Tax

[Strivax]

Maybe, for example, you would have preferred communism to have won the cold war? Or, perhaps, the actual outcome was a benefit for freedom that will resonate down the ages, that indebtedness now for future generations to pay off later might justly be excused

Tremendous leap in logic from what I wrote to that question. Taxation within Communism is typically far worse that Democratic Republics.

Future generations should never have to pay for current comforts. I don't expect any of my children or grandchildren to pay for my debts.

You're missing my point. The Cold War was won against Communism by superior economic power, rather than by force of aggressively deployed military might. Some of that economic power involved the US government borrowing to fund their programs, both civil and military. The Soviet Union couldn't keep up, and eventually imploded, without a single hostile nuke exploding. It may not have been 'shock and awe', but that was the very real triumph of my contemporaries.

But my issue here is, not only my generation, but also our children's generation, and theirs, and many generations to follow will benefit from that government borrowing, and the defeat of Communism, and the removal of that staining evil from world geopolitics. Shouldn't they help pay for it, too? Seems only fair, to me.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Taxes to government and "tithes and offerings" to the Lord are two different things.

In the United States - as in most countries - a citizen pays taxes to the various levels of government for specific items and services. Local government gets money for schools, roads, police and fire protection and probably a couple other things I have omitted. Federal government gets money to "...form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" as mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution.

Most levels of government have, over time, surrendered to 'mission creep' and expanded their 'duties'. This means expanding their authority and fiscal demands.

One example of 'mission creep' in this regard is the federal Department of Education. One can argue - and have - such a department is justifiable to "... unsure domestic Tranquility... [and] ...promote the general Welfare..." On the other hand, since every state and every country, and many cities already have educational functions overseeing the funding and operation of schools, this can be argued as not having a valid purpose - especially as the Federal Government has no schools domestically.

Another example is that of monetary handouts to those who refuse to work. "Charity" in the popular sense of assisting indigents and those who are unable to provide for themselves has - in the United States - always been a privately funded operation. Until the Great Depression of the last Century when the Federal Government began to use tax funds to offer "charity". This has - uh - expanded in scope.

Paying taxes is a proper obligation for Christians. However, it is properly Christian to avoid paying taxes one does not legally owe - i. e. take all the deductions one may legally take - and, work to restrict all governments to the minimums dictated by Constitutional and documentary statements and restrictions. Voting for those measures and candidates reflecting those values.

Offerings to God. The Old Testament is full of the concept. All worshippers of the Lord were commanded and expected to present "tithes and offerings".

This concept transferred over to Christianity. Are Christians under "Law" to tithe? No, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law of the Jews. Yes, Christians are under the commandments of Jesus Christ. There are no specific statements which say something to the effect of "You must give money to God by way of God's Congregation"; yet Jesus does speak approvingly of the widow in Luke 21:1-4.

No, nothing speaks of a 'tithe' in the New Testament as in the Old Testament. However, many Christians consider it a good precedent for giving. Compared to many Christians of older times (prior to A. D. 400) seem to have given far more than ten percent; we are actually cheapskates at only ten percent.

There are a couple of mistaken impressions in this thread. One is the statement about 'the tenth sheep'. The wording is correct, but can be taken to mean the idea that God gets the 'rest' of the possessions. This neglects the other commands about the tithes to God being 'the best of the flock' or 'the best of the harvest' and so on. No offering was to be the leavings or left-overs or sickly or lame one of the group.

Aside from that, a 'cheap' program of giving to God's programs reflects a lack of faith in God Himself. Can any Christian truly believe God will take and not give back? I get further on what is left after I give than all of what I had before.

Please do not misunderstand; a Christian is under no obligation to give to frauds and sharpsters masquerading as Christian workers. The Lord has given us all brains and expects us to use them. However, if one is swindled in such manner, the Lord provides and blesses the giver for the obedience; and will see to the swindler. (I'd rather be the swindled.)

Nor is a Christian obligated to contribute to 'church programs' with which one does not accept as 'Godly'. There are many 'good' programs of those who claim to be represented Christ. No doubt many are as advertised. (I'm not talking about shysters here.) But no one can contribute to them all. God directs His own in specific 'interests' for lack of a better word. I give to one or two children's ministries and some student (Christian) organizations. I also give to some missionaries and individual ministries and personal service causes.

However, everyone will have their own preferences in such matters. God will lead.

Interestingly, under the Mosaic Law, God thought everyone should give the same percentage. The 'modern' concept of low income earners are actually hampered by paying the same rate as higher income earners says God is wrong.

It is far more beneficial to the economy and much more Christian to desire 'low income earners' to earn more, by virtue of being more equipped and more productive than merely to protect low income earners and keep them locked into low incomes. Which relate back to God's blessings and self-improvement.

I'll side with God over Karl Marx.

