Nice one mate. Also, mainstream conservatives, the ones which aren't religious nutbags, prefer the government to stay out of marriage business completely. i.e. allowing people to marry who they want, i.e. equal rights. Someone like Ben Shapiro has said as much in some of the interviews he's done.
P.S. the nice one part was directed towards @mrsuperman8942, but since someone was faster than me, this disclamer is now required. thanks guest.
The problem is, we have tied tax benefits and other government incentives to a religious practice of marriage. The solution would be to either remove those benefits entirely or label thse marriages as something else.
And have you seen the marriage rates? They have been steadily dropping for how many years now, and people are marrying less for religious reasons nowadays anyway. It's either a religious or economic choice, not just the former.
Btw I'm not saying that there shouldn;t be changes made to the incentives and such, but given the continuous fall, I doubt it's the most pressing concern here.
So, the fact that marriage has tax benefits is part of the problem. But I actually think the biggest problem is the lack of distinction between religious marriage and political marriage. Governments cannot dictate whether or not you are married under the eyes of your God or your church. Nor can churches dictate whether you are legally married in the eyes of the government. However due to the two happening at the same time and often by the same people, (priests/pastors who are ordained to marry people legally) we often think of them as the same thing. Legal marriage should require a trip to the court house, a consenting party and a witness. Legal marriage shouldn't actually be allowed at Weddings. Weddings should be an entirely separate ordeal that people can do if they should so chose. I think it's fine that weddings have vows and religious leaders and that they can make you religiously married. I don't even have a problem with some churches refusing to marry homosexuals.
But whether or not you have a wedding and whether or not you get religiously married if you want the legal benefits of marriage you should need to be legally married in a separate ordeal.
deleted
· 5 years ago
1. Amazon doesn't pay any federal taxes either. Are they a mega church?
2. Married couples and parents get tax breaks/credits because studies have shown that a two-parent household is the most stable environment to raise children in (on average, I know there are exceptions to this), and having children is an indirect contribution to the labor pool that pays into social security when I get old.
@unklethan
1. Amazon has several controversial tax deductions and should be it's own topic. Getting into it will stay this conversation into something unrecognizable.
2. We actually have too many children already and tax cuts related to having more children shouldn't exist. The problem with social security is that it was created in a unsustainable way. Baby boomers were young and working and social security was handing out money as fast as it was bring it in, knowing that it would have less workers are more retirees in the future, but not taking any account for it. And now it's a problem. But this was predictable and more children is not a sustainable solution for the problem.
Also, making it easier to afford to adopt children is a good idea because there are so many children who need homes and parents who want to adopt but can't because the cost of adopting children is actually higher than having your own children.
Ok. So- I don’t want to get too side tracked. I can elaborate more if needed. But both @bethorien and @unklethan are correct. We cannot support our current standard of living while increasing the population without creating a growing caste of “poor servants.” So we have too many people. However- we also cannot continue our social and economic systems without more people. It takes 2 working adults to support 1 adults retirement. That means we need more working kids each generation or the generation before has no support in retirement. Many countries including Japan face crises of this nature and incentivize people to have kids until growth is stable. Current economic growth is also strongly related to birth rates as well. If we stop reproducing en masse without making huge socio economic changes first- a generation of people will hit a wall at 200mph. *EDIT- should be @thekaylapup, not Bethorien.
@guest_ is right about the economy being dependent upon more births, but this is also going to lead to economic collapse either way if nothing is done to change the economic system. More people will only put unbearable stress on the resource pool in the long run. And the lack of future children to support the baby bomber retirement is an issue our government has known about since the beginning and has just been refusing to deal with until it becomes literally unsolvable.
I agree @thekaylapup. The earth is in essence a sealed ecosystem. Effectively nothing that isn’t already here is added over time. We can transmute and transform and transfer around but not actually create. We can discover things that are untapped but not actually add “more.” It’s finite, so against exponential growth- things eventually run out. And truly no growth is exponential. A system that requires continual growth to sustain itself eventually dies. The growth slows or stops, the resources to maintain its mass run out, or it succumbs to the laws of nature....
... so it is not sustainable and it’s in the best interest of the future to change the system. There in lies the rub. It is NOT in the best interest of today to change it. Change means sacrifice, adjustment, work. The unfamiliar and unknown and new unforeseen challenges. What we have been and are basically doing, is taking things “on credit” to be paid back in the future. The boomer memes sum it up but we are all doing it to the kids and great grand kids yet to be born. The longer the bill goes outstanding the larger it gets and the more we lose if we default. But no generation wants to be the generation who gets stuck with the check, so we take out another credit card and charge to that, leaving the combined debt for the next generation and so on. Because people don’t want to give all this up. In fact- we want more, and cheaper. Someday the credit will run out and there will be nothing left to borrow. When that happens- whoever is alive on earth will pay the price.
