Mahatma Gandhi on Socialism.

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I agree. I don't consider taxation to be theft though. Did Jesus call taxation theft?

Neither does God for the responsibilities He gave to government. However taxation for the purpose of taking the bread of one man's labor to give to another man is stealing and breaks the 2nd great commandment that we love our neighbor as ourselves.

So a rich person should be content with what he has not and not lobby for more tax breaks ? Or does this only apply to the poor?

It seems few people take the commandments of God seriously today be they rich or poor. Under Godly government all people are free to pursue their financail interests enjoying the bread of their labor and learning from their mistakes if they handle their money foolishly. Government allows the free commercial competition between men, not favoring one man over another (just as God is not a respecter of men). God has not tasked government with exercising charity as that is the responsibility of the individual and the church. Indeed, God warns us that wealth gotten by vanity (dishonesty) shall diminish (Proverbs 13:11)... as we see does occur in statist countries.

On a personal level it is wise to practice detachment but it's also compassionate to work for improving economic conditions for the poor as well.

If men stopped adding to the responsibilities of government beyond what God has authorized the poor would be much better off. Government instrusion into the market has led to one harmful effect after another. Government arbitrarily decides there should be a minimum wage but the result is some jobs are lost and others never created because people with no work experience or few job skills are priced out of the market. Government decides to offer welfare to single mothers and the result for many of those mothers is they continue to have babies out of wedlock and the problems of single motherhood are exacerbated. Government decides that Social Security is a good idea and for a few decades it works okay as there are about 15 workers paying in for every one drawing out and there is money left over which the government then spends on other things putting IOUs in the form of Treasury Bonds into the SS trust fund to cover the money being taken out. Approximately 80 years later there are only three workers paying in for every one taking out, a huge generation of workers is getting ready to retire which will result in far more money being paid out then is coming in and the government, already running huge deficits and sports trillions of dollars in national debt has to make those IOUs good. The medicare program is in even more dire straights and so it goes. The governments that men have created vastly exceeding in responsibility what God authorized are a prime example of 'there is a way that seems wise to men but the end thereof is death'.

I really don't see Jesus as having taught anything about the proper size of government. You might be able to make conjectures based on what He did teach but it's certainly not there in black and white.

A few years ago God put it in my heart to do a study on Godly government and I was shocked myself at how little God authorizes government to do. Having been born and raised in the United States and the government doing so much I just assumed that is the way things were meant to be. My study revealed something far different. God deliberately gave government few responsibilities and I think we are seeing just why He didn't task government with establishing a social safety net (our own government has done a great deal to destroy the social safety net God had established) or interfering in the market place etc.

And since this seems to always come up in discussions about what government should do I make this note: God appoints governments and although those He appoints may not obey His instructions to them we as servants of the Lord are still to submit to them (as a wife submits to her husband as she would to Jesus so the citizen will submit to the governing authority as to God) and pay whatever taxes they levy, obey the laws they pass etc. unless what they direct us to do would cause us to disobey God (for example a Christian doctor would refuse to perform an abortion as that would be murder).
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
very specific and very limited responsibilities,to wield the sword against the evil doer and to ensure that justice is done.
It says the authorities wield the sword against evil doers. Where does it say that this is the only function of the authorities? I really don't see it as a comprehensive explanation of every thing a government can or can not do. I would even go so far as to say that it's primary purpose has little or nothing to do with telling the state what it can or can not do. It simply points out a reality and warns people about it.

For the things that men need however He is clear that we are to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness
I agree.

warns us to put not our trust in princes and the son of man in whom there is no help
Ok. Still not seeing how the last two are against socialism? I guess if you take it to an extreme you could say that no one is ever helpful so it's wrong to support policies that are intended to help people? I doubt that's the intended meaning though. I would interpret it more as saying that our trust should be in God because only He is the absolute help. Gandhi felt the same way. His trust was first and foremost in God.

Godly government however does not get in the way of men walking in God's liberty from living their lives as God directs them, buying or selling etc.
I assume you are talking about taxation again or maybe laws to protect consumers from tainted food products and such?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
However taxation for the purpose of taking the bread of one man's labor to give to another man is stealing
All taxation involves a redistribution of wealth. This includes defense spending and other forms of spending that you might consider legitimate. Money is collected from Americans and then used to pay for services or programs that are in the best interests of the American people (in theory at least). It's in the best collective interests of a nation that people do not starve, that consumer protections on food exist, that we have good roads, that we have protections for workers, and that our citizens are well educated, etc.

It isn't in the best interests of the nation collectively for 1% of the population to own over 40% of the wealth. That gives that one percent too much power and influence over the direction of the country. Democracy doesn't work right when you have such extreme inequalities like that. The economy no longer works for the interests of the majority of people either. That 1% will have a firm grip on the direction of the economy and who continues to profit off of it.

