Do the rich pay their fair share?

[Capitalist_Oinker]

The rich pay enough, the middle/upper middle class gets soaked, and the poor to low-middle class get kid-glove treatment.  That being said, it's probably a stretch to insist that the tithe is what God intended that secular governments use as a model for taxation. 

 

I don't believe it's a stretch, and I'll give you two reasons why.

 

If God holds the attributes of fairness and justice in perfection (and I believe He does), then it's impossible to argue that His completely un-progressive tithing program is "unfair" despite the fact that the wealthy pay precisely the same percentage of their increase as do the poor. 

Conversely, if God were to take over administration of our government, how can the argument be made that he would continue to force the wealthy to pay a MUCH higher percentage of their income than the poor (essentially nothing in many cases) and yet still remain "fair"? 

In my opinion it defies logic and reason to claim that both systems are fair. If one is; the other can't be.

 

The second reason is this: a progressive tax system was one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. 

Numerous LDS prophets have warned about the evils of communism, its doctrines and precepts. President David O. McKay in general conference said: 

"The position of this Church on the subject of Communism has never changed. We consider it the greatest satanical threat to peace, prosperity, and the spread of God's work among men that exists on the face of the earth." 

"The entire concept and philosophy of Communism is diametrically opposed to everything for which the Church stands."

 

I believe President McKay meant precisely what he said. I believe that if our tax system operated within the bounds of God's fairness and justice rather than a corrupt communistic philosophy, it would NOT be a progressive system.

[NightSG]

If God holds the attributes of fairness and justice in perfection (and I believe He does), then it's impossible to argue that His completely un-progressive tithing program is "unfair" despite the fact that the wealthy pay precisely the same percentage of their increase as do the poor. 

 

Exactly, and I'm also fond of the idea of paying only once; not (for money) when I get it as income tax and again when I spend it as sales tax, or (for property) every year.  User fees can handle the ongoing expense of services for the property.

 

Then again, I'd also say that if the One who gave us life and everything else can settle for ten percent, no government should ever feel entitled to more than that.

[prisonchaplain]

The tithe may have been proportional, but the offerings were not.  Those with more were expected to sacrifice substantially more valuable animals (pigeons vs. livestock).  Nevertheless, I'm tracking with everyone here.  I rather liked Steve Forbes proposal for a postcard sized tax return.  I believe it was 17%, but with some pretty hefty personal exemptions.  I also agree that it would be good for the poor (especially those on the dole) to feel like they are paying in.  Maybe mixing a much lighter income tax with a VAT would work.

[Traveler]

The tithe may have been proportional, but the offerings were not.  Those with more were expected to sacrifice substantially more valuable animals (pigeons vs. livestock).  Nevertheless, I'm tracking with everyone here.  I rather liked Steve Forbes proposal for a postcard sized tax return.  I believe it was 17%, but with some pretty hefty personal exemptions.  I also agree that it would be good for the poor (especially those on the dole) to feel like they are paying in.  Maybe mixing a much lighter income tax with a VAT would work.

 

I think you have opened up a nifty little box that has a very important message (principle) in it.  The principle to which I refer is how to turn the poor into valued, needed and respected individuals in society.  It is not by exempting them from giving - to do or think such is a breach in understanding of divine character.

 

I have stated before that it seems to me that many are not consistent in understanding divine essence or nature and miss the opportunity to push this great truth in realizing G-dly nature and that he intends us to be involved and invested - especially in our and others salvation - it is not a matter of belief (just believing) so much as it is investment as taught by the widow's mite.

[Guest]

The tithe may have been proportional, but the offerings were not.  Those with more were expected to sacrifice substantially more valuable animals (pigeons vs. livestock).  Nevertheless, I'm tracking with everyone here.  I rather liked Steve Forbes proposal for a postcard sized tax return.  I believe it was 17%, but with some pretty hefty personal exemptions.  I also agree that it would be good for the poor (especially those on the dole) to feel like they are paying in.  Maybe mixing a much lighter income tax with a VAT would work.

