[TimG]

hrothgar, on Jan 27 2008, 09:09 AM, said:

From my perspective, I'm not overly enamored to see government collecting tithes for churches. However, I think that there is a hell of a lot worse going on throughout Europe. I think that the concept of official State Churches is much more problematic, as is the integration of overtly religious messages into the state run Education system.

You mean something like a daily recitation that includes: "one nation under God"?

[kenberg]

[quote name='luke warm' date='Jan 27 2008, 08:53 AM'] [QUOTE]
I appreciate the help and research. I altered my above post, as well, to refelct that it was not income tax evasion - however, as I understand it, the charges were still criminal in nature. Is that correct? [/QUOTE]
Yes, the charges were criminal in nature. And that is the reason he got off. The jury could not convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of willful failure to file. Hard to imagine how they came to that conclusion.[/QUOTE]
why is it hard to imagine? the gov't failed to prove there was intent, which was key to the case... correct verdict imo
[quote name='Codo' date='Jan 27 2008, 07:12 AM'][quote name='kenberg' date='Jan 27 2008, 10:38 AM'] Cherdano,
Thanks to both you and Helene for this confirmation. I remain stunned. The involvement of the government, the connection with one or two specific churches, the setting of an exact amount, these all are a shock. Since it's not my country, and since I belong to no church, it's clear I should content myself with saying I had no idea of this practice.

Thanks for the help.

Ken [/QUOTE]
I agree with helene that this is no big deal.[/QUOTE]
i think it's a huge deal, from a philosophical standpoint... it also seems discriminatory (assuming not all religions are treated equally) [/quote]
And of course philosophical ideas have a way of bringing practical consequences. There were two people who mentioned this religious tax to me. One is of Swedish descent. His grandparents left Sweden for Minnesota (as near as I can see they think of it as emigrating to Minnesota, not as emigrating to the US) partly because their Baptist faith conflicted with the state supported religion. Of course economic opportunity played a role as well, but for a Baptist economic opportunity in Sweden was particularly bleak.

It is my hope that my country will continue to welcome people of all religions and also those with no religion. It's a policy with quite a few practical advantages. The other person who mentioned this tax to me was born in the then Soviet Union. He came here with his family some twenty-five years ago. His son is the co-founder of Google. Misha tells me that becoming a citizen, for newer arrivals, is now being hampered with red tape. A serious error, I think. Mr. Einstein, we just have a few religious questions to ask you.... Bad idea, imo.

[helene_t]

Codo, on Jan 27 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

It is at first hand an administative issue. I think it has its source in the idea that the state did not want a big organisation to collect so much money on its own without the control of the state. But this side of history is not to my best knowledge, so it is just a guess.

I dunno about Germany, but in Denmark, the church tax is older than the government income tax. My guess is that originally the church collected tax on behalf of the government rather than vice versa, but I haven't found any info on this.

I agree with Ken that church tax is a bad thing, but compared to the links between religious societies and governments in many other (Western or otherwise countries) I think it's a minor issue.

For example, in Denmark there was a court verdict saying that Scientology is a business, not a religion. Why on Earth would it matter whether it is a religion or a business? It is obviously both, but why would the legal system need to define the concept of "religion" at all? You guessed it: a church pays less tax than would a business with the same activities. And that is completely unacceptable to me.

Other examples include the right to establish religion-based schools in the Netherlands which exceed the rights to establish equally weird but non-religious special schools. And the freedom of religion is often, even by some judges and politicians, interpreted as a right to otherwise illegal activity as long as it happens in the name of God. But now I'm ranting away from the tax issue.

Anyway, from a historic perspective it is understandable why the Lutheran church in Denmark has a different legal/fiscal position than any other hobby organization such as the bridge federation. In a time when everybody was Lutheran and the church had stronger ties with citizens than did the government, especially in villages that had a church but no government agencies, the church took up responsibilities that we today consider government tasks. Later, when government started invading the areas of responsibilities that used to belong to the church (such as birth and death registration), it was a practical thing for the government to rely on the church implementing such tasks.

And as long as anyone in the village is Lutheran, it makes sense to consider the church building as a community center, meaning that the church management has responsibilities to the community as a whole. At the time that competing religious societies enter the market, they obviously demand the same privileges as the Lutheran church has, such as the right to have their wedding ceremonies recognized, and tax exemption. But this is not logical, because in a multi-religion society, the churches no longer belong to the community as a whole, but should be considered private organizations, just like bridge clubs.

Ideally, I think the Lutheran church should, as soon as competing religions started entering the market, have been split up in two organizations, one paragovernmental branch inheriting the non-religious community services of interest to the whole community, and one religious branch inheriting the activities of interest to the Lutheran believers only.

[mike777]

"Anyway, from a historic perspective it is understandable why the Lutheran church in Denmark has a different legal/fiscal position than any other hobby organization such as the bridge federation. In a time when everybody was Lutheran and the church had stronger ties with citizens than did the government, especially in villages that had a church but no government agencies, the church took up responsibilities that we today consider government tasks. Later, when government started invading the areas of responsibilities that used to belong to the church (such as birth and death registration), it was a practical thing for the government to rely on the church implementing such tasks."

Well, this gets to the whole idea should we owe allegiance to a nation state, the UN, or a world religion. Some argue the world religion government is much more important than the nation/world government. Often it seems the argument one hears in favor of the nation/state is simple "because I say..."

This whole idea of a secular government collecting for the church is something.

