(S. Korean) Government to introduce 'church taxes'

[Cormac]

What is a pastoralist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

ah.

Farming.

[Cormac]

Double

[MiM]

In such cases, the children don't yet have control of the property. Instead, it is held trust, and the trustees will generally have powers to handle the property and its proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. Strictly, this is not the same scenario as binding a third party to a contract without their consent. Property won't vest in children until they are over 18, or they reach an age specified in the trust vehicle. At least, this is the case In Common Law jurisdictions.

I don't really see the difference

A kid can even work and earn money, but doesn't really have full control of that money until legally of age. Parents also sign up their kids for all kind of clubs et.c., which might have high member fees (e.g. horseback riding), usually those continue yearly, unless you explicitly sign off, and once the kid is of age, any fees will fall on the kid.

[Hermit]

What is a pastoralist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

ah.

Farming.

In Australia a distinction is made between farmers and pastoralists, but yes, for the purposes of discussing land tax here, you can lump the two together.

[Svartalf]

Of course parents can bind their kids to all kinds of legal contracts. Let's say a kid owns a house that needs to get rented out. Then the parent (or legal guardian) will sign for everything, no need to ask the kids opinion there.

In such cases, the children don't yet have control of the property. Instead, it is held trust, and the trustees will generally have powers to handle the property and its proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. Strictly, this is not the same scenario as binding a third party to a contract without their consent. Property won't vest in children until they are over 18, or they reach an age specified in the trust vehicle. At least, this is the case In Common Law jurisdictions.

A trust? Eff, why get cumbered when, acting a legal guardian, you can do all that the kid can't while a minor and still saddle him with the deal as soon as he reaches age.

[Cormac]

What is a pastoralist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoralism

ah.

Farming.

In Australia a distinction is made between farmers and pastoralists, but yes, for the purposes of discussing land tax here, you can lump the two together.

Every day is a school day (for me).

[Cormac]

Of course parents can bind their kids to all kinds of legal contracts. Let's say a kid owns a house that needs to get rented out. Then the parent (or legal guardian) will sign for everything, no need to ask the kids opinion there.

In such cases, the children don't yet have control of the property. Instead, it is held trust, and the trustees will generally have powers to handle the property and its proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. Strictly, this is not the same scenario as binding a third party to a contract without their consent. Property won't vest in children until they are over 18, or they reach an age specified in the trust vehicle. At least, this is the case In Common Law jurisdictions.

A trust? Eff, why get cumbered when, acting a legal guardian, you can do all that the kid can't while a minor and still saddle him with the deal as soon as he reaches age.

If the property belongs to the kid, the guardian holds the property on trust.

...and when the kid comes of age, or the property vests in them, they can set aside any contracts not in the interest of the beneficiary. (Although, the courts will examine the contracts closely to assess whether or not they were executed in good faith and for the benefit of the beneficiaries).

[MiM]

Of course parents can bind their kids to all kinds of legal contracts. Let's say a kid owns a house that needs to get rented out. Then the parent (or legal guardian) will sign for everything, no need to ask the kids opinion there.

In such cases, the children don't yet have control of the property. Instead, it is held trust, and the trustees will generally have powers to handle the property and its proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. Strictly, this is not the same scenario as binding a third party to a contract without their consent. Property won't vest in children until they are over 18, or they reach an age specified in the trust vehicle. At least, this is the case In Common Law jurisdictions.

A trust? Eff, why get cumbered when, acting a legal guardian, you can do all that the kid can't while a minor and still saddle him with the deal as soon as he reaches age.

If the property belongs to the kid, the guardian holds the property on trust.

...and when the kid comes of age, or the property vests in them, they can set aside any contracts not in the interest of the beneficiary. (Although, the courts will examine the contracts closely to assess whether or not they were executed in good faith and for the benefit of the beneficiaries).

Not over here. The kid owns the property completely, but the guardian decides on all legal matters for the kid. No trusts involved.There are rules demanding that the guardian has to act in the kids best interest. Certainly the kid cannot suddenly throw out a person from a rented home just because (s)he has now gained full age and control of the property and just doesn't like the previous agreement (we have quite strict laws regulating when and how people can be evicted from their homes).

