Theft

[MarginOfError]

First, I must preface my remarks. Pay your income taxes as directed by the IRS. No person has EVER won a case against the IRS on the basis of what I'm about to discuss, EVER.

On to the major problem.

Only 36 States were needed for ratification of the proposed 16th Amendment.

Phillander Knox, Secretary of State, was the person responsible for verification and confirmation of the State's ratification's. Secretary Knox claimed that 38 (not 42 as you claim) of the State's ratified the Amendment.

There is a problem with this claim. At least four of the State's listed by Secretary Knox did NOT ratify the proposed Amendment. In fact, one of them (California) has no record of ever voting on any such proposed Amendment.

Here are the four problem State's:

1) The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the proposed amendment proposed by Congress.

2) The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

3) The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the proposed 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

4) The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

This leaves 34 State's of the list of 38 posited by Secretary Knox as having ratified the proposed amendment. Thirty-six (36) were required.

The proposed amendment was not ratified.

If anybody is interested in discussing the ratification process, I'll start a thread on it.

What I won't discuss is the non-payment of Income Tax, for two reasons:

1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says to pay income tax.

2) No person, or group has ever won a case in court on the basis of the non-ratification of the proposed 16th Amendment.

I apologize if any of my information on States' ratification is incorrect. Admittedly, it's a Wikipedia researched answer. The 42 states I quoted were those who eventually ratified it, even after ratification (or supposed ratification) was complete. I think the legality of the ratification makes for an interesting historical discussion, but at this point I think it'd be impossible to repeal the Amendment based on such history.

For the record, I was not directing this at you, as you've stated that you recognize the government currently has the authority to levy these taxes, but would like that authority taken from them. My comments were directed to those who say that the Constitution does not grant the government such power.

[FunkyTown]

The protection of property right's includes the exercise of, or use of property. This is a very important fact.

1) Infrastructure is an appropriate function of Government in the protection of property rights (which includes the use of property).

2) Military is a very appropriate function of Government in the protection of property rights. This is fundamentally an aspect of the proper function of Government. I've made no statement to the effect of having a weak military.

3) The maintenance of the Union that is best suited to the protection of property rights is appropriate. It is clear that a failure of the American experiment would be devastating to any formation of a proper Government. The Union action in the Civil War was appropriate, though I'd argue a bit about the execution of the War.

4) WWII was appropriate to the function of Government. We were facing a unified global attack on our freedom. In fact, the Empire of Japan did attack us and threaten property rights. Germany most likely would have, given the chance.

5) Any constitutionally declared war was appropriate, the last one being WWII.

and....

1) Uh, if a company pollutes then it is infringing upon other's property. That would be an appropriate function of government to regulate. Government certainly can fine as a tool in the protection of property rights.

2) The exploitation of people is contrary to property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Government to intervene.

3) First, you cannot print money. It is impossible, because it falls outside the definition of money. Secondly, constitutionally Congress COINS money. That is an appropriate function of government in the facilitation of the exercise of proper by the citizen.

4) Fines, again, are not unconstitutional. Secondly, I've not been able to find an instance of a hospital refusing immediately necessary life-saving care to any individual where such facilities exist. If they did, it would be morally wrong because it interfere's with the greater principle of right to life to a certain degree. This may be an instance where the force of government can be properly used to insure life at the cost of property. Life being superior to property.

Private Unions absent the force of government are fine with me. They represent a contractural agreement between two groups. That's okay. Government should have no place in Unions (other than enforcement of contract, which is a proper function of Government).

I don't know what America you've studied. There have always been poor, probably always will be until the Lord comes back. However, the greatest growth in human prosperity for all involved occured during the first 100 years of American history (even with the devastating Civil War). That is a fact.

In appropriate Government action outside of its' proper role in the defense of the right of property or life, never results in a improvement in the human condition. It is theft.

Okay - I could take you a lot more seriously if you would quote your sources, JohnBirchSociety. Making sweeping statements as if they were proven fact does not work.

"However, the greatest growth in human prosperity for all involved occured during the first 100 years of American History" -

Quote source, and explain how the years from 1776 to 1886 were the most prosperous for all involved. Justify the Irish Ghettos and sweeping poverty in New York and major eastern seaboard states. Also be sure to take in to account that 'Western rushes' allowed people with no land to instantly become landowners and take that in to account when you bring forth your figures. In fact, the IPI center for tax analysis state that the greatest prosperity occurred around the year 2000. Please see:

The ?Greatest Prosperity Ever?:

"4) WWII was appropriate to the function of Government. We were facing a unified global attack on our freedom. In fact, the Empire of Japan did attack us and threaten property rights. Germany most likely would have, given the chance."

