Nothing Should Be Tax Exempt

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441670' date='Jan 3 2008, 02:32 PM']I'm not sure that I believe that, but would anybody care to debate it with me anyways?

I think you have to give over 4 or 5 thousand before any donation counts in a tax way for one thing.
(Correct that if it is needed.)

It is tax deductible to give to:
- abortion
- lying political thingies that don't have a chance
- lying politicical thingies that do have a chance
- false religious teachers
- groups that do some good and some harm
- groups that try to do good and sadly fail
- nice programs that pit the interests of one person against another (such as job training)

Anywho.....that is the start of an argument. It goes thru my mind from time to time.

Peace,
Paddington[/quote]
I think I might disagree... but I'm not sure if I fully understand your position.

Are you proposing the elimination of section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? [Are you saying that contributions to any charitable organization should [i]not[/i] be tax deductible because you disagree with the morality of some charitable organizations?]

If so, I disagree on principle. JP2 said, "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." True freedom includes the ability to make mistakes.

That being said, I would eliminate 501c(3) and every other section of the Internal Revenue Code because it's a stupid code that penalizes hard working, productive people who chose to save and invest their money rather than spend it or give it away. True charity doesn't have monetary kickbacks. (I do itemize and I do deduct most of my charitable contributions.)

Edited January 4, 2008 by tgoldson

[Laudate_Dominum]

Haha, since this is in the debate table I’ll try to ruffle some feathers just for fun. What follows is to some degree tongue-in-cheek.

Nothing should be taxed. A government that raises revenue by the imposition of taxes on the masses is hardly a step up from feudalism and serfdom. A society in which citizens are born into compulsory debt bondage is simply a primitive society. One may believe that it is just the natural order of things, or that it is the only way, society could not function otherwise, et cetera; but to me this is hardly different than the argumentation of more primitive societies with regards to institutionalized slavery. The more the economy is idolized (a grossly primitive economy I might add) the more citizens are defined as tax payers. As if the exploitation inherent to capitalism were not enough we must also pay a sizable tribute to an archaic institution that ironically prides itself on somehow being advanced and noble. A good step toward a truly advanced society would be to renounce the "tax payer" idea which essentially relegates citizens to the status of serfs compelled by force to be exploited as in the days of vassals and lords, in exchange for a scenario in which citizens are truly voluntary shareholders with a dignified and vested relationship to the administrative establishment. In any case the goal ought to be the eradication of an oppressive and archaic system rather than complacency to it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc[/url]

[Paddington]

LD, my feathers were ruffled until your second post smoothed them out.

So....yea....I think tgoldson agreed with me in practice but not principle?? I'm at a loss for words and knowledge at the same time.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1442022' date='Jan 4 2008, 02:44 PM']Haha, since this is in the debate table I’ll try to ruffle some feathers just for fun. What follows is to some degree tongue-in-cheek.

Nothing should be taxed. A government that raises revenue by the imposition of taxes on the masses is hardly a step up from feudalism and serfdom. A society in which citizens are born into compulsory debt bondage is simply a primitive society. One may believe that it is just the natural order of things, or that it is the only way, society could not function otherwise, et cetera; but to me this is hardly different than the argumentation of more primitive societies with regards to institutionalized slavery. The more the economy is idolized (a grossly primitive economy I might add) the more citizens are defined as tax payers. As if the exploitation inherent to capitalism were not enough we must also pay a sizable tribute to an archaic institution that ironically prides itself on somehow being advanced and noble. A good step toward a truly advanced society would be to renounce the "tax payer" idea which essentially relegates citizens to the status of serfs compelled by force to be exploited as in the days of vassals and lords, in exchange for a scenario in which citizens are truly voluntary shareholders with a dignified and vested relationship to the administrative establishment. In any case the goal ought to be the eradication of an oppressive and archaic system rather than complacency to it.[/quote]


if the federal government cut spending to the levels it was at in 1997, it could get by solely on revenue generated from tarriffs et cetera and would have no need of an income tax or a sales tax (one plan calls for replacing income tax with sales tax, it would be unnecessary with those spending levels).

end the IRS!

the most immoral tax, by far, however, is property tax. this tax is indeed, no tongue in cheek at all, no better than serfdom as it deprives people of their right to ever fully and completely own their property.

the government has to generate revenue somehow, but it doesn't need income tax.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441670' date='Jan 3 2008, 04:32 PM']I'm not sure that I believe that, but would anybody care to debate it with me anyways?

I think you have to give over 4 or 5 thousand before any donation counts in a tax way for one thing.
(Correct that if it is needed.)

It is tax deductible to give to:
- abortion
- lying political thingies that don't have a chance
- lying politicical thingies that do have a chance
- false religious teachers
- groups that do some good and some harm
- groups that try to do good and sadly fail
- nice programs that pit the interests of one person against another (such as job training)

Anywho.....that is the start of an argument. It goes thru my mind from time to time.

Peace,
Paddington[/quote]
I'm not really following your argument.

Imho, anything that lessens the amount of hard-earned money that we are forced to give over to the federal government is a good thing. The government is too large, and taxes too much.

If we are going to give away our income, we should at least be given an option to choose.

You can also look at this way:

It is also tax deductible to give to:
- pro-life groups
- worthy causes that may not have a chance, but are worth pursuing (why should the gov't be the ones to decide?)
- worthy causes that do have a chance
- true religious education
- groups that do good
- groups that try to do good, and might succeed if enough people actually contribute
- nice programs that help other people in need.