Government allows the free commercial competition between men, not favoring one man over another (just as God is not a respecter of men).
And then those lucky enough to be born into wealth or to have good business acumen and opportunities will economically dominate those who were not so blessed? There has to be some measure of protection for the majority of people so they are not at the mercy of the 1% who are able to accumulate the most capital. Not everyone is a cut throat businessman. Not everyone knows how to start their own successful business. Not everyone is a millionaire waiting to happen. Not everyone was born in an environment conducive to that either.

God warns us that wealth gotten by vanity (dishonesty) shall diminish (Proverbs 13:11)... as we see does occur in statist countries.
How does protecting the poor = vanity ?

A few years ago God put it in my heart to do a study on Godly government and I was shocked myself at how little God authorizes government to do.
I've done a fair amount of Bible reading and never noticed any detailed or specific commandments given regarding how exactly the government should be run. In the OT we have some rules regarding the Israelite monarchy/theocracy but in the New Testament there isn't much of a focus on the issue. Certainly you can use what is given and then theorize about how it might relate to the issue and many conservatives and liberals have done so but there is little explicitly stated.

Also, if Capitalism is the Christian model why did it take so long for Christians to finally come up with the idea? What do you make of some the earliest Christian communities that lived in a communal almost communistic manner and shared all their wealth (like in the book of Acts). Do you think they should have instead focused on competing with one another in a capitalistic manner?
 
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,184.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
Very much in line with Christian scripture, many saints have stated that God made the world and its bounty for all God's children, not just those with the sharpest elbows and most covetous hearts. "Where your heart is, there your treasure is."
Consequently, to cast a just redistribution of wealth, so that "He that had much, had nothing over; and he that had little, had no want." (2 Corinthians 8:15), as stealing is wrong. This was plagiarised by Karl Marx without attribution, of course, and adapted to, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
It is interesting in the context of this whole issue that the Dalai Lama recently stated that, while of course rejecting Marx's atheism, he was, himself, a Marxist in terms of a just economic governance of society - which will not sit very well with our neoiberal leaders in the UK and US, who had thought hi their poodle, like Blair.
Not that most people need anything like as much money as the rich, who, as scripture teaches us are generally among the least spiritual amomg mankind, while the poor, as St James tells us, are rich in faith. However, everyone is entitled, as a minimum, to enough for his basic needs, food, clothes, shelter, and in our societies a little disposable income.
A fairly cursory reading of Judaeo-Christian scripture, Old and New Testaments, moreover, reveals that reference to the rich man in apposition to evil, the bad man, and to the poor man, as the true Israel, the virtuous man, is a theme reiterated thoughout its pages. Nowhere, of course, is this more strikingly articulated than in the
words of Isiah 53:9, in the Gospel accounts of Christ's crucifixion, read out on Good Friday, "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."
Our Western socieities should have been organised so that everyone had the right to gainful employment to meet those needs. Instead our neoliberal leaders in the UK and the US, in particular, have based their total lack of huamanity, never mind patriotism, on a pack of lies about "trickle down" economics, etc. As a British trade union leader once remarked, if wealth trickled down from the rich, India would have been a superpower long ago.
As for government, in our more democratic age, there is no other way in which the powerful and pernicious worldlings who effectively rule the World, which Jesus always alluded to so disparagingly, nevertheless, can be brought under some kind of control, and the welfare of society, the country as a whole, as opposed to that of the powerful vested interests, may be nurtured and protected.
Similarly, in the case of taxation, Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," even though the levying of taxation was notoriously a quasi, if not a thoroughly criminal affair, and the use such funds were put to by the monarchs, an abomination.
Here, however, is an extract from an article linked below, on what the 18th century, moral philosopher, Adam Smith, bizarrely, often claimed by the far right as an icon and guru of theirs, had to say about taxation:

· "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."

· "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

Second, he believed that WORKERS DESERVE A LIVING WAGE:

· "It is but equity … that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerable well fed, clothed and lodged."

Third - and here’s a real shocker - he believed that THE WEALTHY SHOULD PAY MORE IN TAXES:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ABILITIES; THAT IS IN PROPORTION TO THE REVENUE WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY ENJOY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE.

Fourth, HE BELEIVED IN THE NECESSITY OF PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC GOODS. He spoke of the DUTY of government TO SUPPORT "PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS AND THOSE PUBLIC WORKS, which, though they may be IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE ADVANTAGEOUS TO A GREAT SOCIETY are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain."

If he were alive today, he would probably consider EDUCATION AND HEALTH CARE AS EXAMPLES OF THIS KIND OF PUBLIC GOODS.

