Christians and Taxes

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]orion wrote:
religious people are usually better at making ethical arguments.
[/quote]

How so ?

Palin is super religious. A report shows her abusing power, which was a breach of ethics. She denies continuously that she did nothing wrong…legally or ETHICALLY. ( I used her as an example…there are plenty more out there).

Is it because God told her it was ok to do what she did and she believes it with all of her heart ?

Faith comes from within, and with it, an ethical mind set. All of us were born with free will but unfortunately right and wrong have to be learned…it is not programmed within us due to free will. If doing the right thing were an instinct, things may be different.

No religion (that promotes good…I know there are extremists with an agenda that is bad) is better than another because NO ONE knows what the hell happens when we die.

42

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Tax is a very general term. There are thousands of taxes and all have thier respective uses. Are you talking strictly income tax? You can’t really avoid paying sales taxes. What about Toll roads?

Vegita brings up a good point. I know that the clergy can opt out of paying Self Employment Tax if he has moral objection to the tax.

Too bad the rest of us can’t opt out of Social Security.

If you could, and the government would have to bail it out every decade or so, would it really make a difference?

If one is allowed to opt out, from paying, they are also opted out from receiving. What the government has to do for a broke system I am not a part of anymore would be no concern of mine.

And how do you think they would finance such a bailout?

[/quote]

Raise social security taxes on the ones who are still in.

43

[quote]orion wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
As for tax evasion being a sin, it probably is for most people. Most of us would do it not out of objections over what it was paying for, but out of greed. I know that would be the biggest motivation for me, hence I pay my taxes.

Why is it “greedy” to want to keep the fruit of your labor?

Greediness is a concept invented by the “have-nots”. Is it greed that keeps a man toiling in the fields to feed his family? Is it greed that makes a man want the most pay he can get for his labor?

A person cannot substitute greed for hard work to obtain wealth. He can however substitute hard work for immoral behavior to obtain it. What is commonly called greed is nothing more than the human condition to want more stuff in order to better one’s position in the world. Every human being depends \

on necessary ends for his survival and to reject the idea of a better condition than the state that exists now is inhuman. It is the only reason a man has to keep moving.

Greed does not exist.

That is an interesting point.

Can it be called greed if you want to keep your own money?

Is it not greed when someone else wants your money?

Can you still technically “sin” if you think you´re greedy but probably aren´t?

[/quote]

Yes, it is greedy for someone else to want your money, but that wouldn’t be your sin.

I think the difference between greed and desire for the necessary is that greed is a condition that cannot be satisfied. Yes, all humans have it, but that doesn’t mean that it is good, or just, or what is best for the person.

You have to remember this isn’t about what is necessarily fair or not. Believe me I don’t think that taxes are fair by any means. The things that are best many times aren’t fair.

If you believe in Christianity and things were fair, Jesus wouldn’t have been crucified and we would all ultimately be responsible for our own fate.

44

[quote]therover wrote:
orion wrote:
religious people are usually better at making ethical arguments.

How so ?

Palin is super religious. A report shows her abusing power, which was a breach of ethics. She denies continuously that she did nothing wrong…legally or ETHICALLY. ( I used her as an example…there are plenty more out there).

Is it because God told her it was ok to do what she did and she believes it with all of her heart ?

Faith comes from within, and with it, an ethical mind set. All of us were born with free will but unfortunately right and wrong have to be learned…it is not programmed within us due to free will. If doing the right thing were an instinct, things may be different.

No religion (that promotes good…I know there are extremists with an agenda that is bad) is better than another because NO ONE knows what the hell happens when we die.

[/quote]

This was not an argument that some religions are better than others, it was just an argument that I would expect religious people who try to live their religion should be better at deducting rules of behavior from a few basic beliefs than other people.

At least religious people can name their basic beliefs and have a somewhat coherent ethical system, which is something that cannot be said about most people.

