  |
Turk
Forum Elder
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3340
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:42 pm Post subject: Jesus, Ron Paul, and the IRS |
 |
|
|
Jesus, Ron Paul, and the IRS
What is the fundamental principle behind the income tax? Both Jesus and Ron Paul would agree.
creator / Nolan Chart | Monday, April 14, 2008
‘Twas The Night Before Taxes’…
Taxes have been around for a long time. On the eve of the great American “tax day,” I would like to point out that Jesus and Ron Paul both have some interesting things to say about taxes.
Over 2000 years ago, political spies confronted Jesus with a “trick question” in an attempt to force him to speak “political heresy.”
“Is it lawful to pay taxes to Cesar (e.g. the IRS), or not?”
In our modern day, Ron Paul has spoken “political heresy” by suggesting that we eliminate the IRS. He has been confronted with similar questions, usually from media pundits echoing the thinking of the brainwashed American masses.
“How will we pay for government?”
The answers given by both Jesus and Ron Paul have been widely misunderstood. Asking to see a Roman coin, Jesus began his answer with a question.
“Whose likeness and inscription is this?”
The answer was easy: Caesar.
“Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
What is the core principle here? Ownership. It all boils down to the question, “Who owns me?” Whether you are a Christian and answer “God” or whether you are a humanist and answer “Myself,” in neither case is the answer “the government.”
Jesus pointed out that, even as the image of Caesar was stamped on Roman coins, the very image of God was stamped on His property, namely the people He created. Consequently, government has no legitimate claim upon the life of a man, which most clearly includes the fruit of his labor.
If you are a humanist and deny God’s ownership of man, I would expect that you even more vehemently deny that the government owns you. Consequently, the very concept of an “income tax” should be utterly repugnant to all self-respecting humanity, regardless of religious persuasion.
Like Jesus, Ron Paul, Champion of the Constitution, is also a strong opponent of government ownership of man.
“Accepting the principle behind both the income and the estate tax concedes the statist notion that the government owns the fruits of our labor, as well as our savings, and we are permitted by the politicians’ “generosity” to keep a certain percentage.” - Ron Paul, A Republic If You Can Keep It
Dr. Paul has battled this principle of self-ownership on several fronts, including the income tax, the right to life, and the evil of military conscription.
“A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax.” - Ron Paul, In the Name of Patriotism
Are you a slave to the federal government? Does Washington own you? Whether or not you are willing to answer “Yes” to these questions, both Jesus and Ron Paul agree - if you pay a tax measured by the fruit of your labor - i.e. an “income tax” - you are acknowledging that the government owns you and can demand and take what it wants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Two Paper
Newbie
Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Washington is a tool. It puts a check on the unlawful and foreign powers in a way, hopefully, most agreeable with every citizen. It will not work without taxes. If people take it as a personal insult that this government, run by the people in a much greater degree than Rome, is more assertive than the first constitution of the US (small government and a very puny representation of our nation), then a new amendment is the solution. Since one already went through to make income tax legal, then 3/4 of the state legislatures already thought it was a good enough idea. All in all, we can't have government without taxes or another form of income for it. If we don't want government, then there will not be a power strong enough to defend us from other countries or stop the obscenely wealthy from scamming the market or destroying our environment. The methods may be flawed, and that is what debate is for, but smaller and smaller government will just bring the nation closer and closer to anarchy. It is what we make of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cookie Parker
Newbie
Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 26
Location: Anderson, IN
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Define smaller government and just how and what would the states control? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Two Paper
Newbie
Joined: 22 May 2010
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Small government as in a federal or state government with few responsibilities and resources. What do other people think small government is? The point of debate is to determine how big the institution is that oversees our nation. By whatever means, of some mix of intellectualism and popularity, the values of this country are determined. I just don't see how paying taxes constitutes being owned by the government that we are supposed to own unless the people in charge have broken the system (in which case worrying about the 16th amendment is not a big priority). What's a better way to ensure that federal action has funding? We don't want to make it impossible for the poorest to live here, and the rich can do more to support the country and can/will live almost anywhere (as in, if living a simpler life hurts too much, they can invest in lobbyists or airplane tickets). Would a constant tax be better? Would a fundraiser government be better? Would a corporate government be better? What's more democratic? Is democracy any important issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
|
|