 

[Strivax]

Interestingly, under the Mosaic Law, God thought everyone should give the same percentage. The 'modern' concept of low income earners are actually hampered by paying the same rate as higher income earners says God is wrong.

Not wrong, just misunderstood.

The thing is, 10% of someone's income when they earn $10,000 a year is a much bigger hit to their budget than 10% of someone's income when they earn $1,000,000 per year. If it costs, say, an absolute $X to feed, clothe, house and provide an individual and their family with education and health-care, that needs to be deducted from their taxable earnings. In other words, only discretionary income should be taxed, if we are really serious about fairness.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Not wrong, just misunderstood.

Not misunderstood. What God told Moses is pretty straight forward. Those who claim this is unfair are claiming God to be unfair, or ignorant.

The whole idea of a 'progressive' tax is to penalize those who earn more. The concept is closely associated with the concept of 'income redistribution'.

As I said, I'll side with God over Karl Marx. Or Bill Ayers. Or the current Democratic Party.

Strivax, it's not that I don't understand your position, I certainly do. I disagree for good reason.

 

[John Hyperspace]

I'd like to know. And is it christian to avoid paying tax. Or maybe you can never avoid it?

It can be avoided in the US. I reside in the US and am not required to pay taxes (have nothing of a taxable nature). But if I was "taxable" I wouldn't pay any taxes until the government demonstrated the legality of their taxation. Meaning, for me to view things as "legalities", the government has the onus of demonstrating the laws in the books that do actually show the legality of their "legal" demands.

In other words, they would have to legally justify their interpretation of the law. Most will simply assume the interpretation is correct, and there's nothing wrong with this: but it allows faulty interpretations and "illegal legalities" to become more prevalent if we always "assume" the law. The law is quite complex, and it is easy to commit "illegal legalities" either through simple ignorance, or, by design.

 

[Strivax]

Not misunderstood. What God told Moses is pretty straight forward. Those who claim this is unfair are claiming God to be unfair, or ignorant.... Strivax, it's not that I don't understand your position, I certainly do. I disagree for good reason.

Well, no one is claiming God to be unfair, or ignorant. But I would like to know where, in the Bible, God told Moses to advantage the rich, and disadvantage the poor, with his tax policies. Perhaps you can provide book, chapter and verse, so I can read that for myself.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Perhaps you can provide book, chapter and verse, so I can read that for myself.

Exodus 30:15 is one example of a 'flat rate' tax pertaining to all people regardless of income, ordered by God.
Leviticus 27:30 orders the 'tithe' by everyone. This is part of a longer order (beginning with the start of Leviticus 27) by God about such matters.

I suppose one can argue this section of the Bible is questionable or distorted, but then one has none of the Bible upon which to rely.

I suppose I could ask you to provide me to show me enforced 'income equality' in the Bible; not an exaggerated extrapolation of kindness to the needy, mind you. But that would silly.

 

[rjs330]

The thing is, 10% of someone's income when they earn $10,000 a year is a much bigger hit to their budget than 10% of someone's income when they earn $1,000,000 per year. If it costs, say, an absolute $X to feed, clothe, house and provide an individual and their family with education and health-care, that needs to be deducted from their taxable earnings. In other words, only discretionary income should be taxed, if we are really serious about fairness.



Agreed.

Best wishes, Strivax.

But Strivax you could say the same thing about the tithe. Is God unfair? I think not and if God says rich and poor alike should pay 10% then it should be good enough for the government as well. If God judges it fair then so should we.

 

[RDKirk]

Well I believe that a fair tax is nothing different than what God used as a basis of the tithe. Ten percent from every single working American sounds just right to me. God didn't charge the rich more than those that earned less.

Sure He did. First, a flat income tax does require more in absolute terms from the wealthy than the poor. Second, not every person had to pay the tithe. A poor farmer with only nine animals, for instance, did not have to tithe an animal.

But the wealthy were also required to allow the poor to glean their fields, and were forbidden from efficiently harvesting their crops--to deliberately leave more for the poor.

And yes we should pay our taxes. The bible tells us to. So if the government demands 50% then we give 50% cause that's the law. Our constitution provides a way out of heavy taxation which is for us to vote in people who wont tax us as much. The fact is we don't do that and those of us who don't like it have to suck it up and convince others to stop voting for these clowns.

True. There is one example of a tax revolt in scripture. Even though it's clear that the tax was harsh and evil, the rebellion against it ends disastrously for the rebels.

 

[RDKirk]

There are a couple of mistaken impressions in this thread. One is the statement about 'the tenth sheep'. The wording is correct, but can be taken to mean the idea that God gets the 'rest' of the possessions. This neglects the other commands about the tithes to God being 'the best of the flock' or 'the best of the harvest' and so on. No offering was to be the leavings or left-overs or sickly or lame one of the group.

