Comments on: "This is for the ones standing up to the system"

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:22:58 +0000

It is a moral duty to pay income taxes. That does not make levying income taxes moral. I still believe it's theft. Look up what the catechism has to say about messing with workers' wages. Also, given sufficient cause, I believe the Church would not forbid civil disobedience, including refusing to pay taxes. The catch is that one must be willing to face legal consequences. That said, I am not advising tax-dodging.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:43:21 +0000

I had to do it… here's what the Catechism says:

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Rom 13:7. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a4.htm#V

I would take this that income tax is moral to pay "taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due."

In other words, if you enjoy the comforts that Roman rule bring you, pay what you owe to Rome for that. If, however, you do not partake of those comforts (or would willingly forsake them) you do not (or would not) owe Rome. Ask little of Caesar, and Caesar should ask little of you.

I believe both of us "enjoy the comforts that Roman rule bring" to us. Therefore, we are required to owe Rome. Let me try to be clear, we enjoy the comforts that the US provide us: life and liberty, roads and schools, federal aid programs, etc.

This country as a Republic is majority rules, minority rights. The majority pay income tax and expect others to do so. The minority also has the right to petition the gov't to change.

Keep up the petitioning.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:19:23 +0000

You seem to be very much misunderstanding me. Perhaps I am being unclear.

What about the Declaration quote? As members of the US, we're to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Our country is to pledge our "Fortunes" to each other. I would interpret this term as "income". Therefore, we are to pledge our income wealth to each other. One mechanism to do this is through income tax.

According to dictionary.com, "fortunes" refer to "things that happen or are to happen to a person in his or her life", i.e., fate/lot/destiny.

What kind of tax did Ceasar collect? Was it sales tax (as you contend)? Tariffs? I think it was income tax, or a tax on what someone made.

I made no contention regarding what kind of tax Caesar collected.

If Jesus thought taxes (on income I contend) were immoral, don't you think He would've said so?

The Church teaches that a great many things are immoral that Christ is not recorded to have explicitly addressed. Homosexuality is one example. I like what Thoreau had to say about giving to Caesar.

I have contemplated the imprisonment of the offender [as the consequence of disobedience to civil authorities], rather than the seizure of his goods — though both will serve the same purpose — because they who assert the purest right, and consequently are most dangerous to a corrupt State, commonly have not spent much time in accumulating property. To such the State renders comparatively small service, and a slight tax is wont to appear exorbitant, particularly if they are obliged to earn it by special labor with their hands. If there were one who lived wholly without the use of money, the State itself would hesitate to demand it of him. But the rich man — not to make any invidious comparison — is always sold to the institution which makes him rich. Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; and it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it. It puts to rest many questions which he would otherwise be taxed to answer; while the only new question which it puts is the hard but superfluous one, how to spend it. Thus his moral ground is taken from under his feet. The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor. Christ answered the Herodians according to their condition. "Show me the tribute-money," said he; — and one took a penny out of his pocket; — if you use money which has the image of Cæsar on it, and which he has made current and valuable, that is, if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantages of Cæsar's government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; "Render therefore to Cæsar that which is Cæsar's, and to God those things which are God's" — leaving them no wiser than before as to which was which; for they did not wish to know.

In other words, if you enjoy the comforts that Roman rule bring you, pay what you owe to Rome for that. If, however, you do not partake of those comforts (or would willingly forsake them) you do not (or would not) owe Rome. Ask little of Caesar, and Caesar should ask little of you.

Further, I would assert that the (Jewish) tax collectors of the NT were hated because they taxed more on top of the normal income tax, not because the base income tax was nec. wrong.

They were hated because they were lackeys for Rome and because they could set any rate above what Rome asked for and keep the profits.

Thank you for this discussion.

No problem.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:59:45 +0000

BTW, I didn't mean to stop the discussion with "Thank you for this discussion." I just wanted to thank you for this civil discourse.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:36:14 +0000

What about the Declaration quote? As members of the US, we're to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Our country is to pledge our "Fortunes" to each other. I would interpret this term as "income". Therefore, we are to pledge our income wealth to each other. One mechanism to do this is through income tax.

I did not say it was illegal. Nor did I say all taxation is theft. I specifically stated that income tax is theft.

What kind of tax did Ceasar collect? Was it sales tax (as you contend)? Tariffs? I think it was income tax, or a tax on what someone made.

If Jesus thought taxes (on income I contend) were immoral, don't you think He would've said so? Further, I would assert that the (Jewish) tax collectors of the NT were hated because they taxed more on top of the normal income tax, not because the base income tax was nec. wrong.

Yes, you have been disenfranchised. This is why this Dr. Paul movement should continue. I don't agree on everything with it, but it has many good facets.

Thank you for this discussion.

gbm3
-

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:04:34 +0000

Taxation, which is not stealing (see parable of Jesus regarding the coins of Caesar), is legal, will remain legal and will always be legal somewhere.

