A flat tax in the works for the US?

[Ted Striker]

[David Floyd]

Why would it be a silly strawman?

a)I don't think you really believe it. b)The text of the Bible easily shows Jesus is not in favor of such coercion. Don't believe me? Show me ONE verse.

The Governor of Alabama says Christian principles compels him to raise taxes on the rich to help the poor.

If he said that Christian principles compelled him to reinstitute slavery, would you still support him?

Most Churches today plead with the state to help the poor.

Most Churches also plead for laws against homosexuality. Do you support that too?

How is there equal free will in order to adequately be judged by God?

God doesn't care about economic equality. He's interested in the condition of your soul.

It seems to me when so many Christians around the world want the state to take care of the less fortunate, and the Church has been doing it for centuries, that is probably the better interpretation.

Just because many Christians want the State to take care of the poor doesn't mean there is a Biblical requirement to pass such laws. I've never heard a Christian or a church in the United States or elsewhere make that claim. While they may say the government should use tax money for that purpose, that is a completely different argument.

You say that lowering taxes is unbiblical. Then you justify that by saying that many Christians support welfare programs. Not only are the two statements not really relevant to each other, but you are making an appeal to the masses, and not justifying your view based on the available evidence - the text of the Bible.

And if you consider yourself a Christian, you should probably follow that example. After all, centuries of Christianity have spoken.

Yes, centuries of Christianity lead me to believe that I should also hate Jews, and that it is acceptable to forcibly convert others to my belief system.

Of course, centuries of Christianity are unimportant to what the Bible actually says.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It's not pitting people each against each other to ask people to pay in proportion to what they can afford to pay. It would be class warfare to institute a flat tax, with such warfare being waged against the poor.

A single mother of two kids earning 25,000 per year can hardly afford a 30% tax on that income and would be put into pretty severe poverty, and would be a severe damage to their quality of life. It would be unjust for a government to impose such a burden on it's people. Someone earning $100,000 per year can take a 30% tax and still live very comftorably.

Now, I suppose you could argue for having a flat tax, but making the tax rate so low it wouldn't be that much of a burden on anyone. But that doesn't look like it would be very possible the way Bush spends money.

You can have a minimum below which no tax is paid.

[David Floyd]

Of course it did. The poor were treated much better by the Church than before. For the first time they weren't treated like vermin.

Take a look at what Christians did to the poor with their mercenary armies during the 30 Years War. The Siege of Magdeburg alone should make you rethink that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what if I don't believe it? It is a valid complaint. You can either be a literalist or not.

Of course, centuries of Christianity are unimportant to what the Bible actually says.

So a Christian must believe in slavery? Women being obedient to their husbands totally? Homosexuals are sinful and should be killed? After all, what the Bible says is so important, right?

And if you aren't a literalist, then what type of Christianity do you believe in? Well if you can't take your cues from Jesus, then who? The Church, well there is a start! It is the biggest institution in the religion. And if you take your cues from the RCC, then you probably should support welfare because they back it and have backed it. Perhaps we can make a case of Lutheranism and Calvinism, but that's probably as far as it can go as institutional evolutions.

Otherwise, what are you supporting? Some mixed form of the Bible and your own beliefs? Why even call yourself Christian? It doesn't apply. You don't believe in the Bible, at least not totally, and you don't believe in the historical successor to Jesus, the Catholic Church.

Call yourself non-aligned if you don't throw in your lot with any of them.

[Agathon]

The problem with a flat tax is that it ignores diminishing marginal utility. Having someone on $200 a week pay 20% tax is going to be, ceterus paribus, much more of a burden than on someone who earns $2000 a week.

In other words, the problem is the same one that afflicts almost all right wing tax proposals - they are concerned with upholding principle instead of dealing with reality.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
they are concerned with upholding principle instead of dealing with reality.

This axiom can be applied to the entire Bush administration except for Colin Powell.

[Agathon]

Yes. It is indeed the case, Comrade Ted.

Nice Russki booty too.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Fine, show me in the Bible where Jesus or God supports laws forcing us to help the less fortunate.