Quote source on someone showing how Germany was a legitimate threat to the US. They lived halfway across the world and had to deal with Soviet aggression. Can you point to any attempted invasions of US soil or even plans to enact an invasion found after they were conquered? The Germans were meticulous in their record keeping. How could they have sustained a war with the US as well? Also, for Japan threatening US property rights, please see:

WikiAnswers - Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor

Under your beliefs, the US interference in trade generated this enemy. Also, they didn't threaten US property rights: They wanted to create a new order in East Asia. What they were hoping to accomplish by the attack was to scare the US and force them to sue for peace wherein they would be provided the oil they needed to maintain their war, since they lost 90% of the oil being provided to them. Essentially, Japanese Colonialism was being interfered with by the US, which is why they attacked. They didn't intend on invading the US, nor did they ever try to land on US soil. While they wanted Hawaii, Hawaii was not American at this point. For the year Hawaii joined the US, please see:

WikiAnswers - In what year did hawaii join the US

"4) Fines, again, are not unconstitutional. Secondly, I've not been able to find an instance of a hospital refusing immediately necessary life-saving care to any individual where such facilities exist. If they did, it would be morally wrong because it interfere's with the greater principle of right to life to a certain degree. This may be an instance where the force of government can be properly used to insure life at the cost of property. Life being superior to property. "

- First off, let me say that you're correct. Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment in an emergency. Is cancer an emergency? Can they allow someone to waste away over a period of months and die if they don't have insurance? What about tuberculosis? And if you agree that health care is required for life, how do you pay for it without taxation?

"2) The exploitation of people is contrary to property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Government to intervene."

Justify this, please. How is a mining company setting up a mining town and offering to let people work for credit contrary to property rights? It's their property. As per your previous arguments, nobody is forcing them to work there. (No one person. Just circumstances and society). Same goes with giving maximum hours in a work-week, or poor workplace conditions. Nobody is forcing them to work there and a government mandate to force someone to change is interfering in their right of property. If you agree that this is justifiable to interfere in, at what point -isn't- it justifiable? We're talking about law here, so please be specific as people will always follow the letter rather than spirit.

In conclusion, I can only state that I can not take your arguments seriously because you include unsupported opinion stated as fact. I believe your economic platform to be flawed, naive and hopelessly out of touch with reality. I will not argue this any further, because you are simply incorrect and your lack of supporting evidence when you make statements you couch as truth makes speaking with you frustrating and ultimately unfruitful. We will not agree, nor will we ever on this. I, like the rest of the world, will simply vote our conscience when issues like this come up.

Edited October 24, 2008 by FunkyTown

[JohnBirchSociety]

Would it be alright to fine a hosptial for not providing preventative health care?

That's a business decision that has no immediate impact on life.

It should be left to the private individual / company to reach a contractural agreement on care.

If there is a market for preventative health care then somebody / some company in a free society will be able to best provide it. That's how the free market works.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I apologize if any of my information on States' ratification is incorrect. Admittedly, it's a Wikipedia researched answer. The 42 states I quoted were those who eventually ratified it, even after ratification (or supposed ratification) was complete. I think the legality of the ratification makes for an interesting historical discussion, but at this point I think it'd be impossible to repeal the Amendment based on such history.

For the record, I was not directing this at you, as you've stated that you recognize the government currently has the authority to levy these taxes, but would like that authority taken from them. My comments were directed to those who say that the Constitution does not grant the government such power.

No, I want Congress to have authority to tax. The question is, shall they do it in violation of the apportionment clause of the Constitution? That's what I'm against.

In economic principle I'm against a graduated income tax because it is central to marxist communism.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Okay - I could take you a lot more seriously if you would quote your sources, JohnBirchSociety. Making sweeping statements as if they were proven fact does not work.

"However, the greatest growth in human prosperity for all involved occured during the first 100 years of American History" -

Quote source, and explain how the years from 1776 to 1886 were the most prosperous for all involved. Justify the Irish Ghettos and sweeping poverty in New York and major eastern seaboard states. Also be sure to take in to account that 'Western rushes' allowed people with no land to instantly become landowners and take that in to account when you bring forth your figures. In fact, the IPI center for tax analysis state that the greatest prosperity occurred around the year 2000. Please see:

The ?Greatest Prosperity Ever?:

"4) WWII was appropriate to the function of Government. We were facing a unified global attack on our freedom. In fact, the Empire of Japan did attack us and threaten property rights. Germany most likely would have, given the chance."

