Internet Tax

In the war in heaven Lucifer wanted to have us all follow him and we'd all get back to somewhere I guess he'd pick for us. The Savior said He'd teach correct principles and let us choose. My view is simple. If we are controled or coerced against our will it is not of the Savior. Taxes, to me, are control and take my agency. Maybe it isn't to you, Sno and Boise but it is to me. In another attempt at this I'll say that the Lord asks me for 10% + fast offerings, the amount of which I, in consultation with Him, volunteerily pay. The government on the other hand demands taxes, which by any calculation is well over the amount of my tithes and offerings. Do I protest and refuse to pay my taxes, no! I pay them even as the Savior told His questioners to render unto Caesar. I also vote with an eye on how that person views these issues.



Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but, because another nation has higher taxes is no reason to justify our having higher taxes. For those delivered from communism, I rejoice. Among the reasons I do is whatever is being taken from them now must be (no, I haven't checked up on the exact figure.) less than 100%.



I pray that all mankind will be able to get in a condition where we are able to recieve the Messiah and the government he will move us to. He and His servants can have all that I have, although I'd miss my Gibson. (I need a chuckle, but they could have it.) I am confident I will have sufficient for my needs.

nuk13 wrote:
Taxes, to me, are control and take my agency.

You still retain your agency to pay or not to pay. Just like with the commandments, you can choose to heed or disregard, but you cannot necessarily choose the consequences. Under your logic, every law of the land is in infringement on agency.

nuk13 wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but, because another nation has higher taxes is no reason to justify our having higher taxes.

Agreed--the point I was attempting to make was to demonstrate that (1) Americans have it better than many others, a point many sky-is-falling conservatives seem to gloss over, and (2) if someone feels we have a right to revolt at our tax point, do the other 51 countries have a right to revolt? and why haven't they?

I find no gospel principle that calls for being content when placed in "bondage" (as described by the Nephite people who had a relatively light tax compared to some of the tax rates today) to a certain government. Our society is being taxed with such a burden because we've become by and large immoral. I feel that when we return to the teachings of the Savior, we'll have less taxes and less government. But sadly, that may not happen until the return of the Savior.



This does not mean one should simply enjoy being taxed, or attempt to prevent more taxation (bondage).

BroncoBot wrote:
This does not mean one should simply enjoy being taxed, or attempt to prevent more taxation (bondage).

I agree, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that I agree that we are overtaxed and that government should get out of the way. My only point (and perhaps it got muddled by the volume of my postings) was that we still need to pay those taxes, and work to change them from within the system we have been blessed with.



I like Harold B. Lee's statement "If we were united as a people in electing honorable men to high places in our civil government, regardless of the political party with which we have affiliation, we would be able to safeguard our communities and to preserve law and order among us. Our failure to be united means that we permit tyranny and oppression and taxation to the extent of virtual confiscation of our own property." He also noted that the tax burden "shall increase and grow until we are virtually displaced in our ownership, if we don’t take care of our own." In essence tying it back to one of the three hallmarks of the pride-cycle in the Book of Mormon--failure to care for the needy.

I like that quote as well. Certainly seems to be playing out in our day.

snoscythe wrote:

Taxes, to me, are control and take my agency.

You still retain your agency to pay or not to pay. Just like with the commandments, you can choose to heed or disregard, but you cannot necessarily choose the consequences. Under your logic, every law of the land is in infringement on agency.



You are far better at debating than I am because I did not implay or mean to imply that, "every law of the land is in infringemant on agency". I was talking about taxes not other laws which perhaps could be debated on that point some other place. You are right about agency but I believe the consequences are much more favorable and certainly defferent from the Lord than from government.

nuk13 wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but, because another nation has higher taxes is no reason to justify our having higher taxes.

Agreed--the point I was attempting to make was to demonstrate that (1) Americans have it better than many others, a point many sky-is-falling conservatives seem to gloss over, and (2) if someone feels we have a right to revolt at our tax point, do the other 51 countries have a right to revolt? and why haven't they?

I agree with your (1). I am not yet or don't think I'm yet, a sky-is-falling conservative. I do think that if you are heading for a cliff the sooner you get turned around the better. I don't see that your (2) is in reference to my points. What other nations do is up to them for the most part. Maybe, and this point has a bag full of ifs, we might be called on to defend the innocent even as the Nephites defended the Ammonites.

I don't know how to do the layercake so some of my comments on your (Sno) comments on my comments are burried in the same yellow as yours are.



After looking at the football portion I thought of this: I would feel much better about taxes if the government asked us for what the Lord asks us including offerings. If this were not infringed upon the government would be under the obligation of controling their spending.

I like the quote. I am so grateful for living prophets to guide us today.

snoscythe wrote:

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.

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.

This is just pathetic. What I find most pathetic is that you would deny a temple recommend to every young woman in the church who is paid in cash for their babysitting and fails to submit an income tax form.



Nearly, but not quite as sad, you cite section 134:5 which says an individual need not sustain a government that fails to protect their "their inherent and inalienable rights." Then you say those rights are outlined in the Book of Mormon (while telling another poster their quotes from the Old Testament are twisted) when those rights are outlined in 134:2 (convenient that they are right in the same section I suppose): 1) the free exercise of conscience, 2) the right and control of property, and 3) the protection of life.



It is clear from your example the German Democratic Republic sought to curtail the free exercise of conscience and to "dictate forms for public or private devotion." While the saints you speak about are surely to be commended for obedience their church leaders in refraining from armed rebellion that does not mean they would not have been justified if they had defended their inalienable right to exercise their religion as they saw fit.



The federal and state governments' taxation of incomes, of any percentage, are an infringement of the right to possess and control property. As a government fails to protect that right (or in this case perverts the very function of government) the citizen need no longer sustain that government.



Personally I do not sustain my governments in their theft of property. I still pay them, but for the same reason I gave up my wallet to the last guy who mugged me. I don't want them to take away more of my life, liberty, or property.



Finally, honesty has only to do with truth. Obedience to a law (ie filling out a form or not) does not make you honest or dishonest.

Read the church handbook 2--it's not my policy on submitting tax returns, it's the Church policy--if you insist that's pathetic, then we're at loggerheads. You've also yet to reconcile the principle taught by Christ to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. I also don't see much room in your approach to private property for the concept that all things are in fact the Lord's, and we serve but as mere stewards. Again, my experience with folks such as yourself is that it's more about money and less about principle.



Your definition of honesty is a bit off-kilter as well. Honesty is not simply about truth, it's about straightforward conduct and fair-dealing with others. If you're honest, you're "free from fraud or deception." Also: "Being honest means choosing not to lie, steal, cheat, or deceive in any way." Remaining silent can be a dishonest act.



As for your babysitting red herring, I'll bite anyways--if I, as a YM leader, found out that a youth was refusing to file tax returns, I'd have a discussion with the youth about it and make sure they understood the principle. If I found out it was a willful refusal to pay, I'd kick it onto the bishop.

Quick note on young women filing tax returns on babysitting. In 2012 (the tax returns we just filed) a single person under the age of 65 does not need to file a tax return unless their income exceeds $9,500. I can't say I've ever met a young woman making almost 10k per year from babysitting.



*Edit - read a bit further on the website. That was for non dependents. Dependents would only need to make $5,800 but even that's quite a bit for baby sitting. Reference here:



http://www.efile.com/tax/do-i-need-to-file-a-tax-return/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jvquarterback wrote:



This is just pathetic. What I find most pathetic is that you would deny a temple recommend to every young woman in the church who is paid in cash for their babysitting and fails to submit an income tax form.

I didn't realize that only young women babysat...

JV you are the master of the straw man argument with your statement "This is just pathetic. What I find most pathetic is that you would deny a temple recommend to every young woman in the church who is paid in cash for their babysitting and fails to submit an income tax form."



I am not aware of the Church denying temple entry because a person fails to comply with a law. Putting aside that the babysitter quite likely would not even have a legal duty to file a return, there is a big difference between making mistakes and practicing rebellion. If the babysitter does not report her income because on some level she needs to and it is because of ignorance or misunderstanding, she is NOT going to be denied the Temple or other blessings. If her failure to do so is because (I have yet to meet a babysitter that fits this bill) she intends and is practicing rebellion, well then I'm with Sno...That is not consistent with the teachings of the Church and runs counter to the 12th Article of Faith.

snoscythe wrote:
I also don't see much room in your approach to private property for the concept that all things are in fact the Lord's, and we serve but as mere stewards.

As much as I am trying to stay out of this debate and that this is a bit of a diversion, I feel a necessity to comment on this statement.



The law of consecration and the concept of stewardship are one of the most widely misunderstood and therefore frequently misrepresented doctrines of the church.



Agency and the ownership of property are foundational principles of the gospel plan. God not only recognizes this but is the very author of it and does not cross that line. Though stewardship can take various forms, all require legal authority. The law of consecration which is the actual law that we follow requires ownership of property because we cannot consecrate that which is not ours and which we do not control.



The ownership and control of private property is key to everything that is American and everything that is godly. It pains me when I hear people attempt to degrade that sacred and foundational concept to push forward some variety of communal thinking.



That may have been what you intended but it sounded that way. Being stewards does not and cannot dissolve legal barriers or undermine the principles of the gospel that rely on those barriers for our individual salvation and exaltation.



It is easy to say that all things belong to God for in the long run that is true but if I cannot own and control property recognized by God and man then I cannot consecrate anything and the whole gospel plan begins to breakdown and man must return to his natural state evermore.

tww wrote:

I also don't see much room in your approach to private property for the concept that all things are in fact the Lord's, and we serve but as mere stewards.

As much as I am trying to stay out of this debate and that this is a bit of a diversion, I feel a necessity to comment on this statement.



The law of consecration and the concept of stewardship are one of the most widely misunderstood and therefore frequently misrepresented doctrines of the church.



Agency and the ownership of property are foundational principles of the gospel plan. God not only recognizes this but is the very author of it and does not cross that line. Though stewardship can take various forms, all require legal authority. The law of consecration which is the actual law that we follow requires ownership of property because we cannot consecrate that which is not ours and which we do not control.



The ownership and control of private property is key to everything that is American and everything that is godly. It pains me when I hear people attempt to degrade that sacred and foundational concept to push forward some variety of communal thinking.



That may have been what you intended but it sounded that way. Being stewards does not and cannot dissolve legal barriers or undermine the principles of the gospel that rely on those barriers for our individual salvation and exaltation.



It is easy to say that all things belong to God for in the long run that is true but if I cannot own and control property recognized by God and man then I cannot consecrate anything and the whole gospel plan begins to breakdown and man must return to his natural state evermore.

D&C 104:14? They are still God's, and we are mere stewards.



As His stewards, we are held accountable for whether we abide by the parameters He has set for us as such. Elder Cook recently quoted President Kimball is support of the concept that we are stewards of our property: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2009/10/stewardship-a-sacred-trust?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



I fail to see how we might be less accountable as stewards than as owners.

From Elder McConkie:

Underlying this principle of stewardship is the eternal gospel truth that all things belong to the Lord."I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and builtthe earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine .... Behold, all these properties are mine, ... And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards;otherwise ye are no stewards." (D. & C. 104:14, 55-56.)



It is by the wise use of one's stewardship that eternal life is won. "It is required of the Lord, at the handof every steward, to render an account of his stewardship, both in time and in eternity. For he who is faithful and wise in time is accounted worthy to inherit the mansions prepared for him of my Father."(D.& C. 72:3-4; 51:19.)

I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

Jacob 2:18-19?

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.



18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.



19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

Kind of fits.

hawkwing wrote:
I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

It fits, but only with strings attached, e.g. stewardship. Some just follow the Oliver Cowdery line of thinking about allodial vs. feudal ownership and take the concept of ownership too far and put their claim to property above and beyond God's claim to the same.

snoscythe wrote:

I would be interested in seeing some scriptural basis for the idea that ownership of wealth and property is part of God's plan. I can think of several of examples of the opposite but none for it.

It fits, but only with strings attached, e.g. stewardship. Some just follow the Oliver Cowdery line of thinking about allodial vs. feudal ownership and take the concept of ownership too far and put their claim to property above and beyond God's claim to the same.

That is just it, God makes no general claim to property. The concept of stewardship outside of the law of agency and consecration is out of context. In other words, it does not stand alone nor does it supersede the gospel or other laws of God. Stewardship is a concept, a way of thinking, not a law unto itself.



At this point, it might be helpful for those who have made temple covenants to reflect upon them.