc. It's got nothing to do with the people who attend services, it's the organization or head office who should be responsible.

Why so much concentration on just the Catholic Church? What's the status of Greenpeace or Get-up or Vetrans Organisations do they pay tax? Is housing a helpless person the only criteria, how do you know the church doesn't help? I didn't know Greenpeace were into helping people, whales and seals yes but not people. Where does Greenpeace stand in this debate?

Besides nearly every religion's assets is real estate which even if they could sell would be heritage listed and/or subject to local planning regulations therefore not worth anywhere near as much as people would believe. There are countless delapidated churches throughout Australia because they can not be redeveloped.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by chevypower

You have to keep in mind there are laws/building codes/zoning that limit the use of buildings. Great idea though, maybe they need to loosen up on those regulations. I heard about regulations concerning donating food to the homeless. There are legal liabilities they can get themselves into for trying to do the right thing.

The Catholic Church has the money and has had decades to work through and address these types of issues.

Has it even tried? Or is it giving lip service to this issue which is one of many it could address?

it's too busy hanging onto what it's got and trying to get more imho

Wayside Chapel and Missionbeat do great work for the needy by comparison

[2011G6E]

There's no "slippery slope" with taxing religions and religion-like set ups.

If they do charitable work and can prove it, then they get a tax deduction, just like everyone else who contributes to a charity.
The way they get out of paying council rates on premises is just plain criminal.

Not to mention the outcry in Rockhampton when it cost the taxpayer and ratepayers eight million dollars for a hardly-used overpass on a major road so students could cross from one side to the other occasionally where another part of the campus is located. There used to be a proper pedestrian crossing with lights, which worked perfectly well. The huge, air conditioned, elevator-at-each-end overpass was built by the town council.
Plenty of people wondered how many old boys from the catholic school were on the town council when the decision was made...
At the same time, another primary school in another part of town wanted nothing more than a pedestrian crossing painted on the road and an official school zone declared...but got told that it might interfere with traffic flow and would have to be studied further...

Churches and religions get away with far too much in our supposedly secular society. They should get no breaks on paying taxes or fees or charges at all, other than the normal deductions every other individual and business can claim.
The reason people immediately jump to "catholic church" when this is mentioned is the well known and widely reported staggeringly vast sums of money they have access to. If the church run school in Rocky wanted the overpass built, they could have built it out of loose change that the church has access to.


You're right that "tax the rich" is an easy cry to make.
But sooner or later, someone will notice that they are only targeting 4% or 5% of taxpayers, when we were told "everyone has to contribute"...

Sure they do...

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by cheap

Why so much concentration on just the Catholic Church? What's the status of Greenpeace or Get-up or Vetrans Organisations do they pay tax? Is housing a helpless person the only criteria, how do you know the church doesn't help? I didn't know Greenpeace were into helping people, whales and seals yes but not people. Where does Greenpeace stand in this debate?

Besides nearly every religion's assets is real estate which even if they could sell would be heritage listed and/or subject to local planning regulations therefore not worth anywhere near as much as people would believe. There are countless delapidated churches throughout Australia because they can not be redeveloped.

I'm happy to hear about good work any major church does for the needy and homeless so please post it up.
Catholic Church has been in the news lately re child abuse and it's response to it plus have a relo who's a priest hence my mention, not concentration, of them