The one slim chance we have st at least extending our ability to keep living the way we are is space. “More efficient” and “green” tech are stitched in time- at best helping extend the clock, but are no magic bulletin that allow us to break the laws of physics. There is no system of recycling or manufacturing that is truly 0 waste and converts everything into the exact elements we need to continue the cycle. So if things on earth are finite we need a way to add things and short of alchemy or it’s equivalent, the only other place to get thins is outside our planet. We are a bit far off from being able to bring more back that it takes to get there and bring it- so unless we simply learn to either make do with less it doesn’t work out well. Our current system isn’t too far removed from slavery and requires a large “peasant worker” caste to supply what we need. Robotics could mitigate this...
... making us capable of not requiring massive amounts of cheap human labor to mine, refine, manufacture, transport, store and handle logistics for goods- that is a world where we have far fewer people and all remaining would be able to live in relative luxury. However- if we stop and think about how we get from a world of 7billion where 1% live better than the rest to one of less than a billion where robots are the primary labor and everyone lives well... most of the ways there are horrific or terrifying. I don’t want to think of how that reduction would take place or how humanity would “figure out” who got the “lottery tickets” to be among the few humans left nor what mechanism would be used to bring such a thing about and enforce it. But realize that billions of people have just recently gotten electricity, running water, ownership of cars. This is all very recent.
Asia is a prime emerging market that shows large numbers of the world population drastically improving their “quality of life” in a short span. At the same time people are finding it hard in other countries to afford the “gravy” for their “potatoes.” Understand that the poorest Americans live to a higher standard than the middle class of some nations. So when we complain about not having enough- compared to some other places we are doing very well. They’d trade lives with you and move them and their family into your “crappy apartment” and gladly work your “crappy job” for your “crappy pay.” My point is that what we are seeing is wealth moving around. If you take 10% from the wealthiest 1% (the average American is in the top 1% for resources used in the world...) the 1% feels a pinch and billions of others suddenly can afford a car or a computer. When Detroit shits down, Silicon Valley booms.
The wealth is moved around somewhere else but there still isn’t enough for everyone to live that way. It’s a classic competitive game. For every winner there is a loser. Anything you get means someone else can’t have it. Target is shelved with so many bottles of Water you can’t imagine them running out, but someone in the world has no water. That’s how it works. There’s a cost to someone else for the seemingly endless supply of goods in front of us. There’s enough to share but only if we actually share it. Go to that same target before a massive disaster is predicted and it will be near empty.
When the trucks stop brining in supplies they run out. When people don’t know how long they’ll be without, so they grab as much as they can for their needs, it runs out. That’s the world. We don’t know what we will need tomorrow. We don’t want to be caught without and we want to “live our best life” and so.... we take what we can because it is there. But someday it runs out. Someday the trucks become less frequent and then stop. So we need to change not because it will help us, but because we are screwing over the future and creating a world where they will be faced with huge challenges or huge and terrible choices because we can’t take on small changes and inconvenient sacrifices to help avoid that.
The idea behind that is the government can't have a stake in any religious institution, which could lead to governmental interference. I don't care about churches being taxed, but I do think they should have to release their financials in order to retain that tax exempt status.
Actually, Chruches are typically tax exempt because they are "non-profit organizations".
And Non-profit organizations DO make profit. And that's okay. Its a bit of a misnomer really. Non-profit organizations put whatever profits they make back into services. And that can include paying wages to employees, even including paying better wages in order to attract/retain good employees. None of that is inherently wrong. The problem is that some (not even most) chruches are not run like non-profit organizations. Money is not spent to the end if improving the church or the things the church supports, its spent to the end of making the leaders of the church wealthy. And that is the problem. The problem is that some churches are run like for profit companies. And are still tax exempt.
Actually, non-profit and religious tax exemption are two separate things. The idea is similar, but not the same thing. Religious organizations are guaranteed a more hands off approach because of the First Amendment, not because of their role in society. It's funny, because the only thing that seperates a cult from a religion in the US is their tax exempt status.
I did not know that. That is so much worse.
