Have Religions Outlived its Usefulness in The USA

[Apple Sugar]

I got vision and you're wearing bifocals, you are quoting me laws. These laws were made from the influence of religion. It doesn't matter how long ago this happened it happened because of religion. Prohibition was a part of the constitution but it's gone now. The example of the Atheist learning center proves my point. Rather than rejecting a bogus claim they acquiesced because it might jeopardize Religious freedom of others. Just what happens in an Atheist Church?

As far as States dumping blue laws and some allowing same sex marriages, are just examples of an enlightenment happening in this country. I'm not talking about what is or was but what needs to be.

Okie Dokie.
You stay needy.

 

[Tabb]

Okie Dokie.
You stay needy.

LOL
Thanks for the convo. I really enjoyed the debate.

 

[Smart_Guy]

By the way, there are no taxes in Islam, but charity and alms. Unlike taxes, we are not forced to pay it even here in the most strict Muslim country, it is dedicated for the poor only, and it is a very small percentage of what we already have only if a quorum is reached.

Say, what happens if you refuse to pay the taxes in USA?

 

[psychoslice]

My question is, were they ever useful ?.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

By the way, there are no taxes in Islam, but charity and alms. Unlike taxes, we are not forced to pay it even here in the most strict Muslim country, it is dedicated for the poor only, and it is a very small percentage of what we already have only if a quorum is reached.

Say, what happens if you refuse to pay the taxes in USA?

In Australia, if you're an employee, tax is deduced from your pay. In effect you're paying a certain amount of tax before you get your salary.
At the end of the financial year, you then fill in an income tax statement (or get an accountant to) which includes any deductions you're entitled to, etc.

The idea is that the amount deducted through the year, based on your wage, pretty much covers your tax bill. Depending on what deductions you can make (eg. cleaning cost on work uniforms) you may get a small amount back from the government, since they might have taken too much from you during the year.

Of course, depending on various circumstances, you can either owe a lot or be owed a lot.

Generally they don't care if you fail to do your income tax return, and it turns out they owe you. They're less understanding if it turns out you owe them, but penalties are most commonly financial, or just enforced payment of what you owe.

Bigger penalties are for if you lie regarding tax, try to deduct for things you aren't allowed, understate your income, don't declare income (eg. cash not going through the books), etc, etc.

It's similar in a broad sense in New Zealand. Little simpler, but same concept. I imagine UK and US are along the same lines, but that is just an assumption on my part.

 

[Smart_Guy]

In Australia, if you're an employee, tax is deduced from your pay. In effect you're paying a certain amount of tax before you get your salary.
At the end of the financial year, you then fill in an income tax statement (or get an accountant to) which includes any deductions you're entitled to, etc.

The idea is that the amount deducted through the year, based on your wage, pretty much covers your tax bill. Depending on what deductions you can make (eg. cleaning cost on work uniforms) you may get a small amount back from the government, since they might have taken too much from you during the year.

Of course, depending on various circumstances, you can either owe a lot or be owed a lot.

Generally they don't care if you fail to do your income tax return, and it turns out they owe you. They're less understanding if it turns out you owe them, but penalties are most commonly financial, or just enforced payment of what you owe.

Bigger penalties are for if you lie regarding tax, try to deduct for things you aren't allowed, understate your income, don't declare income (eg. cash not going through the books), etc, etc.

It's similar in a broad sense in New Zealand. Little simpler, but same concept. I imagine UK and US are along the same lines, but that is just an assumption on my part.

Thank you for the explanation

Don't remember where I heard that taxes are also taken based on land/properties. Is that true? If it is, is it taken even for the unemployed or those with no income?

And is there a quorum for that; e.g. owning a house of a size un-taxed (if I got the word right) for?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Thank you for the explanation

No probs!

Don't remember where I heard that taxes are also taken based on land/properties. Is that true? If it is, is it taken even for the unemployed or those with no income?

I can only speak for Australia, but it's not really true. There is a concept of land tax, but it doesn't apply to your primary place of residence (your home) or land used for primary production (eg. farms). It applies to vacant land you're not living on, a second residence, etc.

There is also a certain level of income you can earn without having to pax any income tax (ie. a tax free threshold). Australian rates at the moment are as follows (as an example);

Taxable income.................Tax on this income
0 – $18,200......................Nil
$18,201 – $37,000.............19c for each $1 over $18,200
$37,001 – $80,000.............$3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
$80,001 – $180,000............$17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
$180,001 and over..............$54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

 

[Smart_Guy]

Cool

There is a concept of land tax, but it doesn't apply to your primary place of residence (your home) or land used for primary production (eg. farms). It applies to vacant land you're not living on, a second residence, etc.

