Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No, but they have a right to demand the government do something about the gas gouging that is going on and they also have a right to demand that their government not squander their tax money, like has been going on for years.I'm sorry but if people are pawning things rather trading down their autos, taking PT, moving closer to work, etc then that is their prerogative... It does not entitle them to demand a benefit from the gov't.
Yeah? Try not paying your taxes and see what happens when they come to take every single little thing you own. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, you get prosecuted because you've broken the law, and quite right too!; they don't 'hold a gun to your head'Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that the government doesn't hold a gun to your head and threaten to kill you;
Oh, so you mean if you point a gun at them they point a gun at you? Well quelle surprise!If you try to resist and defend your family and your property, it's just like Ruby Ridge, baby!
The "lawful authority" in this case is the US Constitution. There are limitations imposed on the Fed for good reason. This is one of those limits. These taxes are illegal because they are in violation of the "lawful authority".</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, I thought you were complaining about what you call 'involuntary taxation', which would include taxes for defence, whether or not you consider them to be 'lawful'.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
it is, after all, the 'lawful authority' per Rom 13 whereas a street mugger is quite clearly not
See above. Federal defense is legitimate under the lawful authority of our nation. National welfare and enforced socialism are not.</font>[/QUOTE]But both are 'involuntary, which was the point you complained about in your mast post. And, if you don't like what you call 'enforced socialism', you can always emigrate, I guess; no-one's stopping you.</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
And, as I said before, paying taxes for defence is as much an 'involuntary tax' as for anything else; as I've also said, we pay taxes as part of the 'social contract' between us, the government and the rest of the society in which we live.
And what if the answer's 'no'?</font>[/QUOTE]Then, you still don't have the right to steal from me. What if I need a ride somewhere, and the answer is "no"? Do I have the right to take your car any way?</font>[/QUOTE]A car is not a necessity (depsite what we in the western world like to believe); food is - you would have them starve??!!</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you're hungry, ask
Someone has to get up at 5AM to drive the busses that take your kids to school. Someone has to get up at 4AM to prepare breakfast for school bus drivers. (If I'm not mistaken Spurgeon, Moody, and those fellows usually began their day about 4AM in study, but don't quote me on that; I don't feel like looking it up.)</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, but I sincerely hope they're not working a 9-5 (or 12-7pm) job at the same time, otherwise I wouldn't trust them to drive my kids to school safely</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
My point was that if you're holding down two to three jobs and getting up at 5am to do the first every day, then you will be getting less than 6 hours sleep (my target too BTW is 6-8 hours which is fine for me but my wife for example has always needed a minimum of 8 - don't forget, different people have different physical needs: Margaret Thatcher got by on 4 hours' sleep but that would kill me over time), still less seeing anything of your family which kind of renders the whole 'male head of the household' things spectacularly redundant.
Sorry, but I live in the real world: those 6 hours are largely taken up with cooking and eating meals, childcare including bathing my 16-month old son and putting him to bed and relaxing before going to bed so I can unwind and actually get the measure of sleep that God intends me to have.[snip]Calculations of hours in a week[/snip]That translates into 6 hour per day! You can play ball with your kids, you can go fishing... You can do all sorts of things in 6 hours per day, including working an extra job for a while if you need the money!
See above.Now, I agree that if you're working all that extra time just so you can have the nicest and newest car at all times, or make sure your house is bigger than the neighbor's, or something along those lines, then it would be idolatry. But, if you or your family has a need, why not use a couple of those 6 hour blocks per week, making some extra cash?
Or, you could spend some of it going to school to further your eduction so you can get a better job.
Depends on your physiacl and psychological makeup - you can't simply apply a 'one-size fits all' approach to this issue just because you read a medical article about it; some people require downtime to de-stress after work otherwise they can't get to sleep and 'toss and turn all night'Oh, and anyone can train themselves to get less sleep. It's not usually a good idea to go from 10 hours per night to 4, but if you go from 8 to 7.5 and get used to that, then to 7, and so on, you will get the rest you need because your body is in sleep mode when you go to bed instead of tossing and turning all night. But, sleeping more than 8 is detrimental to your health and it's detrimental to your bank account.
Good for you; others would have a heart attack or breakdown under those kind of sleep regimes.Archimedes slept for two hours every night, taking 15 minute cat naps throughout the day. I did that when I was in college, and I carried a 4.0 GPA (including other schools that I have taken since then*). Now, I prefer getting 5-6 hours per night, but when something needs doing, I simply do it.
