Humanities desk
< February 17	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 18

Christianity, social progressiveness and sex

Please give an overview of different Christian denomination according to their social progressiveness. That is, which denominations are socially progressive on issues like sexual freedom, LGBT, gender equality etc. and which denominations are socially regressive? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do those whom others regard as "regressive" consider themselves with such a seemingly perjorative tag? Or would they call themselves something else ("conservative", perhaps?) --Dweller (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Religion and sexuality#Christianity and Christianity and sexual orientation for our relevant articles. Tevildo (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of denominations - enough to make listing them all unfeasible. And it's very hard to divide them cleanly into 'progressive' and 'conservative' on sexuality. The Church of England, for example, ordains women as priests, and has priests who are openly gay, and who are openly trans. It's also recently relaxed somewhat on the remarriage of divorcees. But it won't allow its priests to enter same-sex marriages, expects priests in same-sex relationships to be celibate, won't perform or (officially) bless same-sex marriages, and provides little centralised advice on things like supporting trans people. And it dedicates a remarkable amount of energy to providing oversight and support for clergy and their congregations who object to the more progressive measures, even when that gives the outward appearance of inconsistency regarding (say) the reality of women's ordination. All that's just one national church within one denomination. Cross the border into Wales, and it's different. Go to a large offshoot like the Methodists, and it's different again. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any such list would be contentious. People still make them though. We have List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality, also Progressive_Christianity. Here's a list of many denominations [1], some with relevant info in their descriptions. Here is a thread on a religious forum where people offer their opinions on a question very like your own [2]. The Unitarian Universalists often come up as a candidate for most expressly socially liberal/progressive on these issues. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tax system

1) How does it work, in any country? In simple terms please.

2) I would like to know what percentage goes to what and what…

3) Also what percentage does a poor, middle, high/rich class individual pay, in any country? -- Apostle (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different and somewhat unrelated questions - how is the money raised, and how is it spend. The first is usually not considered part of the tax system, but take a look at United States federal budget, which has some numbers for the US, or the less impressive but still useful Federal budget of Germany. Most democratic states should publish their budgets in some details, since fixing budgets is a big part of the parliamentary process. Tax systems are usually complicated beasts, with direct and indirect taxes, and with corporate and private taxes (not to mention tariffs and fees). But for personal income tax, many states have a progressive tax system, where higher incomes are taxed more highly. In Germany, you pay no taxes on the first ca. EUR 8500/year (considered necessary for basic living expenses), then 14% on the first Euro beyond that, with that rate increasing with the income. You pay the maximum rate of 45% on every Euro above EUR 250,730/year. There are several deductions which decrease your taxable income (i.e. commuting costs, work-related books and trainings, tools used for your trade, ...), so actual tax depends not just on income, but also on expenses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting — doesn't sound as much higher than the US as I would have thought. Do you also pay income tax to the Länder? --Trovatore (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I mean the maximum doesn't sound as much higher as I would have thought (I think it's 39% in the US). But someone making 250K would pay a marginal 33% federal I think; obviously 45% is a lot higher than that. In California they'd also pay about 9% marginal state income tax. Then there are payroll taxes, the main one being FICA, which has a cap so it doesn't matter so much to the really top earners but it's still significant at 250K. And the Medicare tax has no cap and adds I think another 2% or so to taxes on wages and salaries. --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, in Germany we only have a federal income tax (which is partially transferred to the states, iirc). Payroll taxes ("Sozialbeiträge") in Germany are different (but deductible for purposes of income tax), and amount to about 20% in total. They are only paid by employees on their wages, not by, say, independent professionals, and not on other sources of income. They also are not a simple tax, but a kind of insurance, giving good medical coverage (better than most US plans I have seen), decent retirement pensions (not enough to keep your standard of living without additional savings, but not too far off), and unemployment insurance (only about 1.5% of the 20%). There also are different caps for the different kinds of taxes (~70000/year for retirement and unemployment, and ~50000/year for health insurance), both for payment and for receipts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The payroll taxes in the U.S. are a form of social insurance, since they go to social programs. The FUTA covers the federal share of the costs of administering unemployment insurance (UI) and related programs in each state (the state governments also kick in); similarly, the Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) goes to fund Social Security and Medicare. Neutrality^talk 20:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider military spending to be "social insurance"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality's comments were about payroll taxes. The military is funded primarily by the income tax. Even though they withhold money from your paycheck to cover it, the income tax is not usually described as a "payroll tax"; that term usually means things like FICA, Medicare, and unemployment insurance — taxes that are taken as a percentage of wages and salaries, not computed based on total income. You can say it's a slightly arbitrary distinction if you like, but I think that's how the term is usually used. --Trovatore (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if government funds are fully fungible then it's actually arbitrary where taxes come from. --Jayron 32 14:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is that. --Trovatore (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the basic system is fairly similar to what Stephan described in Germany. Everybody has a "personal allowance" which is the first slice of income on which no tax is paid - in the current 2015-2016 tax year this is £10,600 for people born after 5 April 1938 and £10,660 for people born before then. After that, income up to £31,785 is charged at 20%, then income up to £150,000 is charged at the "higher rate" of 40%, and income above £150,000 is charged at the "additional rate" of 45%. There are a few variations - blind people have an additional allowance of £2290 on top of their personal allowance, married couples have an allowance and can transfer some of the personal allowance between them if only one has an income. The Scottish Government has the power to vary the national income tax rates by 3% but has never used this power so far. 2015-16 tax rates and allowances. In addition to income tax, we have "National Insurance" which historically was used to provide old-age pensions but now goes into the governments' general taxation pot: NI is rather complicated, but people in paid employment pay "Class 1" NI contributions, which currently is 12% on income between £155 and £815 per week, and 2% on income above £815 per week. Additionally, employers pay 13.8% of their employees' pay on income over £156 per week (reduced by 3.4% if they have a contracted-out pension scheme). Self-employed people pay either "Class 2" or "Class 4" NI contributions depending on their profit level. NI rates. On top of this, we have the "Council Tax" which is a property tax levied by each local authority based on which band your home is placed in - my house is in the cheapest Band A and together with the 25% discount for having only one adult living in it, I paid about £70 a month for 10 months in the current tax year (we get spared the tax in February and March); this is used to pay for local authority services such as schools, waste collection, police, fire and rescue service, etc. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I understand. Can someone clarify point (2) please? I'm looking for a percentage template(s) governments use for their daily/weekly/monthly (recurring or so)/ yearly budgetary fund(s). E.g., what percentage for military/police, and so on. -- Apostle (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a chart for Canada over five years (2005-2009) of federal spending by area [3]. Note that it doesn't include provincial expenditures, which are significant in areas like health and education for example. --Xuxl (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks (both). -- Apostle (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the information so far -- Apostle (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royal mint and legal tender

