Income Taxes

Whoa, whoa, whoa Lunar,Pragmatism is doing anything that works. God is not a pragmatist, he is principled. Some things may "work" that are against God's law.I have not conflated what God and the founders said. I was making a constitutional argument alone.An amendment cannot be made that ruins liberty already guaranteed.Jesus did in fact make a political statement in the above mentioned text. Do you actually believe that God has not given us commandments for civil government. Being the pragmatist that you claim, you probably wouldn't mind if the government took over evangelism if the churches fail to proclaim it effectively. Oh yeah, women were not allowed to vote in the Bible either. Only heads of households! Now what do you say to that. I do not see any scriptural warrant for that to change either. Did you ever consider for a moment where the framers came up with their idea of government? Read a couple of books that were written before radical feminism and Communism became horribly popular. Try Lex Rex or Vindiciae, contra tyrannos and the Bible. I am appalled myself that there are so many "christians" out there that completely ignore what God says about the civil magistrate's function. BTW, I never implied that everyone that are unemployed are lazy. My point was that we are offering free financial aid to Pagan nations and (you know its true) giving lazy, sodomites, drunks, druggies, promiscuous, and otherwise wicked people housing, food, money, and healthcare while taxing the people who work for a living, not to mention the federally funded baby slaughtering that your precious socialism advocates. It is not a matter of being mean. God did not give that authority to the civil magistrate! The civil magistrate is bound to obey God in his function. You obviously could care less about what the Bible says about government, though. Just because I advocate biblical government does not put me in contempt of the poor and unfortunate. I am commanded personally to tithe and give alms. The church is told to help those in need, but we are not to give undiscriminately. The CM is commanded to judge the deeds of man and protect our rights from those who would otherwise seek to ruin our rights. There was a time where the poor and needy lined up at the church and got their help with a dose of the gospel. Now they line up at the welfare office to seek their saviour. Where in scripture can you find one example of God commanding the "state" to be the welfare agent? You cannot. You are the one in reality that exhibits the anti-Christain attitudes here. The Communist manifesto is more in tune with your view of politics thatn the Bible.

(damoncrowe;36454)
Pragmatism is doing anything that works. God is not a pragmatist, he is principled. Some things may "work" that are against God's law.
God's principles "work." God is never going to ask us to do something that is for the worse. I abide by God's principles. That is the extent to which I am a pragmatist.(damoncrowe)
I have not conflated what God and the founders said. I was making a constitutional argument alone.
Well, like I said, the constitution is not an infallible document. It should be altered sometimes. I'll make this point again - would you have argued against women being granted the right to vote on the same grounds? We believe that things are in the constitution because they are right - not that they are right because they are in the constitution. As with any construct of man, it is prone to error and needs to be revised.(damoncrowe)
Jesus did in fact make a political statement in the above mentioned text.
How so?(damoncrowe)
Oh yeah, women were not allowed to vote in the Bible either. Only heads of households! Now what do you say to that. I do not see any scriptural warrant for that to change either.
Surely you're not arguing that women ought not to have the right to vote. (damoncrowe)
Did you ever consider for a moment where the framers came up with their idea of government?
Direct quote from the Tripoli Treaty of 1797: "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." This document was ratified by Congress without any contention or debate in Congress. This is only twenty years after the ratification of the Declaration of Independence. Some of the founding fathers were still alive at this point. There was no confusion about their intentions.(damoncrowe)
My point was that we are offering free financial aid to Pagan nations and (you know its true) giving lazy, sodomites, drunks, druggies, promiscuous, and otherwise wicked people housing, food, money, and healthcare
Maybe you'll recall that Jesus regularly associated with the lowest that society had to offer. These are the people that need our help the most.(damoncrowe)
not to mention the federally funded baby slaughtering that your precious socialism advocates. It is not a matter of being mean.
Socialism and support of abortion have nothing to do with each other.(damoncrowe)
God did not give that authority to the civil magistrate! The civil magistrate is bound to obey God in his function.You obviously could care less about what the Bible says about government, though.
No, apparently I'm just woefully uneducated. Please provide passages from the Bible that refer to this "civil magistrate" and explain what God's role for him is. You talk an awful lot about this concept but I see very little substantiation.(damoncrowe)
You are the one in reality that exhibits the anti-Christain attitudes here. The Communist manifesto is more in tune with your view of politics thatn the Bible.
You really don't see anything socialistic about Jesus' constant criticism of the rich and his sympathy for the poor? You think it's anti-Christian to say that no one has the right to be incredibly rich? Jesus didn't care much for money. And no, the bible doesn't say anything one way or the other about whether our government should be socialistic because the bible is not a political document. It doesn't explicitly support socialism, and it also doesn't explicitly support a federal constitutional republic. It doesn't mention either of them, not once.So if we are going to find what sort of government Jesus would have wanted, we have to look harder than just "Is it explicitly mentioned in the bible." No type of government is explicitly advocated in the bible, whether it is the type of government we have in the United States, or otherwise.