Quote source on someone showing how Germany was a legitimate threat to the US. They lived halfway across the world and had to deal with Soviet aggression. Can you point to any attempted invasions of US soil or even plans to enact an invasion found after they were conquered? The Germans were meticulous in their record keeping. How could they have sustained a war with the US as well? Also, for Japan threatening US property rights, please see:

WikiAnswers - Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor

Under your beliefs, the US interference in trade generated this enemy. Also, they didn't threaten US property rights: They wanted to create a new order in East Asia. What they were hoping to accomplish by the attack was to scare the US and force them to sue for peace wherein they would be provided the oil they needed to maintain their war, since they lost 90% of the oil being provided to them. Essentially, Japanese Colonialism was being interfered with by the US, which is why they attacked. They didn't intend on invading the US, nor did they ever try to land on US soil. While they wanted Hawaii, Hawaii was not American at this point. For the year Hawaii joined the US, please see:

WikiAnswers - In what year did hawaii join the US

"4) Fines, again, are not unconstitutional. Secondly, I've not been able to find an instance of a hospital refusing immediately necessary life-saving care to any individual where such facilities exist. If they did, it would be morally wrong because it interfere's with the greater principle of right to life to a certain degree. This may be an instance where the force of government can be properly used to insure life at the cost of property. Life being superior to property. "

- First off, let me say that you're correct. Hospitals are not allowed to refuse treatment in an emergency. Is cancer an emergency? Can they allow someone to waste away over a period of months and die if they don't have insurance? What about tuberculosis? And if you agree that health care is required for life, how do you pay for it without taxation?

"2) The exploitation of people is contrary to property rights. Therefore, it is appropriate for Government to intervene."

Justify this, please. How is a mining company setting up a mining town and offering to let people work for credit contrary to property rights? It's their property. As per your previous arguments, nobody is forcing them to work there. (No one person. Just circumstances and society). Same goes with giving maximum hours in a work-week, or poor workplace conditions. Nobody is forcing them to work there and a government mandate to force someone to change is interfering in their right of property. If you agree that this is justifiable to interfere in, at what point -isn't- it justifiable? We're talking about law here, so please be specific as people will always follow the letter rather than spirit.

In conclusion, I can only state that I can not take your arguments seriously because you include unsupported opinion stated as fact. I believe your economic platform to be flawed, naive and hopelessly out of touch with reality. I will not argue this any further, because you are simply incorrect and your lack of supporting evidence when you make statements you couch as truth makes speaking with you frustrating and ultimately unfruitful. We will not agree, nor will we ever on this. I, like the rest of the world, will simply vote our conscience when issues like this come up.

We can argue the specifics of policy / economy, with or without writing master thesis's for each response.

The central point of this thread is the following, for which no references are required (it's self-evident):

You have no right to steal what is rightfully mine. The opposite applies. I have no right to steal what is rightfully yours. No group, however large has the right to steal what is not theirs. To do so, even under the pretense of government is always theft, always.

[rameumptom]

No, you're taking the statement of Christ to the extreme.

Taxation is a necessary function of government. All forms of taxation, by extension, ARE NOT right.

Christ does not sanction all forms of Taxation.

But wait, there is another message in what Christ said. Even if the taxation by Caesar was wrong (probably) to rebel was certain death. In that circumstance, it was better to live.

Of course, the Lord did approve of the rebellion of the States against Britian on the matter, in part, of taxation without representation. So, we cannot logically expand what Christ said about Caesar to include all forms / levels of taxation.

Now, the particulars, especially in the United States, under our divinely inspired Constitution are that taxation is to be used to protect the property rights of the individual (the proper function of Government). That's it. There's no other proper use of tax money allowed by the Constitution. And there is a reason for that. The founders knew that any other use of taxation is theft.

It really is that simple.

You're kidding, right? It seems to me that you are the one taking it to an extreme. Even the Constitution allows taxation. It allows for Amendments, which an Amendment was done that allows for our current taxation, regardless of whether we personally like it or not.