The tithe was not a sacrifice. Where does it say that the tithe, specifically, is supposed to be "the best of the flock" or "the best of the harvest" as you have put into quotes?

Rather, specifically of the tithe, it says:

Every tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd’s rod—will be holy to the Lord. No one may pick out the good from the bad or make any substitution. -- Leviticus 27

Regarding how Christians should handle money, scripture is specific what the intention is:

Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality, as it is written: “The one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little.” -- 2 Corinthians 8

 

[Strivax]

Exodus 30:15 is one example of a 'flat rate' tax pertaining to all people regardless of income, ordered by God.

Yes, that does seem quite definitive.

And to me, it provides yet another reason not to take the Bible too literally, in ordering the affairs of a modern society. We have made social progress since the writing of Exodus, fortunately, and I prefer that development to the primitive rules devised for a primitive tribe by a primitive leader.

Sorry, but there it is.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

The tithe was not a sacrifice. Where does it say that the tithe, specifically, is supposed to be "the best of the flock" or "the best of the harvest" as you have put into quotes?

RD you are correct and I said that wrong, confusing 'sacrifice' with tithe.

What I meant to say - what I was thinking - is that when one tithed, one could not pick out the least desirable of livestock or produce as "God's share".

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Yes, that does seem quite definitive.

And to me, it provides yet another reason not to take the Bible too literally, in ordering the affairs of a modern society. We have made social progress since the writing of Exodus, fortunately, and I prefer that development to the primitive rules devised for a primitive tribe by a primitive leader.

Sorry, but there it is.

And so my point is made and acknowledged by you in this statement: God was and is wrong according to you and the values you promote.

Strivax, it's a free country - until the anti-freedom types get full control - you can believe that and teach it if you want. But it rather lessens your credence as a Christian.

As someone said, "Sorry, but there it is."

 

[Strivax]

The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

Exodus 30:15 KJV

And so my point is made and acknowledged by you in this statement: God was and is wrong according to you and the values you promote.

No, I don't think God was or is or ever will be wrong. I just don't think He was fully understood and appreciated by the pre-Jesus writer(s) of Exodus. And, maybe, for them, at that time, half a shekel each was the right solution. That does not mean it is right for us, in our time, or government deficits might be considerably greater than they are. Or do you think, at current exchange rates, $0.12973 is the right amount of tax and tithe to pay, each?

Sorry, but there it is.

Best wishes, Strivax.

But it rather lessens your credence as a Christian.

PS. By the way, it is against the forum rules to cast aspersions on the extent of another's Christian faith. Not that I'm a great supporter of rules, but these are the agreements we agree to to keep the conversations civil. S.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

No, I don't think God was or is or ever will be wrong.

Too late. You already said it in writing. Post Modern progressive policies are superior to God's thinking.

If you want to convince yourself, go ahead. You will not convince me.

 

[Strivax]

Too late. You already said it in writing. Post Modern progressive policies are superior to God's thinking.

If you want to convince yourself, go ahead. You will not convince me.

You seem incapable of an ability to, or simply unwilling to, distinguish between God, who is ultimate justice, and the Bible, which was written by fallible men of their time, inspired by God, but not equal to Him. It's a major fallacy. You would do well to correct it, even if you do not want to be convinced against your will. I merely suggest that, at some time congenial to you, you pause and give the matter some thought.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Goodbook, you realize you do not have the authority to mint coinage to be used as legal tender, don't you?

You could (presumably lawfully) acquire silver or gold, press it into portable bits and imprint your lovely physiognomy upon it. Probably, if you could convince others it was actually silver or gold, they might accept it as payment in kind, or "barter". However, with your face on it or not, you would still not have the authority to 'tax' anyone holding it in their possession.

The coin to which Jesus referred (with Caesar's face) was issued under the authority of the Roman (Empire) Government. Caesar was the head of that government. Very similar to U. S. coins bear the legend "United States of America".

Humans - like it or not - owe God certain 'due' as a result of His position. As a citizen of the U. S., I owe the U. S. Government certain monies (taxes, for instance) as a result of my relationship with the U. S.

I do not owe taxes to Kazakstan or Côte d'Ivoire for instance, as I am not a citizen nor subject of those nations.

 

[Goodbook]

And that was why tax collectors were so dispised, many were fraudulent and kept it to themselves. Tax collectors were like unbelievers fleecing the flock and you still have these wolves operating in churches today.

 

[Goodbook]

When anais and saphirra lied about what they had given, they were struck dead.

 

[Goodbook]

They thought they could just buy off God. But the point is God doesnt need our money and a wealthy christian who shows off how much money they give isnt pleasing the Lord. We are to give our lives, and not think like Jesus said, it is a corban. I can just give the temple money and im sweet. I dont have to care about my parents anymore. No. doesnt work like that.