Keith
@quakerkeith.bsky.social
Autistic Quaker Software Engineer. Centrist Cat-dad.
This liberal Friend observes a problem with eschatological horizons: like the end of the rainbow, they never seem to get here. Every time The Day is declared (such as by the earliest Friends c. 1652)…everything just carries on anyway. Like rainbows, EH’s seem to be a consequence of a point of view.
June 18, 2025 at 7:27 AM
This liberal Friend observes a problem with eschatological horizons: like the end of the rainbow, they never seem to get here. Every time The Day is declared (such as by the earliest Friends c. 1652)…everything just carries on anyway. Like rainbows, EH’s seem to be a consequence of a point of view.
Yes, it’s pretty good. All the charity has to do is have a way for donors to declare that they’ll eventually pay enough income tax to cover the uplift. Then the donor puts the amount donated on their tax return.
February 10, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Yes, it’s pretty good. All the charity has to do is have a way for donors to declare that they’ll eventually pay enough income tax to cover the uplift. Then the donor puts the amount donated on their tax return.
Probably? The individual making the donation isn’t taxed on it, and the government increases the donation to the charity by 20%.
February 10, 2025 at 9:51 PM
Probably? The individual making the donation isn’t taxed on it, and the government increases the donation to the charity by 20%.
So far as I know, there’s only one Friend formally travelling in the ministry in the UK at this time. They will have a home Area Meeting (what Britain YM has instead on Monthly Meetings) and that AM will have a registered charity and Friends can “gift aid” money to it before tax.
February 10, 2025 at 8:24 PM
So far as I know, there’s only one Friend formally travelling in the ministry in the UK at this time. They will have a home Area Meeting (what Britain YM has instead on Monthly Meetings) and that AM will have a registered charity and Friends can “gift aid” money to it before tax.
Thanks. A “in the United States” is really what I was looking for there. I very doubt that my Meeting could use it, for example, as we aren’t in the US. (Passim: charities, not-for-profits/social enterprises, and NGOs are different albeit overlapping kinds of organisation.)
February 10, 2025 at 7:58 PM
Thanks. A “in the United States” is really what I was looking for there. I very doubt that my Meeting could use it, for example, as we aren’t in the US. (Passim: charities, not-for-profits/social enterprises, and NGOs are different albeit overlapping kinds of organisation.)
Does the explanation of this interesting development need mention of a particular jurisdiction or tax regime to be fully comprehensible?
February 10, 2025 at 7:32 PM
Does the explanation of this interesting development need mention of a particular jurisdiction or tax regime to be fully comprehensible?
Not sure it’s either. One Friend may bring a concern and if the discernment of the Meeting is to take it forward Friends will act within that. And if not they might act anyway, but not collectively. Or not act.
I’ve not got anywhere with my Meeting and my concern about antisemitism awareness, eg.
I’ve not got anywhere with my Meeting and my concern about antisemitism awareness, eg.
December 21, 2024 at 2:19 PM
Not sure it’s either. One Friend may bring a concern and if the discernment of the Meeting is to take it forward Friends will act within that. And if not they might act anyway, but not collectively. Or not act.
I’ve not got anywhere with my Meeting and my concern about antisemitism awareness, eg.
I’ve not got anywhere with my Meeting and my concern about antisemitism awareness, eg.
That’s a false dichotomy, isn’t it? Yes, 16 years of Tory government has obstructed dissent in the UK; no, Labour won’t rush to fix that—they too enjoy suppressing critics. And also we have more options than waiting nicely vs. being visibly angry. More effective ones than either, sometimes, too.
December 21, 2024 at 12:43 PM
That’s a false dichotomy, isn’t it? Yes, 16 years of Tory government has obstructed dissent in the UK; no, Labour won’t rush to fix that—they too enjoy suppressing critics. And also we have more options than waiting nicely vs. being visibly angry. More effective ones than either, sometimes, too.
You didn’t. Some Friends seem to think it should be, I’m disagreeing with them. Not with you, if you aren’t of that opinion. With them.