 

Tithe is not going to work for Cesar because Tithe is built on the principles of charity and honesty.  Unless we can force charity/honesty in a secular setting, taxes will always be a process by which people pay the least amount they can legally get away with - which is basically justifying how much "gain" they incur to make it the least possible.  The fatter the tax code, the more justification one can make.  So much so that those who can afford a tax accountant can end up paying lesser than those who can't afford one.

 

Therefore, any taxation method designed against INCOME will always be problematic - because, there comes a time when the cost of taxes outweighs the benefit of productivity, affecting upward mobility.

 

I prefer to repeal all taxes against income and tax on consumption instead.  This way, it is still progressive but it is commensurate to people's desire to buy - so the people dictate the progression, not the government.  And because the people is entitled to the basic necessities of life by their right to pursue happiness... then the consumption of basic necessities should remain untaxed.  How do you do this?  You figure out how much it will cost to buy basic necessities, calculate the corresponding tax burden for that consumption, and give the people (everybody - rich or poor - even Bill Gates) that money so they can use it to pay the consumption tax of the stuff they buy.  So that, rich or poor, you all pay taxes on what you consume.  If you buy a lear jet, you pay gazillion in taxes, you buy a $50 bicycle from Wal-Mart, you don't pay as much.

 

For more information... read the Fair Tax book.

Edited February 26, 2015 by anatess

[NightSG]

the consumption of basic necessities should remain untaxed.  How do you do this?  You figure out how much it will cost to buy basic necessities, calculate the corresponding tax burden for that consumption, and give the people (everybody - rich or poor - even Bill Gates) that money so they can use it to pay the consumption tax of the stuff they buy.

 

Then how do you deal with differing necessities?  As a very common example, I have no need for feminine hygiene products, but they're pretty much indispensable for about half the people in the world.  Then there are medications, which vary from person to person and month to month; I might need an expensive antibiotic to survive one month every ten years, while someone else could die a blood thinner every day of their life.  The food allowance that gets me by just fine wouldn't work for someone with a legitimate allergy to a common ingredient who has to buy more expensive specialty foods.

Much easier in the long run to make those items tax free, but then you run into a problem of how to decide and define which items; clothing is a basic need, but the Prada label isn't.  Limiting untaxed consumption could also be an issue with tax-free items; I need enough socks to get through to the next laundry day, but if they're cheap enough I might just start tossing them rather than washing.  That would encourage both material waste and wasteful spending.

Edited February 26, 2015 by NightSG

[Guest]

Then how do you deal with differing necessities?  As a very common example, I have no need for feminine hygiene products, but they're pretty much indispensable for about half the people in the world.  Then there are medications, which vary from person to person and month to month; I might need an expensive antibiotic to survive one month every ten years, while someone else could die a blood thinner every day of their life.  The food allowance that gets me by just fine wouldn't work for someone with a legitimate allergy to a common ingredient who has to buy more expensive specialty foods.

Much easier in the long run to make those items tax free, but then you run into a problem of how to decide and define which items; clothing is a basic need, but the Prada label isn't.  Limiting untaxed consumption could also be an issue with tax-free items; I need enough socks to get through to the next laundry day, but if they're cheap enough I might just start tossing them rather than washing.  That would encourage both material waste and wasteful spending.

 

In a Consumption Tax scenario - everything is taxed evenly.  Everything you consume as an end-consumer is taxed.  There are no manufacturing taxes or any other taxes (like corporate taxes)... Only the end-product is taxed.  If you buy a nail to sell a coffin, the nail is not taxed.

 

As far as individual variations of consumption - it doesn't matter.  You buy it, you pay the tax.  No difference between male/female, sick/healthy, rich/poor, etc.  The idea is - the consumer is the person in control of his own taxation and therefore, no government entity can use it to manipulate elections.

 

So, your question - what about feminine hygiene products, condoms, specialty foods, medications, etc. etc... those are not solved by manipulating taxes.  There are many, many, many ways for people to access necessary resources without having to build a 10-foot thick Tax Code.