Who Owns Adam Smith? | Common Dreams /
When Adam Smith stated that the public good which arose from the activities of a butcher or a baker, for example, was not due to any philanthropic impulse but was motivated by self-interest. Infact, all he was saying was tha "grace builds upon nature", a very ancient Judaeo-political truth. Unfortunately, as he goes on to state, business peolpe cannot be rusted, and their activities need to be very closely monitored.
Keir Hardie, who founded the British Labour Party was a part-time, Methodist preacher, and stated that everything he had ever strived for was based on the Gospels' teachings.
As regards, Ghandi, his following insights must, if anything be more starkly and evidently true today, than they would have been 70 or more years ago:
Mahatma Gandhi said that seven social sins will destroy us:
Politics without principles.
Wealth without work
Commerce without morality
Education without character
Pleasure without conscience
.
Science without humanity.
Worship without sacrifice
.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ishraqiyun
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It says the authorities wield the sword against evil doers. Where does it say that this is the only function of the authorities? I really don't see it as a comprehensive explanation of every thing a government can or can not do. I would even go so far as to say that it's primary purpose has little or nothing to do with telling the state what it can or can not do. It simply points out a reality and warns people about it.

Whatever men decide to do we must always keep in mind we are not to covet the property of our neighbor, we certainly are not to steal it and we must love our neighbors as ourselves. WE as individuals have great leeway on how we use the money that God blessed us with in doing His will but we have NO leeway in determining how our neighbors money is used.

Ok. Still not seeing how the last two are against socialism? I guess if you take it to an extreme you could say that no one is ever helpful so it's wrong to support policies that are intended to help people? I doubt that's the intended meaning though

Please take a hard look at the policies government takes to 'help' the poor. Certainly in the United States so many of the policies pursued to 'help' the poor end up hurting them instead.

I would interpret it more as saying that our trust should be in God because only He is the absolute help. Gandhi felt the same way. His trust was first and foremost in God.

The problem is when you get right down to it few people trust the Lord to do what He says He will do and they put their trust in men instead.

I assume you are talking about taxation again or maybe laws to protect consumers from tainted food products and such?

A great many regulations that government creates do little good and often do harm as they inflate the prices consumers pay with no tangible benefit resulting.
 
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
All taxation involves a redistribution of wealth. This includes defense spending and other forms of spending that you might consider legitimate. Money is collected from Americans and then used to pay for services or programs that are in the best interests of the American people (in theory at least). It's in the best collective interests of a nation that people do not starve, that consumer protections on food exist, that we have good roads, that we have protections for workers, and that our citizens are well educated, etc.

Yes, all true but do we follow God's wisdom in these things or do we follow mans?

It isn't in the best interests of the nation collectively for 1% of the population to own over 40% of the wealth.

Wealth is not a static quantity nor does the Bible state how much wealth a man can have. I personally do not understand how one can accumulate great wealth ranging into even the billions when obviously that is far more than they need to meet their own needs and there are people who are in need that the rich man should be considering. However there is nothing in the Bible which tells men they can decide how much wealth their neighbor can have and if it exceeds a certain amount it can be confiscated. God tells us HE will reward the good steward and punish the bad steward so who are we to decide HE isn't doing a good enough job in this and we must step in to help Him?

That gives that one percent too much power and influence over the direction of the country.

When government is limited to what God says it should do what does it matter how much wealth a man has? They cannot get government to pass legislation which gives them power and influence over the country. It is when you decide government can do more than what God allows it that rich men can manipulate government to their advantage. A prime example is that 'income taxes' are the primary means of raising revenue for the government. That benefits those who are already rich and makes it more difficult for newcomers to make their own fortunes. If there was a flat tax on consumption and not income however, then the already rich would pay more and those who are productive would not see their hard work punished as with income taxes.

Democracy doesn't work right when you have such extreme inequalities like that. The economy no longer works for the interests of the majority of people either. That 1% will have a firm grip on the direction of the economy and who continues to profit off of it.

Again, when government does only what God allows it to do in the Bible, wealth itself would be more distributed as you have God seeing to how it is distributed and not fallible man making the decisions. Again this boils down to do we trust God to keep His word?

And then those lucky enough to be born into wealth or to have good business acumen and opportunities will economically dominate those who were not so blessed? There has to be some measure of protection for the majority of people so they are not at the mercy of the 1% who are able to accumulate the most capital. Not everyone is a cut throat businessman. Not everyone knows how to start their own successful business. Not everyone is a millionaire waiting to happen. Not everyone was born in an environment conducive to that either.

So what? In free markets people make money providing goods and services that people desire. The consumer is able to acquire things that are not cost effective for them to make for themselves if they could make them at all. Cut throat business practices will always invite competitors in their market UNLESS the government steps in to stop competitors from coming into the market.

How does protecting the poor = vanity ?

YOU can do whatever you wish with the wealth that God has blessed you with. It is when men break God's commandments not to covet the property of their neighbor and certainly not to steal it that God will step in and punish those wrong doers by diminishing the money they have. You might want to start considering why programs intended to 'protect' the poor like Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt and driving America towards bankruptcy.

I've done a fair amount of Bible reading and never noticed any detailed or specific commandments given regarding how exactly the government should be run. In the OT we have some rules regarding the Israelite monarchy/theocracy but in the New Testament there isn't much of a focus on the issue. Certainly you can use what is given and then theorize about how it might relate to the issue and many conservatives and liberals have done so but there is little explicitly stated.