It is not theft. It is unwise use of our personal property, but it is not theft. There is a Supreme Court that has considered the Consitutionality of these issues, and they have consistently disagreed with your view. There are many LDS General Authorities who are Democrats or Republicans, who have disagreed with your view.

Elder Dallin H Oaks, Apostle and former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court stated:

This evening I will speak of three fundamental responsibilities of citizenship in a democratic nation. In my lifetime each of these has been significantly compromised in theory and practice, and our nation has been significantly weakened in the process. One of these responsibilities has been undercut by the political Left. One has been undercut by the political Right. The third is being undercut by both the Left and the Right. These three fundamentals are the citizen responsibilities of (1) serving in the military, (2) paying taxes, and (3) participating in democratic government....

I come now to the first two fundamental citizen responsibilities that have been compromised in my lifetime in the United States: serving in the military and paying taxes.

Modern opponents of compulsory military service and of enforced payment of taxes have this common objection. Both claim that the government compulsion to do these unpopular things interferes with freedom. The issue, they say, is freedom versus slavery.

The problem with this argument is that it proves too much. It would take us back to the toothless Articles of Confederation from which our inspired Constitution rescued us. A government that cannot compel military service or a government that cannot compel the payment of taxes is not much of a government.

At root, these objections to government compulsion are objections to the whole idea of government. Such objections are contrary to Christian doctrine. Jesus did not preach sedition. He taught his followers to "Render... unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matt. 22:21). His apostles taught the same, as I have already noted.

Of course, there are legitimate technical objections to laws requiring military service and to certain tax laws, but these are objections to the terms of the law, not to the idea of compulsion. Technical objections should be presented in the forums provided by law.....

During the Vietnam War, when I was a professor of law at The University of Chicago Law School, I knew some young men from the political Left who had a second type of objection to military service. They said they did not object to compulsory service in the military, but they did object to serving in the war in Vietnam because they opposed that war. The law, which must give equal protection to all citizens, did not recognize that kind of objection. Citizens cannot pick and choose which wars to support or which laws to observe. But there were many young men who asserted this objection, and there were times during the Vietnam War when the extent of draft evasion on this basis posed a serious problem for our nation.

Today there is a comparable objection to the payment of taxes, but this objection comes primarily from the political Right. People who object to some of the ways the government spends its tax revenues contend that they should not be forced to pay taxes to support activities they condemn. This picking and choosing which laws to support is the same legal approach the young men of the political Left used to try to avoid military service during the war in Vietnam.

One does not have to approve of all of the uses of military power nor all of the uses of tax revenues to see that taxpayers and young men of military age cannot resist compulsion on the basis of disagreements with some of the policies of the government that seeks to compel them. A government could not survive if the enforceable responsibilities of its citizens were divisible according to their individual preferences. We cannot be expected to welcome military service or to relish the payment of taxes, but we should recognize these as essential responsibilities of citizenship, even where we disagree with some of the actions of the government we support.

I know of no better commentary on taxes and big government than the consoling observation attributed to Will Rogers: "We're just lucky we're not gettin' all the government we're payin' for." I also enjoy most of the good-humored jokes about the Internal Revenue Service, which definitely does not qualify as everyone's favorite bureau. Someone said that the IRS has solved the problem of what to give to the man who already has everything: give him an audit!

So much for politics. I come now to objections based on some type of legal theory.

The first legal objection is that the basic law is unconstitutional. I do not remember such arguments being made against the draft law during the Vietnam War. However, for reasons I cannot explain, some persons are now arguing that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Church members involved in various forms of tax protest have sent me many legal memoranda that purport to justify their positions. For the first several years of my service as a General Authority, I did a good deal of personal research to evaluate these legal theories in view of the principles I had learned during a quarter of a century in the legal profession, including several years teaching tax law in a major law school. In not one single instance have I found any merit in the legal theories asserted as a basis for these tax protests. Yet, some good people are still being misled by them, and their mistaken reliance on false theories is wrecking havoc with their financial prospects and even their spiritual lives.

A claim often made by protesting taxpayers is that the IRS is afraid to challenge them. Some who have written me have claimed that the merit of their position is evident in the fact that they have not filed a tax return for many years and nothing has happened to them. I received one such a letter from a prominent tax protestor in Utah, and then, a few months later, read a press account of his beginning service of a long prison sentence in a federal penitentiary. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but exceedingly fine.