Edited February 26, 2015 by anatess

[Traveler]

Tithe is not going to work for Cesar because Tithe is built on the principles of charity and honesty.  Unless we can force charity/honesty in a secular setting, taxes will always be a process by which people pay the least amount they can legally get away with - which is basically justifying how much "gain" they incur to make it the least possible.  The fatter the tax code, the more justification one can make.  So much so that those who can afford a tax accountant can end up paying lesser than those who can't afford one.

 

Therefore, any taxation method designed against INCOME will always be problematic - because, there comes a time when the cost of taxes outweighs the benefit of productivity, affecting upward mobility.

 

I prefer to repeal all taxes against income and tax on consumption instead.  This way, it is still progressive but it is commensurate to people's desire to buy - so the people dictate the progression, not the government.  And because the people is entitled to the basic necessities of life by their right to pursue happiness... then the consumption of basic necessities should remain untaxed.  How do you do this?  You figure out how much it will cost to buy basic necessities, calculate the corresponding tax burden for that consumption, and give the people (everybody - rich or poor - even Bill Gates) that money so they can use it to pay the consumption tax of the stuff they buy.  So that, rich or poor, you all pay taxes on what you consume.  If you buy a lear jet, you pay gazillion in taxes, you buy a $50 bicycle from Wal-Mart, you don't pay as much.

 

For more information... read the Fair Tax book.

 

Here are some thoughts you may not have considered.  In order to be a citizen in the Kingdom of G-d one must pay tithing on their increase.   Tithing means 10%.  Because citizenship in the Kingdom of G-d is optional many think tithing is optional - that simply is not true.  Tithing is not optional for maintaining one's citizenship in the kingdom of G-d and is the means by which the kingdom of G-d is funded for operations by the investments of its true citizens.   Offerings in the kingdom of G-d are also not optional but the amount we offer is optional.  So again many think they can be citizens in the kingdom of G-d and not pay their taxes - This thinking will cost all that think so to eventually lose their citizenship.

 

The mind set has been turned to prevent freedom and citizens being free to fairness this is done from pretending that fairness is disconnected from responsibility.  The truth is not that to be fair does not mean that some have no responsibility.  The truth is that if citizens are not responsible - there is neither freedom nor is there fairness.   We need to get away from thinking of taxes in terms of fairness and instead we need to think in terms of responsibility. 

[Guest]

Here are some thoughts you may not have considered.  In order to be a citizen in the Kingdom of G-d one must pay tithing on their increase.   Tithing means 10%.  Because citizenship in the Kingdom of G-d is optional many think tithing is optional - that simply is not true.  Tithing is not optional for maintaining one's citizenship in the kingdom of G-d and is the means by which the kingdom of G-d is funded for operations by the investments of its true citizens.   Offerings in the kingdom of G-d are also not optional but the amount we offer is optional.  So again many think they can be citizens in the kingdom of G-d and not pay their taxes - This thinking will cost all that think so to eventually lose their citizenship.

 

The mind set has been turned to prevent freedom and citizens being free to fairness this is done from pretending that fairness is disconnected from responsibility.  The truth is not that to be fair does not mean that some have no responsibility.  The truth is that if citizens are not responsible - there is neither freedom nor is there fairness.   We need to get away from thinking of taxes in terms of fairness and instead we need to think in terms of responsibility. 

 

I don't know if you just completely missed what I was trying to say or you misunderstood it, or you just went off on your own tangent spring boarding from what I said.  But what you're saying here has nothing to do with what I said.

 

The Fair Tax is not meant to be fair.  It is meant to remove government from deciding what is fair.

 

The difference between the Kingdom of God and Caesar is that the Kingdom of God continues even with 0% of the people not shouldering their responsibilities to tithe.  Whereas, the United States of America, as it is structured, will cease to exist if no more than 0% of the people pay their taxes.  I mean - think about it... the panic that is boiling just because we are poised to interrupt funding to the DHS... No such panic is going to happen if we can't come up with the funds to build a Temple in X city.