(Lunar;36457)
No, apparently I'm just woefully uneducated. Please provide passages from the Bible that refer to this "civil magistrate" and explain what God's role for him is. You talk an awful lot about this concept but I see very little substantiation.
Jeremiah 22 1 Thus says the LORD: “Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and there speak this word, 2 and say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, you who sit on the throne of David, you and your servants and your people who enter these gates! 3 Thus says the LORD: “Execute judgment and righteousness, and deliver the plundered out of the hand of the oppressor. Do no wrong and do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, or the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place. 4 For if you indeed do this thing, then shall enter the gates of this house, riding on horses and in chariots, accompanied by servants and people, kings who sit on the throne of David. 5 But if you will not hear these words, I swear by Myself,” says the LORD, “that this house shall become a desolation.”’”6 For thus says the LORD to the house of the king of Judah: “ You are Gilead to Me, The head of Lebanon; Yet I surely will make you a wilderness, Cities which are not inhabited. 7 I will prepare destroyers against you, Everyone with his weapons; They shall cut down your choice cedars And cast them into the fire. 8 And many nations will pass by this city; and everyone will say to his neighbor, ‘Why has the LORD done so to this great city?’ 9 Then they will answer, ‘Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God, and worshiped other gods and served them.’” 10 Weep not for the dead, nor bemoan him; Weep bitterly for him who goes away, For he shall return no more, Nor see his native country.Message to the Sons of Josiah 11 For thus says the LORD concerning Shallum[a] the son of Josiah, king of Judah, who reigned instead of Josiah his father, who went from this place: “He shall not return here anymore, 12 but he shall die in the place where they have led him captive, and shall see this land no more. 13 “ Woe to him who builds his house by unrighteousness And his chambers by injustice, Who uses his neighbor’s service without wages And gives him nothing for his work, 14 Who says, ‘I will build myself a wide house with spacious chambers, And cut out windows for it, Paneling it with cedar And painting it with vermilion.’ 15 “ Shall you reign because you enclose yourself in cedar? Did not your father eat and drink, And do justice and righteousness? Then it was well with him. 16 He judged the cause of the poor and needy; Then it was well. Was not this knowing Me?” says the LORD. 17 “ Yet your eyes and your heart are for nothing but your covetousness, For shedding innocent blood, And practicing oppression and violence.” 18 Therefore thus says the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: “ They shall not lament for him, Saying, ‘Alas, my brother!’ or ‘Alas, my sister!’ They shall not lament for him, Saying, ‘Alas, master!’ or ‘Alas, his glory!’ 19 He shall be buried with the burial of a donkey, Dragged and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem. 20 “ Go up to Lebanon, and cry out, And lift up your voice in Bashan; Cry from Abarim, For all your lovers are destroyed. 21 I spoke to you in your prosperity, But you said, ‘I will not hear.’ This has been your manner from your youth, That you did not obey My voice. 22 The wind shall eat up all your rulers, And your lovers shall go into captivity; Surely then you will be ashamed and humiliated For all your wickedness. 23 O inhabitant of Lebanon, Making your nest in the cedars, How gracious will you be when pangs come upon you, Like the pain of a woman in labor?(Lunar;36457)
You really don't see anything socialistic about Jesus' constant criticism of the rich and his sympathy for the poor? You think it's anti-Christian to say that no one has the right to be incredibly rich?
Try these on for size.Proverbs 10:4 He who has a slack hand becomes poor, But the hand of the diligent makes rich. 15 The rich man’s wealth is his strong city; The destruction of the poor is their poverty. 22 The blessing of the LORD makes one rich, And He adds no sorrow with it. Proverbs 12:24 The hand of the diligent will rule, But the lazy man will be put to forced labor. Proverbs 13:4 The soul of a lazy man desires, and has nothing; But the soul of the diligent shall be made rich.Proverbs 13:22 A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children, But the wealth of the sinner is stored up for the righteous. As far as Socialism is concerned:Leviticus 19:15 ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.I have only listed a small sampling of verses here. One has to reject all Old Testament to imply that the Bible does not speak on politics. God instructs all areas of life including politics. Romans 13 gives us the function of the civil magistrate.I would further insist that we have a model for leadership in the Bible and it is in fact "representative." I will agree that the Constitution is not a Christian document since every example we have of Godly nations in the Bible make a covenant with God in their "charter." My point is the great extent of Christian teaching that the Framers did "borrow." Oh yeah, about women voting. I can find no scriptural basis for universal suffrage. It does not exist in the Scripture or historically speaking. Only heads of households were allowed to vote. I really think that is how it should still be. You disagree obviously, but on what grounds?