Yeah, well, maybe he had a stressed wife with post-natal depression who needed him at home to help out with the screaming baby. Have you any idea what you're talking about here?You know, my wife used to work with a fellow who had a baby. He kept saying that he needed more money (diapers, hospital bills, etc.), but his faith in God told him that he would get it. Well, he lost his faith in God over it because God didn't miraculously give it to him. However, he did turn down overtime every single week. He didn't seem to see that as a fulfillment of his request to God for more money.
No, but they have a right to demand the government do something about the gas gouging that is going on and they also have a right to demand that their government not squander their tax money, like has been going on for years.</font>[/QUOTE] I agree mostly with the first point and completely with the second point.Originally posted by LadyEagle:
Scott said:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm sorry but if people are pawning things rather trading down their autos, taking PT, moving closer to work, etc then that is their prerogative... It does not entitle them to demand a benefit from the gov't.
Depends again on the decisions made in the past. That said you can trade down but you may not be able to trade down to something you think meets your minimum standard.But to address your points:
You can't always "trade down" an auto, especially if you are legally locked into a lease or a loan.
Part time what?Part time isn't always feasible for everyone, when there are child care or elder care issues to contend with.
Leases expire and houses can be sold. The point is that people have options... but some are just so distasteful that they don't want to consider them... they'd rather complain and try to get the guvmint to fix it for them.Moving closer to work isn't always an option, either, if you are locked into a lease or a 30-year-note.
Yes. That happens. So now- What can be done about it?Sometimes people originally bought a house close to their job only to lose that job and having to find something else - farther away from home. For starters.
It's no reward, when the people are still in poverty, and also face the social stigma of it. (Some don't care, but then once again, alot of this rhetoric is overblown anyway).I don't think I said they were all lazy. Did I? But they all DID make choices... sometimes reasonable choices, that didn't work out. Usually though it isn't people who made one fatal error that end up "poor" but rather a consistent pattern of poor decision making.
Hopefully Matt learned from his unpleasant experience and will avoid future situations more carefully. However, the welfare system not only punishes those who do well, it rewards consistently bad decision making.
But that is what a lot of the rhetoric sounds like. Especially the focus on the poor and their wrong choices.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but not all rich/well-off simply got to their position by doing all the right things.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't say they did.
That wasn't the point. The point was once again, that it is not all by "right choices" and hard work.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have heirs, for one thing,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are absolutely, positively fully entitled to the wealth that their parents choose to leave them.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and even those who do "pull their bootstraps" all the way up, might often pull strings,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pull strings? You mean cheat? If it is against the law then they should be pursued with the money we save from welfare programs.
There are all kinds of loopholes, that are even ambiguous or cloudy as to whether they are illegal or not. They "should be" punished, but the way it is set up, they can often get away with it dure to technicalities; buying their way out, etc. And either way, the point is, it is not all by honest hard work. One example that just came to me is the cheapness of quality of many items today, and how you have to buy new sooner. (especially electronics). That is the thing that reminds me more than anything else hof the ironly of focusing on welfare, while ignoring the sins of the powerful.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and even get into shady dealings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, if someone does business illegally they should be punished for it.
The opportunity is not to their credit. What they did with it may be, but the point is, there is opportulity not shared by all.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or know or meet the right people,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is to their credit... Do you for some reason disagree?
Earning something is an indication of neither greed nor covetousness... desiring what others have earned or else being jealous of what others earned to the extent that you think you have a moral justification for divesting them of it... are most certainly indications of greed and covetousness.
You will note that a) I have condemned illegal activities and b) mostly limited my discussion to "decisions" people make.
Someone else's success is NOT a valid excuse for another to not try. Someone else's greater advantages DOES NOT validate the failure to optimize our own.
The question is about those who live not to work.
You and Hope are fixated with "divesting someone" and "people not trying", but no one here is arguing for that, as far as I know.Choices involved: Where to live, where to work, what to drive, whether or not public transportation, how much money must be made, etc, etc.
I'm sorry but if people are pawning things rather trading down their autos, taking PT, moving closer to work, etc then that is their prerogative... It does not entitle them to demand a benefit from the gov't.