What if you own two different properties but under the same first category (in red), e.g. one primary residence plus one primary production property? Will one of them be considered a second residence/property that goes under the second category (in blue), although both are different kinds of properties?

Sorry, I'm just a little curious in this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Cool



What if you own two different properties but under the same first category (in red), e.g. one primary residence plus one primary production property? Will one of them be considered a second residence/property that goes under the second category (in blue), although both are different kinds of properties?

Sorry, I'm just a little curious in this.

No probs, more than happy to answer, as long as you realise;
a) I'm answering based on Australian law. Other countries will be different to some degree.
b) I'm no expert. But between running my own business, implementing finance systems, and having had a rental property I have a fair idea.

One property is your designated primary residence. This could be a house ON a farm, or it could be a flat/unit/house/apartment somewhere else. Wherever you spend the majority of time. One only.

But in terms of primary producer status, there is no limit. If I have 3 farms, and all 3 are primary producers (let's say they're all cattle farms), then all 3 are exempt from land tax.

It was a way to avoid taxing people off the land if they're using it productively. The tax is aimed at 'luxury' use of land. People who own land and are not using it (eg. vacant blocks) or people who own multiple houses, living in one and using the other(s) for holiday houses, etc.

 

[Tabb]

In Australia, if you're an employee, tax is deduced from your pay. In effect you're paying a certain amount of tax before you get your salary.
At the end of the financial year, you then fill in an income tax statement (or get an accountant to) which includes any deductions you're entitled to, etc.

The idea is that the amount deducted through the year, based on your wage, pretty much covers your tax bill. Depending on what deductions you can make (eg. cleaning cost on work uniforms) you may get a small amount back from the government, since they might have taken too much from you during the year.

Of course, depending on various circumstances, you can either owe a lot or be owed a lot.

Generally they don't care if you fail to do your income tax return, and it turns out they owe you. They're less understanding if it turns out you owe them, but penalties are most commonly financial, or just enforced payment of what you owe.

Bigger penalties are for if you lie regarding tax, try to deduct for things you aren't allowed, understate your income, don't declare income (eg. cash not going through the books), etc, etc.

It's similar in a broad sense in New Zealand. Little simpler, but same concept. I imagine UK and US are along the same lines, but that is just an assumption on my part.

In the US the federal Taxation is pretty much like your country. However we also pay an income Tax to the state you live in, if you live in a major city you pay another income tax, and you also pay taxes on real estate you own to your local municipality. Also there's sales taxes on the majority of items you may purchase that you pay to the state and city you live in.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the US the federal Taxation is pretty much like your country. However we also pay an income Tax to the state you live in, if you live in a major city you pay another income tax, and you also pay taxes on real estate you own to your local municipality. Also there's sales taxes on the majority of items you may purchase that you pay to the state and city you live in.

Yeah, US Sales tax kills me.
I occasionally have to set it up for multi-nationals. Way too complicated!!

Income tax is all federal for us. We also pay a VAT (which we call GST) which is 10% on most items, 0% on some (food staples, for example). The feds then funnel money back to the states, which includes all the GST raised.

We pay rates to the local councils, which I suppose you could see as a tax. It's based on the estimated value of the property (which doesn't always seem to be close to the REAL value of the property...lol...)
My council is expensive, relatively...our yearly rates to local council are as follows;

Municipal charge of $100.33 and a Waste Management Charge of $363.55.
Plus 0.003287 x House Value

Median house where I live is $637,000, so it comes out at $2093.82 plus the Municipal and Waste Management charges.
$2557.70 all up.
:cover:
Ouch!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree with that. It does serves a purpose to individuals and their families. However when it infringes upon the rights and liberties of all the people then it should be limited.

Or taking extreme advantages of the courtesies afforded to the religion spanning far past its intended purpose.

 

[Apple Sugar]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

-Seneca the Younger: Roman Adviser, Statesman and Philosopher.

 

[Tabb]

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

-Seneca the Younger: Roman Adviser, Statesman and Philosopher.

I like that! Can I use it?

 

[Sir Doom]

Religions have served a very important function to mankind's civilizational journey. Without it,many civilization would of never survived. Now we find ourselves at a crossroad.

