Internet Tax

BroncoBot wrote:
President Uchtdorf spoke at a stake conference broadcast recently. He said the gospel has all the solutions for today's problems. I find it discouraging that so many people want to see the continual building of our central government as the solution to our problems. I guess this is why I would much rather see less taxes, more accountability and more involvement in our local communities rather than more taxes, less responsibility and a belief that the government will always be there to protect and guide us as long as we are willing to pay more taxes (bondage).

Yeah, but that way takes more work. It's much easier to just give to the tax man.

Hard work. Now there's a novel idea. People doing it must be making a killing. Maybe we could tax it?

Ddawg wrote:
Too theoretical for Mongo. Mongo likes potato chips with ridges.

Those are God's' chips.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:

Too theoretical for Mongo. Mongo likes potato chips with ridges.

Those are God's' chips.

Precisely. And, if I may add - Frito's are the miraculous manna from heaven. 8)

In the mean time, the senate, who is supposed to represent us, just approved of the internet tax. We are rendering more and more unto Ceasar. The talk of the Law of Consecration may soon become moot as there won't be much left for many of us to consectate. Maybe the government will lend some of what used to be called ours back to us. Not much chance of that when they don't want us even to mention relegion.

nuk13 wrote:
In the mean time, the senate, who is supposed to represent us, just approved of the internet tax. We are rendering more and more unto Ceasar. The talk of the Law of Consecration may soon become moot as there won't be much left for many of us to consectate. Maybe the government will lend some of what used to be called ours back to us. Not much chance of that when they don't want us even to mention relegion.

Of course the Democratically controlled Senate passed a new internet tax. Haven't you heard, we're not paying our fair share. We need more skin in the game - need to ante up.



Just wait till it gets to the House of Rep's - quicksand.

Property ownership is a very interesting idea--at least when it comes to real property. The native americans didn't really understand how you could own land, so trading rights to the land for glass beads made all the sense in the world.



"I get these cool beads just for saying you can own the land...OK. What will you give me for owning the air or sun?"



Perhaps ownership is the wrong way to look at the earth and all of the raw materials therein. Perhaps the analogy is more akin to bailment for the benefit of the bailee. The Lord puts the earth in bailment for us, but not ownership. If it is for benefit of both (which it arguably is since it is His work and glory) then we are liable if negligent in our handling of said property (did we act as a reasonable person would have).



Or if you view it as a benefit solely to the bailee--it was only for our benefit, then our liability is even higher--for slight negligence or worse.



Of course, if you still want to go with the ownership theory, even though I think bailment fits better, I would go with the life estate per autre vie (for another's life), with the autre vie being the telestial state of the earth and mankind being the owners for that term.



When our lives our over, and the otra vie (telestial state of the earth) has ended, then comes an accounting of what we did with the Lord's property or what we did with the bailment.



The only things we truly own, and we gained ownership by gift, not contract, are our bodies, our will, and our time. And other gifts the Lord has in store for us depend on what we did with the former gifts.



Isn't this fun? :crazy:



Oh yeah, pay your taxes. It is important in your bailment of the Lord's property that you are honest in your dealings with your fellow men. Don't be negligent. ;)

nuk13 wrote:
In the mean time, the senate, who is supposed to represent us, just approved of the internet tax. We are rendering more and more unto Ceasar. The talk of the Law of Consecration may soon become moot as there won't be much left for many of us to consectate. Maybe the government will lend some of what used to be called ours back to us. Not much chance of that when they don't want us even to mention relegion.

This actually one of the biggest problems with the federal government. The Senate wasn't designed to represent us. It was designed to represent the States.



With TWO bodies now based on popular vote, we get two bodies that want to do what's most popular and not what is best for the country.



The Senate's power should return to the States.

That is correct. I guess you could say that in representing the states they do represent us. It often looks like they aren't doing much for either the states of those of us in them.

snoscythe wrote:
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.

Yes read the what the church says about filing tax returns in handbook 2 and tell me exactly what is says. Also read what Christ actually said about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and tell me if He actually said the coin belonged to Caesar just because his face was on it. Even if you still believe Christ is insinuating (because he never actually says it) the coin belongs to Caesar, He makes no declaration that we have to render government our corn, sheep, oxen, or any competing currency (which is actually the point Christ was getting to as the offerings in the temple could not be given in Roman coinage).