For many in this audience, the ultimate mortal authority on religious doctrine is the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just last year, the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve gave this instruction:

Church members in any nation are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of that nation (see also D&C 134:5) .... A member who refuses to file a tax return, to pay required income taxes, or to comply with a final judgment in a tax case is in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church. (Bulletin, 1993-2, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; also see General Handbook of Instructions, p. 11-2.)

There is nothing inappropriate in taking political action to reduce taxes or in pursuing well-founded court challenges to a particular application of the tax laws. In their 1993 statement, the Church leaders declared:

If a member disapproves of tax laws, he may attempt to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment, or, if he has a well-founded legal objection, he may challenge them in the courts. (Ibid.)

However, contrary to the position of some tax protestors, this statement provides no justification for a general and persistent failure to pay taxes or to refrain from filing tax returns. The courts that our Constitution and laws have established to rule on such matters have uniformly upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax law and have regularly rejected assertions that wages and salaries are not taxable, that federal reserve notes do not count as income, and that individuals or businesses can elect not to comply with the income tax laws. As a result, failures to obey the income tax law that are based on these and similar theories must be regarded as actions without "a well-founded legal objection" and therefore unacceptable to persons committed to uphold and sustain the law.

Other variations on the avoidance of citizen responsibilities are the recent theories that purport to allow persons to free themselves from the authority of federal, state, or local governments.

The first of these theories was espoused by the so-called Township Movement. Under this theory, a person could execute some kind of document that would excuse him or her from any compulsory government authority other than the so-called township government this person had participated in electing. This theory purported to be based on common-law precedents going back to the earliest of times. Its defect is its ignoring or denying of the authority of the federal and state constitutions and laws adopted in this nation. The proponents of the Township Movement view history through a peephole that shows nothing but the subjects they desire. Their legal claims have no merit whatever.

The second theory that purports to allow a person to free himself or herself from paying taxes or being subject to other federal or state laws is the so-called state citizenship movement, which makes prominent reference to sovereign citizenship or common-law citizenship. This theory starts with a valid principle, the sovereignty of the people, but it misapplies that principle and reaches an erroneous conclusion.

One of the most important of the great fundamentals of our inspired Constitution is the principle that the sovereign power is in the people, not in a state or nation just because it has the power that comes from force of arms. Along with many other religious people, Latter-day Saints affirm that God gave the power to the people, and the people consented to a Constitution that delegated certain powers to the federal and state governments and reserved the rest to the people.

However, it does not follow from this principle that each citizen is free to determine which laws he will obey or that one or more citizens are free to redefine the concept of sovereignty. That would result in anarchy, a system in which the only source of power is the sword. In that system, no person is free. The United States Constitution and the constitutions of the several states have defined the powers citizens have granted to their governments, the procedures for amending those grants, and the means by which controversies over the exercise of those powers can be resolved.

Now to the theory of state or sovereign or common-law citizenship. A knowledgeable proponent of this theory, whose recent, long letter to me purported to be representative of large numbers of adherents in California and across the nation, some of whom are members of my church, gave this description of the theory (letter of Mar. 15, 1994): The 1783 Treaty of Paris (which concluded the Revolutionary War) granted sovereignty to the people of the thirteen colonies. The sovereign people of these colonies (later states) had no national citizenship. There was no national citizenship in the United States until 1868. The citizenship granted by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 gives national citizens only "subject status," not sovereignty. As a result, there are different classes of citizenship in the United States today, depending upon whether one's citizenship is based on the inferior status conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment or on the inherent sovereign citizenship that devolved upon residents of the various states as a result of the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

There are four major problems with this theory. First, the Treaty of Paris did not grant sovereignty to the citizens of the thirteen colonies. It is a treaty between countries," Great Britain and the United States of America. The treaty acknowledges the independence of the thirteen "states," as it calls them, but it refers to them collectively "the United States of America." Moreover, the treaty was ratified by the Continental Congress, not by the legislatures of the thirteen states.

Second, the theory of state citizenship ignores the effect of the United States Constitution, which was ratified five years after the Treaty of Paris. That constitution established an entirely new relationship between the states and the national government. and the citizens of the states and the nation ratified that relationship by the procedures they had specified.

Third, the argument that there was only state citizenship prior to the Fourteenth Amendment ignores over 75 years of congressional and judicial action defining the separate incidents of federal and state citizenship. (See James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship 1608-1870 [univ. No. Carolina Press, 1978].)

