How Would You Change Religious Protections

[Seth]

So what? It's all charity, and it's up to the individual how charitable they choose to be. Your implication is that the rich man should be somehow required to be more charitable than the poor man just because it offends your sense of "fairness" that the economic impact of charity is not the same for one as it is the other. That's just a manifestation of socialist class envy.

And pay more taxes as well the basis of any modern civilization

They already do. In the US, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 40 percent of the tax revenues. The top 50 percent pay 93 percent of revenues. The bottom 50 percent, the dependent class, pay almost nothing, only 3 percent.

How much more should the wealthy pay, pray tell?

[Seth]

First, very nice reply.

But in my mind, this makes it worse. Specifically, the peyote example.

Now we have the government stepping in and saying that this group is allowed to do "x" as a free religious exercise, but a different group is not allowed to do the exact same thing for the exact same reason. So now that has the government not only deciding what is a "proper" religion, but who can belong to it...who has the right to believe in that religion.

How is that not interfering with the free expression of religion?

There is no secular reason to allow one person to practice a particular religion and not another person. There is no secular reason to grant one religion a specific exemption to a law and not grant a different religion the exact same exemption. It is purely sectarian.

I happen to agree with you. The legal convolutions the court (and the government) uses to justify allowing one religious group comprised of "birthright" members of the Apache tribe to use peyote, while denying the right of non-birthright non-Indians who happen to have adopted the religious dogma of the Apaches in the use of peyote are remarkably obtuse and recondite. It's pretty clear that the government is grasping at straws while attempting to justify drug controls merely because it disfavors people using drugs.

I think that's an overreaching of the government not just as it pertains to religion, but as it pertains to individual liberty.

But, I didn't say it was a perfect system. It's not. But it's a damned sight better than most other places when it comes to respecting freedom of religion.

[MrJonno]

They already do. In the US, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 40 percent of the tax revenues. The top 50 percent pay 93 percent of revenues. The bottom 50 percent, the dependent class, pay almost nothing, only 3 percent.

How much more should the wealthy pay, pray tell?

Well no one should be giving any charity at all , thats a role of taxation which should be set at a sufficient rate for everyone that no one requires 'charity'

[Seth]

They already do. In the US, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay 40 percent of the tax revenues. The top 50 percent pay 93 percent of revenues. The bottom 50 percent, the dependent class, pay almost nothing, only 3 percent.

How much more should the wealthy pay, pray tell?

Well no one should be giving any charity at all , thats a role of taxation which should be set at a sufficient rate for everyone that no one requires 'charity'

Red herring fallacy.

And an evasion.

And an expression of Marxist class envy.

How about people work so that they don't require charity?

[MrJonno]

How about people work so that they don't require charity?

Nothing wrong with that as an aim but in the meantime

[Seth]

How about people work so that they don't require charity?

Nothing wrong with that as an aim but in the meantime

In the meantime, how about if people need help, they go to their friends and neighbors, hat in hand, and humbly ask for help, rather than sending out government goons in jackboots armed with machine guns to take from others what the needy want?

Charity isn't charity when it's extorted at the muzzle of a gun.

[Hermit]

...sending out government goons in jackboots armed with machine guns to take from others...

Your government is scarier than I thought. The Australian taxation department uses neither jackboots nor machine guns to do its work, but I can see how your IRS might operate differently, what with so many US citizens enthusiastically toting guns on the streets. I found out by watching the many documentaries Clint Eastwood has made on the American Way.

[Seth]

...sending out government goons in jackboots armed with machine guns to take from others...

Your government is scarier than I thought. The Australian taxation department uses neither jackboots nor machine guns to do its work, but I can see how your IRS might operate differently, what with so many US citizens enthusiastically toting guns on the streets. I found out by watching the many documentaries Clint Eastwood has made on the American Way.

Trust me, if you resist paying your taxes long enough and hard enough, you will see Australian jackboots and machine guns outside your door. I guarantee it. Governments cannot afford to allow tax scofflaws to get away with evading taxation, and they can, will and must brutally take down anyone who resists, otherwise the general populace will discover the truth: that they don't have to pay taxes if they are willing to rise up and resist oppressive taxation. This has been the case since governments started collecting taxes.