Nice of you wait to go after the young women not submitting to a tyrannical government until you are certain of their civil disobedience (which is different from rebellion) and ignoring the real argument that taxation of incomes amounts to theft and that if a government tries to enforce such laws that government frees us from the obligation God gives that we sustain that government.



Once again refusing to answer a question is not dishonesty. Yes, you can deceive by not answering a question but that is much different that simply refusing to answer a question. Some people who take a credit from the government when they fail to answer questions on their tax return are stealing so sometimes silence can result in dishonesty. If you disobey a law that does not make you dishonest - it only means you are disobedient. Thomas Moore, Mahatma Gandhi, Alma, Joseph Smith, and Jesus Christ on occasions refused to answer questions. Does their silence mean they were dishonest? Of course not. Neither does the refusal to answer individual questions on a tax return or refusal to file a tax return at all. So yes I still believe honesty does have only to do with truth.



For anyone interested, David O McKay asked J Reuben Clark (his first counselor) to give the following talk about the law of consecration/United Order and their relationship with private property. It also speaks to what the word equality means when used in the Doctrine and Covenants. The key is that we do own, for our own benefit and to be used as we see fit, the things God sees fit to bless us with. Just because God owns a thing does not mean we can't own it as well or else how can you ever expect to receive "all that the Father hath."

jvqb--



I'm done with this--I've given you a number of cites to authority as to our duty to pay taxes, but you insist on attempting to rationalize it away. Until you can overcome that authority, you're just spinning your tires as far as I'm concerned.



Here's the Handbook instruction:

Church Handbook 2: 21.1.21 wrote:
Income Taxes



Church members are obligated by the twelfth article of faith to obey the tax laws of the nation where they reside (see also D&C 134:5). Members who disapprove of tax laws may try to have them changed by legislation or constitutional amendment. Members who have well-founded legal objections may challenge tax laws in the courts.



Church members who refuse to file a tax return, pay required income taxes, or comply with a final judgment in a tax case are in direct conflict with the law and with the teachings of the Church. Such members may be ineligible for a temple recommend and should not be called to positions of principal responsibility in the Church.[/u] Members who are convicted of willfully violating tax laws are subject to Church discipline to the extent warranted by the circumstances.

And this is what I said on page 2 of this thread:

To the extent you are LDS, the acts you describe could very well disqualify you from leadership responsibilites and holding a temple recommend.

Show me where I got it wrong.

snoscythe wrote:
Show me where I got it wrong.



If you're an honest Utahn . . .

You can be honest and not pay taxes.



BTW you can also avoid church callings, lose your temple recommend, and face church discipline by preaching the gospel or otherwise interfering with a slave without the permission of his master as per D&C 134:12. It happened to saints in Missouri in case you are wondering.

jvquarterback wrote:

Show me where I got it wrong.



If you're an honest Utahn . . .

You can be honest and not pay taxes.



BTW you can also avoid church callings, lose your temple recommend, and face church discipline by preaching the gospel or otherwise interfering with a slave without the permission of his master as per D&C 134:12. It happened to saints in Missouri in case you are wondering.

For me, in the end, we have to decide whether to follow the teachings of the Prophets and Apostles or not. When it comes to taxes, it is clear what our obligations are. For me Joshua 24:15.

jvquarterback wrote:

Show me where I got it wrong.



If you're an honest Utahn . . .

You can be honest and not pay taxes.

And in the context I issued that qualifier, what I said is true: If you're an honest Utahn, e.g. one who pays Utah income taxes in accordance with the law and if LDS in accord with Church teachings, what the US government is doing will serve to simplify your income tax filing--because you won't have to report every single online purchase you made throughout the year previous anymore. You can be honest and not pay taxes, but again you obfuscate--that isn't what we are talking about. You can't be honest and fail to file a tax return, which is what we were talking about.



Here's a supporting statement from someone you may know of:

Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:
Honesty with others, including obedience to constitutional law, is likewise a requirement [to enter the temple and Army of the Lord].[/u]



“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” (A of F 1:12.)