You cannot theorize programs which lead to the breaking of God's commandments to us like thou shalt not covet and thou shalt not steal. AGAIN, there is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death.

Also, if Capitalism is the Christian model why did it take so long for Christians to finally come up with the idea?

No system which does not have holiness at its foundation is the Christian model. No economic system devised by man does have holiness as a core tenant and capitalism is no exception. Capitalism does incorporate Biblical precepts like property rights, free markets and limited government but all too often the goal is to make as much money as possible rather than remembering that the employer is to use a fair balance in his trade with others, to pay his employee a fair wage (I personally have experienced the travesty in sales of bringing my employer a profit of over eight thousand dollars in profit one month and was paid less than a dollar for my efforts) and to be concerned with the needs of the poor. One reason so many Christians support things like socialism over capitalism is that they are not well informed about what God teaches us.

What do you make of some the earliest Christian communities that lived in a communal almost communistic manner and shared all their wealth (like in the book of Acts).

We need to keep in mind ALL that God tells us and I'm afraid the socialistic model tends to undermine God's commands for us to work for our bread and he who does not work, neither shall he eat. If all people involved in such an enterprise were fully committed to God it might work but it invariably happens that the more slothful find they can eat without exerting much effort so they don't exert the effort they should and those who do work hard will get frustrated that their labor benefits them but little and so they stop working so hard. The end result is that productivity falls and want increases.

Do you think they should have instead focused on competing with one another in a capitalistic manner?

I think they should have paid far closer attention to God's word rather than substituting man's wisdom on how to do things.
 
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
However there is nothing in the Bible which tells men they can decide how much wealth their neighbor can have and if it exceeds a certain amount it can be confiscated.
If a person wants to reap the benefits of living in a country they have to pay the taxes there. Progressive taxation isn't theft. It's a sensible way to obtain revenue.

If the rich are really upset with too much money going to the government they could simply take less of their companies profits as personal income and thus move into a lower tax bracket. Or they (CEOs, etc..) could invest more of their corporations money into their business rather than taking so much of it for themselves. Heck, maybe they could even use more of their profits to give raises to their employes instead of pocketing it ? They would have incentive then because it would be more attractive for them to reinvest it in their business or make their employees happy with raises rather than letting the state take it. If they want to make millions of dollars every year off the American economy they will have to pay a higher tax rate though.


Politicians always talk about shared sacrifice under this floundering economy when they are cutting programs for the poor or education but the rich never seem to be asked to make any of their own. Instead they get even MORE tax breaks! What sacrafices are the top 1% who own over 40% of the wealth making?

You cannot theorize programs which lead to the breaking of God's commandments to us like thou shalt not covet and thou shalt not steal. AGAIN, there is a way that seems right to a man but the end thereof is death.
I'm not doing that. I'm not even poor. I have a fair standard of living and I'm not really in need of many of the government social programs I'm advocating at this time. It's not a matter of "coveting" it's a matter of trying to develop a system that will work in the best interests of the American people as a whole (rather than the 1% who currently run things) and will protect the poor and suffering. I'm happy with the way I am economically now. Not so sure my economic future is as bright but I'm not overly concerned about it. I'll deal with it if and when it comes.


I think they should have paid far closer attention to God's word rather than substituting man's wisdom on how to do things.
You think the Christian community of the book of acts were not following Gods word when they "shared everything in common" ? The book itself doesn't seem to critique them for it. If anything the author sheds light on the fact to show how positive and unique Christians are.

You might want to start considering why programs intended to 'protect' the poor like Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt and driving America towards bankruptcy.
I would say that the Bush / Obama tax cuts had a little something to do with the budget deficit we face. We did loose over 3 trillion in revenue as a result. If you want to go further back the Reagen tax cuts really didn't help either. Add all the money we threw into Iraq (both wars there) and Afghanistan and our bloated defense spending and it really starts to add up. Excessive defense spend just tempts us to use all the fancy equipment we have to police the world too. Which in turn costs more money.

Medicare is not bankrupt. It's project that if absolutely nothing is done to fix it it we will start to run into problems by 2024. With a little restructuring and the ending of the Bush tax cuts we can easily head that off. Anyways, I think we should get rid of it all together and put in place a real single payer option just like all the rest of the first world countries but that's a different issue all together.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Our tax codes now have so many loopholes that corporations can make billions in profits and still not pay a cent in taxes or even get back money at the end of the year! No wonder we are having a debt problem.

"The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion. "

What The Top U.S. Companies Pay In Taxes - Forbes.com

Wow, I paid more in tax's than GE and they brought in 10.3 billion in income. They Even got 1.1 billion back!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
1 Samuel 8 – Israel Demands a King

4. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;

5. and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”

6. But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us ” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.

7. The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

8. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day–in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods–so they are doing to you also.

9. “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

10. So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.

11. He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.

12. “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13. “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.

14. “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.

15. “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.

16. “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.

17. “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.

18. “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

19. Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us,

20. that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.”
It can be argued that any form of a secular government is in itself a "rejection of God!"