[Blackmarch]

Tithe is not going to work for Cesar because Tithe is built on the principles of charity and honesty.  Unless we can force charity/honesty in a secular setting, taxes will always be a process by which people pay the least amount they can legally get away with - which is basically justifying how much "gain" they incur to make it the least possible.  The fatter the tax code, the more justification one can make.  So much so that those who can afford a tax accountant can end up paying lesser than those who can't afford one.

 

Therefore, any taxation method designed against INCOME will always be problematic - because, there comes a time when the cost of taxes outweighs the benefit of productivity, affecting upward mobility.

 

I prefer to repeal all taxes against income and tax on consumption instead.  This way, it is still progressive but it is commensurate to people's desire to buy - so the people dictate the progression, not the government.  And because the people is entitled to the basic necessities of life by their right to pursue happiness... then the consumption of basic necessities should remain untaxed.  How do you do this?  You figure out how much it will cost to buy basic necessities, calculate the corresponding tax burden for that consumption, and give the people (everybody - rich or poor - even Bill Gates) that money so they can use it to pay the consumption tax of the stuff they buy.  So that, rich or poor, you all pay taxes on what you consume.  If you buy a lear jet, you pay gazillion in taxes, you buy a $50 bicycle from Wal-Mart, you don't pay as much.

 

For more information... read the Fair Tax book.

I agree.

Tithing would not work in the world as a whole at this point in time for similar reasons that socialism wouldn't.

BUT on the other hand if all the cash that was given to the government was totally voluntary I wonder how much that would reduce the size of government, as well as act as filter for people trying to get into government positions?

[Guest]

I agree.

Tithing would not work in the world as a whole at this point in time for similar reasons that socialism wouldn't.

BUT on the other hand if all the cash that was given to the government was totally voluntary I wonder how much that would reduce the size of government, as well as act as filter for people trying to get into government positions?

 

Sure, it would reduce the size of government.  But it will also reduce the patriotic investment in the country.  The US is just way too big and too diverse to function under a voluntary system in the Federal level.  The Philippines is very small. And even then, it is still too diverse to function under a voluntary system.

 

So the Philippines, although not a Federal setup, is governed in a similar manner - where government services flow through the local channel (we call regions instead of states) and each region pays taxes to the republic.  But, unlike the US, ALL taxes go to the republic and then the republic divies up the funds to each region according to Congressional law (some may get more than others).  So some regions may collect more taxes than their share of republic revenue.

 

In the same manner, the States are set up to provide services and collects Taxes.  But, instead of the State government paying taxes to the Federal government, the Federal government collects taxes from each individual (corporations count as individuals).  So, each person end up paying two taxes - State and Federal.

 

Ideally, taxes should only be collected at the State level and the States then pay the Feds.  So then, you can have the States determine how best to come up with revenue - either voluntarily or by other means (e.g. Texas does not collect individual income taxes for revenue) and it won't become too wieldy.  But, as it is now, the Federal Government has gotten so big as to suck power out of the States.  So that, when the Feds say - I want to give welfare services to an illegal immigrant - this is far removed from the guy paying taxes to fund it.  But if this act was going to be funded by a voluntary system - monies can possibly dry up, not only in immigration but all throughout the government.  I guess one can see this as a good thing - then the voice of the people is immediately heard, but then you also have the bad side, the power of those that have money is magnified.  There's a thread Friends of Scouting where Capitalist_Oinker outlined a perfect example of how voluntary monies could dry up from patriotic reaction.

Edited February 26, 2015 by anatess

[NightSG]

Because citizenship in the Kingdom of G-d is optional many think tithing is optional - that simply is not true.  

 

But how is the border security and are all programs open to illegal immigrants in the name of "compassion?"

[Traveler]

But how is the border security and are all programs open to illegal immigrants in the name of "compassion?"

 

There are no illegal immigrants in the Kingdom of G-d nor is there any border problem or concerns?  Your question makes no sense.

[Ratbag]

This satanic concept is called Socialism.  In the words of Maggie, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” ― Margaret Thatcher  I could go on and on and on and on and on and on..., but I won't.