December 14, 2024 at 2:16 PM
You didn’t. Some Friends seem to think it should be, I’m disagreeing with them. Not with you, if you aren’t of that opinion. With them.
Certainly. It just shouldn’t be mandatory.
December 14, 2024 at 2:00 PM
Certainly. It just shouldn’t be mandatory.
Yes. Also “that of God in every one” is spoken of almost as if it’s an anatomical feature.
December 14, 2024 at 1:51 PM
Yes. Also “that of God in every one” is spoken of almost as if it’s an anatomical feature.
And I have no problem with you being one. And also I don’t want to have to be a Communist (or take any other secular political position) to be a Quaker.
December 14, 2024 at 1:48 PM
And I have no problem with you being one. And also I don’t want to have to be a Communist (or take any other secular political position) to be a Quaker.
Trouble is, the available unified, clearly-expressed theological positions tend to be conservative. We have failed to do the (hard) work of finding a liberal theological position that we could share and articulate clearly. We’ve just thorn our hands up and said: whatever.
December 14, 2024 at 1:13 PM
Trouble is, the available unified, clearly-expressed theological positions tend to be conservative. We have failed to do the (hard) work of finding a liberal theological position that we could share and articulate clearly. We’ve just thorn our hands up and said: whatever.
We have individual, somewhat-aligned spiritual journeys. There’s still an expectation of shared secular politics, but not of a shared theological or spiritual position. I think this is a loss. I fear @britishquakers.bsky.social becoming mainly an umbrella for campaign groups and not much a church.
December 14, 2024 at 1:10 PM
We have individual, somewhat-aligned spiritual journeys. There’s still an expectation of shared secular politics, but not of a shared theological or spiritual position. I think this is a loss. I fear @britishquakers.bsky.social becoming mainly an umbrella for campaign groups and not much a church.
Some of us aren’t American, though. With @britishquakers.bsky.social our polity has moved from presbyterian to congregational (with even a growing democratic sentiment) and many Friends view their Meeting as a loose voluntary association on individual seekers. This has happened over about 120 years.
December 14, 2024 at 12:54 PM
Some of us aren’t American, though. With @britishquakers.bsky.social our polity has moved from presbyterian to congregational (with even a growing democratic sentiment) and many Friends view their Meeting as a loose voluntary association on individual seekers. This has happened over about 120 years.
I’d maybe claim that they were, while not sui generis, also not very much like other groups of their time and even less like any groups of our time. However much various groups of Friends like to claim them. So, no: not orthodox trinitarians and also not not trinitarians. And not that much bothered.
December 11, 2024 at 10:01 PM
I’d maybe claim that they were, while not sui generis, also not very much like other groups of their time and even less like any groups of our time. However much various groups of Friends like to claim them. So, no: not orthodox trinitarians and also not not trinitarians. And not that much bothered.
They did a bit, at least to say that of course Quakers believed in God, Christ, and the Spirit, and a few other things as well as one sacred entity. It’s not obvious to me that this is orthodox trinitarianism. Orthodox trinitarians of the day didn’t think so. Hence the defence.
December 11, 2024 at 8:42 PM
They did a bit, at least to say that of course Quakers believed in God, Christ, and the Spirit, and a few other things as well as one sacred entity. It’s not obvious to me that this is orthodox trinitarianism. Orthodox trinitarians of the day didn’t think so. Hence the defence.
We’ve gone back and forth, have we not? Hicks noted that the earliest Friends were not trinitarian but that trinitarianism had been introduced into Quaker theology by his time; which he didn’t find was necessary to it. It may be the Evangelical and Holiness majority today are trinitarians.
December 11, 2024 at 12:54 PM
We’ve gone back and forth, have we not? Hicks noted that the earliest Friends were not trinitarian but that trinitarianism had been introduced into Quaker theology by his time; which he didn’t find was necessary to it. It may be the Evangelical and Holiness majority today are trinitarians.