I did not say it was illegal. Nor did I say all taxation is theft. I specifically stated that income tax is theft. To be ethically taxed, I must have the ability to participate or not participate in the system taxed (such as by purchasing more or less taxed goods). Furthermore, Jesus told us to not be tax dodgers; He didn't say the Roman taxes were morally or ethically right.

Regarding your last point, it is the duty of the citizenry to petition our representatives to spend tax money on what is best for all of us (including money towards unborn and elderly causes and not for war), no matter what other organizations do.

Agreed. However, once money is in the hands of government, we lose direct control of how it is spent. The more money taken, the less control we have. Yes, by all means petition for right use. However, petition also for less taxes so that more of your money can be directly spent for right causes.

Regarding the use of lower level gov't, what happens in poor areas? (Yes, I essentially support taking from the rich and giving to the poor.)

That is theft and immoral. To take from one to give to another without consent is theft. I contend that I am currently taxed without representation. By that I mean that my representatives do not represent my desire for smaller gov't and less taxes. I vote, but to no avail. I have been effectively disenfranchised.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:50:34 +0000

I agree that the South should've been able to form their own government.

However, using the same Declaration for your next point, in its conclusion:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. http://wonderingzygoteemeritus.blogspot.com/2008/02/political-party-woes.html

Taxation, which is not stealing (see parable of Jesus regarding the coins of Caesar), is legal, will remain legal and will always be legal somewhere. We succeeded from the UK because the taxes were being enforced without representation, not because taxes were wrong. Further, the Declaration which invokes "divine Providence", pledges the fortunes of all of us to "each other".

Now, I suppose since all the founding fathers were relatively wealthy men, they meant to each other (in the set of wealthy men), but we all know what else they said ("all men are created equal").

Regarding your last point, it is the duty of the citizenry to petition our representatives to spend tax money on what is best for all of us (including money towards unborn and elderly causes and not for war), no matter what other organizations do.

Regarding the use of lower level gov't, what happens in poor areas? (Yes, I essentially support taking from the rich and giving to the poor.)

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:29:56 +0000

I know Ron Paul is really not for revolution as traditionally defined, but I hope it stays that way. Keep it peaceful, otherwise we'll end up like some other alternative country.

You must mean narrowly, not traditionally, defined. The Ron Paul Revolution is peaceful and based on return to the founding principles of our constitutional republic.

Then again, the Declaration of Independence does say, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

When the states of the Confederate South attempted to exercise "their right, … their duty, to throw off" the government they felt had "a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism" they were violently opposed. One would have thought that having freely consented to be governed by the Constitution, they could freely decide to revoke that consent. Alas, they we not permitted to do so by the reigning powers of our "free" country.

Should the federal government as we know evince "a design to reduce [our rights] under absolute Despotism", revolution - as you would traditionally define it - may indeed be necessary. I'm not saying it will, or that I will live to see it become so. However, our rights are slowly slipping away from us. If the Right continues to move us toward a police state and the Left continues to drag us into socialism, the republic our founders envisioned will vanish and need to be rebuilt.

"There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation." - James Madison

"Yes, I am for taking from the relatively rich (even like from me) to give to the poor in some fashion."

To take, without consent, from one person and give to another is theft. Theft, even if legally instituted, is still unjust.

"I just don't like it when my tax money is used for endless war (war on terror) and people/baby/zygote killers (Planned Par. and the like)."

Aye, but there's the rub. If you relinquish to the government charitable duties incumbent upon people and religious institutions you also relinquish your right and power to disperse the fruits of your labor as you see fit. You must be content with the decisions of legislative majorities, be they benign or malignant. If you do not wish the federal government to pay for abortions, strip from it the ability to pay for anything that is not arranged toward protecting life, liberty, and property, or anything that can be handled, in accordance with subsidiarity, by a lower level of government or non-governmental entity.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:59:17 +0000

Opium and Revolution
The 1930s was a decade when many intellectuals were convinced that revolution, either fascist or communist, was the only answer to the social crisis of the times. It was during this era of political fervor that Simone Weil penned a rebuttal: “It is not religion but revolution which is the opium of the masses.”
…
The Roundheads wanted power so as to perfect society. Their project was to redeem rather than reform, and that ambition expresses the essence of modern revolution. It is not simply the desire to control or even reform society but rather to remake it from the ground up, and to do so on principles that will guarantee purity. We often use this dream, Weil suggests, to dull the pains of our existence.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=1046

I read this today (4/15/08) on First Things "On the Square".

Ron Paul supporters, please be careful of your motives. Keep sticking to the document ("it") that defines this nation.

I know Ron Paul is really not for revolution as traditionally defined, but I hope it stays that way. Keep it peaceful, otherwise we'll end up like some other alternative country.

I personally like much of what Dr. Paul stands for, he's just too libertarian for me. Yes, I am for taking from the relatively rich (even like from me) to give to the poor in some fashion. I just don't like it when my tax money is used for endless war (war on terror) and people/baby/zygote killers (Planned Par. and the like).

gbm3
-