Taxation Is Theft
- Thread starter Daniel1769
- Start date
drbrumley
Well-known member
How about he do us all a favor and stop taxes entirely?
Why didn't you just come out in the beginning and say that you wanted a Jewish theocracy as the only form of government?
And let me guess who would appoint your monarch:
Levitical Priests?
Now the big question is: there was pork sausage on a couple of slices of pizza that I had for lunch, would I be stoned in your theocracy for eating unclean food? While I'm admitting to things that go against Jewish laws:
I'm wearing blended materials and last summer I planted two different types of vegetables in my garden (GASP!). (I best not push my luck and tell him that I had shrimp for dinner last night).
Now that I'm done mocking you, have you ever thought about reading the New Testament? It's a great Book that talks about repentance, redemption, and what the standard for civil government should be.
I want a form of government that is approved of by God. Not something that man has concocted.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
There seems to be a misunderstanding throughout this entire thread. Let me see if I can clear it up.
God gave authority to the government to do only two things: defense of its people (both foreign and domestic), and infrastructure. To do this, a government requires an income of some sort. With the authority to do those two things, the government has a right to tax its citizens to be able to fund itself. So, where does the government draw the line? 1 Samuel 8:14, 17 states that a 10% tax is tyrannical. Nothing more than 10% tax, and of course, 0% tax means the government isn't being funded at all, so that's also out of bounds. So let's say 5%.
What should be taxed? Well, currently in America, we are taxed on income, purchases, fuel, imports/exports, corporations and businesses are taxed on top of the owners and employees being taxed, and there's even a sin-tax, for when someone commits a crime. Only one of those is good and just, the income tax, because it is the most reliable source of income for the government, and it's sustainable. All of the others hurt the economy. Tax on fuel? Gas prices go up to accommodate. Import/export tax? Businesses do less of that because it's expensive. Sin-tax? For example, a cop is more likely to pull someone over just to get that bonus, or to meet a quota.
The income tax is the best option, as it's sustainable, it doesn't hurt the economy, and people can spend their money as they see fit, because they have more money to spend Companies can make a much greater profit, because they don't have to worry about taxes. IIncomes would double overnight. The economy would boom like never before.
So, a flat 5% income tax is all that is needed to support the government. And the tax applies to everyone: if someone makes $10k a year, only $500 of that would be taxes, and that would be offset by someone who makes $1M per year, and pays $50k in taxes.
So, to summarize, the government should only tax less than 10%, and it should only tax the individual's income. No other taxes should be instituted.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Last edited:
you have any idea how much one of these costs?
Couple a thousand? :idunno:
A Nimitz class carrier costs about 10.44 Billion
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I'm pretty sure that God would approve of a government where it's citizens rights come from Him.
BTW: Who would appoint this King of yours?
"that bonus"?
My my, someone is even more removed from society than I had perceived him to be.
Perhaps law enforcement officers cite and arrest people because they broke the law and are a risk to public safety?
And yet, the rest of the time, they don't pull someone over for breaking that same law, and may even break it themselves. Laws should not provoke people to break them.
For example, speed limits. Let's use California as an example. The speed limit for autos is 65-60 mph, depending on where you're at. The speed limit for trucks is 55 regardless of where you're at in the state. That's a 10 to 15 mph difference in speed. the highways (at least outside the cities) could support speeds higher than 70, yet trucks are forced to drive slow, for what? To prevent accidents? I don't know about you, but when I drive 55 mph for hours on end I start to get bored and even drowsy, because it's comparatively slow to the rest of the USA, where highway speeds are much higher. Add to that the 10-15mph difference between truck and auto traffic, and it's a recipe for disaster.
But you want to know what's interesting? I've driven all the way through CA at 65 in my truck, multiple times, and never got pulled over for speeding. And I've even gone 65mph past cops who were checking speeds. They weren't interested. This is what I mean when I say that the laws are only enforced when there's a quota to be met.
God says that if someone breaks the law, there should be no mercy given. The laws are there and they're meant to be enforced without mercy, not at a cops whim. To repeat what I said above, laws should not provoke people to break them. Speed limits do exactly that, making them unjust laws. A good law for traffic speeds would read something like, "Do not drive at a speed that puts anyone at risk of injury or death." For example, if it's during the summer, and there are kids at school, people should know not to do, let's say 90 mph through the school zone. That would violate the example law I gave above.
However, out on the highway, 90 mph would be an acceptable speed for most vehicles. The drivers of such vehicles would be able to get to where they're going much quicker, and be more alert as they drive. As a result, there would be fewer accidents overall. Having laws such as the one above would allow cops to spend more time actually focusing on real crime, such as theft, murder, rape, etc.
As for punishment of the crimes, fines are generally a bad idea, especially if the money goes to the government, because then the government has a vested interest in crime, a conflict of interest. The government is supposed to instill terror into the hearts of criminals, not make money off of crime. If someone violates the law I gave above, then the punishment would be restitution if no one was injured, but they were driving dangerously, or corporal punishment if someone was injured, or the death penalty if someone was killed as a result of their actions. If restitution, the money would go directly to supporting the infrastructure, such as road maintenance.