Seems a bit black and white to me. I don't really feel that religion is in control of this country nearly as much as some people would like to think (both religious and non-religious people, I might add).

The World has never seen a nation like ours before. We are a nation of multicultures where every race, religion, and nationality resides.

Nationalism is not a far cry from racism, my friend. We are not the only, nor the first, nor the most multicultural nation that exists or has existed.

Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions?

To answer this, I require your opinion on what 'returns' you expect from religion in the first place in order to evaluate whether it is diminishing now.

Are religions actually hindering our development as a nation?

Development into what, exactly?

Would we be better off without them?

Absolutely not.

I'm not suggesting that we ban religions, that would be disastrous to our moral compass not to mention the economy. What I am suggesting is that we act like the secular country that we should be.

How we 'act' as a nation is never uniform among the populace. I believe we ARE acting as the secular nation we should be. Your rights are not dependent upon your membership to any religion. That includes your right to vote, your right to speak in public, your right to seek office, your legal rights as a citizen, etc. Everything that each of us is capable of doing in order to exercise our individual 'control' over this nation is unaffected by religion (unless of course we WANT to be effected by religion, which is, of course, one of our individual rights).

The government should stop subsidies to religion.

I think they should stop subsidies to environmentally damaging energy producers. Spread the word. Perhaps you'll get your wish if enough people agree with you. Every change is a struggle against public opinion and established policy, no matter what it happens to be, or how 'common sense' we find it.

Stop the tax deductions for donations, the tax free status of churches,

I think this is being covered by those more educated than me on the matter already, but charitable work is charitable work no matter who is doing it. Perhaps you think a church organization is 'wrong' for requiring a homeless person to attend an hour of church before feeding them. That's fine. I assure you that's a hoop that many are willing to jump through without a second thought, and without allowing themselves to be 'brainwashed' into Christianity either. You'll just have to get over this one, I think. Religious organizations do a lot of good for a lot of people. I hope they always do. If it takes a tax break to make it happen... big deal. If it wasn't happening, we'd have higher taxes anyway in order to support more social programs funded by the government. Its six one way half a dozen the other. Personally, I've found a church organization to be far more efficient and streamlined in these sorts of things than any government office intended for the same purpose. That's just personal experience, though not a hard and fast rule by any means.

and making laws that are influenced by religions.

The people elect who they wish to elect. Those elected are obligated (however slightly) to act on behalf of their constituency. Their constituency is influenced by religion. That is never going to change. And it shouldn't, either.

Religions have become economic and political powerhouses in this country through non believers inadvertent assistance.

Is that somehow worse than McDonald's being an economic and political powerhouse through the inadvertent (and sometimes vehemently opposed) assistance of those who would never dream of eating there?

I could go on and on but what do you think?

I think that as long as religion appeals to people it will remain a powerful force in any nation no matter how secular that nation happens to be.

 

[Apple Sugar]

I like that! Can I use it?

Sure! I did.

 

[Tabb]

Seems a bit black and white to me. I don't really feel that religion is in control of this country nearly as much as some people would like to think (both religious and non-religious people, I might add).

Nationalism is not a far cry from racism, my friend. We are not the only, nor the first, nor the most multicultural nation that exists or has existed.

To answer this, I require your opinion on what 'returns' you expect from religion in the first place in order to evaluate whether it is diminishing now.

Development into what, exactly?

Absolutely not.

How we 'act' as a nation is never uniform among the populace. I believe we ARE acting as the secular nation we should be. Your rights are not dependent upon your membership to any religion. That includes your right to vote, your right to speak in public, your right to seek office, your legal rights as a citizen, etc. Everything that each of us is capable of doing in order to exercise our individual 'control' over this nation is unaffected by religion (unless of course we WANT to be effected by religion, which is, of course, one of our individual rights).

I think they should stop subsidies to environmentally damaging energy producers. Spread the word. Perhaps you'll get your wish if enough people agree with you. Every change is a struggle against public opinion and established policy, no matter what it happens to be, or how 'common sense' we find it.