One of the major reasons for the "elders of Israel" requesting a king was the illusion of military security - "our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

Samuel passed on God's warning to the people of the consequences of this decision - by appointing a king, the people would in turn be reduced to the status of servants under his rule. The history of Israel also shows that while having a king did not necessarily translate into military victories, their lavish lifestyles did weaken the nation, resulting in its splitting it into two and hastening its demise.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
(Dwight D. Eisenhower)

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwight_d_eisenhower.html
Like the Israelites, America has spend billions to create the illusion of military security for its people. Vietnam, 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated the fact that possessing the world's strongest military is no guarantee of a final victory. All this military spending, however, has come at the cost of those "who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Gandhi understood this and dedicated his life to improving the life of the "masses" through peacefull means!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
All taxation involves a redistribution of wealth. This includes defense spending and other forms of spending that you might consider legitimate.

I tried to point that out to him on a few occasions. It was toxic to his ideology so he put me on Ignore.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
If a person wants to reap the benefits of living in a country they have to pay the taxes there.

Then why are almost 50% of American workers paying no income tax?

Progressive taxation isn't theft. It's a sensible way to obtain revenue.

A sensible way to obtain revenue for what? The God given responsibilities of government or to fund the things you want added to government duties to be paid for by someone else?

Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal. Love thy neighbor as thyself. I recommend those who think they can add to the duties that God gave government while ignoring His commands to us on how we treat our neighbor read Matthew 7. As Jesus has said "why call ye me Lord, Lord and DO NOT the things which I say"?

If the rich are really upset with too much money going to the government they could simply take less of their companies profits as personal income and thus move into a lower tax bracket. Or they (CEOs, etc..) could invest more of their corporations money into their business rather than taking so much of it for themselves. Heck, maybe they could even use more of their profits to give raises to their employes instead of pocketing it ? They would have incentive then because it would be more attractive for them to reinvest it in their business or make their employees happy with raises rather than letting the state take it. If they want to make millions of dollars every year off the American economy they will have to pay a higher tax rate though.

Do you understand that wealth is not a static quantity? That productive work creates NEW wealth yet it is productive work you statists want taxed. Do you not understand that you have no right to the bread of another man's labor?

Politicians always talk about shared sacrifice under this floundering economy when they are cutting programs for the poor or education but the rich never seem to be asked to make any of their own. Instead they get even MORE tax breaks! What sacrafices are the top 1% who own over 40% of the wealth making?

Shared sacrifice? What percentage of those who work pay NO INCOME TAX AT ALL? U.S. Income Tax Burden

One of God's eternal lessons is for us to live within our means which government is not doing (not to mention a great many individuals). It is spending far more than it is taking in and accumulating a massive overall debt and this will only lead to economic catastrophe if it continues yet any call to reign in spending and we hear 'oh, they're cutting programs for the poor, they're cutting education (which is funny since God tasked parents with the responsiblitiy of ensuring their children are educated, NOT government and the more government has involved itself with education the worse our educational system becomes), they're cutting grandma's Social Security, they're cutting funding for our crumbling infrastructure' etc.

I'm not doing that. I'm not even poor. I have a fair standard of living and I'm not really in need of many of the government social programs I'm advocating at this time. It's not a matter of "coveting" it's a matter of trying to develop a system that will work in the best interests of the American people as a whole (rather than the 1% who currently run things) and will protect the poor and suffering. I'm happy with the way I am economically now. Not so sure my economic future is as bright but I'm not overly concerned about it. I'll deal with it if and when it comes.

When you're looking at your neighbor's property thinking it should be yours instead you are coveting. When you take that property whether directly or by government proxy, you are stealing. The system we should be developing is the one in conformance with what God tells us we should do, not this system that fundamentally ignores God's instructions on productive work, living within our means, saving for the future, not being a burden on others, charity (I still haven't come across that scripture which says 'go, take what beongs to your neighbor, sell it and give the money to the poor') and instead implements man's wisdom on how to do things. Have you noticed man's history of war, poverty and oppression that has resulted from man doing this?

You think the Christian community of the book of acts were not following Gods word when they "shared everything in common" ? The book itself doesn't seem to critique them for it. If anything the author sheds light on the fact to show how positive and unique Christians are.

The sharing was voluntary. In those instances where men have practiced socialism in a matter of months, years or decades it will invariably happen that those who work hard see that their hard work gains them little and they stop working so hard and for those who don't like to work hard they have little incentive to change since they can get what they want without expending the effort themselves to produce it and you get a downward spiral that ends in economic ruin.

I would say that the Bush / Obama tax cuts had a little something to do with the budget deficit we face. We did loose over 3 trillion in revenue as a result. If you want to go further back the Reagen tax cuts really didn't help either.

This is just a denial of reality. When you cut marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes you get more ecnomic activity which creates jobs which creates more tax payers and generates more revenue. This happened under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush but the problem is the Federal government always spends the additional revenue and then some.

