5 ms·

What relevance does this have to Hacker News?

samontar 8y ago
It’s a pretty clever business niche and a way to run tax-free. The end result is a cultural machine that may well have changed the nature of Christian worship. Interesting, no?
- expathacker 8y ago
  Sure I guess. tl;dr: Christian organization scams tax payers, recent conservative trends on Hacker News somehow makes this interesting?
  - samontar 8y ago
    Is it really a scam if it’s what taxpayers want? I don’t think this is interesting because any conservative trend. It’s a cool business hack that allows you to make money without taxes.
    - expathacker 8y ago
      I would argue that all religious tax-dodges are scams if you're an atheist. My businesses and lack of faith don't get a free-ride, but I have to subsidize that of somebody else's? By this logic, it's a cool business hack to run a megachurch and buy your own 737 without paying taxes, not a scam?
      - samontar 8y ago
        Well, it most certainly is, isn’t it? You get an additional double digit percentage. That’s going to help your margins. They aren’t scammers, though, because most people want this. Of course it is unfair to you, but most countries have their laws originate in their dominant religious culture and consequently favour that culture. For instance, the San Francisco MTA legalized parking along the median on the street for church services. It’s just the way that people want it to be, and in democracies, they will inevitably get their way so it’s best to take advantage of the laws they make. Being upset is less profitable than playing the game.
      - bartread 8y ago
        You aren't really subsidising it, unless you're making the argument that if organisations - such as Hillsong - paid taxes the overall tax rate would be lowered for all? Ideally this might be true but the cynic in me suggests it wouldn't... well, that and the fact that their income within a given country is relatively insignificant as compared to GDP within that country. Moreover: 1) Hillsong runs substantially on donations and purchases of their merchandise (including music). Most of the people who give or buy their merchandise are taxpayers themselves. 2) Anyone paid as an employee by Hillsong will pay taxes, just like everyone else. I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not. 3) We know Hillsong earn a lot of money but we don't know that they keep very much of it[1]. If they're anything like HTB, they quite likely don't[2]: the vast majority will be spent on staffing, ministry, along with a chunk given to support other organisations and causes. Ministry means everything from what you see on a Sunday and special events through to social initiatives such as food banks, homeless shelters, childrens' work, soup kitchens, and educational initiatives (and more) that many churches either support or run. Point (3) is important because it's the point that makes a church a net good within society (or not, in the absence of it). If they're not a net good then I'd be more inclined to agree that, yes, they should be taxed as businesses rather than not taxed as though they're charities. Quantifying that is obviously non-trivial. [1] It's possible they do but I don't have any information to hand on this. [2] At a pure numbers level this is something that distinguishes a charity from a (healthy) business: one does not generate a profit (which is not to say the money shouldn't be used carefully and beneficially: clearly it should), whilst the other does.
        bartread 8y ago
        > I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not. Sadly, if this article is accurate, it may be closer to the above than I'd thought: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-hillsong-lifestyle/news-story/25af3a860c70628c874389e90d33917b https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-h...
      - GuacheSuedeHN 8y ago
        You can say the same thing about liberal ogansisations. why the hell does someone else have to pay for your abortion ?
        expathacker 8y ago
        Can you please tell me whose abortion you've actually paying for lately? The laws around Planned Parenthood's funding are quite clear, and government money does not pay for abortions, which is misfortunate. Planned Parenthood is audited more frequently than any other organization in the United States. What do your tax dollars pay for in regards to Planned Parenthood? Things that Medicare should be paying for, but fails at, specifically, reproductive care for women, including obstetrics, which should go well with your pro-birth agenda (I'm not going to dignify it with the phrase "pro-life" because once the baby comes out, the "pro-lifers" seem to run for cover) Meanwhile, when it comes to giving my tax dollars as welfare to your religion, your conservative agenda infringes upon my constitutional rights established under the 1st amendment to our constitution (in case of the USA).
wonderwonder 8y ago
Just think of the headline being: "How I leveraged music tempo and celebrity endorsements to bootstrap my startup from nothing to $85 million+ per year without paying a penny in tax." Its a business, maybe not one that you or I may engage in but that level of success is at least worth a headline news link.
NateEag 8y ago
From the guidelines on what to submit: > If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. It seems perfectly possible to me to be curious about worship music, and specifically how Hillsong got to be such a 900 pound gorilla in the field. Speaking as a Christian who has very mixed feelings about Hillsong, I certainly am. That said, the article had little substance, in my view. It recounted the church's history but didn't really touch on why they're so influential, which is really what I'm curious about.
exabrial 8y ago
Hillsong very much was a startup, behaves like a startup, and plants startups all over the world.