I think this is being covered by those more educated than me on the matter already, but charitable work is charitable work no matter who is doing it. Perhaps you think a church organization is 'wrong' for requiring a homeless person to attend an hour of church before feeding them. That's fine. I assure you that's a hoop that many are willing to jump through without a second thought, and without allowing themselves to be 'brainwashed' into Christianity either. You'll just have to get over this one, I think. Religious organizations do a lot of good for a lot of people. I hope they always do. If it takes a tax break to make it happen... big deal. If it wasn't happening, we'd have higher taxes anyway in order to support more social programs funded by the government. Its six one way half a dozen the other. Personally, I've found a church organization to be far more efficient and streamlined in these sorts of things than any government office intended for the same purpose. That's just personal experience, though not a hard and fast rule by any means.

The people elect who they wish to elect. Those elected are obligated (however slightly) to act on behalf of their constituency. Their constituency is influenced by religion. That is never going to change. And it shouldn't, either.

Is that somehow worse than McDonald's being an economic and political powerhouse through the inadvertent (and sometimes vehemently opposed) assistance of those who would never dream of eating there?

I think that as long as religion appeals to people it will remain a powerful force in any nation no matter how secular that nation happens to be.

I'm impressed and almost honored that you took the time to take apart my opening statement. I think you can do that with almost anyone's writings. I think you however over thought this and miss the whole point of the thread. All I was getting at was is it time to re look at how we think of religion in this country.

I do believe I stated that to ban religion would be disastrous and I pointed out an actual need for a lot of its aspects. My point had more to do with how governments treat and use religion. If we are a true Secular nation, the government cannot use religion against its citizens. We complain about Non Secularism in Muslim countries and its harm but somehow its OK for us because its Christianity. My whole point is that there is no place for religion in good government.

 

[Ingledsva]

So, donations to, say, United Way or other non-profits can be tax-deductible, but not donations to churches?


ING - Yes. Or make them prove EVERY PENNY donated, actually goes to help people. No money diverted to pay for religious buildings, religious pamphlets, Bibles, religious teachers, religious singers brought in, etc.


To place churches in the tax loop blurs the separation of church and state.

No it doesn't.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


We don't prohibit either of these by taxing these money making institutions.


We also need to prohibit other things that churches do - as dodges for their members.


Here where I live - people have put their homes in the name of the church, so they don't have to pay taxes.

They also claim they don't have to pay Union dues, while getting the benefits.

Some also use religious clauses to cheat the system - such as abandoning work any time they feel like it, by claiming the leave is church related. In other words, not just Saturday or Sunday, but week long religious retreats, or going overseas with the church to "help" people. These "here" have included "working" on churches all over the world. How nice to be able to scr*w your fellow employees, whom only get a week or two off, - by being gone when they were scheduled for vacation.


Also, We definitely should not in any way pay for religious education.


There are a lot of church "privileges" that need to be rescinded.


*

 

[Tabb]

Or taking extreme advantages of the courtesies afforded to the religion spanning far past its intended purpose.

Exactly. The biggest problem is politicians using religion to get what they want by promising and delivering on benefits for support to religious affiliations.

 

[s2a]

Religions have served a very important function to mankind's civilizational journey. Without it,many civilization would of never survived.

Arguable. Unproven. Inestimable.

Secondarily, is this "world" a "better" place in knowing that all current "civilizations" have survived?

Now we find ourselves at a crossroad.
The World has never seen a nation like ours before. We are a nation of multicultures where every race, religion, and nationality resides. Have we reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to religions?

That is the remaining hope...

Are religions actually hindering our development as a nation? Would we be better off without them?

Yes and yes.

I'm not suggesting that we ban religions, that would be disastrous to our moral compass not to mention the economy. What I am suggesting is that we act like the secular country that we should be. The government should stop subsidies to religion. Stop the tax deductions for donations, the tax free status of churches, and making laws that are influenced by religions. Religions have become economic and political powerhouses in this country through non believers inadvertent assistance. I could go on and on but what do you think?

I think you may be on the right track.

I remain fairly confident that such a track is most unlikely in my life time, yours, or even within the lifetimes of your great-grandchildren.

But...it is inevitable. And unlikely seen as any result of exerted piety of faith.

Like "the poor", there will always be "people of faith". Always. It's unavoidable.

But...and this is a big one. EVENTUALLY..MOST will come to accept that their microwaves, cell phones, refrigerators, "internet tubes", electrical lighting, medical science, etc. are neither just "magic" or dependent upon "God's Will".

Eventually.

But it will take some time. Just take some heart in the fact that most people have yet to even contemplate what resides in their own night sky. Ignorant people procreate much faster with greater proclivity that simply "informed" people. Yet..."dumb" need not always prevail.