Finally, the asserted theory also ignores the effect of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which defines national citizenship for all citizens of this nation and its constituent states.

Persons who believe in the so-called "state citizenship movement" are encouraged to sign and publicly file three "legal documents," including a "Declaration of Citizenship and Status as a Common-law Citizen." These documents are supposed to revoke the signers' national citizenship and free them from tax and other legal obligations to the United States. Considering the care with which these meaningless documents are drafted and executed, I am reminded of a wise aphorism: "A task not worth doing at all is not worth doing well."

One recent letter to Church headquarters even suggested that such persons have no legal need to get a marriage license, and therefore should be able to have a temple marriage without one. Persons who claim the right to pick and choose which laws of the land they will observe are not far from claiming to choose which laws of God they must observe.

I feel sad that persons can be so misled. The wise will beware of teachings on the Constitution that are based on peephole history and selective readings of historic documents. They should also beware of the related advice of persons who advocate private armies or the collection of heavy weapons or extraordinary quantities of private arms. Responsible citizenship has no shortcuts when the going gets tough--not draft avoidance, not tax evasion and not eccentric theories that purport to free us from the obligation to be subject to t constitutions and laws of our states and our nation.

You can read the whole thing here:

"Some Responsibilities of Citizenship" by Elder Dallin H. Oaks

I especially like his warning for those on the right who base their views on the Constitution on "peephole history." I have a Master's Degree in history, and am amazed at how so many on both the right and left quote one or two people among the Founding Fathers (or others), and tend to neglect mentioning the statements of others of the day that disagree with their views. So few remember that Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish a king, not a president - yet was one of the premiere authors of the Federalist Papers with Madion and Jay. It would be the last thing he agreed with Madison on.

JBS, you are welcome to your opinions. I would suggest though, that you study Elder Oaks talk, as it is very well structured and based upon Constitutional law: which he was and is an expert of. Of course, being a living apostle doesn't hurt, either.

Edited October 24, 2008 by rameumptom

[Moksha]

Taxation is but of part of that necessary social compact that Thomas Hobbs said was necessary to make our collective lives tolerable.

[JohnBirchSociety]

You're kidding, right? It seems to me that you are the one taking it to an extreme. Even the Constitution allows taxation. It allows for Amendments, which an Amendment was done that allows for our current taxation, regardless of whether we personally like it or not.

It is not theft. It is unwise use of our personal property, but it is not theft. There is a Supreme Court that has considered the Consitutionality of these issues, and they have consistently disagreed with your view. There are many LDS General Authorities who are Democrats or Republicans, who have disagreed with your view.

Elder Dallin H Oaks, Apostle and former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court stated:

You can read the whole thing here:

"Some Responsibilities of Citizenship" by Elder Dallin H. Oaks

I especially like his warning for those on the right who base their views on the Constitution on "peephole history." I have a Master's Degree in history, and am amazed at how so many on both the right and left quote one or two people among the Founding Fathers (or others), and tend to neglect mentioning the statements of others of the day that disagree with their views. So few remember that Alexander Hamilton wanted to establish a king, not a president - yet was one of the premiere authors of the Federalist Papers with Madion and Jay. It would be the last thing he agreed with Madison on.

JBS, you are welcome to your opinions. I would suggest though, that you study Elder Oaks talk, as it is very well structured and based upon Constitutional law: which he was and is an expert of. Of course, being a living apostle doesn't hurt, either.

I've NEVER SAID that taxation within the proper function of government is WRONG. So stop acting like I'm a nut case that's against all forms of taxation.

There are proper forms of taxation. Income tax is a proper form of taxation. It was already allowed by Congress prior to the advent of the 16th Amendment. The 16th Amendment (if ratified) expands the power of Congress so that enumeration and apportionment is not required for tax to be levied. This allowed a PROGRESSIVE income tax, which is OUTSIDE of the proper function of Government (Do I need to cut-n-paste the biography of the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson as a source on this?). A progressive income tax is also a central tenet of Marxist-Communism. That, by itself should give pause to any freedom loving person...

So again, I think you've completely missed the point. You've created a form of straw man thinking that I am against taxation. This is incorrect. I am against theft.

Please re-read the opening thread. It is philosophical rather than political. Theft is wrong. That is the premise.

As to Elder Oaks. Wow, does that man have a booming voice or what? He should play the voice of GOD if they ever do a new "Ten Commandments".