Add all the money we threw into Iraq (both wars there) and Afghanistan

If we had a smarter national energy policy the first Gulf War could have been avoided (which would have avoided the 2nd Gulf War except it is stupid to let imperialistic, murderous thugs acquire nuclear weapons which Saddam would have had by now if the first Gulf War had not been fought). The Afghanistan war was somethng we had to do to respond to Al Queda and their Taliban sponsors.

and our bloated defense spending

I can imagine ways to significantly cut defense spending while retaining the ability to effectively defend ourselves and our vital national interests but I'd be curious what you think ought to be cut.

and it really starts to add up

Yes it does ... as well as the trillions in unfunded mandates for social programs.

Excessive defense spend just tempts us to use all the fancy equipment we have to police the world too. Which in turn costs more money.

Quite true.

Medicare is not bankrupt. It's project that if absolutely nothing is done to fix it it we will start to run into problems by 2024. With a little restructuring and the ending of the Bush tax cuts we can easily head that off.

You're a tad off in your analysis on the viability of Medicare Medicare's deficit 7 times Social Security's - politics - msnbc.com

Ending the Bush tax cuts would only exacerbate the Federal revenue problem and increase the deficits. The thing we need to do is make the Bush tax cuts permanent and take away the fear that business men have over being hit with tax increase which has led them to not invest in their businesses as they would like.

Anyways, I think we should get rid of it all together and put in place a real single payer option just like all the rest of the first world countries but that's a different issue all together.

The only thing is you have no moral say over how your neighbor uses his money. If you and like minded people want to band together and start your single payer program using your own resources have at it just dont think you have a right to FORCE others to join in.

That is the thing I cannot understand about Christian statists, you create a government that God never authorized, that punishes the productive and rewards the slothful, that entails breaking several of God's commands to us (do not covet, do not steal, love thy neighbor) and this socialist model you adore is bankrupting nation after nation.

If government was reduced to the responsiblities that God gave it, it would need significantly less funding and the people would retain far more of the bread of their own labor which would be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Verv

Senior Veteran
Apr 17, 2005
7,244
624
서울
✟31,762.00
Country
Korea, Republic Of
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Some people don't like non-violence and they get upset when they hear the naughty word "socialism" so they have to resort to attacking him as a pedophile or some other non-sense. They read it on a web page once after all!

Well, there was an old, wise Indian guy in the video talking about Gandhi -- how he was a racist and very passionately did his duties giving enemas to llittle girls.

There is some good info here:

"
6) Gandhi’s pretty teenage girl followers used to fight “hysterically” for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was “testing” his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.) When told there was a man named Freud who said that, despite his declared intention, Gandhi might actually be *enjoying* the caresses of the naked girls, Gandhi continued, unperturbed.
7) his daily greeting was, “Have you had a good bowel movement this morning, sisters?” And he used to participate in giving all the girls in his ashram enemas and they gave him enemas in return."


Gandhi Had Bad Breath and enjoyed Enemas « remains of the desi


These are documented. Documented partly because it is shocking.



Look, I am not against socialism; I am generally against non-violence movements because I think it is foolish, irrational and not going to achieve much in many cirucmstances....



But hey, Socialism is not terrible.



He wouldn't have said the same about you. That's one of the reasons I admire him. He often behaved in a truly Christ like manner with his political and religious opponents. Much better than I do. He didn't slander them or try to dehumanize them. He wouldn't even legally prosecute the people who wronged him. He forgave the people who attacked him and almost lynched him in South Africa and wouldn't testify against them for example.

Well, good for him.

OK... Gandhi was not an idiot.

But he was not a noble person; and I do notthink he was that great.

I think I would make a better spiritual leader for you than he is -- you should consider following me instead of Gandhi.
 
Upvote 0

paul becke

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 12, 2003
4,011
814
83
Edinburgh, Scotland.
✟205,184.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Politics
UK-Labour
Then why are almost 50% of American workers paying no income tax?



A sensible way to obtain revenue for what? The God given responsibilities of government or to fund the things you want added to government duties to be paid for by someone else?

Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal. Love thy neighbor as thyself. I recommend those who think they can add to the duties that God gave government while ignoring His commands to us on how we treat our neighbor read Matthew 7. As Jesus has said "why call ye me Lord, Lord and DO NOT the things which I say"?



Do you understand that wealth is not a static quantity? That productive work creates NEW wealth yet it is productive work you statists want taxed. Do you not understand that you have no right to the bread of another man's labor?



Shared sacrifice? What percentage of those who work pay NO INCOME TAX AT ALL? U.S. Income Tax Burden

One of God's eternal lessons is for us to live within our means which government is not doing (not to mention a great many individuals). It is spending far more than it is taking in and accumulating a massive overall debt and this will only lead to economic catastrophe if it continues yet any call to reign in spending and we hear 'oh, they're cutting programs for the poor, they're cutting education (which is funny since God tasked parents with the responsiblitiy of ensuring their children are educated, NOT government and the more government has involved itself with education the worse our educational system becomes), they're cutting grandma's Social Security, they're cutting funding for our crumbling infrastructure' etc.