45

The government, If ran correctly could collect no taxes from any of the people it governs, and still pay for it’s own existance, this would be the ideal scenaario. A country like China right now, is letting us borrow money with interest, therefore they are getting free money because they don’t have debt. If we did this like we used to, we could pay for government by being a lender country. There are many ways in which the governemnt could be run efficiently on a very low tax load, for instance, I have no problem with a luxury tax. If you want to buy a 50 million dollar Yacht, You should be expected to pay at least a 10% luxury tax on that shit, Obviously you are doing pretty well and should help keep the system strong which allowed you the opportunity.

That being said, Rich people should not have a higher tax burden on thier income. They shouldn’t be taxed for normal items either. If they want to live in a $200,000 house, drive a $30,000 car they should pay the same taxes as other people. That way, if someone does make a ton of money and wants to save it for thier family, or give it to charity, it has not been raped by the government to do so. If however they want to play with thier money for thier own enjoyment and luxury, then the government IMHO has a moral right to tax them on those dollars which they spend in that way.

V

46

[quote]therover wrote:
orion wrote:
religious people are usually better at making ethical arguments.

How so ?

Palin is super religious. A report shows her abusing power, which was a breach of ethics. She denies continuously that she did nothing wrong…legally or ETHICALLY. ( I used her as an example…there are plenty more out there).

[/quote]

You think what she did firing a guy (who caries and is responsible for a taser as part of his job), for tasering his own child, is unethical?

Also, the report you speak of was written by politicians, an excellent base for ethical judgment.

47

[quote]Vegita wrote:
The government, If ran correctly could collect no taxes from any of the people it governs, and still pay for it’s own existance, this would be the ideal scenaario. A country like China right now, is letting us borrow money with interest, therefore they are getting free money because they don’t have debt. If we did this like we used to, we could pay for government by being a lender country. There are many ways in which the governemnt could be run efficiently on a very low tax load, for instance, I have no problem with a luxury tax. If you want to buy a 50 million dollar Yacht, You should be expected to pay at least a 10% luxury tax on that shit, Obviously you are doing pretty well and should help keep the system strong which allowed you the opportunity.

That being said, Rich people should not have a higher tax burden on thier income. They shouldn’t be taxed for normal items either. If they want to live in a $200,000 house, drive a $30,000 car they should pay the same taxes as other people. That way, if someone does make a ton of money and wants to save it for thier family, or give it to charity, it has not been raped by the government to do so. If however they want to play with thier money for thier own enjoyment and luxury, then the government IMHO has a moral right to tax them on those dollars which they spend in that way.

V

[/quote]

Well, maybe we should just limit how much a person can earn in a year. They can afford all the normal stuff on 500,000 a year, they obviously don’t need any more.

Obviously you don’t believe in trickle down economics. Doesn’t it take 1,000s of workers and maybe even a full time staff to build and run one of those ships. What about the mechanics that maintain it. Well, now fewer people will buy them and you’ve just eliminated jobs.

When did businesses and the rich become the enemy? People miss the fact that the oil companies don’t take all their profit and put it under the mattress. They go out and buy things, they build refineries, they invest it. Not to mention they pay a huge chunk of our taxes (many times what they make in profit). It is a good thing for everyone when American companies and people do well.

rant/

48

[quote]Vegita wrote:
The government, If ran correctly could collect no taxes from any of the people it governs, and still pay for it’s own existance, this would be the ideal scenaario.

A country like China right now, is letting us borrow money with interest, therefore they are getting free money because they don’t have debt. If we did this like we used to, we could pay for government by being a lender country.

There are many ways in which the governemnt could be run efficiently on a very low tax load, for instance, I have no problem with a luxury tax.

If you want to buy a 50 million dollar Yacht, You should be expected to pay at least a 10% luxury tax on that shit, Obviously you are doing pretty well and should help keep the system strong which allowed you the opportunity.

That being said, Rich people should not have a higher tax burden on thier income. They shouldn’t be taxed for normal items either. If they want to live in a $200,000 house, drive a $30,000 car they should pay the same taxes as other people.

That way, if someone does make a ton of money and wants to save it for thier family, or give it to charity, it has not been raped by the government to do so. If however they want to play with thier money for thier own enjoyment and luxury, then the government IMHO has a moral right to tax them on those dollars which they spend in that way.