(damoncrowe;36498)
Oh yeah, about women voting. I can find no scriptural basis for universal suffrage. It does not exist in the Scripture or historically speaking. Only heads of households were allowed to vote. I really think that is how it should still be. You disagree obviously, but on what grounds?
If you honestly think that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, then I think any further conversation with you is likely to either upset or infuriate me a great deal.

(tim_from_pa;36521)
The purpose of this post was to denounce the income taxes. I find the analogy of allowing women to vote (where they received more freedom) a poor analogy as to the justification of adding the 16th amendment (where freedom is taken away). It has nothing to do with it and takes the argument entirely out of context.
The analogy has to do with whether what is in the constitution is correct, not to do with more or less freedom. Sometimes, the constitution may not grant enough freedom. Sometimes, it may grant too much. If the original constitution granted people the right to murder, I'm sure you wouldn't object an amendment on the basis that it was "taking away freedom" (even though it would be, it would be taking away the freedom to murder, but that simply isn't a freedom anyone deserves, so there's no problem). I'm going to be presumptuous (so correct me if I'm wrong) and say that you would probably like to see Roe v. Wade repealed. Roe v. Wade claims that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy with respect to her own body that gives her the right to make a decision to abort on her own. Clearly, some people think this is too much freedom.You need to bear in mind that one man's freedom is another man's oppression. What if you were going to protest on someone's front lawn? Is that right? The person has a right to privacy, and you have a right to free speech, but one of them has to be taken away. In the example of murder, the freedom of one man to murder imposes on the freedom of another man to live. And in the case of the woman's right to vote, one woman's right to vote imposes on a man's right to live out the pseudo-Christian ideal of being the sole power in the household. That's just the nature of freedom and rights; sometimes one freedom must be restricted for the sake of another. There is such a thing as too much freedom; you know this as well as I do. There is some behavior that cannot be tolerated. So you can't object to anything solely on the grounds of "taking away freedom," just as you can't support anything solely on the grounds of "granting freedom." Freedom is only one of many virtues that need to be counterbalanced.Also, color me utterly appalled at the prevalence of support here for state-sponsored misogyny.