Seems more productive to be able to say “such-and-so very well embodied the moral and ethical principles of their time. We find those principles deficient in these ways… Which leads up to examine these harms…” Condemning folks of the past for coming up short by today’s standards seems unproductive.
November 30, 2024 at 3:34 PM
Seems more productive to be able to say “such-and-so very well embodied the moral and ethical principles of their time. We find those principles deficient in these ways… Which leads up to examine these harms…” Condemning folks of the past for coming up short by today’s standards seems unproductive.
Could we perhaps both assess people against the standards of their own time (What other standards could they have lived by? Those of the future?) and _also_ form a view about those standards vs today’s?
And for a bonus, have the humility to realise that people of future will do the same to us.
And for a bonus, have the humility to realise that people of future will do the same to us.
November 30, 2024 at 3:21 PM
Could we perhaps both assess people against the standards of their own time (What other standards could they have lived by? Those of the future?) and _also_ form a view about those standards vs today’s?
And for a bonus, have the humility to realise that people of future will do the same to us.
And for a bonus, have the humility to realise that people of future will do the same to us.
Agricultural land as fabulously expensive, wildly inflated, thus shows up as a huge asset. That’s in part because of folks like our man (and Clarkson) buying land to abuse the relief. I’d like to see that stopped, and prices fall, but this sloppy measure is a bad approach to doing it.
November 26, 2024 at 12:12 PM
Agricultural land as fabulously expensive, wildly inflated, thus shows up as a huge asset. That’s in part because of folks like our man (and Clarkson) buying land to abuse the relief. I’d like to see that stopped, and prices fall, but this sloppy measure is a bad approach to doing it.
That £3M, it’s not cash, it’s a valuation on a balance sheet.
And thus we start to swing around to what seems to be Labour’s actual motivation here (the amounts raised will be small): they loath anyone with assets, they like wage-slaves, and would like us all to be one.
And thus we start to swing around to what seems to be Labour’s actual motivation here (the amounts raised will be small): they loath anyone with assets, they like wage-slaves, and would like us all to be one.
November 26, 2024 at 12:09 PM
That £3M, it’s not cash, it’s a valuation on a balance sheet.
And thus we start to swing around to what seems to be Labour’s actual motivation here (the amounts raised will be small): they loath anyone with assets, they like wage-slaves, and would like us all to be one.
And thus we start to swing around to what seems to be Labour’s actual motivation here (the amounts raised will be small): they loath anyone with assets, they like wage-slaves, and would like us all to be one.
Breaking up an actual family farm to pay the tax will destroy it — ironically, Mr. Moneybags up there at the top is likely to be in a position where when he dies his estate can pay the tax without difficulty.
November 26, 2024 at 11:37 AM
Breaking up an actual family farm to pay the tax will destroy it — ironically, Mr. Moneybags up there at the top is likely to be in a position where when he dies his estate can pay the tax without difficulty.
In fact there is Business Property Relief which applies to the fixed assets (buildings, machinery) of any family business that’s part of an inheritance. This isn’t unique to farms. The point, in both cases, is to prevent the business or farm having to be broken up and sold off to pay the tax.
November 26, 2024 at 11:33 AM
In fact there is Business Property Relief which applies to the fixed assets (buildings, machinery) of any family business that’s part of an inheritance. This isn’t unique to farms. The point, in both cases, is to prevent the business or farm having to be broken up and sold off to pay the tax.
The Treasury (or, their political masters) seem to have misunderstood the economics of farming, why the tax relief existed in the first place, and may be using bad data. It’s a mess. Taking these cheap shots seems unhelpful.
That guy is the target, but others unlike him are going to be punished.
That guy is the target, but others unlike him are going to be punished.
November 26, 2024 at 11:13 AM
The Treasury (or, their political masters) seem to have misunderstood the economics of farming, why the tax relief existed in the first place, and may be using bad data. It’s a mess. Taking these cheap shots seems unhelpful.
That guy is the target, but others unlike him are going to be punished.
That guy is the target, but others unlike him are going to be punished.