• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Is it wrong to keep more of what you earn than the government says you can?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by bricklayer, Feb 18, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member

    +178
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    Of course it is illegal, but is it wrong to keep what you earn,
    if the government passes a law saying that you cannot?

    Is there any circumstance in which you would not declare income?

    Are all revolutions since Jesus said to pay tax sinful?
    Is there justification to break the law?

    I am retiring, so I'm out of the loop. I no longer expect to have an income to speak of.
    But I can't help but wonder how far the next generation of producers are willing to go, or if they will ever resist.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Marek

    Marek Senior Member

    +55
    Catholic
    I think a number of circumstances must be true before a failure to declare income might be consider "okay".

    1. You and others in your position must have little or no say in the political process and no legal means to bring about meaningful change in politics.

    2. The taxes you pay must be high enough that they substantially impact your quality of life.

    3. The government is not using your tax dollars to provide the services you need.

    If all three of those are true, then I'd see nothing wrong with those individuals fighting to keep the money they earn regardless of what the law says they should pay.
     
  3. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member

    +178
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I can be argued that those circumstances exist here now for some.

    Should one consider what the government does with the revenues?
    Should one consider all taxes including public debt and regulatory compliance?
    Should one consider the governments usurpation of necessary services?
     
  4. Harpuia

    Harpuia Oldie... very very oldie...

    +826
    United States
    Deist
    Engaged
    US-Others
    Well, tell ya what. If we start going beyond or even equal to the Clinton tax levels, I'll start analyzing then.

    But this isn't rocket science. If the taxes are too high and the people feel they are too high, they're going to complain about it, no doubt. I'm pretty sure if we had the rates of the Truman/Eisenhower/Kennedy days today we would never hear the end of it.
     
  5. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,454
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Jesus talked about rendering under Ceasar what was his - I think you'd have a tough time making an argument that the Roman Empire was more worthy of their tax dollars than the American government is of yours.

    And the answer to your question is Yes.

    -Dan.
     
  6. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,481
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.:preach:
     
  7. JCSr

    JCSr Gunshine State

    +59
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    I read somewhere that lying to keep more of what you earn is one way to fool the tax man.
     
  8. cow451

    cow451 The Most Interesting Poster in the Forum Supporter

    +12,481
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others

    See my previous post.:cool:
     
  9. DaisyDay

    DaisyDay blind squirrel

    +9,451
    United States
    Unitarian
    Married
    US-Others
    Is it wrong to lie, cheat and steal? Does it depend on whom you're cheating, lying to or stealing from?
     
  10. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,819
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Wrong by whose standards?

    The IRS & Federal government would tell you that you're wrong based on the US revised code...

    However, from my personal opinion, I wouldn't say you were wrong for doing so.

    With the exception of some of the more efficient local level governments, I don't think any level of government performs a service that warrants the kind of money they take from us.

    If you take an average American who makes $50k/year, they'll pay:
    ~$7600 in federal taxes
    ~$3000 in Social Security tax
    ~$725 in Medicare tax
    ~$1500 in State tax
    ~$600 in City tax

    and this list doesn't include property tax, sales tax, and capital gains tax.

    That's a big chunk of income you're shelling out.

    What I've always found comical about this, is that if you take a CEO who gives an employee a job & benefits, but only pays them $45k instead of $60k, that CEO is viewed as a greedy and corrupt by a certain segment of the public...however, this same segment of the public doesn't seem to exhibit this same level of resentment toward another entity (government) taking $15k a year from a person making $60k.

    It's a double standard.

    A company uses the fruits of another person's labor to increase their own revenue: Evil, Corrupt, Greedy

    The government uses the fruits of another person's labor to increase their own revenue: Justified, Fair, Ethical

    :confused:

    I think this song is very appropriate for this thread lol
    Tim Hawkins - Insanitized - The Government Can - YouTube
     
  11. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Clinton was also riding the dot.com bubble, and didn't demonize small business owners like Obama does.
     
  12. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,819
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I also would be willing to bet that Clinton wouldn't be running a trillion dollar deficit either...

    While I disagree with Clinton on more issues than I agree with him on...he definitely understood finances a heck of a lot better than Obama does.

    Even if Obama had Clinton-level taxes to work with, it wouldn't make much difference.

    A slight difference in the top tax bracket alone doesn't explain/justify one guy running a multi-billion surplus, and the other running a trillion dollar deficit. That's just too big of a gap to attribute 100% to the small difference in tax rates alone.

    Both were left holding part of the tab for a Bush Family vs. Iraq conflict and both had to deal with opposition from the other side in congress. (So Obama can't keep using those as excuses)

    If the folks on the left want real answers as to why our budget is the way it currently is, they need to stop focusing on the similarities between Clinton/Obama, and start focusing on the differences.

    Looking at their individual Welfare:Education spending ratios would be a good place to start :thumbsup:

    Obama's is almost 5 times higher than Clinton's.