However, when we are taxed we give to (whether we want to or not):
- abortion (through government contributions to PP, etc, and under Dems, "family planning services")
- lying government thingies that don't have a chance
- lying government thingies that do have a chance
- godless public school bureaucracies
- government programs that do some good and some harm
- government programs that try to do good and sadly fail
- government programs that pit the interests of one person against another (such as job training)

So what's your point? That only the government should have the power to decide what we give our money to??

Edited January 5, 2008 by Socrates

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1442022' date='Jan 4 2008, 01:44 PM']Haha, since this is in the debate table I’ll try to ruffle some feathers just for fun. What follows is to some degree tongue-in-cheek.

Nothing should be taxed. A government that raises revenue by the imposition of taxes on the masses is hardly a step up from feudalism and serfdom. A society in which citizens are born into compulsory debt bondage is simply a primitive society. One may believe that it is just the natural order of things, or that it is the only way, society could not function otherwise, et cetera; but to me this is hardly different than the argumentation of more primitive societies with regards to institutionalized slavery. The more the economy is idolized (a grossly primitive economy I might add) the more citizens are defined as tax payers. As if the exploitation inherent to capitalism were not enough we must also pay a sizable tribute to an archaic institution that ironically prides itself on somehow being advanced and noble. A good step toward a truly advanced society would be to renounce the "tax payer" idea which essentially relegates citizens to the status of serfs compelled by force to be exploited as in the days of vassals and lords, in exchange for a scenario in which citizens are truly voluntary shareholders with a dignified and vested relationship to the administrative establishment. In any case the goal ought to be the eradication of an oppressive and archaic system rather than complacency to it.[/quote]


mmm tax free burgers

[Veritas]

+

If Churches were not tax exempt, we would loose most of our urban properties. Some of our most historic and beautiful Churches would have to be sold because the Churches couldn't afford to pay the property taxes. This is a very, very, bad thing -don't wish for it. Not to mention, so many very good charities like Catholic Charities, pro-life mother's homes, etc would not be able to exist if they were tax exempt. Don't forget too, that then we as Churches etc. would be spending more money to support things through our taxes like abortion, contraception, etc. that are federally funded and advocated. More taxes are bad. Essentially, don't throw the baby out with the bathewater.

God Bless,
V

[XIX]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1442191' date='Jan 4 2008, 10:25 PM']I'm not really following your argument.

Imho, anything that lessens the amount of hard-earned money that we are forced to give over to the federal government is a good thing. The government is too large, and taxes too much.

If we are going to give away our income, we should at least be given an option to choose.

You can also look at this way:

It is also tax deductible to give to:
- pro-life groups
- worthy causes that may not have a chance, but are worth pursuing (why should the gov't be the ones to decide?)
- worthy causes that do have a chance
- true religious education
- groups that do good
- groups that try to do good, and might succeed if enough people actually contribute
- nice programs that help other people in need.

However, when we are taxed we give to (whether we want to or not):
- abortion (through government contributions to PP, etc, and under Dems, "family planning services")
- lying government thingies that don't have a chance
- lying government thingies that do have a chance
- godless public school bureaucracies
- government programs that do some good and some harm
- government programs that try to do good and sadly fail
- government programs that pit the interests of one person against another (such as job training)

So what's your point? That only the government should have the power to decide what we give our money to?? [/quote]
I feel like a flat tax in the 10-14% range would be reasonable. I dunno if you would want to tax the rich to re-distribute the tax burden or anything like that, but something like 12% seems like it would be a reasonable amount of money for the gov't to work with. And maybe they'd start spending a little more efficiently if they didn't have like 30% of our life savings to work with.

It's like the government has Mike Tyson Syndrome. They have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, so they spend it on useless carp like a study on the mating habits of fruit flies, or the tea tasting department. Before you know it, they are spending more money than they have and they are in 94366445 trillion dollars of debt. People who have less money tend to spend more responsibly. I fell like it would be the same with governments.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='XIX' post='1442347' date='Jan 5 2008, 10:29 AM']useless carp like a study on the mating habits of fruit flies[/quote]That's not as useless as it may sound.

[XIX]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1442371' date='Jan 5 2008, 02:00 PM']That's not as useless as it may sound.[/quote]
Since I don't know anything about the implication of a fruit fly's mating habits, I'll take your word for it.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='XIX' post='1442347' date='Jan 5 2008, 12:29 PM']I feel like a flat tax in the 10-14% range would be reasonable. I dunno if you would want to tax the rich to re-distribute the tax burden or anything like that, but something like 12% seems like it would be a reasonable amount of money for the gov't to work with. And maybe they'd start spending a little more efficiently if they didn't have like 30% of our life savings to work with.

It's like the government has Mike Tyson Syndrome. They have so much money that they don't know what to do with it, so they spend it on useless carp like a study on the mating habits of fruit flies, or the tea tasting department. Before you know it, they are spending more money than they have and they are in 94366445 trillion dollars of debt. People who have less money tend to spend more responsibly. I fell like it would be the same with governments.[/quote]
if you really believe that, then why not a 0% income tax? government spending levels of 10 years ago could have been paid with the amount we have from non-income-tax related revenue coming in today (tarrifs and such). they would only be able to spend as much as they were spending ten years ago (which is still alot) if they stopped taxing any of our income.

[Autumn Dusk]

"National Dept" is also a joke.

Ever have a "bond"? Thats a "national debt".

Say a toy is made in China for 2 cents. As soon as it hits american soil its worth $5 to a distributer often to be sold for over $25. That $4.98 is "national debt"

unaccounted for currency, (such as collected coins that haven't resurfaced in 75-100 years) national debt.
Loss of "air money" from the stock market, national debt.
What the government promises other countries, national debt.

and so many more things that