But many conservatives who use some of this rhetoric seem to recognize no such thing.I oppose corporate "welfare". It most certainly introduces unnecessary temptation to corruption in both the political and business realms.
But that should not be used to try to explain poverty today, when God has not specifically said that particular people we see today are poor because God is doing some test on them; at the same time as trying to say it is just their poor choices compared to the diligence of the rich.God is sovereign. He allowed Satan to make Job poor through absolutely no fault of his own.
Now remember your denial in the second quote above. This is one of those statements that makes it sound like "all rich/well-off simply got to their position by doing all the right things" which you denied.Economic inequity is justified by the behaviors of those who are (legally) successful and those who consistently make choices that lead to consistent failure.
Nobody here is. There are probably relatively few out there who do, as most conservative Christians are taking the oposite view. I don't know why you two are so obsessed with this. It looks like a defensive reaction, because when this massive wall of Conservative rhetoric is knocked down, you feel someone is going to come and take or require something of you. No one here seems to be doing that.I don't see how some Christians think themselves morally superior for demanding that someone else's money be taken and redistributed to the poor.
Same thing different word. "Luck" and "Fortune" are simply more popular terms for these mysteries of consequence. (While "probability" sounds more scientific).Luck is a pagan concept based on the notion that God does not know what is going to happen and cannot control the outcome.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may be trying to get at the concept of probability. With information, we should endeavor to make reasonable choices on probability. Probability recognizes patterns that God has providentially allowed to exist... but makes no assumptions about "luck".
Further, you assume that just because recent decisions don't seem to dictate the "unlucky" outcome that somehow situations aren't products of choices. They are.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever exactly, or directly causes things, even if it is God; no one can deny that much of the circumstances of life fit this description, from our perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck no. Unknown and probability. Yes.
Yeah, that's when bad things happen (and still, many conservatives manage to blame the liberals, taxes, welfare, etc.). However; I was referring to when good things happen. That's when that is convenient.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is very convenient for people to dismiss this and say "no; it's not 'fortune';
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not convenient... just accurate. In fact, it is very inconvenient since when I have personally had bad things happen... I have had to look at myself rather than blame other people.
Whatever; same connotation. Same merit unconditionally heaped on those who did do better.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's because God gave us what we have, AND/OR, I just worked hard and made all the right choices; and if you don't have it it is because it is not His will AND/OR you were just lazy and squandered all of your opportunities".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR, you continued to make bad decisions and would not make the necessary sacrifices.
That's not everyone's motive, but it is a handy defense mechanism for conservatives who often act like this system is perfect. (Once again, many do bmale their disappointments on others).quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part of the point of the liberal govt. programs was to take this kinds of factors into consideration, and try to balance the situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes- to play God and give people a ready "It's someone elses fault" excuse for making bad decisions....
With the reforms, how much do you think is going on? Even so, it takes time for that to change, and people are so fixated on it, no amount of change will ever satisfy. They will always find some way to blame the poor for aking their tax dollars, and next in line is immigration (whether they work or not!)quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not saying this really works, and especially not that people don't abuse it (though with the reforms here; I wonder what else people want).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An end to involuntary, unconstitutional wealth redistribution.
With a lot of people it is class, though they may not be conscious of it. The fact that they fixate on what the poor are doing wrong, and assume such a fair system that it is always a person's own fault because of their choices and defend upper classes shows this.I am not concerned with a particular class. I am concerned with what is right and what is wrong. I am concerned with what has obviously proven detrimental to the spirit of "poor" people and what the Bible prescribes as the right remedy- work and true charity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I have long acknowledged that there are people like this. But how many do you think there really are? Is it enough to complain as much as people are, as if, once again they are eating up 98% of the money.I grew up in the southern Appalachians... and YES, people who have bought into the government's entitlement mentality DO think they are owed a living. I've known them all my life. My sister-in-law and her daughter are perfect examples.
Today, most companies would not even leave anything for anyone to pick up, as it would be "lost profit". Only if their was some tax break incentive, or something like that.When God told Israel how to care for the poor, what were his instructions? Did he simply say, "Well, you go out and work and support them no matter what"? No. He told them to leave the corners of their fields so the poor could come and work to get food for themselves.