You can't, of course.

This isn't an issue about coercion, this is an issue about the state not forcibly taking too much from those who can least afford to pay it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
The problem with a flat tax is that it ignores diminishing marginal utility. Having someone on $200 a week pay 20% tax is going to be, ceterus paribus, much more of a burden than on someone who earns $2000 a week.

In other words, the problem is the same one that afflicts almost all right wing tax proposals - they are concerned with upholding principle instead of dealing with reality.

They don't care about utility, only natural rights.

Oh natural rights! We are not worthy!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes. It is indeed the case, Comrade Ted.

Nice Russki booty too.

I'd hit it (x3)

[Agathon]

So would I, in the name of the revolution.

Do you prefer "Comrade Ted", or "Red Striker"?

I've always thought that "Bed Striker" was more apt, but hey..

[David Floyd]

So what if I don't believe it? It is a valid complaint. You can either be a literalist or not.

Sure you can be a literalist, and a literalist look at the Bible does not support a welfare state with coerced giving. The Bible actually implies the opposite.

So a Christian must believe in slavery? Women being obedient to their husbands totally? Homosexuals are sinful and should be killed? After all, what the Bible says is so important, right?

Now your ignorance of Christianity is beginning to become even more obvious. Old Testament Judaic Law does not apply to modern Christians, and in fact, did not apply after Christ. OT Judaic Law was just that - law given by God, for a theocracy headed by God. For most of the history of "Israel" (we'll call it that for simplicity's sake), there wasn't even a king, just God.

So, OT passages that instruct us to stone those who disobey their parents, for example, are irrelevant in terms of application for modern Christians.

So yes, what the Bible says is more important than what man says about the Bible - it's just important to know what part of the Bible or what aspect of Biblical law you're talking about.

Well if you can't take your cues from Jesus, then who?

Why couldn't I take my cues from Jesus? And in any case, we're not even talking about my personal behavior or personal beliefs, we're talking about whether it is required by the Bible (New Testament) to have laws that transfer wealth from one segment of the population to another. It's very clear that the Bible does not require - or even SUPPORT - that.

The Church, well there is a start! It is the biggest institution in the religion. And if you take your cues from the RCC, then you probably should support welfare because they back it and have backed it.

Why should I take my cues from an organization that actively supported things such as the Inquisition and large scale bloody religious warfare? I don't recall Jesus being in favor of either.

Perhaps we can make a case of Lutheranism and Calvinism, but that's probably as far as it can go as institutional evolutions.

Maybe, but requiring one to buy into an established church in order to be a Christian distorts the Bible, which requires only that one have faith in God and ask for salvation.

Otherwise, what are you supporting? Some mixed form of the Bible and your own beliefs?

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. You started off by implying that it is unchristian, and unbiblical, NOT to have laws requiring the transfer of wealth from one segment of society to another. Whether or not such a thing is desirable by a lot of people is irrelevant - all that matters is that none of Jesus' teachings support that viewpoint, and you haven't even begun to prove otherwise, other than pointing out what lots of people who have historically and in the present behave contrary to the teachings of Christ believe.

You don't believe in the Bible, at least not totally, and you don't believe in the historical successor to Jesus, the Catholic Church.

First of all, I find it amusing that you are accusing me of not believing the Bible, when I'm the one telling you to look at what the Bible actually says about issues. Secondly, the RCC is not the historical successor to Jesus - Jesus is on a plane above the RCC, and any other established Church or person. Jesus had no successor, and needed none. If you want to say that the RCC became the established church, that's fine, but that didn't happen for quite a while, and remember, even the Bible didn't become "final" in terms of what was included until the First Council of Nicaea in 325.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
So would I, in the name of the revolution.

Do you prefer "Comrade Ted", or "Red Striker"?

I've always thought that "Bed Striker" was more apt, but hey..

Not bad.

But I've been betrayed by the Man.

All I want to do is settle down with some Russian bootie and hit it for the rest of my life.

[Kidlicious]

Utility

Greediness

There you go DF. Put that in your signature and smoke it.