My religion believes in claiming itself to be a religion for tax reasons. Everything I pay taxes on is part of my religion, so I must be tax exempt. My job is also part of my religion, so if you join my religion, you won't have to pay taxes. RELIGION: enemy of reason since 5,000 BC.
On the other hand as soon as salary or benefits....(such as a car or electricity bill) are covered for a pastor or priest or nun....or Rabbi...... they must claim either all of this...... or a significant percentage of this benefit as income. (At least I am pretty sure that that is how it works up here in Canada anyway) If.... a pastor's car is provided by the church she works for...... she would need to keep track of mileage for several years to determine how much of the driving she does is for personal reasons..... and how much is church related. Atheism resembles religion in a huge number of ways.............. and has its proponents who proselytize on a scale comparable to Pastor Ray Comfort and Pastor Kirk Cameron! A high percentage of Atheists make quite ethical decisions though..... such as how Israeli Atheists and Agnostics were the primary supporters of Operation Moses and Operation Solomon where thousands of Falasha Jews were airlifted from Ethiopia to Israel.
Nice try, but salaries aren't tax exempt. A local creationist preacher spent over 7 years in federal prison for not paying payroll salaries on his employees.
Been done. There was a guy on television just recently who had the "Church of the Perpetual Exemption", and I myself have pushed the First Church of Christ, Tax Cheat. In mine, however, you had to contribute 100 dollars to the Fund for the Founder's Tuscan Vineyard, Roll Royce and Gulfstar to be a bona fide parishioner.
Problem is that is not how religions work. And I'm not going to tell you how religions work because any adult that doesn't know how religions work are not capable of understanding it. (this coming from someone how thinks organized religion is stupid)
my new religion is to tax those who do not pay taxes... so by not paying me taxes you are violating my religious rights (according to your logic)... see how silly and what a failed logic your idea of how religion works is? religious rights give you the right to practice religion, within the scope of the law... hence why stoning people to death in america, is not allowed by christians or muslims... as well as all the other wacky things they would have a "right" to do according to their beliefs... but they can't, because religious rights only protect your right to believe that religion, but when it comes to the practice of it, it must be within the scope of the law... so as to not infringe upon the rights of others not to be affected by your beliefs...
I agree, I've long argued gays should have the right to marry, as long as the churches and members who disagree, are not compelled to participate in that marriage... its also why I've long said marriage has no place being a government regulations to license and tax... remove that government tax and license, and anyone can get married how they see fit... and if people want legal rights, let them hire a lawyer and go before a government court to petition for such legal status with each other... and if they decide not to do that, no worries, get mad one day, just leave, you're not legally bound to go through the courts to clarify anything... wish both sides came to that conclusion...
I disagree, the reason gays wanted the equal rights is marriage has legal standing like when in a hospital, the hospital can not deny you access to a spouse.... they can to a girl friend or boy friend marriage without the legal standing means zip.... bet you if we said everyone but Christians can legally marry in this country, many Christians would not be very happy and rightly so, cause religious marriage alone doesn't mean much to anyone .
marriage without legal standing may mean zip to some... but thats all some wanted... and it would have upheld everyones religious rights and freedoms to do what they wanted... and by forcing them to hire a lawyer and fill out paperwork to get legal recognition in a court of law, I think we also accomplished the same thing... without infringing on anyones right or forcing anyone else to comply... I think thats a perfect solution... especially for people who want to get "married" with essentially a built-in prenup where what is theirs is theirs and whats not is not... no need for divorce courts after should they choose not to take steps to have legal powers recognize them... I mean we already have methods to handle children born into those relationships, so no problems, we already have ways to handle "spouse" in the workplace for insurance reasons etc etc... so there are few other reasons why we would need a court of law to tax and regulate that marriage when a spouse is already recognized for many instances... we're simply tearing down the walls to who can perform a marriage ceremony, and who has the right to regulate that marriage ceremony... but in my vision for this, you or I could marry anyone we want, any given day, without becoming registered to do so in that state... we're essentially a witness to a union of two consenting adults... let them file a piece of paper at the county courthouse with our signatures recognizing we witnessed it... a $20 filing fee if you will... and then let all the other recognitions for "spouse" take place... no need to require a divorce court to handle all the other things if they don't go before a court and legally bind themselves... for tax returns, they can still file separate, and I think they should anyhow... no more divorce courts needed, unless they choose to combine their monetary assets... but "spouse" for all intense purposes is given rights for almost every other aspect of life... we don't need a government for that anymore, or some "government recognized" union... let the people act and live how they want without regulations getting in the way...