(tim_from_pa;36536)
Well, I would not call my position misogyny. I love my wife very much, we were married many years, and lay a great deal of dependence on her. As a matter of fact, I don't think I could live without her (she could live better without me). I put most women on a pedestal, and they know it. I'm a smiling, fun fellow to be around--- always took my female coworker friends out for lunch and drinks.Back to taxes. I think that subject was very directly dealt with in the Declaration Of Independence. And the IRS is doing to us what the King of England did. I still am not convinced this is what the Founding Fathers wanted by a long shot. Maybe one could have convinced them (if going back in a time machine) to extend freedoms to women, but I seriously doubt that they would consider the IRS an improvement, or a necessary giving up of freedom for the common good. They had other things in mind, and there are better ways. The income tax stoops to the level of what the other third-rate countries do, and I have confidence we are better than that. Why stoop to their level?
I agree 100%! Dipping their grimy little hands into pockets that are not theirs. What improvement? Yeah its an improvement alright keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer. Taxiation is suppose to be fair but wheres the fairness in it? Sure we have legislators in Washington and our own states but do you think they are doing anything to relieve the burden, heck no! And why should they. I mean when you only work 15 days a year and the tax payer foots the bill for vacation homes, Rolls Royce and summer cottages in Maine. This is a great country but do not be misled by thinking we are in great shape cause we are not. Just thank God you do not have another four years of George Bush that ought to make you feel somewhat better. Oh and by the way I can say that cause I was one of the brain dead people who voted for him...........

(tim_from_pa;36536)
Well, I would not call my position misogyny. I love my wife very much, we were married many years, and lay a great deal of dependence on her. As a matter of fact, I don't think I could live without her (she could live better without me). I put most women on a pedestal, and they know it. I'm a smiling, fun fellow to be around--- always took my female coworker friends out for lunch and drinks.
That's great, and I'm glad you're happy with your wife, but that doesn't change the fact that saying women don't deserve the right to vote is pure, unadulterated sexism.(tim_from_pa)
Maybe one could have convinced them (if going back in a time machine) to extend freedoms to women, but I seriously doubt that they would consider the IRS an improvement, or a necessary giving up of freedom for the common good.
What you could convince the founding fathers to agree to is complete and utter speculation on your part. You can't cherry-pick certain parts that demonstrate that they're infallible, then go back and say "Well, if they had known better, they would have allowed women to vote." The fact that the didn't allow women to vote demonstrates that they aren't infallible, and because of that, you can't cite their endorsement - or lack thereof - of the income tax as proof positive that we ought or ought not to have it. No other country has such an overly glamorized view of its origins. Frankly, I don't care what vision the founding fathers had. The founding fathers had some great ideas, but they were also slave-owners living over 200 years ago, and their conception of government and taxation was structured around that.Or are you going to endorse slavery, too? After all, the founding fathers loved it, and you can find biblical backing for it in both the Old and New Testament. Why is it that you don't think we should go back to capturing vulnerable people from Africa and using them as slave labor, if you think the founding fathers had such a perfect conception of society?

if you think the founding fathers had such a perfect conception of society?
Oh gosh another one..........here we go............

(Two;36626)
Oh gosh another one..........here we go............
What do you mean?

Lunar,It seems that anything that becomes an amendment is fine with you. Please address these and forget about my position on suffrage:The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified.The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the 16th Amendment does not make a person's wages taxable.The income tax is a direct tax and is unapportioned which is unconstitutional even if it was a ratified amendment.The 16th Amendment was "enacted" in order to fund the private banking cartel also known as the Federal Reserve which is also unconstitutional. The income tax does not pay for education, welfare, roads, defense, or entitlements in general. 100% is absorbed into interest on the national debt, being paid to the Federal Reserve Banks. There is a tax on gas that pays for roads, along with local wheel tax, tags, etc. Education is paid for mostly out of property taxes. The amount of corporate taxes (which are constitutional) collected could pay for our national defense. Now, since the truth is that the income tax does not fund your socialist programs, what argument would you possibly make for it? Keep in mind, too, that just because and amendment is ratified, does not make it constitutional. Article 10 in the Bill of Rights (10th Amendment) clearly states for perpetuity that "any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitted to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Congress cannot make a law that is antithetical to this. In the same way, Article I, Section 2, cannot be made void by a simple amendment. Direct taxes must be "apportioned among the several states." There is no biblical or constitutional warrant for taxing a man's liberty or taxing what God commands us to do. God commands us to be diligent in our vocation and to provide for ourselves and our family. WE ARE COMMANDED TO WORK, yet we are taxed for it. Will you finally complain when the government enacts a tax on breathing and enforces it with death? Are we not as free to work as we are to breathe? How can making good use of one's self be subject to taxation???