This actually means that the government has a GREATER impact on church doings though. Because the government has the power to dictate your tax exemption status based on if you are a religion. Giving preferred treatment to certain beliefs over others (ie "cults").
There would be less impact if chruches were expected to pay taxes like any other organization unless they were otherwise tax exempt such as for being a nonprofit organization.
Yeah, religious tax exemption can be hairy because it essentially legalizes belief. When Scientology was seeking their exemption, they brought in religious experts from around the world to testify in Congress that they were, indeed, a religion. This is all also separate from a religious movement, which is it's own thing.
Churches become tax exempt through a 501. Usually a 501(c)(3). This is not specific to religions- it’s just a form of contract. A 501(c)(3) is a general non profit exemption that any organization can get. You agree to stipulations like you can’t participate or advocate in most types of partisan politics and are very limited on politics involvement. You can still lobby but are limited to “non substantial” lobbying- what is or isn’t substantial isn’t defined. Church members and staff may engage and speak any way they like politically off church property and when not in a church capacity....
.... churches have the advantage that they do not have to get approval for the 501(c)(3) where non churches have to apply and be approved. Churches cannot however apply for 501(h) status which would allow them to lobby heavier. “Religious organizations” however CAN get 501(h). So asides an automatic approval for churches- there isn’t a specific special exemption. The tax exemption status granted to churches is the same as any other organization operating under the requirements of a 501 of that type- providing public services, staying out of partisan politics, not operating in private interest or competing or harming publicly held stocks, etc. churches have OTHER legal differences but their tax exemption isn’t by virtue of their religious nature but simply by non secular legal contract.
501 contracts are granted to those providing certain services, education, etc. and can include youth groups, museums, and many other things. Religion- wether true or not blah blah IS a form of culture and history, it is a subject taught and discussed in academia and one doesn’t need to practice a given religion to be educated on it for historical, anthropological or other reasons. Churches also also generally offer other public services and charity work as well.
To be clear- I’m not saying it is right or wrong to give them tax exemption, or making statements on religion or the issues surrounding it. I’m merely saying for purposes of this discussion what the legal facts are on tax exemptions employed by churches.
That's not actually what makes you a nonprofit organization. Non profit organizations simply must put profits gained back into the organization/charitable work. For example, a church could hold a fundraiser concert, charge admission, pay the band to come play, and the put the profits gained from the concert into replacing the chruch projector. Non-profit organizations are simply "not for profit ". Profits can be gained, and fees can be charges mandatorily in order to receive services, profits just have to go back into the organization. Rather than to an owner/investors.
And YouTube was never non-profit. It has always been for profit, as is Google for profit. They just make their profits from Ad revenue mostly.
Great point @bethorien
Right. A non profit is a business that makes less than a certain amount...a place that is not meant to make money. A church's purpose is not to make money therefore they are tax exempt. Like animal shelters and soup kitchens.
It's about intent. It's literally in the title "not for profit organization". And there are certain requirements for a business to meet in order to be non profit and therefore tax exempt. Like Clearwater Marine Aquarium charges admission and makes a lot of money but the majority of their staff are volunteers and most of the money goes into animal care so they can be non profit. Churches are mostly volunteer organizations and the little money they make goes into services they don't charge for therefore they don't pay most taxes. What is the issue with this?
Actually, non-profit organizations can have employees who are paid. They can even have all of their employees be paid.
It 100% has to do with the fact that non-profit organizations must post profits back into the business/used for charity, where for profit companies usually have owners/investors who make money from some of that profit.
...@tusabes what are you even trying to say?
First of all: Plenty of religions are against homosexuality, not just Christians
Secondly: "Chruchs" actually refers specifically to Christain organizations of faith/places of worship. Other religions actually have different words for their places of worship. "Church " can only mean something involving religions outside of Christianity when used as a noun meaning "instutionized religion as a social or political force" which the above sign clearly does not mean.
You can't tax religious organizations. Don't you see the clear problem with that? If you tax them they will have a financial relationship with the government. Do you want to go back to the Middle Ages?
I don't know if it is exactly that or not. I suppose nothing is exactly the same as anything that came before. Regardless, it is a dangerous thing. We have to be careful about the concept of taxation and representation. I am sure that churches won't and shouldn't agree to taxation without representation. Nobody can in their right mind agree to that
they are represented, just as everyone else in the country is represented. If they get taxed and disagree with it they can take it up with their representative just as any other anyone can.
