Ontario Mills Jc Penney

The Financing of the Catholic Church, why do we keep giving little money?

this

Does that sound?

all know the famous box of income to allocate a percentage of personal income tax for the Catholic Church, but what is it exactly? Where did he come from? and what is more important Why is that?

Let's start at the beginning, the 1978 Constitution. When approved, Spain emerged from a model of state-confessional religious groups which had a standard, the 1953 Concordat, which regulated the state's commitment to subsidize the clergy and the worship of the Catholic Church. How? Expenditures (all) of the clergy and worship are paid by the State. Thus, moving from a model in which the Franco regime was paid to "make ends meet" all spent by the Church, to another, different.

The change is reflected in the Agreement of Economic Affairs of January 3, 1979. and there was basically because the expense of the church could not sustain in a state that combines the principle of secularism (understood as state neutrality in religious matters) and cooperation.

Thus, the State informed the Church that will reduce gradually their relationship: the state wants to go to the neutrality of a gradual way, which is manifested in three phases, and in which the Church is committed to achieving self-financing (which is still trying ...).

Therefore, to achieve this goal of self-financing will be three stages in this agreement:

The first phase was that, for some years, applied prespuestaria allocation system, ie it is funded directly by an amount given to the Catholic Church (and, directly, pati maja ), which is contained in the State Budget. This phase lasted until 1987.

until 1991 occurs the second phase of the path to self-financing. The State establishes a joint budget with a tax allowance (ie, the famous casillita of income in which the individual decides whether to allocate a percentage of your money the Church or not).

The third phase occurs after 1991, it would only produce tax allocation.

This was financed only what people choose to give to the casillitar. But surge "something" a little quite rare: to be effective (?) The State anticipates will account (money, our money) that the Church obtained the previous year, then there is the part obtained by the assignment and what missing (because it received the assignment is less than what has overtaken the church) is what should the Church. But friends, this is not here because: that debt "was targeted "and the general state budget for all these years was scoring a statement that read (pun intended) like this:" They rise to the final down payments. "This means, in plain language for all that: it forgiven.

is, the path to self-funding so far is nothing but a ruse to fool, you are still giving the same money, the same, our pockets to a religious denomination that is NOT for everyone.

And this does not square with the principle of secularism, as the will of the state is to cooperate in a neutral way. Neutral, not giving money.

How solved this story?

Here we come to today. In 2007, the Government makes a pact with the Catholic Church the solution: the state articulates a system that respects the principle of secularism (though it's respectful to be seen) continues funding the tax allowance, but this time without tax exemptions. What are exemptions? Does the Church, besides all that, had exemptions? Yes, it did not pay VAT.

And this willingness of the Government (which, incidentally, was severely criticized by some sectors, such as pp) to what it had? Well basically that VAT is a tax from Europe, and if not paid and the case continued exemption would reach the European Court (aaaaaanda).

is assumed that this form of financing is consistent with the principle of secularism because it is a fully financed with the percentage of each contributor on personal income tax.

But there's more. (Besides the obvious).

As the church lost out of this mess (remember that always we have little money) it was decided to "increase the percentage of tax allocation, passing from 0.5239 to 0.7% "For the poor Church, do not miss much.

The text of the Draft Budget Law 2007, subsequently said that the Church, elevation change, pay the tax. Oh, if they are in everything ... it of the threat of European court has nothing to do, no doubt.

But wait, because there is more, the state is funding the Catholic Church in an indirect way: with exemptions (other non-VAT), activities that the State does not tax, and donations the faithful, the incentives for donations ... In addition to the box.

How is this possible? Really the system of financing with income casillita conforms to the principle of state secularism and equality?

For many yes. But I do not agree. The Church has not reached the famous self-financing, not even seem to have tried it. When something has been removed has been compensated with something else, but why? Does the principle of cooperation that tell us? What we have to pay to the Catholic Church? everything except what is said to be self-financing.

why a percentage for the coffers have to go to the Catholic Church? why does not appear to other faiths? Is not it strange that a state "neutral" can not decide anything on religious affairs, who can not or close the door to all these religions (and cults that are hidden under that name) to obtain legal personality, if I pay for a confession?.
Incidentally, minority religions, too receive direct government funding through a foundation , but only for activities other than worship (integration, cultural, tolerance ...) why are you only receive money for activities outside of worship, but the Church at all?

By the way, I like more this video: