Internet Tax

snoscythe wrote:
[



Now, you can argue with me the extent to which government has a right to tax or to which a given tax rate is moral, but it seems clear cut to me under both scripture, logic, and current church positions that governments can tax their citizens, and that citizens have a duty to pay those taxes.

what about when a majority of citizens vote taxes on other citizens?

What about when Congress votes on Obamacare and then exempts themselves from it?



seems to me like there are some limits to moral taxation.

CougarClaw wrote:

[



Now, you can argue with me the extent to which government has a right to tax or to which a given tax rate is moral, but it seems clear cut to me under both scripture, logic, and current church positions that governments can tax their citizens, and that citizens have a duty to pay those taxes.

what about when a majority of citizens vote taxes on other citizens?

What about when Congress votes on Obamacare and then exempts themselves from it?



seems to me like there are some limits to moral taxation.

And that is an argument worth having--as I said. What I have a problem with are the self-proclaimed moral highgrounders who claim that taxation is an immoral act of government and refuse to pay any of their taxes.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
[



Now, you can argue with me the extent to which government has a right to tax or to which a given tax rate is moral, but it seems clear cut to me under both scripture, logic, and current church positions that governments can tax their citizens, and that citizens have a duty to pay those taxes.

what about when a majority of citizens vote taxes on other citizens?

What about when Congress votes on Obamacare and then exempts themselves from it?



seems to me like there are some limits to moral taxation.

And that is an argument worth having--as I said. What I have a problem with are the self-proclaimed moral highgrounders who claim that taxation is an immoral act of government and refuse to pay any of their taxes.

It's a worthy argument to be had for sure, but it becomes a slippery slope very quickly. Either the 12th article of faith means something or it does not. I'm tired of people both on the right and left who pick and choose the laws they will comply with because the others are immoral.

Are all laws moral?

nuk13 wrote:
Are all laws moral?

I don't think so. Some are amoral. But that said, what of it? If I think that the production of nuclear weapons is immoral, do I have a right to withhold that part of my taxes attributable to nuclear weapon production ? I at least do not think so

Isaiah 3

14 The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.

15 What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord God of hosts.





In a day when half of every dollar is confiscated by some government entity, a backlash cannot be unexpected.



Throughout history people have fought against much less oppressive and confiscatory measures than our current government's tax addictions and thought it only their manly obligation to do so.

Ezekial 33

6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

7 ¶So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.





I fear that if we grow tired of the moral struggle, so that we no longer engage the misguided, then we will not be found worthy at the last day.



I have no problem with moral high-ground arguments because if those stop then we die.

The standard for rebellion is set in D&C 134:5---you don't have to twist the OT to get there (note that in the OT verses you shared either watchmen, i.e. prophets, or the Lord himself gave the greenlight).



D&C 134:5 makes it incumbent to sustain and uphold the government until the point where the government no longer protects their inherent and inalienable rights. A state income tax of 5% doesn't cross that line to me.

snoscythe wrote:
The standard for rebellion is set in D&C 134:5---you don't have to twist the OT to get there (note that in the OT verses you shared either watchmen, i.e. prophets, or the Lord himself gave the greenlight).



D&C 134:5 makes it incumbent to sustain and uphold the government until the point where the government no longer protects their inherent and inalienable rights. A state income tax of 5% doesn't cross that line to me.

No need to pile on, I know, but I agree with Sno. The "moral" laws that people at least in Idaho debate the most at present are not on the level of morality where there may be cause--like the Nazi laws of WWII and the Holocaust. Here people (not many but some) think morality justifies them not paying their taxes, killing wolves with impunity, or ignoring some other federal law, nothing of which to my mind comes close to what Section 134 discusses or seems to be countenanced by our 12th Article of Faith.

BoiseBYU wrote:

The standard for rebellion is set in D&C 134:5---you don't have to twist the OT to get there (note that in the OT verses you shared either watchmen, i.e. prophets, or the Lord himself gave the greenlight).



D&C 134:5 makes it incumbent to sustain and uphold the government until the point where the government no longer protects their inherent and inalienable rights. A state income tax of 5% doesn't cross that line to me.