yes, they could of offered that up instead of fighting same gender marriage, too late to bring it up as a option now that they lost
I don't think its too late to go down my path either... I think both sides would still benefit from it... especially now that we're seeing gays divorce at a growingly high rate just like straights... so I think both sides would benefit from having the "easy exit" under my method and just signing another form saying we're done and not having to go through lawsuits and the courts to determine assets and such... my way saves them tens of thousands of dollars that simply get absorbed by lawyers... sure maybe someone will fight over a couch, but that would end up in small claims court versus using lawyers and arbitrators at a huge cost... especially with many marriages seeming to end so quick these days, long before most people get real assets... and in the case where they bought a home, maybe one bought it and the other can just up and leave without any remorse since its unlikely there was any gains in value, and in the cases where both signed on the dotted line, hey great we've got ways to liquidate the assets and divide the remaining balance or debt as well... the current system though, on top of doing all that, adds the cost of the courts and lawyers to do so... insanity... making choices in life shouldn't have such expensive costs due to regulations by government... thats what I am in favor of breaking down and eliminating... make life cheaper and easier with less government control in every decision or process you go through, in most cases its simply just not needed...
everyone has the right to marry now, no reason to change it divorce lawyers will always exists as long as two people can't agree how to divide up the stuff they once owned together .
but with my method, divorce lawyers will be needed for far less marriages... and in most, no lawyers at all will be required... thats a huge bonus for millions of divorcees every year able to save tens of thousands of dollars... and like I said in the rare cases the marriages lasted long enough to acquire assets, it still may not be needed depending on those assets that are contractually bound by other legal means which both parties could have chosen to qualify for together... basically once again giving people a lower cost of life to make the choices they want to... no longer will people stay married simply because they can't afford a divorce, and no longer will the be compelled to go through such a process when small claims court could quite easily handle the majority of these cases without expensive lawyers... less control, less cost, more choice, sounds like a win no matter how you want to spin the current system as a better choice or necessary... clearly in most cases its simply not...
you do not need a lawyer now if you can both agree, but rarely is a divorce that simple, most are ugly
If you actually pay no taxes whatsoever, then you should not be able to drive on the roads, have community water, sewer, or even buy goods...All involve taxation.
This has gotten just a little off the topic of do you like my religion but it has reminded me I forgot to go into marriage practices of my own. You can have any kind of marriage ceremony and/or arrangement you want. Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory or maybe just Polly herself, anything goes. It's entirely possible that the Beatific Founder (PBUH)* might even grant you the privilege of joining in the consummation (He usually prefers you to have someone else too. Two boys threesomes are creepy) However, you have to first submit all prospective brides to the Beatific Founder (PBUH) (as well as any present wives and/or daughters over 14), as they may be more suitable for his Sacred Presence to produce Holy Children with, but don't worry, you can keep her for yourself too and the upshot will be that any offspring automatically become Holy Children and Lifelong Unpaid Assistants to the Founder. You even get to pay for their upbringing, isn't that nice? You object? INFIDEL, why are you bothering your mind with these worldly concerns anyway? Think of the unending supply of angelic virgins you will have in Heaven if you follow my teachings and get that (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) in here. Ingrate. *Pay me Before Unspeakable things Happen
absolutely, and then both sides are forced to get a lawyer, even if one side did not want one... in a small claims court neither would need a lawyer but have the option to consult with one and both would save while still being able to settle disputes... the fact most marriages have no actual assets, small claims is the best route today, unfortunately someone gets upset and has the means to hire a lawyer, compelling the other to defend themselves and pay one as well... even things like pets become fair ground in many of the smaller settlements which is why lawyers ultimately get paid, for one person to keep the pet, which small claims can easily handle lawyer free... a couple hundred dollars in court costs versus several thousand each in lawyer fees... take the typical case before a court, after 10 years people generally have a bunch of common furniture, two cars, and possibly a house... why do you need a couple lawyers who between the two of you will clear well over ten thousand dollars, thats a ton of money the two of you could have used in restarting your lives... instead most likely one car is in one name, the other is in the other name, and the house might have both names, if neither party wants to agree who gets the house, and what value that has to the other person, a judge will simply order the liquidation of the asset and each will get their share of debt, assuming they both put their names on it, otherwise its a simple slam dunk of who is on the title... which might make it far easier for one to walk away, and I have no doubt some people would prefer this arrangement... if not like I said before, they had the right to file court papers to legally bind their financial futures with excessive costs to break apart from each other in the future... their choice... all I'm after... is more choices, less costs, and less government control to force its will upon you with less choice... I LOVE choices...
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that roads is the only thing that makes sense in your statement. You get a water and sewer bill (at least I do), so that is paid by you regardless of taxes. And the act of buying goods is not subsidized by taxes either.
if one side wants to play dirty and you had something of value between the two of you, no matter what you would need a lawyer now if your dirt poor, then even today you do not need a lawyer unless you want one .
how much is the item of value in question, I've already pointed out small claims court could handle most of these, you'd still have a judge and the choice if you want a lawyer, rather than be forced to get one in divorce court when you may not need one or could afford one... and for many large ticket items with contracts we already have a legal process to handle those, many of them through arbitration without lawyers either, even in the case of divorce some loans now already have clauses to protect both parties and if you read the fine print in some of the new mortgage contracts you'll see they even say both parties have an equally vested interest despite only one party making payments... this is why its critical more than ever today to read the fine print... some things are already settled before we attempt to settle them... why pay lawyers?