[Hermit]

...sending out government goons in jackboots armed with machine guns to take from others...

Your government is scarier than I thought. The Australian taxation department uses neither jackboots nor machine guns to do its work, but I can see how your IRS might operate differently, what with so many US citizens enthusiastically toting guns on the streets. I found out by watching the many documentaries Clint Eastwood has made on the American Way.

Trust me, if you resist paying your taxes long enough and hard enough, you will see Australian jackboots and machine guns outside your door. I guarantee it. Governments cannot afford to allow tax scofflaws to get away with evading taxation, and they can, will and must brutally take down anyone who resists, otherwise the general populace will discover the truth: that they don't have to pay taxes if they are willing to rise up and resist oppressive taxation. This has been the case since governments started collecting taxes.

Well, coming from someone who equates taxation with theft, I am not surprised that you should think so. The reality is different. Jackboots and machine guns have never been a feature of our government's taxation collection procedure, and I doubt it ever will be, because almost all Australians accept taxation as a necessity for a functioning society. The tiny number of those who try to fraudulently evade their social obligation finishes up with fines at worst. I don't think anyone is actually sitting in gaol for tax evasion as I type.

[Hermit]

Apologies to MrJonno for attributing a quote to him that ought to have been attributed to Seth. Would a moderator please fix my mistake, starting here and flowing through the next two posts? Thank you.

Also, I was wrong in saying that nobody is currently in gaol for tax evasion. When it extends to actual fraud, people have been gaoled (rightly so) and some of these would still be there as I type. Neither jackboots nor machine guns were involved, though. Justice was done without recourse to them.

[MrJonno]

Well as tax evasion is basically a form of treason it deserves extremely harsh punishments but generally armed officials arent needed to collect it (unless the tax evaders are carrying guns themselves).

Whats the penalty in the US for treason during wartime Seth after all there is the 'war on terror' ?

[camoguard]

Tax evasion isn't that big of a deal. It seems like regular news to hear of another state or federal representative that is a few years behind on their tax return in the U.S.

[Hermit]

Tax evasion isn't that big of a deal. It seems like regular news to hear of another state or federal representative that is a few years behind on their tax return in the U.S.

In Australia the law differentiates between tax minimisation, tax evasion, tax fraud and failure to lodge tax returns. I was seven years behind with my returns at one stage (don't ask) and got off very lightly despite owing a considerable sum as a result. I finished up having to pay the tax plus a general interest charge on the amount owed, but no fine at all. After sending what amounted to an ambit plea, even the GIC was discounted by a very significant amount. The whole matter was settled via emails and a (spectacularly incompetent) accountancy firm. Jackboots and machine guns were conspicuous by their absence.

[MrJonno]

Being slow on paying your taxes normally carries a fine but isnt a crime as such, deliberately evading them or not paying after warnings does become a serious crime (in some cases it can be even more serious than owning a hand gun min 5 years)

[camoguard]

Ethically, paying some taxes is probably a good idea. But I'd like to connect any further paying or evading of taxes back to religious protections if possible.

For example, I'm on the point of view where I think removing tax exemptions from religious charities levels the playing field. If a charity happens to be run by a religious group but it passes secular muster for the quality and nature of the service, they count as a secular charity and get tax exemptions.

And to sum up my long view, I don't think religious protections are as meaningful as we make them out to be. I think protecting people's ability to conscientiously choose personal rituals or avoid things that are personally offensive is fine. And I think there's a natural limit on what people can "personal religion"-ously get away with. I think that solves the problem of recognizing a religion. You don't have to recognize any. From the government or a employer's eyes, there are just a bunch of people who coincidentally have decided Sunday is not a valid work day. They plan accordingly with their talented workforce and move on.

There should always be room for respecting a person's belief and there should always be a point where that belief is asking too much and should be ignored. What else can you do?

P.S. For atheists, you'll notice they don't get explicit protections for their lack of belief. But for the things they do believe such as family matters or humanist values or such, those things would qualify in my mind for protection.