No need to pile on, I know, but I agree with Sno. The "moral" laws that people at least in Idaho debate the most at present are not on the level of morality where there may be cause--like the Nazi laws of WWII and the Holocaust. Here people (not many but some) think morality justifies them not paying their taxes, killing wolves with impunity, or ignoring some other federal law, nothing of which to my mind comes close to what Section 134 discusses or seems to be countenanced by our 12th Article of Faith.

One example I can think of are the East German saints who lived civilly and peacefully under that oppressive regime. Their peaceful obedience was cited as the enabling factor that allowed the Church to build a temple behind the Iron Curtain. They lived by the Article of Faith and obey, honored, and sustained the law, and the Lord provided in His time for liberty to enter in.



When Captain Moroni rallied people around the Title of Liberty, note that wealth, money, property, and taxes were not part of the rallying cry--it was God, religion, freedom, peace, and family. Those seem to be the inherent and inalienable rights, along with life. Not only that, but Captain Moroni was rallying law-abiding citizens to oust those who were seeking to undercut the current government--it was an act of vigilanteism, not an act of rebellion. Many I know who cite the title of liberty as support for their anti-government views seem to miss entirely on that context.



I should note that I have no problem with people who file theri tax paperwork and refuse to pay a tax and challenge the tax as illegal, unconstitutional, or immoral. If they are willing to make their argument in court and abide by the consequences, I have no issue with that. We need people like that to keep the government in check and in bounds. What I have an issue with are the people who refuse to even file their tax paperwork. At that point you cross the line, in my book and in the Church Handbook, from a conscientious protester and move into dishonesty.

Gentlemen, take issue with whom and what you may but your definitions are conveniently narrow and your tax samples selective. We can cherry pick any tax and by itself will be harmless enough. If we are going to talk taxes we must look at the whole picture or there is no sound argument at all.



Does anyone have a recent calculation on the total sum of direct and indirect, hidden and unhidden taxes? The federal government takes 33% of the GDP in direct taxes. By the time time you add in the hidden, indirect taxes along with state and local taxes the figure is going to be well over 50% and may be closer to 70%. Especially if we also calculate government induced inflation, which would qualify as a hidden tax. If Obama Care is a tax then there is no limit to where this can go. Debt may not be a tax by definition but it certainly is a tax in the making.



We all ride a different camel and those camels backs are not going to break in unison. At what level of taxation does your camel give out, 70%, 80%?



Wherein did God or prophet by any definition give the green light to the Boston Tea Party or the American Revolution?

I thought I was clear, but let me restate in your lingo--my camel gives out when the aggregate tax burden creates a burden where I can no longer provide for my family's needs. Those needs being food, water, shelter, etc. Until that point I don't feel that inherent inalienable rights are at play in a representative government and efforts to change should be within the system, so to speak.



The saints in East Germany were facing an effective tax rate of 100% and were praised for their faithfulness to the 12th Article of Faith.

tww wrote:
Does anyone have a recent calculation on the total sum of direct and indirect, hidden and unhidden taxes?

Do you? Your statistics you actually gave make it evident you do not:

The federal government takes 33% of the GDP in direct taxes.

False. The current number (for 2012) is 15.% That is lower than any percentage from 1944-48 and 1950 to 2008. In other words, it has only been lower than that in 4 out of the last 68 years.



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By the time time you add in the hidden, indirect taxes along with state and local taxes the figure is going to be well over 50% and may be closer to 70%. Especially if we also calculate government induced inflation, which would qualify as a hidden tax. If Obama Care is a tax then there is no limit to where this can go. Debt may not be a tax by definition but it certainly is a tax in the making.

Feel free to share some sources on these numbers. I can't say I see over 50% of my gross income going to taxes and fees, so the basis for your assertions would be nice--and if you could put them in some historical context. Note that there are 52 nations with higher effective tax rates than the US as well.

tww wrote:
Wherein did God or prophet by any definition give the green light to the Boston Tea Party or the American Revolution?

I don't think anyone has said God greenlighted the Boston Tea Party. Also--wasn't their rallying cry "No taxation without representation!"??? Seems we have the representation, no?



As for the Revolution itself, here's a list of the acts the British government took against a limited group of citizens on the basis of their geographical situation:

- Quartering Act forcing the colonists to board upwards of 10,000 English regulars

- Navigation Acts beginning in the 1600s forced them to ship and sell goods only within the colonies or to England. Later acts would force sale of some goods only to England, i.e. they could no longer sell within the colonies but had to ship to England, and then buy the same goods when they were shipped back.

- Stamp Act required any publication or legal document to be printed on paper manufactured and shipped from England and required the purchase of a stamp evidencing compliance. Colonists grievance = no taxation without representation.

- Writs of assistance were passed, which were essentially general search warrants with no need of probable cause, etc.

- Western lands claimed by the colonies were seized by the crown and closed to settlement

- Townshend Acts—among other things, declared certain colonial governments disbanded and made royal officials who used to rely on colonial governments for their salaries independent of colonial governments

- Boston Massacre—5 civilians killed by soldiers for throwing snowballs.

- Crown set up Roman Catholic church as the official church in the province of Quebec and made known its intent to set up a established, unified church.

- Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston

- Massachusetts Government Act dispelled the colonial elected Massachusetts Assembly and replaced it with a King appointed governor. Provided that governments of the colonies could be changed by Parliament.

- Government officials charged with crimes or sued in the colonies were allowed to seek trial in England….where the victim colonists could not travel to testify



The loudest complaint from the colonists was not the acts themselves, but that the colonists were being singled out--these Acts only applied to the colonies as a geographically disparate and unrepresented group. These acts were assaults, not only on the pocketbook, but on life and liberty. For Americans to reach a breaking point, I think it has to go beyond the colonial grievances, because, unlike them, we have representative government to work within. If we reach that point, it is only because we as a collective nation elected the caliber of people to put us there, so we have less of a right to complain.

We have members in places with much higher tax rates than the US--the Scandanavian (sp?) countries for example--as well as places where you did not even own get to own your own property--Iron Curtain countries come to mind--and we still preached and taught our members to be subject to the laws of the land. If taxes are too high for you, elect people you want who will reduce the tax rate. Your outrage that the tax rates are higher than you like does not sound moral in nature to me, just your being unhappy that the rate is higher than you'd like to pay. For me, it is the 12th Article of Faith unless the Brethren teach me differently.

BoiseBYU wrote:
We have members in places with much higher tax rates than the US--the Scandanavian (sp?) countries for example--as well as places where you did not even own get to own your own property--Iron Curtain countries come to mind--and we still preached and taught our members to be subject to the laws of the land. If taxes are too high for you, elect people you want who will reduce the tax rate. Your outrage that the tax rates are higher than you like does not sound moral in nature to me, just your being unhappy that the rate is higher than you'd like to pay. For me, it is the 12th Article of Faith unless the Brethren teach me differently.

not sure how it is that you think that I am experiencing some sort of outrage or that I am about fomenting a rebellion. My observations are simply that on our present course there are those that will be serious about it and will have justification.



I do work through our system to change the course we are on to avert the catastrophe that lays ahead.

snoscythe wrote:

Wherein did God or prophet by any definition give the green light to the Boston Tea Party or the American Revolution?

I don't think anyone has said God greenlighted the Boston Tea Party. Also--wasn't their rallying cry "No taxation without representation!"??? Seems we have the representation, no?



As for the Revolution itself, here's a list of the acts the British government took against a limited group of citizens on the basis of their geographical situation:

- Quartering Act forcing the colonists to board upwards of 10,000 English regulars

- Navigation Acts beginning in the 1600s forced them to ship and sell goods only within the colonies or to England. Later acts would force sale of some goods only to England, i.e. they could no longer sell within the colonies but had to ship to England, and then buy the same goods when they were shipped back.

- Stamp Act required any publication or legal document to be printed on paper manufactured and shipped from England and required the purchase of a stamp evidencing compliance. Colonists grievance = no taxation without representation.