[Codo]

helene_t, on Jan 28 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

I dunno about Germany, but in Denmark, the church tax is older than the government income tax..

I needed certainity, so I looked at Wikipedia:

In 1801 Germany had to give away some ground to France- due to a lost war.
The governement decided that the poor Lords who had to give away from there land needed something to compensate. The church was very wealthy, so they took away from them. They took most of their fields, houses etc.
But the churches had some duties, so as a compensation for this loss and to enable them to fullfill their duties, they received the allowance to create their own taxes.

And like in Denmark, the religious and political municipality dispared in the following years, but here the state still collect the taxes for all churches.

[mike777]

"In 1801 Germany had to give away some ground to France- due to a lost war.
The governement decided that the poor Lords who had to give away from there land needed something to compensate. The church was very wealthy, so they took away from them. They took most of their fields, houses etc.
But the churches had some duties, so as a compensation for this loss and to enable them to fullfill their duties, they received the allowance to create their own taxes."



This is really interesting....the secular government lost a war, is very weak, but so strong to take away from church? Notice they did not take away from church when they were very strong?....Me thinks there is more to this story.

I bet the poor lords are poor...meaning they had no power......?

My guess, and only a blind guess, the church lost more in war..much more than secular govt. I have no clue why. Random guess...people hated the church.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 27 2008, 09:50 PM, said:

the world religion government

A concept from one of Orwell's books?

[Gerben42]

Fine with me because if you say "no religion" you don't pay any church tax. No need for my tax money to go to an institution I don't agree with. That happens more than enough already with the rest of my tax money.

[jtfanclub]

ArtK78, on Jan 26 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 26 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

So when I watched the GOP debate, did I hear Mike Huckabee right that instituting a fair tax would raise the same amount of revenue, but cost every individual group of tax payers (poor, middle class, wealthy, elderly) less? I don't know what makes me shake my head more, that he would say something like that if he knew it wasn't true, or that he might believe it's true.

So, Huckabee says that everyone would pay less but the total raised by the government would be the same.

Interesting concept.

When did 1+1 stop being equal to 2?

Tourists from other countries don't pay any American income tax, but they do pay consumption taxes. So in theory, every American group could pay a smidge less and the rest would be covered by foreigners.

Whether we'd still get any foreign tourists after we raised the price of everything by 23% is a different question. I suppose the dollar will continue to drop until they come back.

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Jan 28 2008, 02:42 AM, said:

"In 1801 Germany
<snip>
This is really interesting....the secular government lost a war, is very weak, but so strong to take away from church?  Notice they did not take away from church when they were very strong?....Me thinks there is more to this story.
<snip>

I would assume that this happend in Prussia,
Prussia, Austria and ... lost a war against revolutionary
France, and this would mean, that we are talking about
protestant areas in Germany.

German law from 1525 to 18?? was, that the religion of
the reigning lord determined the religion of his peasant (*),
and in protestant areas the reigning lord was the head
of the church.
So the land of the protestant church was the land of the
reigning lord. The land was used to finace the clerics.

(*) This ignores Saxonia, where the reigning lord became a
catholic, which enabled him to become king in poland, but
the peasants of Saxonia stayed protestant, this happened
around 1750.
The house of Saxonia stayed catholic, after the crown of
poland got lost.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Since Prussia united Germany 1870 it is not surprising, that
prussian laws got extended to catholic areas.

[mycroft]

I expect we're talking about "code words" here with Huckabee - "undocumented aliens", mostly spanish-speaking and brown, don't pay income taxes, but they'll have to pay the GST (and they won't get the prebate, either, so we save 10K a year, per). So his argument is that "everyone who pays taxes, will save money. We'll get it from the tax-dodgers and the green-card evaders..."

The question is, what do the corporations pay in any of these schemes? If the extra money is coming from there, expect the lobbyists to scuttle this sucker. Expect the lobbyists to scuttle this sucker anyway, what with Tax Accountancy and Tax Lawyers making a *large* amount of money "saving people money" and then convincing judges/IRS that it was legal later.

Cynical, moi?

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jan 28 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jan 26 2008, 12:43 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 26 2008, 12:37 PM, said:

So when I watched the GOP debate, did I hear Mike Huckabee right that instituting a fair tax would raise the same amount of revenue, but cost every individual group of tax payers (poor, middle class, wealthy, elderly) less? I don't know what makes me shake my head more, that he would say something like that if he knew it wasn't true, or that he might believe it's true.

So, Huckabee says that everyone would pay less but the total raised by the government would be the same.

Interesting concept.

When did 1+1 stop being equal to 2?

Tourists from other countries don't pay any American income tax, but they do pay consumption taxes. So in theory, every American group could pay a smidge less and the rest would be covered by foreigners.

Whether we'd still get any foreign tourists after we raised the price of everything by 23% is a different question. I suppose the dollar will continue to drop until they come back.

They have similar taxes in Canada, and though it may reduce the number of tourists that go to Canada, it hasn't dried up the tourist industry. Last I heard, many Americans travel to Europe every year, too.

(Yes, some of the VAT is refundable, but not all of it, and I expect many tourists aren't bothered to make full use of the refund options, either.)

[mycroft]

7% (now 5%, but no longer refundable, IIRC) is a long fry from 23%.

Even with most provinces' sales tax, it was still only 15% or so. I remember paying several state (and city! - that doesn't happen here) sales taxes in various places in the US - add federal 23% (of the final cost, see below) to that.

Plus, remember, 23% on total paid == 30% on purchase price (which is what the GST/PST numbers are).

Michael.