(damoncrowe;36682)
Lunar,It seems that anything that becomes an amendment is fine with you. Please address these and forget about my position on suffrage:
Though I find it hard to even engage with you seriously if you are straight-facedly telling me that you think women ought not to be able to vote, I will indulge you against my better judgment(damoncrowe)
The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified.
This is absolutely untrue. New Mexico became the 36th state to ratify it on February 3, 1913, making 3/4 of the then-48 states in the US, the amount needed to amend the Constitution.(damoncrowe)
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the 16th Amendment does not make a person's wages taxable.
Example please?(damoncrowe)
The income tax is a direct tax and is unapportioned which is unconstitutional even if it was a ratified amendment.
This doesn't make any sense. It is in the constitution now; by definition what it says is constitutional.(damoncrowe)
The 16th Amendment was "enacted" in order to fund the private banking cartel also known as the Federal Reserve which is also unconstitutional.
No, the 16th Amendment was enacted to fix an error that was made clear by a famous Supreme Court ruling, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. Read up on it.(damoncrowe)
The income tax does not pay for education, welfare, roads, defense, or entitlements in general. 100% is absorbed into interest on the national debt, being paid to the Federal Reserve Banks. There is a tax on gas that pays for roads, along with local wheel tax, tags, etc. Education is paid for mostly out of property taxes. The amount of corporate taxes (which are constitutional) collected could pay for our national defense.
Do you have a source to back this up? Yes, the government borrows money from the Fed, but what do you think they're borrowing money for?(damoncrowe)
There is no biblical or constitutional warrant for taxing a man's liberty or taxing what God commands us to do. God commands us to be diligent in our vocation and to provide for ourselves and our family. WE ARE COMMANDED TO WORK, yet we are taxed for it.
Taxing something is not an implication that it is wrong. This simply doesn't make any sense. And surely you must allow for some taxes, unless you want anarchy (which is what a government without taxes is). Taxes are just a way for the government to generate revenue - revenue that they need to function. At one point, huge amounts of revenue were generated through tariffs, but this was not some sort of governmental condemnation of imported goods.Like I said before, you are in the position to be "free to work" in large part because of what the United States has given you, so if you want to look at it from that perspective, think of it as you giving back what they gave you.Let me ask you a question: Do you think the government should be allowed to tax anything? And if so, what? And why do you think it's okay to tax those things as opposed to others?

Lunar,I will not have much time in the next few days to refute everything that you have said, but I will take one second to address a major flaw in your conception of rights. The American government did not give me the "right" to work. The Founders considered that an inalienable right endowed by our Creator. I do not "owe" them anything for that right. If I did, it ceases to be an inalienble right and becomes a privelege, granted by the state. Priveleges are taxable, but our government subtlely redefines rights over time eventually calling it a privelege. Do you not realize that the Constitution was written to RESTRAIN government.To answer your last question...Yes, the government must tax something in order to function in its well defined parameters. Corporate taxation is perfectly constitutional, as well as tarriffs and poll taxes (you will disagree with this one because of your view on universal suffrage). I could come up with several "legal" taxes, but I think you understand my position on this. I do believe in paying taxes. I do not believe that just anything that the government says is taxable is so. I believe that they must operate within the parameters of the Constitution. Once again, the original intent of the Constitution and its limits on government cannot be abrogated simply by an amendment that conflicts with the original document. In other words, since the Constitution still requires direct taxes to be apportioned, the 16th amendment directly contradicts this. In cases like this, the original document trumps the amendment since the amendment contradicts principles already contained in the Constitution. To argue otherwise would be as foolish as to make an amendment establishing a state religion while leaving the1st amendment intact. It is a complete contradiction and cannot be reconciled with the powers that are already limited so as to disallow such amendment. Do you understand what I am saying here?

The Sixteenth Amendment was NOT legally ratified by the states. Of the 48 states, here's the story: * Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment. * Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax. * Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox. * Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures. * Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required. * And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)Source : http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxe...r_is_income.htmand http://youtube.com/watch?v=nX-03Sf1wDo&feature=related