At that point, I was not saying people should not have to work, but rather addressing the attitude of some, that because I like to work those kinds of hours, than anyone else who doesn't is lazy, and deserves whatever economic misfortune they get. This still begs the question of why anyone has to work like that to make ends meet in a society of plenty, while some people live like kings (including ungodly entertainers, sports figures and others who don't produce any necessary goods) and people think it is all fair, just because these people have their name on a payroll, rather than receiving from the govt. and any addressing of the issue is accused of being a plot to take away someone's money and give it to the "undeserving" poor.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
who don't want to work all kinds of crazy hours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Want" is a very important word there. If you're hungry and you're not making enough money, then you need to work more hours, another job, or just plain crazy hours. You might not have to do it permanently.
Personally, I enjoyed it, but my point is that it can be done and you don't have to resort to stealing from others. It's a choice.
I'll have to check that, but is GDP the tax revenue alone? If not, that may explain the different numbers I got. Plus, "welfare" may mean more than what people think of (Which is "AFDC-Aid to Families with Dependant Children", which is only ONE program out of several others, including SSI, Medicaid, Medicare, programs for farmers, etc.). It is ADFC, I believe, that was 2-4%, but I'll check what that site says.You also might want to review your 2-4% of taxes figure. The US spends 11.5% of its GDP on welfare. That's a lot!
If it's an illegal tax, and I don't pay it, then I have not broken the law any more than if I refused to pay off the mafia not to destroy my store.Yes, you get prosecuted because you've broken the law, and quite right too!; they don't 'hold a gun to your head'
No, I was talking about illegal taxation and illegal spending. Defense is legal spending. But, if you pay attention, I speak out very strongly for the Fair Tax. (Come on, click the link! I dare you!)Sorry, I thought you were complaining about what you call 'involuntary taxation', which would include taxes for defence, whether or not you consider them to be 'lawful'
Now you're talking about corporations and not individuals. Corporations have no responsibility to people, unless they so choose. However, I do know that the big drug companies, who are widely demonized by people, donate a billion dollars worth of free drugs to poor people. At least two of them have stated publicly that they would donate more if they could deduct it from their taxes. What's wrong with that? Why aren't they permitted to exempt more?Today, most companies would not even leave anything for anyone to pick up, as it would be "lost profit". Only if their was some tax break incentive, or something like that.
If it's an illegal tax, and I don't pay it, then I have not broken the law any more than if I refused to pay off the mafia not to destroy my store.</font>[/QUOTE]<sigh> It's not an illegal tax, it's just a tax you don't like paying. That's OK; like visiting the dentist, none of like paying tax, but we swallow hard and treat it as the necessary evil it is.Originally posted by Hope of Glory:
OK, it's 18 minutes past my preferred bed time, so I'm going to respond to a couple of statements and then go to bed. These are quotes from different people, I know, but they're not attributed.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yes, you get prosecuted because you've broken the law, and quite right too!; they don't 'hold a gun to your head'
Yes, because, like it or not, they are the lawful authority from God, per Rom 13If I don't pay this illegal tax (both the tax and what it's spent on are illegal), they will come to take my home, my car, and everything else. If you (or a burglar) were to break into my home, I have the right to shoot first and ask questions later. However, when they come, they come well armed, and you better give in to their demands.
No, I was talking about illegal taxation and illegal spending. Defense is legal spending. </font>[/QUOTE]But the taxation to pay for it is just as involuntary</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Sorry, I thought you were complaining about what you call 'involuntary taxation', which would include taxes for defence, whether or not you consider them to be 'lawful'
I'd have to examine the proposal in more detail than time presently permits but my main concern with any kind of sales tax is that, like a flat rate tax but not quite so much, it tends to disproportionately penalise those at the poorer end of the spectrum and therefore I'd like to look closely in particular at the allowances and exemptions (also please bear in mind that I don't live in the US so the allowance etc $ figures don't mena a great deal to me).But, if you pay attention, I speak out very strongly for the Fair Tax. (Come on, click the link! I dare you!)
Now you're talking about corporations and not individuals. Corporations have no responsibility to people, unless they so choose. However, I do know that the big drug companies, who are widely demonized by people, donate a billion dollars worth of free drugs to poor people. At least two of them have stated publicly that they would donate more if they could deduct it from their taxes. What's wrong with that? Why aren't they permitted to exempt more? [/QB][/QUOTE]Today, most companies would not even leave anything for anyone to pick up, as it would be "lost profit". Only if their was some tax break incentive, or something like that.