- Writs of assistance were passed, which were essentially general search warrants with no need of probable cause, etc.

- Western lands claimed by the colonies were seized by the crown and closed to settlement

- Townshend Acts—among other things, declared certain colonial governments disbanded and made royal officials who used to rely on colonial governments for their salaries independent of colonial governments

- Boston Massacre—5 civilians killed by soldiers for throwing snowballs.

- Crown set up Roman Catholic church as the official church in the province of Quebec and made known its intent to set up a established, unified church.

- Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston

- Massachusetts Government Act dispelled the colonial elected Massachusetts Assembly and replaced it with a King appointed governor. Provided that governments of the colonies could be changed by Parliament.

- Government officials charged with crimes or sued in the colonies were allowed to seek trial in England….where the victim colonists could not travel to testify



The loudest complaint from the colonists was not the acts themselves, but that the colonists were being singled out--these Acts only applied to the colonies as a geographically disparate and unrepresented group. These acts were assaults, not only on the pocketbook, but on life and liberty. For Americans to reach a breaking point, I think it has to go beyond the colonial grievances, because, unlike them, we have representative government to work within. If we reach that point, it is only because we as a collective nation elected the caliber of people to put us there, so we have less of a right to complain.

I think you changed direction here. I was merely using these examples to get a clarification on your position that rebellions needed official sanction.

snoscythe wrote:

Does anyone have a recent calculation on the total sum of direct and indirect, hidden and unhidden taxes?

Do you? Your statistics you actually gave make it evident you do not:

The federal government takes 33% of the GDP in direct taxes.

False. The current number (for 2012) is 15.% That is lower than any percentage from 1944-48 and 1950 to 2008. In other words, it has only been lower than that in 4 out of the last 68 years.



http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By the time time you add in the hidden, indirect taxes along with state and local taxes the figure is going to be well over 50% and may be closer to 70%. Especially if we also calculate government induced inflation, which would qualify as a hidden tax. If Obama Care is a tax then there is no limit to where this can go. Debt may not be a tax by definition but it certainly is a tax in the making.

Feel free to share some sources on these numbers. I can't say I see over 50% of my gross income going to taxes and fees, so the basis for your assertions would be nice--and if you could put them in some historical context. Note that there are 52 nations with higher effective tax rates than the US as well.

The figures that I have seen (in round numbers) are approximately a GDP of 15 trillion and direct tax revenue of 5 trillion.



The other numbers relating to indirect or hidden taxes does get subjective but I do not believe that it justifies ignoring them. When the government requires a fee or negatively effects value, or interferes with competition, then all of those things must be subtracted from the economy as if they were a tax because it costs Americans whether they know it or not. There are a lot of taxes that I pay that do not show up at the register or on a 1040 but they are passed on in the form of higher costs and lower wages.

snoscythe wrote:
I thought I was clear, but let me restate in your lingo--my camel gives out when the aggregate tax burden creates a burden where I can no longer provide for my family's needs. Those needs being food, water, shelter, etc. Until that point I don't feel that inherent inalienable rights are at play in a representative government and efforts to change should be within the system, so to speak.

This is a fair point and I would not judge you negatively for taking action to protect your family. My concerns are pretty much that it may be too late by then and that there are many families that are just about at that point and many more that are seeing a cliff in front of them.

snoscythe wrote:
The saints in East Germany were facing an effective tax rate of 100% and were praised for their faithfulness to the 12th Article of Faith.

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they also have quite a bit of help from America and the church to help them get through it?

tww wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't they also have quite a bit of help from America and the church to help them get through it?

The last welfare aid to East Germany was in 1946--and then the Iron Curtain fell. It didn't resume until after the temple was dedicated in 1985. In 1961 the Church even instructed the East German saints to destroy all their religious materials that were unauthorized in East Germany--asking them to burn their books and manuals.



You might be thinking about the Berliners, which was actually controlled by the Allies. Surrounded by East Germany, but not in East Germany.



LDS saints in the US today should never have fear of inability to care for, feed, and shelter their families given the extent of resources available through the church.