Actually it has little or nothing to do with that- at least in the USA. In Europe they routinely tax churches. In the USA, any organization meeting the guidelines for a broad 501 such as a church (non profit status) can apply. It’s a catch all that in exchange to agree to provide certain public services, refrains from most partisan political involvement, and some other things- grants tax exemption. Churches however can get a default exemption vs. other organizations which must apply. Churches can still lobby and individual members of the church clergy can still act politically and express their political views outside of an official capacity. So churches do have involvement in politics and government through lobbying- and the logic doesn’t hold as the same principals would then apply to keeping corporate tax money from influencing things.
I’m very confused. I’m not really sure what you’re saying or what you mean. Adding to my confusion is that plenty of heterosexual couples can’t “make their own children” either, and many who can choose not to and may even adopt. Are you saying a gay man and a man with a vasectomy are the same thing, or that parents who choose or need to use surrogates or IVF and gay people should be put together in a group? Or like... what about people who have kids but don’t get married, or get divorced? I... I suppose is asking what your point is or how those things are connected?
I actually spoke about this at length in a other post, but I don't have the link handy.
In short: Making your own children is actually something we should be encouraged to do in moderation, and having more parents who don't produce offspring but rather take in children who need homes would be greatly beneficial, including but not limited to homosexuals.
Also, I think it goes without saying: Prejudiced people will often find ways to justify their prejudice no matter how illogical their justifications have to get in order to be congruent with their worldview. This is not true for all people, and it is always good to see someone who will change their views in the face of logic and reason, but it is true for many people. My advise is to try not to allow people who won't hear logic cause you pain from their judgement.
P.S. the nice one part was directed towards @mrsuperman8942, but since someone was faster than me, this disclamer is now required. thanks guest.
Btw I'm not saying that there shouldn;t be changes made to the incentives and such, but given the continuous fall, I doubt it's the most pressing concern here.
"We just want equal rights and non-discrimination for everyone except for people we don't agree with Is that to much to ask for"
2. Married couples and parents get tax breaks/credits because studies have shown that a two-parent household is the most stable environment to raise children in (on average, I know there are exceptions to this), and having children is an indirect contribution to the labor pool that pays into social security when I get old.
1. Amazon has several controversial tax deductions and should be it's own topic. Getting into it will stay this conversation into something unrecognizable.
2. We actually have too many children already and tax cuts related to having more children shouldn't exist. The problem with social security is that it was created in a unsustainable way. Baby boomers were young and working and social security was handing out money as fast as it was bring it in, knowing that it would have less workers are more retirees in the future, but not taking any account for it. And now it's a problem. But this was predictable and more children is not a sustainable solution for the problem.
Also, making it easier to afford to adopt children is a good idea because there are so many children who need homes and parents who want to adopt but can't because the cost of adopting children is actually higher than having your own children.
And Non-profit organizations DO make profit. And that's okay. Its a bit of a misnomer really. Non-profit organizations put whatever profits they make back into services. And that can include paying wages to employees, even including paying better wages in order to attract/retain good employees. None of that is inherently wrong. The problem is that some (not even most) chruches are not run like non-profit organizations. Money is not spent to the end if improving the church or the things the church supports, its spent to the end of making the leaders of the church wealthy. And that is the problem. The problem is that some churches are run like for profit companies. And are still tax exempt.
This actually means that the government has a GREATER impact on church doings though. Because the government has the power to dictate your tax exemption status based on if you are a religion. Giving preferred treatment to certain beliefs over others (ie "cults").
There would be less impact if chruches were expected to pay taxes like any other organization unless they were otherwise tax exempt such as for being a nonprofit organization.
Great point @bethorien
It 100% has to do with the fact that non-profit organizations must post profits back into the business/used for charity, where for profit companies usually have owners/investors who make money from some of that profit.
First of all: Plenty of religions are against homosexuality, not just Christians
Secondly: "Chruchs" actually refers specifically to Christain organizations of faith/places of worship. Other religions actually have different words for their places of worship. "Church " can only mean something involving religions outside of Christianity when used as a noun meaning "instutionized religion as a social or political force" which the above sign clearly does not mean.
In short: Making your own children is actually something we should be encouraged to do in moderation, and having more parents who don't produce offspring but rather take in children who need homes would be greatly beneficial, including but not limited to homosexuals.
Also, I think it goes without saying: Prejudiced people will often find ways to justify their prejudice no matter how illogical their justifications have to get in order to be congruent with their worldview. This is not true for all people, and it is always good to see someone who will change their views in the face of logic and reason, but it is true for many people. My advise is to try not to allow people who won't hear logic cause you pain from their judgement.