When you're looking at your neighbor's property thinking it should be yours instead you are coveting. When you take that property whether directly or by government proxy, you are stealing. The system we should be developing is the one in conformance with what God tells us we should do, not this system that fundamentally ignores God's instructions on productive work, living within our means, saving for the future, not being a burden on others, charity (I still haven't come across that scripture which says 'go, take what beongs to your neighbor, sell it and give the money to the poor') and instead implements man's wisdom on how to do things. Have you noticed man's history of war, poverty and oppression that has resulted from man doing this?



The sharing was voluntary. In those instances where men have practiced socialism in a matter of months, years or decades it will invariably happen that those who work hard see that their hard work gains them little and they stop working so hard and for those who don't like to work hard they have little incentive to change since they can get what they want without expending the effort themselves to produce it and you get a downward spiral that ends in economic ruin.



This is just a denial of reality. When you cut marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes you get more ecnomic activity which creates jobs which creates more tax payers and generates more revenue. This happened under Kennedy, Reagan and Bush but the problem is the Federal government always spends the additional revenue and then some.



If we had a smarter national energy policy the first Gulf War could have been avoided (which would have avoided the 2nd Gulf War except it is stupid to let imperialistic, murderous thugs acquire nuclear weapons which Saddam would have had by now if the first Gulf War had not been fought). The Afghanistan war was somethng we had to do to respond to Al Queda and their Taliban sponsors.



I can imagine ways to significantly cut defense spending while retaining the ability to effectively defend ourselves and our vital national interests but I'd be curious what you think ought to be cut.



Yes it does ... as well as the trillions in unfunded mandates for social programs.



Quite true.



You're a tad off in your analysis on the viability of Medicare Medicare's deficit 7 times Social Security's - politics - msnbc.com

Ending the Bush tax cuts would only exacerbate the Federal revenue problem and increase the deficits. The thing we need to do is make the Bush tax cuts permanent and take away the fear that business men have over being hit with tax increase which has led them to not invest in their businesses as they would like.



The only thing is you have no moral say over how your neighbor uses his money. If you and like minded people want to band together and start your single payer program using your own resources have at it just dont think you have a right to FORCE others to join in.

That is the thing I cannot understand about Christian statists, you create a government that God never authorized, that punishes the productive and rewards the slothful, that entails breaking several of God's commands to us (do not covet, do not steal, love thy neighbor) and this socialist model you adore is bankrupting nation after nation.

If government was reduced to the responsiblities that God gave it, it would need significantly less funding and the people would retain far more of the bread of their own labor which would be a good thing.

--------------------------

Bondi Harry, I see nothing but endless folly in your posts, which is ironical since the Methodists were pioneers in promoting greater economic justice. Most of Christ's most virulent diatribes were addressesed at the comfortably-off members of the Establishment, most notably, the scribes, Pharisees, lawyers and the plain rich, inveighing against the structural economic injustice, extortion and oppression they so hypocritically wrought, together with their religious legalism, on the people.

As regards the rich, even the white-hot fury of Christ's repeated condemnations and threats to them of eternal damnation are bizarrely trumped by the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, which is related in a strikingly measured, even avuncular tone - which should make the blood of the unseemly rich run cold.

When Abraham speaks to the rich man who is in Hell, his tone is notably measured, even kindly, addressing him as "Son": "But Abraham said, "Son, O remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and thou are tormented." It was as if Jesus was saying that the rich were actually beyond help, so he wasn't even going to bother to rail against them any more. He was simply going to lay out the plain and simple facts, namely, that the rich man's mere possession of a considerable superfluity of this world's goods is condemnation enough to ensure his damnation.

Of course, we always have to consider specific passages of scripture in the context of the whole, but nevertheless, the mere matter-of-fact expression of this strange-sounding truth suggests that Jesus was intentionally investing it with an enormous emphasis.

Although later, people would give the rich man the name of Dives - another name for Pluto or Hades, Lord of Hades, Lord of the Underworld - Christ did not even deign to give the rich man a name, presumably, since a person's name is very personal, and the rich man had forfeited his humanity. Indeed, the clear implication of the street dogs, considered in their culture to be the lowest form of life, being moved to lick Lazarus' sores, is that even the dumb beasts in their hapless, stumbling compassion, put the rich man to shame. And there you are, BondiHarry, wanting to encourage the unseemly rich in their determination to be cast into hell for eternity! We have a Christian duty towards the rich, as well as the poor, you know.

