4DQSAR
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2025
- Messages
- 5,845
@puke - In the UK we had the infamous K2 offshore tax scheme which meant no matter what a person's income was, they paid no tax - just 15% to the company running the scheme and over 1100 people used it to avoid about £168 million in tax. As I understand it, it was aimed at entertainers and others who were paid once for a few hours work by many employers. On paper it is rational for entertainers to set up a business which is why it took a while for tax authorities who randomly check such people to discover zero tax was being paid.
So I would be extremely surprised given the number of evangenical religious groups in the US for US tax-lawyers to likewise find ways that use loopholes in a similar way.
But I did point out that the US constitution was tested and the 'I Am' movement were ultimately cleared for taking money for promising to cure the sick.
If you convince someone that god wants you to send them money, that's fine under US law. I suppose technically mens rea (guilty mind) applies to US law and 'true faith' precludes mens rea, that's why they can do it.
Most successful criminals are the ones who accept there will be 'extra costs of doing business' but on the basis their business is so profitable, they sensibly pay those extra costs. The ones who get caught are the ones who fall into the trap of believing that because they got away with something for a long time, the risks of eventually somehow getting caught go down when the opposite is true. It's called the 'gambler's fallacy'. The guy you named who WAS caught so clearly fell for that fallacy.
See, I knew we would touch on epistemology (a branch of philosophy) eventually.
But I know the Scientologists spend an INSANE amount of money on lawyers - they know it's a scam but also know that the profits are so massive, the legal costs are worth it.
I guess that's the difference between our two nations. While a person's faith is legally protected, in the UK exploting the vunerable IS a specific criminal act as is fraud as is financial extraction. Religions are subject to the same standards as any other group - we don't have an exemption for religions hence L Ron Hubbard leaving.
We still have cults but all seem small and to rely on silencing anyone who leaves because I have yet to hear of a cult where coercion by the group wasn't a foundational princible. None of them EVER advertize and that at least limits the potential profitability. In essence, they can only be as big as the most people you can put into a single dwelling because being part of an insular group 24/7 and that group doesn't allow members to talk to anyone outside the group is all coersion.
I would be surprised if those US preachers aren't constantly being investigated but they pay the cost of doing business...
So I would be extremely surprised given the number of evangenical religious groups in the US for US tax-lawyers to likewise find ways that use loopholes in a similar way.
But I did point out that the US constitution was tested and the 'I Am' movement were ultimately cleared for taking money for promising to cure the sick.
If you convince someone that god wants you to send them money, that's fine under US law. I suppose technically mens rea (guilty mind) applies to US law and 'true faith' precludes mens rea, that's why they can do it.
Most successful criminals are the ones who accept there will be 'extra costs of doing business' but on the basis their business is so profitable, they sensibly pay those extra costs. The ones who get caught are the ones who fall into the trap of believing that because they got away with something for a long time, the risks of eventually somehow getting caught go down when the opposite is true. It's called the 'gambler's fallacy'. The guy you named who WAS caught so clearly fell for that fallacy.
See, I knew we would touch on epistemology (a branch of philosophy) eventually.
But I know the Scientologists spend an INSANE amount of money on lawyers - they know it's a scam but also know that the profits are so massive, the legal costs are worth it.
I guess that's the difference between our two nations. While a person's faith is legally protected, in the UK exploting the vunerable IS a specific criminal act as is fraud as is financial extraction. Religions are subject to the same standards as any other group - we don't have an exemption for religions hence L Ron Hubbard leaving.
We still have cults but all seem small and to rely on silencing anyone who leaves because I have yet to hear of a cult where coercion by the group wasn't a foundational princible. None of them EVER advertize and that at least limits the potential profitability. In essence, they can only be as big as the most people you can put into a single dwelling because being part of an insular group 24/7 and that group doesn't allow members to talk to anyone outside the group is all coersion.
I would be surprised if those US preachers aren't constantly being investigated but they pay the cost of doing business...