[Cormac]

Of course parents can bind their kids to all kinds of legal contracts. Let's say a kid owns a house that needs to get rented out. Then the parent (or legal guardian) will sign for everything, no need to ask the kids opinion there.

In such cases, the children don't yet have control of the property. Instead, it is held trust, and the trustees will generally have powers to handle the property and its proceeds for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. Strictly, this is not the same scenario as binding a third party to a contract without their consent. Property won't vest in children until they are over 18, or they reach an age specified in the trust vehicle. At least, this is the case In Common Law jurisdictions.

A trust? Eff, why get cumbered when, acting a legal guardian, you can do all that the kid can't while a minor and still saddle him with the deal as soon as he reaches age.

If the property belongs to the kid, the guardian holds the property on trust.

...and when the kid comes of age, or the property vests in them, they can set aside any contracts not in the interest of the beneficiary. (Although, the courts will examine the contracts closely to assess whether or not they were executed in good faith and for the benefit of the beneficiaries).

Not over here. The kid owns the property completely, but the guardian decides on all legal matters for the kid. No trusts involved.There are rules demanding that the guardian has to act in the kids best interest. Certainly the kid cannot suddenly throw out a person from a rented home just because (s)he has now gained full age and control of the property and just doesn't like the previous agreement (we have quite strict laws regulating when and how people can be evicted from their homes).

Weirdos!

[Svartalf]

It's the same here... it seems that it's the common law tradition that is weird.

[Cormac]

It's the same here... it seems that it's the common law tradition that is weird.

You continentals with your nutty Napoleonic laws.

Common Law is far more conducive to maintaining liberty and vindication of rights (although we're all going through a dark patch of corrupted public (secret) service at the moment).

[FBM]

Couldn't find a better place for this and didn't want to start a new thread for it:

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/br ... pAlr8QmkrY

Breaking: Federal District Court Declares A Religious Income Tax Exemption Unconstitutional
by DAVID BADASH on NOVEMBER 22, 2013

A federal district court judge has declared “unconstitutional” a portion of U.S. law that allows “a minister of the gospel” to not pay income tax on a specific portion of their compensation.

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the so-called “parish exemption,” which allows religious ministers to avoid paying taxes on the value of their housing granted to them by their religious employers, “violates the establishment clause” of the U.S. Constitution and must be discontinued.

The law, 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), has bee on the books since 1954.

The tax exemption was estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $2.3 billion from 2002-2007 alone, likely more in the years since.

Heralding it as a “major federal court victory,” the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit along with their co-presidents, Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, offered an explanation of yesterday’s ruling.

Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes.

“The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.”

Crabb wrote: “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.”

The 1954 bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter Mack, argued ministers should be rewarded for “carrying on such a courageous fight against this [godless and anti-religious world movement].”

“I agree with plaintiffs that §107(2) does not have a secular purpose or effect,” wrote Crabb, adding that a reasonable observer would view it “as an endorsement of religion.”

Crabb wrote that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.”

All taxpayers are burdened by taxes, Crabb noted. “Defendants do not identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.”

One study has estimated that in total, combined religious tax exemptions cost American taxpayers $71 billion each year.

The Foundation sued Jacob Lew, Secretary of the Treasury Department, and Acting Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Daniel Werfel.

The ruling, which you can read in full, below, notes:

It is DECLARED that 26 U.S.C. § 107(2) violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Defendants [the government] are ENJOINED from enforcing § 107(2). The injunction shall take effect at the conclusion of any appeals filed by defendants or the expiration of defendants’ deadline for filing an appeal, whichever is later.

In other words, the ruling right now is on hold until the appeals process is complete.

It is not known if the government will appeal, but expect a full-throated attack from the religious right demanding the law be re-written to comply with the Constitution.

[JimC]

Where do our atheist US conservatives stand on this issue?

[FBM]

Are there any?

[Jason]

A+ers?