Occasionally, we receive letters from those who openly advocate opposition to the payment of taxes, complaining that their bishops and stake presidents will not give them temple recommends because of their activities. Through the years of the history of this work, there have been occasions when the Church and its members have come up against the law of the land. In such times, we have taken a stand in the courts. In those instances where the courts have ruled against us, although the ruling was difficult to bear, we have accepted it and conformed to it. Obedience to law, when that law has been declared constitutional, is incumbent upon the Latter-day Saints and therefore becomes a standard of eligibility to enter the temples of the Church.[/u]

jvquarterback wrote:
BTW you can also avoid church callings, lose your temple recommend, and face church discipline by preaching the gospel or otherwise interfering with a slave without the permission of his master as per D&C 134:12. It happened to saints in Missouri in case you are wondering.

BTW--the same thing applies to members today who preach the gospel in China and certain Muslim countries where conversion to Christianity is punishable by death.



What's your point? That you know better than the prophets?

Whether paying taxes or treating cancer patients, at least jvqb is consistent in not wanting to adhere to proscribed norms and just wants to do things his way.

I believe that JV QB has argued a strict construction of the church handbook with respect to carrying a gun into the chapel, and argued to ignore the clear instructions in that same handbook with respect to payment of taxes.



If you want to argue with him, go ahead, but you have all the evidence that you need to know that he is not in for a serious discussion of ideas. He's right, and will not let any amount of information persuade him otherwise.

Lost my post so I'll keep it brief. First, I have no idea what abyu is talking about re: church handbook and guns. Don't think I posted when that discussion was going on. Second, Spiff you clearly don't understand the private practice of medicine and what I was getting at with the post about how doctors fail to inform their patients of more aggressive options but most physicians don't either so I'll let it slide.



As to what President Hinckley said: he uses the same language found in Official Declaration 1, in which certain "laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court." You'll notice neither President Woodruff nor President Hinckley assert that the ruling of the court makes a law constitutional. So one may do something protected by the constitution, yet be found guilty by a jury and/or judge of failing to abide by the constitution. That does not imply dishonesty.



Even if you believe otherwise, each case is individual and any tax protestor is entitled to a jury trial. All the tax protester need do is convince one juror that taxation is unjust for acquittal (which used to happen quite often) or appeal to a sympathetic judge. So a Bishop or Stake President would have to wait for the final verdict and all appeals prior to denial of a temple recommend. This definition of honesty is completely subjective to the whims of the jurors and magistrates reviewing the case which is an absurdity. Whether a man is honest or not does not depend on the interpretation of men but of God.



Once again disobedience =/= dishonesty.



Do I think I know better than the prophets? No.



But I will not call the heroes who worked in the underground railroad, the Dutch who protected Jews from Nazis, or others who work to free men from bondage dishonest simply because they disobeyed their governments' edicts even if that would have disqualified them from a temple recommend or a church leadership position.

jvqb---again, you obfuscate.



The issue is filing returns, not protesting taxes. You're entire post was off topic.



The Handbook is clear that Saints are to file their returns. President Hinckley's statement presupposes some action involving a court--in order to take the government to court over a tax you have to pay the tax, then request a refund, and only if your refund is denied will the court hear your case. You never get to the point President Hinckley was talking about without filing a return.



If you willfully refuse to file a return, the Handbook is clear that your temple recommend is at stake, with or without a court ruling. President Hinckley did not directly address failure to file a return, but his silence is not approval of a position contrary to the Handbook, instead a basic understanding of the court system would indicate support for the Handbook.

No. The issue is whether a person who refuses to file a tax return is honest. Nothing you have cited indicates it is dishonest not to file a tax return.

Also this is a bunch of baloney:

snoscythe wrote:

President Hinckley's statement presupposes some action involving a court--in order to take the government to court over a tax you have to pay the tax, then request a refund, and only if your refund is denied will the court hear your case. You never get to the point President Hinckley was talking about without filing a return.

If the government wants a person's money they can take the person to court over it. The majority of lawsuits against church members regarding polygamy were brought by the government against the individual. In fact, I can't think of any right now that were brought to the courts by members who largely ignored Illinois and US federal law for 25 years before they began to be enforced. It is not incumbent upon the accused to give defense until charges are brought. Or did you miss that day in your civics class?