V

[/quote]

You mean taxing property and income is out of the question as is am indirect tax on things people need to survive, but a modest luxury tax is at least the least immoral?

That is a classical natural rights approach.

49

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention they pay a huge chunk of our taxes (many times what they make in profit).
[/quote]

Wouldn’t that put them out of business?

50

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention they pay a huge chunk of our taxes (many times what they make in profit).

Wouldn’t that put them out of business?[/quote]

Not if you define profits as profits after taxes.

There are several definitions like EBIT, EBITDA and so on.

51

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Vegita wrote:
The government, If ran correctly could collect no taxes from any of the people it governs, and still pay for it’s own existance, this would be the ideal scenaario.

A country like China right now, is letting us borrow money with interest, therefore they are getting free money because they don’t have debt. If we did this like we used to, we could pay for government by being a lender country.

There are many ways in which the governemnt could be run efficiently on a very low tax load, for instance, I have no problem with a luxury tax. If you want to buy a 50 million dollar Yacht, You should be expected to pay at least a 10% luxury tax on that shit, Obviously you are doing pretty well and should help keep the system strong which allowed you the opportunity.

That being said, Rich people should not have a higher tax burden on thier income. They shouldn’t be taxed for normal items either. If they want to live in a $200,000 house, drive a $30,000 car they should pay the same taxes as other people.

That way, if someone does make a ton of money and wants to save it for thier family, or give it to charity, it has not been raped by the government to do so. If however they want to play with thier money for thier own enjoyment and luxury, then the government IMHO has a moral right to tax them on those dollars which they spend in that way.

V

Well, maybe we should just limit how much a person can earn in a year. They can afford all the normal stuff on 500,000 a year, they obviously don’t need any more.

Obviously you don’t believe in trickle down economics. Doesn’t it take 1,000s of workers and maybe even a full time staff to build and run one of those ships. What about the mechanics that maintain it. Well, now fewer people will buy them and you’ve just eliminated jobs.

When did businesses and the rich become the enemy? People miss the fact that the oil companies don’t take all their profit and put it under the mattress. They go out and buy things, they build refineries, they invest it.

Not to mention they pay a huge chunk of our taxes (many times what they make in profit). It is a good thing for everyone when American companies and people do well.

rant/[/quote]

Are you actually arguing that greed is good?

Then how can it be a sin?

52

If government actually offered services that people wanted they could form their own company and turn a profit. The fact that it does not is all the proof one needs to see it does not offer any needed services.

Government is a consumer of wealth and does not provide anything that it does not first steal from someone else.

53

[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Vegita wrote:
The government, If ran correctly could collect no taxes from any of the people it governs, and still pay for it’s own existance, this would be the ideal scenaario.

A country like China right now, is letting us borrow money with interest, therefore they are getting free money because they don’t have debt. If we did this like we used to, we could pay for government by being a lender country.

There are many ways in which the governemnt could be run efficiently on a very low tax load, for instance, I have no problem with a luxury tax.

If you want to buy a 50 million dollar Yacht, You should be expected to pay at least a 10% luxury tax on that shit, Obviously you are doing pretty well and should help keep the system strong which allowed you the opportunity.

That being said, Rich people should not have a higher tax burden on thier income. They shouldn’t be taxed for normal items either. If they want to live in a $200,000 house, drive a $30,000 car they should pay the same taxes as other people.

That way, if someone does make a ton of money and wants to save it for thier family, or give it to charity, it has not been raped by the government to do so.

If however they want to play with thier money for thier own enjoyment and luxury, then the government IMHO has a moral right to tax them on those dollars which they spend in that way.

V

Well, maybe we should just limit how much a person can earn in a year. They can afford all the normal stuff on 500,000 a year, they obviously don’t need any more.

Obviously you don’t believe in trickle down economics. Doesn’t it take 1,000s of workers and maybe even a full time staff to build and run one of those ships. What about the mechanics that maintain it. Well, now fewer people will buy them and you’ve just eliminated jobs.

When did businesses and the rich become the enemy? People miss the fact that the oil companies don’t take all their profit and put it under the mattress.