It’s a pretty clever business niche and a way to run tax-free. The end result is a cultural machine that may well have changed the nature of Christian worship. Interesting, no?

expathacker 8y ago
Sure I guess. tl;dr: Christian organization scams tax payers, recent conservative trends on Hacker News somehow makes this interesting?
- samontar 8y ago
  Is it really a scam if it’s what taxpayers want? I don’t think this is interesting because any conservative trend. It’s a cool business hack that allows you to make money without taxes.
  - expathacker 8y ago
    I would argue that all religious tax-dodges are scams if you're an atheist. My businesses and lack of faith don't get a free-ride, but I have to subsidize that of somebody else's? By this logic, it's a cool business hack to run a megachurch and buy your own 737 without paying taxes, not a scam?
    - samontar 8y ago
      Well, it most certainly is, isn’t it? You get an additional double digit percentage. That’s going to help your margins. They aren’t scammers, though, because most people want this. Of course it is unfair to you, but most countries have their laws originate in their dominant religious culture and consequently favour that culture. For instance, the San Francisco MTA legalized parking along the median on the street for church services. It’s just the way that people want it to be, and in democracies, they will inevitably get their way so it’s best to take advantage of the laws they make. Being upset is less profitable than playing the game.
    - bartread 8y ago
      You aren't really subsidising it, unless you're making the argument that if organisations - such as Hillsong - paid taxes the overall tax rate would be lowered for all? Ideally this might be true but the cynic in me suggests it wouldn't... well, that and the fact that their income within a given country is relatively insignificant as compared to GDP within that country. Moreover: 1) Hillsong runs substantially on donations and purchases of their merchandise (including music). Most of the people who give or buy their merchandise are taxpayers themselves. 2) Anyone paid as an employee by Hillsong will pay taxes, just like everyone else. I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not. 3) We know Hillsong earn a lot of money but we don't know that they keep very much of it[1]. If they're anything like HTB, they quite likely don't[2]: the vast majority will be spent on staffing, ministry, along with a chunk given to support other organisations and causes. Ministry means everything from what you see on a Sunday and special events through to social initiatives such as food banks, homeless shelters, childrens' work, soup kitchens, and educational initiatives (and more) that many churches either support or run. Point (3) is important because it's the point that makes a church a net good within society (or not, in the absence of it). If they're not a net good then I'd be more inclined to agree that, yes, they should be taxed as businesses rather than not taxed as though they're charities. Quantifying that is obviously non-trivial. [1] It's possible they do but I don't have any information to hand on this. [2] At a pure numbers level this is something that distinguishes a charity from a (healthy) business: one does not generate a profit (which is not to say the money shouldn't be used carefully and beneficially: clearly it should), whilst the other does.
      - bartread 8y ago
        > I don't know much about the lifestyles of their senior employees/leaders - maybe it's a televangelist-style Gulfstream-and-champagne-fest, maybe not. Sadly, if this article is accurate, it may be closer to the above than I'd thought: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-hillsong-lifestyle/news-story/25af3a860c70628c874389e90d33917b https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/taxpayers-support-lavish-h...
    - GuacheSuedeHN 8y ago
      You can say the same thing about liberal ogansisations. why the hell does someone else have to pay for your abortion ?
      - expathacker 8y ago
        Can you please tell me whose abortion you've actually paying for lately? The laws around Planned Parenthood's funding are quite clear, and government money does not pay for abortions, which is misfortunate. Planned Parenthood is audited more frequently than any other organization in the United States. What do your tax dollars pay for in regards to Planned Parenthood? Things that Medicare should be paying for, but fails at, specifically, reproductive care for women, including obstetrics, which should go well with your pro-birth agenda (I'm not going to dignify it with the phrase "pro-life" because once the baby comes out, the "pro-lifers" seem to run for cover) Meanwhile, when it comes to giving my tax dollars as welfare to your religion, your conservative agenda infringes upon my constitutional rights established under the 1st amendment to our constitution (in case of the USA).

wonderwonder 8y ago

Just think of the headline being: "How I leveraged music tempo and celebrity endorsements to bootstrap my startup from nothing to $85 million+ per year without paying a penny in tax." Its a business, maybe not one that you or I may engage in but that level of success is at least worth a headline news link.

NateEag 8y ago

From the guidelines on what to submit: > If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. It seems perfectly possible to me to be curious about worship music, and specifically how Hillsong got to be such a 900 pound gorilla in the field. Speaking as a Christian who has very mixed feelings about Hillsong, I certainly am. That said, the article had little substance, in my view. It recounted the church's history but didn't really touch on why they're so influential, which is really what I'm curious about.

exabrial 8y ago

Hillsong very much was a startup, behaves like a startup, and plants startups all over the world.