I actually agree, almost 100% with his statement. I think that in nearly all cases I can imagine, we ought to work within the legal framework of the United States to remedy the ills that have been fostered upon us. However, there is a certain illogical in the total concept of his statements. They don't allow for the American Revolution, which was an action by citizens that ran contrary to the very principles that he espouses in his discourse.

See the problem?

Again, I tell people to pay their taxes. We should. That doesn't equate to demanding that those taxes in all their forms are within the proper function of government or even Constitutional.

Given the Supreme Courts astonishing ability to ignore clear Constitutional law and even refer to foreign law in its' decision making, is it not wise to be skeptical of their overall integrity when viewing constitutional matters?

I'm not looking through a peephole of history. I'm intimately aware of what the Framers spoke of and intended of our Constitution. I don't just quote one person. I've studied this stuff my entire adult life (30+ years) in great detail. Nothing I've said has violated any Constitutional or moral principle.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Taxation is but of part of that necessary social compact that Thomas Hobbs said was necessary to make our collective lives tolerable.

Taxation is necessary. Not all taxation is RIGHT. I'm sure you see the difference?

In the United States, Congress is constrained by the Constitution as to what it can tax and how it can expend tax revenue.

We should pay our taxes. That is the appropriate course of action. What that does not equate to is the presumption that all taxation is right or within the proper function of government.

The progressive income tax is not a proper function of government.

[Moksha]

Wow, where have you lived that pays higher taxes and gets better service than we get in the United States?

Haven't lived there but I imagine Denmark and Sweden fit that bill. Possibly Germany and Japan as well.

Oh, I forgot to add I was basing this on the Mokshian healthy, wealthy and wise scale

Edited October 25, 2008 by Moksha
new thought - surprise!

[Traveler]

Taxation is necessary. Not all taxation is RIGHT. I'm sure you see the difference?

In the United States, Congress is constrained by the Constitution as to what it can tax and how it can expend tax revenue.

We should pay our taxes. That is the appropriate course of action. What that does not equate to is the presumption that all taxation is right or within the proper function of government.

The progressive income tax is not a proper function of government.

I very much regret that you dislike progressive income tax – it is one of the least regressive of government taxes. I support and champion income tax because every citizen gets to see every year what they are paying in taxes because of their income. I am very much disturbed with those that strain at a nat to swallow a camel when it comes to taxes. Many complain about income taxes because they are so visible.

If you are going to complain about government taking advantage let’s not go after income taxes – let’s go after the hidden taxes like the corporate tax. Few Americans realize that they pay close to 60% of their income in taxes. This is because when you go and buy a loaf of bread for a dollar you will pay close to 45 percent of the cost you pay in taxes and this is before you even consider paying the state food tax – if there is any. You pay even more in what are called big ticket items, as high as 80% in some cases. Very few realize that as the price of gas drops that the tax per gallon does not decrease one red cent. Very few realize that the percent markup over 8% counted as profit by the oil companies goes to pay the oil companies taxes.

I am glad you are passionate about taxes – I just wish you were not stuck with a political bias and agenda. I believe every citizen has a right to know how much money their government is taking from them and I know of no better way of them knowing than when they fill out their income tax in April. The only tax, should be the income tax – if we want to get rid of any taxes by priority let’s make income tax the very last tax to be cut --- not the first.

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

I very much regret that you dislike progressive income tax – it is one of the least regressive of government taxes. I support and champion income tax because every citizen gets to see every year what they are paying in taxes because of their income. I am very much disturbed with those that strain at a nat to swallow a camel when it comes to taxes. Many complain about income taxes because they are so visible.

If you are going to complain about government taking advantage let’s not go after income taxes – let’s go after the hidden taxes like the corporate tax. Few Americans realize that they pay close to 60% of their income in taxes. This is because when you go and buy a loaf of bread for a dollar you will pay close to 45 percent of the cost you pay in taxes and this is before you even consider paying the state food tax – if there is any. You pay even more in what are called big ticket items, as high as 80% in some cases. Very few realize that as the price of gas drops that the tax per gallon does not decrease one red cent. Very few realize that the percent markup over 8% counted as profit by the oil companies goes to pay the oil companies taxes.

I am glad you are passionate about taxes – I just wish you were not stuck with a political bias and agenda. I believe every citizen has a right to know how much money their government is taking from them and I know of no better way of them knowing than when they fill out their income tax in April. The only tax, should be the income tax – if we want to get rid of any taxes by priority let’s make income tax the very last tax to be cut --- not the first.

