Comments on: Tax Madness

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:01:59 +0000

Hmmm…when I get a chance later, I'm going to address this a bit when I answer your question on my “No Thanks, I'm Busy” post about whether or not a person is truly better off as a Christian. So stay tuned!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 17:55:35 +0000

And then welcome to utopia.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:52:29 +0000

Victor, thanks for the analysis. You make some interesting points here, but I think this is the most important one–and I think we'll all agree on this (except maybe Han). You said, “Well, people don

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:40:57 +0000

Hi folks,
There is probably too much for me to respond to here, and I was not around at all yesterday, but it does appear as if some views have been more finely honed since I last chimed in. So that's a good thing, I think.
I will say again that I believe a proper government over a prosperous society like ours should take a hand in caring for the poor. That is the only right thing to do, and in America the government is the people, so the people can vote for this to happen in any way they see fit. And while this affluent position of ours may be a more recent development, as Face said, I think it is only right to help people under any circumstances, and I believe helping is indeed a main function of any friendly government.
As for where I got this supposedly preposterous sense, I don't know. It just seems right to me.
Cheers,
Han

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:23:30 +0000

Awesome dialogue! Although, I wish I could have written last night in order to respond to things that were said earlier, work didn

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 01:28:51 +0000

“I think it is better for all of us when people can feed and clothe their families.” Agreed. It is better for all of us. I still don't think this means the government must do all–or even most–of it, because I think socialism has proven to not be better for all in the long run. There are certainly other ways for the government to increase the fairness of the society for all.
“Let me say that I see a need for a welfare structure that is part of a development system.” I can absolutely agree to this statement. I think encouraging development is a great idea. Wouldn't you agree, though, that part of encouraging development is decreasing taxes? Taking the tax burden off of people makes it much easier for those to succeed who want to succeed.
“Should we consider the economies built on slavery in the South?…” Like I said, the government must have fair and just laws to protect the people equally and ensure decent working conditions, or this isn't possible.
You're right that I can take the deduction if I wish, and I do. But I'm more concerned about the society as a whole and where it's going than I am about my own situation.
Obviously, we just disagree on the best function of the government. I'm definitely not set in stone on this, so it's been good for me to hear your perspective.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:49:13 +0000

“We all pay the money, we all get defended. The same is true for libraries, post offices, etc. This is different from taking money from all to give benefits to some. I think it's in the interest of all society for the government to be an instrument of justice, treating everyone equally. Then, within that just society, mercy can flourish through other means.” This is a fair statement, but here is our disagreement. I hold that welfare is meant for the benefit of the society, not just a few poor individuals. I think it is better for all of us when people can feed and clothe their families. Before it seems like I'm advocating unconditional government handouts, let me say that I see a need for a welfare structure that is part of a development system. The goal isn't to get as many poor people on welfare as possible. The goal is to help people get on their feet and develop their communities so that they can help themselves and others. There will be cases in which people may never be able to support themselves and I think it is important that we are able to take care of them.
How did we exist as a nation before welfare? Another fair question. What era should we look at? Should we consider the economies built on slavery in the South, or perhaps the sharecropping laws during Reconstruction? The unjust working conditions in the factories of the North? 7-day work weeks? Child labor? I do not mean to be provocative, but these were some of the solutions families employed in order to keep afloat.
Under our current tax laws, you are absolutely free to cut your tax payments by giving to people and institutions. Do so with gusto and take the deduction. Truly nothing is stopping you from taking the responsibility upon yourself to determine where your money to help the poor goes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:03:47 +0000

Tyler, you said, “If our government should not take taxes from others to help others why can it take taxes to fund a military to protect our nation from attack?”
The difference is that when it takes money from us for defense, the money is spent equally on everyone. We all pay the money, we all get defended. The same is true for libraries, post offices, etc. This is different from taking money from all to give benefits to some. I think it's in the interest of all society for the government to be an instrument of justice, treating everyone equally. Then, within that just society, mercy can flourish through other means.
Here is a question to think about, though, since you think government welfare is necessary: how did we exist as a nation before the welfare system? I'm guessing people gave more to charity back then (I have nothing to back that up–it's just a guess), and they were helped out by their communities. This drew people together (instead of dividing families, as socialism seems to be doing in the long run). Would people make up the difference if the government stopped providing? Probably not right at first, and things might be difficult for a bit. But in the long run, we would have to to survive, and slowly but surely our attitudes would change to taking on the responsibilities for our communities ourselves. I think this would mature our country. Granted, it may be too late to go back now–it may be that we're hopelessly dependent on government, but I don't think it's too late. We can look at other countries (like Ireland) that have been cutting back on taxes and see what happens. So far, on the whole, everyone seems better off than they were before
I could, of course, be completely wrong about this. I'm not an economist or even an expert in politics–just throwing some ideas around I've been mulling over.
This is what I think people sometimes miss–by saying that I think the government should provide less, I'm not selfishly trying to get out of paying taxes, I'm committing to the harder task of willingly taking on some of the responsibility myself. And I must say, this conversation has motivated me to be more serious about the help I give to the poor.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:10:15 +0000