    Clinton: Let me teach you how to fish
    Obama: Let me give you this other guy's fish
     
  13. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    If you look at Bush's deficit, the bulk of his term, the ratio of debt to GDP was going down.

    Furthermore, Obama spent more money and ran up more debt in 3 years, than Bush did in 8 years.
     
  14. jacks

    jacks Er Victus Supporter

    +939
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Quick thought:

    Simply not reporting income is probably the surest way of all tax evasion methods of getting caught. May I suggest hiring a good accountant to "legally" reducing your taxes like the big boys do.
     
  15. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,454
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Right - there was the whole recession thing that tanked revenues.

    It's interesting to see how Clinton was portrayed as a liberal boogeyman back in the 90's (anyone else remember "America Held Hostage: Day xxx"?), and now that we have a new boogeyman, Clinton is portrayed as a smart, fairly responsible, moderate-liberal.

    -Dan.
     
  16. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    Which was caused by bad government regulations that forced banks to make loans to people that couldn't afford the loans...


    Clinton did some very underhanded things, and yes Clinton did cross the line on multiple occasions, such as having the IRS conduct predatory audits on certain people in the media that were critical of him, the Elian Gonzolas debacle, gutting the CIA, being too busy with Monica to issue the order to take out Bin Laden... :doh:

    However, compared to Obama, Clinton actually looks like a decent President (at least Clinton wasn't an ideologue).
     
  17. iluvatar5150

    iluvatar5150 Well-Known Member

    +10,454
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Even if that were true (which it isn't), you can't honestly lay that blame on Obama, since those loans had already been made and the collapse had already started before he even took office.

    But to go down that rabbit hole a bit: I'm pretty sure you've been shown how your claims regarding the CRA are lies put forward by conservatives. But just in case you haven't been shown that: if your assertion were true, why did institutions not covered by the CRA have such higher rates of subprime lending than banks covered by the CRA? Also, why were CRA-motivated loans less likely to be in default than non-CRA subprime loans?


    I'm predicting that, if conservatives continue down the path of ever-increasing hysteria as a means of maintaining their electoral base, in 20 years, they'll be describing Obama as "not too bad compared to" whomever the Dems have put in office at the time.

    -Dan.
     
  18. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    I'm not blaming Obama for the policy, I will blame him for not fixing anything, but instead using it to try to take over banks.

    That's cause those places got stuck holding the bill from the places that issued the subprime loans...

    To be perfectly blunt, your first article didn't give any real information...

    Your 2nd source actually has a financial stake in pushing the idea that CRA didn't cause the mess... It'd be like getting a report from the tobacco companies claiming that smoking cigarettes doesn't increase your chances to get cancer... :doh:

    The study they are citing is dubious at best... Of course there were fewer defaults, because Banks have a harder time defaulting a CRA backed loan when the person isn't paying back the loan, between lawsuits from groups like ACORN, a predatory Fed, etc. it was such a pain in the neck that banks packaged up the toxic loans and sold them to a bunch of investors (suckers), whom upon realizing they got scammed, sold them to others and the cycle continued until they ran out of people to fall for the scam.

    To quote Ronald Reagan: "There you go again."


    Democrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
    But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
    Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
    To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
    The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.


    Read More At IBD: New Study Blames Community Reinvestment Act For Mortgage Defaults - Investors.com
    Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

    You're not the only one that can find sources...

    Study Says Community Reinvestment Act Induced Banks To Take Bad Risks - Hit & Run : Reason.com

    In fact Obama was one of the lawyers that were sueing banks:
    Obama pushed banks to give subprime loans to Chicago blacks | The Daily Caller


    A key fact that a lot of leftists omit is that early on the people that objected to these loans being issued got fired by banks whom were afraid of predatory audits by the Fed, without those people working at the banks anymore, there was really nobody there to raise questions about whether or not this was a good idea.

    You are getting information from the same people whom seem to care more about the fact that they didn't get to film the golf game between Obama and Tiger Woods, than about the fact that 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi (including the 1st Ambassador in 30 years), as well as the fact that the Obama White House lied about what happened claiming it was due to a stupid video, and the media cared more about getting Obama re-elected than finding out the truth.
     
  19. GloryBe!

    GloryBe! Always learning.....

    356
    +21
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    This has nothing to do with which president had the better plan. It's about earning your bread and being able to keep it. It's about someone else taking what you've earned and using it to fund evil and death in more ways than we will ever know. It's about "considering a field and buying it". Giving to a church without a kickback. The whole system is evil and corrupt. Annual oppression day is coming up on April 15.
     
  20. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member

    +178
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I got slammed for 2006.
    I was audited and had to pay back tax, interest and penalty.
    Now I am officially a tax cheat.

    I'm not going to mince words. I lied, cheated and got caught.
    I am very sorry that I got caught.

    I've heard it said that a state trooper can find fault with a brand new truck and that the IRS can find fault with any return.

    The bottom line is that I've backed trucks into more money damage. Stuff happens.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...