10 Reasons Jesus Would Never Win The American Evangelical Vote

[Sultan Of Swing]

I don't think an obedient Christian can really use this argument without more qualification. We all have an obligation to pay our "fair" share of the bill for the public goods our tax dollars buy - medical care (in most countries), roads, airports, communication systems, etc. Even if you use "legal" means to effectively avoid paying your fair share, that is not supportable from a Christian perspective. Consider the Panama Papers news event naming rich people who have used perfectly legal means to park untold riches offshore and avoid paying taxes. I am not at all sure of this but I would bet that regular folk cannot use this mechanism (again, I could be wrong). If so, the rich are taking advantage of the rest of us in avoiding paying their share since we cannot take advantage of the same loophole.

That would depend on what the Christian thinks his or her 'fair' share is in the first place however.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Render unto Caesar. Really kind of the final word. Or do you know better than Jesus?

Did I say not to pay taxes?

 

[expos4ever]

That would depend on what the Christian thinks his or her 'fair' share is in the first place however.

Agree, of course. But I am rightfully suspicious of such statements in the sense that I believe few people are able to competently assess their own "fair share". In particular - and I am quite confident there is solid evidence to support this - people who make a lot of money inaccurately attribute their own success exclusively to their own efforts when, in reality, they have been given greater opportunity and hence have an obligation to pay more taxes.

 

[Thunder Peel]

I don't see how you can downplay the devastation that was done to the native inhabitants of this land.

I'm not downplaying anything. You seem to believe that America was founded purely on dishonest intentions, all while ignoring that nearly every other nation throughout history was founded on warfare or trade. There were both friendly and hostile tribes---the idea that all the settlers were bad and all the Indians were good is completely false.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Agree, of course. But I am rightfully suspicious of such statements in the sense that I believe few people are able to competently assess their own "fair share". In particular - and I am quite confident there is solid evidence to support this - people who make a lot of money inaccurately attribute their own success exclusively to their own efforts when, in reality, they have been given greater opportunity and hence have an obligation to pay more taxes.

But if the tax rate is, say, 20% for both the rich guy and the poor guy, in real terms the rich guy's always going to be paying a lot more and it'll be proportional.

 

[expos4ever]

But if the tax rate is, say, 20% for both the rich guy and the poor guy, in real terms the rich guy's always going to be paying a lot more and it'll be proportional.

Perhaps. I am not qualified (and I suspect you are not either) to quantify the "opportunity advantage" the typical rich person has enjoyed over the masses. But I believe almost all civilized nations implement progressive taxation whereby the rich pay a larger percentage than the poor.

Christians should stand out from other members of society in their concern for the poor. Yet some advocate against progressive taxation. In doing so, they are effectively saying they care less about the poor than the rest of the members of society do - mostly nonbelievers. And that does not reflect well on the gospel at all.

 

[Pwnerer]

Perhaps. I am not qualified (and I suspect you are not either) to quantify the "opportunity advantage" the typical rich person has enjoyed over the masses. But I believe almost all civilized nations implement progressive taxation whereby the rich pay a larger percentage than the poor.

Christians should stand out from other members of society in their concern for the poor. Yet some advocate against progressive taxation. In doing so, they are effectively saying they care less about the poor than the rest of the members of society do - mostly nonbelievers. And that does not reflect well on the gospel at all.

If you believe the most corrupt, intrinsically malicious, and abusive institution in history --government-- is the best and only way to help people, then I can understand this reasoning. However, things like any bit of history, as well as any knowledge of government corruption, both throw that out the window.

Sent from my STUDIO ENERGY 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Perhaps. I am not qualified (and I suspect you are not either) to quantify the "opportunity advantage" the typical rich person has enjoyed over the masses. But I believe almost all civilized nations implement progressive taxation whereby the rich pay a larger percentage than the poor.

Christians should stand out from other members of society in their concern for the poor. Yet some advocate against progressive taxation. In doing so, they are effectively saying they care less about the poor than the rest of the members of society do - mostly nonbelievers. And that does not reflect well on the gospel at all.

C'mon, it doesn't have to mean that at all, that Christians care less about the poor. Government isn't the only way to help the poor y'know, there's also charity and churches. There are different perspectives on this, to question a Christian that they somehow care less about the poor is a bit uncharitable, and plays into the usual partisanship we see where Democrat Christians will go railing against Republican Christians that they don't care about the poor and then the Republican Christians will go railing that the Democrat ones don't care about the unborn.

Lower taxes, from many people's perspectives, can mean more growth and more prosperity, which in turn can mean more job opportunities for the poor to depend on themselves as well as more charity from the rich. A person's economic viewpoint can hardly show how much they care for a particular group of people. Many would argue a low tax free market system benefits the poor more than other systems by providing more jobs as businesses grow.

 

[expos4ever]

A person's economic viewpoint can hardly show how much they care for a particular group of people. Many would argue a low tax free market system benefits the poor more than other systems by providing more jobs as businesses grow.

I believe that the prevailing opinion of qualified economists is that "low tax free market systems" generally hurt the poor. However, this is only I sense I have based on stuff I have read so I concede I am not prepared to defend my statement. At least not at this very moment.

And I am skeptical when people make the "there are other ways to help the poor" argument. I suspect this is a rationalization but, to be fair, I do not have evidence to back up my suspicion. I would be surprised if it turned out that Christians give enough - relative to non-Christians - to offset the loss of money for the poor that would be generated through progressive taxation. In other words, when a millionaire lobbies against progressive taxation, the amount of money he would save in taxes, were progressive taxation done away with, would be a lot more than he would give to the poor through church or charity. But, again, this is only speculation.

 

[Pwnerer]

I believe that the prevailing opinion of qualified economists is that "low tax free market systems" generally hurt the poor.

How do you define 'poor'? The poor in the USA are wealthier than > 80% of the world. It helps to clarify terms so people can understand each other.

 

[chandraclaws]

I'm not downplaying anything. You seem to believe that America was founded purely on dishonest intentions, all while ignoring that nearly every other nation throughout history was founded on warfare or trade. There were both friendly and hostile tribes---the idea that all the settlers were bad and all the Indians were good is completely false.

This was much different than warfare and trade. The actions of the settlers and later, the US government toward indigenous people were actually closer to genocide. It has been justifiably called the "Native American holocaust" by Jewish writers.