If our government should not take taxes from others to help others why can it take taxes to fund a military to protect our nation from attack? Is that solely because it is mentioned in Romans 13? What does Genesis 41 have to say about taxes?
I am not a huge fan of big government, but I will take issue with the statement that there is nothing that the government does more effectively than private organizations. First of all, how is this quantified? Secondly, what of defense? I would tend to agree with your claim in general, but I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement.
“When voting for higher taxes, you're taking money from others to give.” This is true. But when taxes are cut, thus funding is cut, it is by and large the services that help others who cannot help themselves that are cut. In essence, those things we consider necessities (e.g., housing, basic healthcare, food) were taken away from those who were unable to hold jobs. I saw this time and again when I worked with the mentally ill. I did not see a slew of new donations coming in from private donations as taxes and funds were cut. Instead we talked about hiring and wage freezes, and concerns over how many clients we could handle. This is just one story, but sadly I do not think is isolated. Friends who worked with HIV/AIDS patients ran into the same problems.
Here's the rub I see and this is only from my personal vantage point. I've yet to see some stats on the issue. I am skeptical that someone raised in our consumeristic society will naturally give more money away if we cut back on taxes. I find that people, regardless of their conservative/liberal leanings are by and large the same. We like stuff. When we have more money, we tend to buy more stuff before we give more of it away. I saw somewhere once that for churches and private organizations to cover the costs of current government programs directed to the poor, churches across the board would have to increase their giving to such sectors by 30%. People aren't even giving 10% these days – I believe the national average is 6%. I doubt that the main reason for the lack of tithing is entirely the fault of taxes. (Forgive me for not having the source, so take this with a grain of salt.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:59:46 +0000

Thanks, Tyler. You said, “As citizens of this nation, we are the government via representation if we are not elected officials ourselves. It becomes difficult for me to entirely separate the responsibility of the government from my personal responsibility for to a certain extent, they are one and the same.”
Though you direct the government, you are not one and the same as the government. The government is only responsible for what the government ought to be responsible for, and you are directing it in how it should fulfill those particular duties. But you have responsibilities that go beyond governmental responsibilities in all sorts of areas, and you separate these from the government all the time. You take those responsibilities on through means separate from the government. I'm saying we would be better off to move caring for the poor (for the most part) into this category.
You are completely responsible for using your money for God's purposes, but not other people's money. When voting for higher taxes, you're taking money from others to give. When giving on your own, you're using your own money. In fact, my original post is about the dangers of the governmental method of giving to the poor. This is how you end up with Kerry (who has oodles of money) paying practically no taxes and just as little charity (this is all on record). Why should he demand higher and higher payments from others and then avoid it himself? This isn't good for the character of our society. I'm saying we need to take this on ourselves instead of inviting the dangers of demanding it of others through socialism.
You don't need to give through the government to meet your responsibility to the poor. (My whole point is to say this doesn't work as well as other means.) If you voted to collect less from all the people (including yourself), everyone would have more to give through other institutions. (The government could further encourage this through tax breaks for giving.) What I think people don't realize is that these things have consequences. Marriage and family are falling apart in the socialist Scandinavian countries where ties to the government are depended on over ties to family.
This really comes down to the purpose of the institution of government. If its purpose is to care for the poor, then it should do so; if it's not, then it shouldn't. In the New Testament (when there is a separation between church and state) the only purposes mentioned for government are found in Romans 13 and these include the purposes I mentioned. Now, obviously, that's not a whole lot to go on. However, I will say two things: First, there's *nothing* the government does more effectively than private organizations. It just seems that charity through private organizations is the way to go. Second, socialism and communism have just not proved to be successful.