They go out and buy things, they build refineries, they invest it. Not to mention they pay a huge chunk of our taxes (many times what they make in profit). It is a good thing for everyone when American companies and people do well.

rant/

Are you actually arguing that greed is good?

Then how can it be a sin?

[/quote]

Greed is an unchangeable widespread human condition that sound economic policies must take into account.

54

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Greed is an unchangeable widespread human condition that sound economic policies must take into account.[/quote]

Sound economic principle already accounts for the human condition. It basically states any notion of economic policy other than laissez-faire is untenable.

55

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You think what she did firing a guy (who caries and is responsible for a taser as part of his job), for tasering his own child, is unethical?

Also, the report you speak of was written by politicians, an excellent base for ethical judgment.[/quote]

First off, she didn’t fire that guy…she fired his boss.

Second…I AGREE, but it did find her unethical. And I did state I only used her as an example…there are others as I stated.

56

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Greed is an unchangeable widespread human condition that sound economic policies must take into account.

Sound economic principle already accounts for the human condition. It basically states any notion of economic policy other than laissez-faire is untenable.[/quote]

Yup. Preaching to the choir. (That saying seemed appropriate for this thread)

57

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention they pay a huge chunk of our taxes (many times what they make in profit).

Wouldn’t that put them out of business?[/quote]

It doesn’t.

edit: Yes I was referring to their net after taxes. I don’t consider myself to profit from the money I pay to the government.

58

[quote]therover wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

You think what she did firing a guy (who caries and is responsible for a taser as part of his job), for tasering his own child, is unethical?

Also, the report you speak of was written by politicians, an excellent base for ethical judgment.

First off, she didn’t fire that guy…she fired his boss.

Second…I AGREE, but it did find her unethical. And I did state I only used her as an example…there are others as I stated.

[/quote]

My bad, she fired his boss supposedly for not firing the trooper. (Used her political sway to try and have him fired).

I’m just saying I put 0 faith in an ethical report filed by politicians.

59

[quote]orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
MarvelGirl wrote:
Is this a joke?

No.

Of course christians have to pay taxes just like everybody else.

Why does everybody else have to pay taxes?

Is it true that everybody else has to pay taxes, just because someone feels obliged to?

What if a Christian feels he must pay taxes but does in no way expect you to do the same?

Yet you feel that your believe that you have to pay taxes binds all Christians as well? Why?

There’s plenty of shit that my tax dollars go to that I don’t support, I still have to pay, so why would someone else have the right to pick and choose based on their religion.

Because God>State?

Is nothing more important to you than the states commands?

Do you have an ethical obligation to pay for wars of aggression, bridges to nowhere or the bailout of millionaires?

What does your survey of New Testament ethics tell you thus far?

That it´s all over the place, but usually for theological reasons I don´t understand.

For example priests that took confessions were not supposed to bring up the topic of tax evasion unless the confessing person regarded it as a sin what he did.

It seems that there are some ways to sin that are only sinful if you believe them to be sinful?

Or maybe you are supposed to know yourself how much taxation is fair and if you do not think it is the priest is no better judge than you?

I guess you’re reading some Roman catholic doctrines. I can’t defend those since I’m not a Roman catholic and Roman catholic and Protestants have irreconcilable differences stemming from the Council of Trent.

I was more interested if you read various New Testament passages (Matthew 17, 22, Luke 12,1 Peter 2, Acts 5, Romans 13 )dealing with civil government and wondered what you got out of them yourself. If you want a summary of Protestant understanding of those passages, maybe you could read through the relevant parts of the Belgic Confession, Westminster confession, Augsburg Confession, etc.

There really is nothing to defend, not even the position of the Vatican is easily defendable (tax evasion is sin).

I am just looking for lines of reasoning and see where they lead.

Meaning I do not do theology, I just sample ideas.

[/quote]

Looks like Geneva and Rome agree then: tax evasion is sin. That’s what the Bible says as well. Calvin had a discussion of it in the Institutes.

60

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I’m just saying I put 0 faith in an ethical report filed by politicians.[/quote]

I am with you 100 percent on that one brother.