Does that make sense? Hopefully it does, because that's the kind of law that God would approve of. To restate what my point, the government should not profit from crime, otherwise there's a conflict of interest, as one of government's roles is to protect it's citizens from crime.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'm pretty sure that God would approve of a government where it's citizens rights come from Him.
BTW: Who would appoint this King of yours?
Please answer my questions with your own words.
I'm pretty sure that God would approve of a government where it's citizens rights come from Him.
BTW: Who would appoint this King of yours?
Please answer my questions with your own words.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
"that bonus"?
My my, someone is even more removed from society than I had perceived him to be.
Perhaps law enforcement officers cite and arrest people because they broke the law and are a risk to public safety?
There is a reason law enforcement officers generally allow drivers to exceed the speed limit, but by only a few miles per hour (it has to do with speedometer cailbration and even more important, waiting for the truly reckless driver that is out there on the highways.).
Now about "that bonus", I didn't see a response to that in your little theocratic monologue (btw, there were so many errors in your post that I didn't know where to start...so I didn't).
"that bonus"?
My my, someone is even more removed from society than I had perceived him to be.
Perhaps law enforcement officers cite and arrest people because they broke the law and are a risk to public safety?
There is a reason law enforcement officers generally allow drivers to exceed the speed limit, but by only a few miles per hour (it has to do with speedometer cailbration and even more important, waiting for the truly reckless driver that is out there on the highways.).
Now about "that bonus", I didn't see a response to that in your little theocratic monologue (btw, there were so many errors in your post that I didn't know where to start...so I didn't).
I addressed both of those points in my comment. My response to the "bonus" was that laws should not provoke people to break them, and that the government (or anyone for that matter) should not make money off of crime.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I agree, but that doesn't mean a democracy (or a republic, for that matter, which is just one step away from a democracy) is the correct form of government.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Law enforcement officers are paid an hourly wage. There is no "bonus" (other than accolades from fellow officers) even if they catch Jack the Ripper.
Your 90 MPH speed limit proposal is truly scary, as well as your proposal to let individual drivers decide for him or herself what speed would be safe.
Most if not all States have victim assistance programs, where the convicted offender has to pay towards financial loses the victim incurred.
But then heroin addicts aren't known for having a lot of money, and would have to go out and steal if restitution were part of the punishment.
Normally your kind state that the person convicted of a crime could work for their victim, paying off the restitution that way.
For some reason I just get the feeling that a rape victim wouldn't want the rapist washing her windows and viewing her as she walked around inside of her house.
Just sayin...
Your ignorance once again is duly noted (democracies and our Constitutional Republic where our rights come from God are worlds apart).
BTW, I've been meaning to ask you:
Who would appoint your King?
That would be restitution, which is an acceptable punishment. So no initial argument there.
If there was a Biblical justice system, drug dealers would be tried, convicted, and executed for endangering the lives of those around them. There wouldn't be an epidemic of drug addicts like there is today, and theft would be punishable by restitution, so if someone steals, depending on the circumstances, would have to pay back when convicted. There would be very few such crimes.
Again, no issue there.
While your feeling is justified, your example is invalid, as criminals convicted of a capital crime (such as rape) would be executed in a just system.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
From our current government, I see only two just ways to implement a Biblical Monarchy government.
The first is to have a group of people be elected through the current system, and then using the system against itself, abolish the government, and implement a monarchy. Highly unlikely, due to the nature of the system.
The other way would be to have another country conquer us and then install a monarchy.
No other way would be just.
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
After that, it would be the monarch's descendants who would rule.
I've been on the defensive side for a while now, let me go on the offense for a bit.
Why do you think that a monarchy is not a good type of government?
Why do you think that a "Constitutional republic" is such a good idea?
What makes it a better option than a monarchy?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
I've been on the defensive side for a while now, let me go on the offense for a bit.
Why do you think that a monarchy is not a good type of government?
Why do you think that a "Constitutional republic" is such a good idea?
What makes it a better option than a monarchy?
Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
But then heroin addicts aren't known for having a lot of money, and would have to go out and steal if restitution were part of the punishment.
Can I address you as Mohammad, as you've got the false religion of Islam written all over you.
You really should check out the New Testament sometime, it has this guy named Jesus in it who just so happens to be the Son of God and God in the flesh. He rescinded those harsh penalties for adulterers, homosexuals and other Jewish theocratic penalties except for capital crimes. While Jesus isn't an anarchist and still strongly believe in the rule of civil law, the punishment phase against certain sins was rescinded (if you should pick up that great Book, look for words like "repentance", "grace" and "redemption").
But then heroin addicts aren't known for having a lot of money, and would have to go out and steal if restitution were part of the punishment.
Can I address you as Mohammad, as you've got the false religion of Islam written all over you.
You really should check out the New Testament sometime, it has this guy named Jesus in it who just so happens to be the Son of God and God in the flesh. He rescinded those harsh penalties for adulterers, homosexuals and other Jewish theocratic penalties except for capital crimes. While Jesus isn't an anarchist and still strongly believe in the rule of civil law, the punishment phase against certain sins was rescinded (if you should pick up that great Book, look for words like "repentance", "grace" and "redemption").