A fair system of taxation - something we haven't seen for a long time - renders enormous benefits to a society, but also to the individual Christian, since by voting for a political party which will levy tax on his income, only on the day he votes would he be able to pat himself on the back and say, like the Pharisee in another parable, "What a good chap I am". In other words, taxation enables us to give alms without "our left hand knowing what our right hand is doing". A standing order will help in that way, too, for those who are always sufficiently solvent to avoid accidentally becoming overdrawn, as a result of forgetting its deduction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Bondi harry,

Reading some of your responses I get the impression you are an anarchist** but then you go on to say that the government should exist and that it has legitimate functions that can be supported by taxes. The money for those programs you consider legitimate are just as equally taken from people "involuntarily". The arguments you make are eroding the very foundations of your other statements. Are you being covetous of another persons wealth when you support tax funding for the military?

** I'm not saying that as an insult either. I have respect for anarchism but I think that would be a little to much to ask of the world at this point. I would be happy just to see some good reform. Maybe when people get a little more mature we can move on to anarchism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0

Ishraqiyun

Fanning the Divine Spark
Mar 22, 2011
4,882
169
Montsalvat
✟21,035.00
Faith
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, there was an old, wise Indian guy in the video talking about Gandhi -- how he was a racist and very passionately did his duties giving enemas to llittle girls.
I believe he did write some things that could easily be seen as prejudicial toward black people in his early years in South Africa. He later outgrew that and embraced humanity as a whole. His later thought helped influence the American civil rights movement and one of it's greatest figures Martin Luther King Jr.


6) Gandhi’s pretty teenage girl followers used to fight “hysterically” for the honor of sleeping naked with the Mahatma and cuddling the nude septuagenarian in their arms. (Gandhi was “testing” his vow of chastity in order to gain moral strength for his mighty struggle with Jinnah.)
That's a rather common practice among Tantrikas. It was intended to instill a love that transcended the merely physical and also a way to fight the battle against passions on their home turf. It's a fairly advanced technique and can be very dangerous. In Tantra such rites are forbidden to those of Pashu / animal nature and are generally practiced by the more stable and spiritually advanced Vira / hero nature people. I've also read of similar practices among the troubadours and certain initiatic groups in the West as well.

It's not really my cup of tea but if that is the "worst thing" about Gandhi it really doesn't change my opinion about him at all.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Bondi Harry, I see nothing but endless foolishness in your posts, which is ironical since the Methodists were pioneers in promoting greater economic justice.

The wisdom of God strikes many people as foolishness.
-Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help
-seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added to you
-be content with such things as you have
-lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven
-deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow Me

I have come to understand that what God wants most from us in this life is for us to be holy. It doesn't matter if we are rich or poor, free or slave, healthy or sick, powerful or weak we should live our lives always for the glory and purposes of God. Christians need to learn to trust God to keep His word and many simply do not and will embrace the wisdom of men and the deceits of Satan over the wisdom of God to their destruction. When Satan comes calling saying our need gives us a right to take the property of another we should be like Jesus and respond "it is written thou shalt not covet, thou shalt not steal" and send him on his way.
 
Upvote 0

BondiHarry

Newbie
Mar 29, 2011
1,715
94
✟9,913.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Bondi harry,

Reading some of your responses I get the impression you are an anarchist** but then you go on to say that the government should exist and that it has legitimate functions that can be supported by taxes. The money for those programs you consider legitimate are just as equally taken from people "involuntarily". The arguments you make are eroding the very foundations of your other statements. Are you being covetous of another persons wealth when you support tax funding for the military?

** I'm not saying that as an insult either. I have respect for anarchism but I think that would be a little to much to ask of the world at this point. I would be happy just to see some good reform. Maybe when people get a little more mature we can move on to anarchism.

The church I attend does just fine financially yet it levies not even a penny in obligatory payments. The charities I support serve their missions yet they levy not even a penny in obligatory payments. I'm just curious why statists think government in its legitimate purposes (those that God specifially gives it) would not be funded by voluntary contributions.

In my study of the Bible I haven't come across how God expects government to be funded and paying taxes to whom taxes are due is mentioned so I presume that is authorized by God as a means to raise the revenue to cover the costs of Godly government. I would financially support the legitimate functions of government whether there was a tax or not. Frankly, I'm sufficiently fed up with statists that I wouldn't mind having the basic functions of government be subscriber services. If you want police, court and military protection you would sign up and pay for it. If you don't want those protections you pay nothing and take your chances. That way there is no 'involuntary' transfer of wealth although I fail to see how the police, courts and military constitute a transfer of wealth as you suggest as those are very different from the welfare state programs which clearly transfer wealth from one man's pocket to another man's pocket.

As for the 'anarchist' suggestion, I know that God is in control so where you see anarchy unless government is involved I see order. It's like this statist zeal to have the government oversee the redistiribution of wealth and I have to ask why? God says He will reward the good steward and take from the bad steward what little he had yet statists apparently don't think this will do and men should help God in this matter. I would much rather have our perfect and holy God in charge than any group of imperfect and often corrupt men in charge.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

CTD

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2011
1,212
20
✟1,499.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think his support of socialism shows that some of the caricatures of Socialism and socialists are are not necessarily valid.
How could anyone possibly create a caricature of socialism? Or socialists for that matter? Absurdity, sheer absurdity!
 
Upvote 0