Two questions posted per edit request at WT:RD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) With regards to this story about Royal Mint legal tender coins that cannot be spent in any reasonable way, and are thus pretty much worthless unless you are in debt to a court in which case the "legal tender" provisions activate; can you give me a definitive list of UK coins that retailers and banks have to accept by law for normal transactions, not just "legal tender" settlement of debts? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalMintQuestion (talk • contribs) 20:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2) The Royal Mint is introducing a new £1 coin in 2017. Please can you tell me if the current £1 coins will still be legal tender after this date. Thank you. RoyalMintQuestion (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Coins of the pound sterling for the first question, and Twenty pounds (British coin), and One hundred pounds (British coin) for the commemorative coins that aren't usable for normal transactions. This is the official page from the Royal Mint on the new £1 coin - they say "We are currently undertaking further work with the cash handling industry to model the withdrawal process." They do _not_ answer the question "will there be an official record for balancing them on top of each other?", which seems to me to be the most important aspect of the change. Tevildo (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would anticipate that, as when the 5p, 10p, and 50p coins were reduced in size in the early 1990s, there will be a fairly short period when the old and new coins are in circulation together before the old ones are withdrawn. As I recall, previously the old coins disappeared after about a year, but there are an awful lot of old-style £1 coins in circulation. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The small 50p was introduced in September 1997 and the large one withdrawn in March 1998, incidentally - see this contemporary BBC article. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding question 1, the Royal Mint says that retailers and banks are under no obligation to accept anything that isn't in general circulation, according to their guidelines on the Royal Mint website FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:27, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is neither banks or retailers are required to accept any coins or notes for most purposes in most countries. The exception is for debts, where legal tender applies. Our article seems to confirm this includes England and Wales. In other words neither banks nor retailers have to accept even any coins or notes in general circulation or the requested definitive list is basically empty. Most will, particularly banks but they don't have to unless it was agreed beforehand. Perhaps there's some implied agreement in your contract with your bank that they will accept notes and coins in general circulation, but I wouldn't be so sure. And of course even if they do, it's fairly likely there is something in the contract which allows them to charge cash handling fees. In fact, even where legal tender comes in to play, while they may have to accept legal tender, if there was an agreement beforehand it's likely they could pursue you for any costs they incurred by your decision to pay in a manner different from the agreement. I guess you could get in to complexities like whether a retailer is guilty of false advertising or something similar if they only accept £5 notes with serial number LH1XXXXXX but don't mention it anywhere, but that's fairly complicated and of course if they have prominent signs your complaint starts to fall apart (which means this doesn't really create a legal obligation to always accept) Nil Einne (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I would be less certain about banks, not just because you have a long written contract with your bank which you don't normally with some random retailer, but also because there are far more banking regulations then there tend to be governing retailers. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]