The Traveler

The central reason for denouncing the PROGRESSIVE income tax (not just income tax in general) is that it is a central tenet of Marxist Communism. There is a reason Marxist Communism has it as a central tenet. Does that not concern you?

I am against the evil that is communism. I want no part of it.

On to tax. I support government taxing the citizen to pay for the proper functioning of government.

I've no problem with a level income tax. Everyone pays the same.

I'm perfectly aware of the pass-along corporate taxes we endure. We pay too much in tax because our government does too much. It does that for which it has no Constitutional mandates.

In reality, the government ran quite well without the use of income tax.

[rameumptom]

Personally, I am all for the FAIR Tax. I recommend y'all go to fairtax.org and find out more about it. Or read Neal Boortz' book on the Fair Tax, to find out more.

It would bring jobs back home from overseas. It is progressive, as it gives everyone a monthly prebate for average basic needs. It gets rid of the hidden costs, and puts them up front. Companies would no longer have to hire countless accountants to ensure their methods were 1. legal, and 2. finding all the necessary loopholes to save.

There are many other good things about the FAIR tax, but I'll let you read it online.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Personally, I am all for the FAIR Tax. I recommend y'all go to fairtax.org and find out more about it. Or read Neal Boortz' book on the Fair Tax, to find out more.

It would bring jobs back home from overseas. It is progressive, as it gives everyone a monthly prebate for average basic needs. It gets rid of the hidden costs, and puts them up front. Companies would no longer have to hire countless accountants to ensure their methods were 1. legal, and 2. finding all the necessary loopholes to save.

There are many other good things about the FAIR tax, but I'll let you read it online.

I absolutely agree with you.

[Traveler]

The central reason for denouncing the PROGRESSIVE income tax (not just income tax in general) is that it is a central tenet of Marxist Communism. There is a reason Marxist Communism has it as a central tenet. Does that not concern you?

I am against the evil that is communism. I want no part of it.

On to tax. I support government taxing the citizen to pay for the proper functioning of government.

I've no problem with a level income tax. Everyone pays the same.

I'm perfectly aware of the pass-along corporate taxes we endure. We pay too much in tax because our government does too much. It does that for which it has no Constitutional mandates.

In reality, the government ran quite well without the use of income tax.

In essence tithing is a progressive income tax commanded by the L-rd (the more you have the more you pay) and if you believe in the admonishments of Jesus Christ who indicated that the wealthier should be more generous with their offerings then you should not fear progressive contributions based on wealth - even if the hard core communist agree.

The evil communist believe in a strong military (one of their most important tenants) so should we have a weak or non-existent military just so we are not anything like the evil communist? Is this you only reasoning?

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

In essence tithing is a progressive income tax commanded by the L-rd (the more you have the more you pay) and if you believe in the admonishments of Jesus Christ who indicated that the wealthier should be more generous with their offerings then you should not fear progressive contributions based on wealth - even if the hard core communist agree.

The evil communist believe in a strong military (one of their most important tenants) so should we have a weak or non-existent military just so we are not anything like the evil communist? Is this you only reasoning?

The Traveler

Tithing is most certainly NOT progressive in nature. Everybody pays 10%.

You REALLY need to learn the meaning of this economic terminology. A progressive income tax is one in which a person that makes more pays a bigger percentage in tax. A person who makes less pays a lower percentage in tax.

A regressive tax is just the opposite. The more you make the less percentage you pay. The less you make the more you pay in percentage.

A flat tax (similar to tithing) is where everyone, regardless of income, pays the same percentage. In tithing, this is 10%. With a national flat tax (as proposed by Neal Bortz) it would be about 18%, on consumption.

I agree with Jesus Christ who said charitable contributions should be voluntary. Absolutely, wealthy people should voluntarily give more of what they have to give.

Where you are wrong is in the connection of such giving to the force of government.

The hard core communist would not agree with Jesus Christ. If you think so, you don't know either, to be blunt.

Communism is anti-Christ. It is anti-liberty.

As a great man once said, "Free agency is so central to the plan of salvation that the Lord would protect it, even at the price of war" (David O. McKay). The taking by force (government) from one, and giving it directly to another is theft. It is satanic, and when in the extreme, it is communism.

You need to revise your position.

The Communist believe in a repressive military. Under our inspired Constitution, no such military is possible or appropriate.