-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Billionaire's Family Keeps the Fortune
- Thread starter preachinjesus
- Start date
Anything in this or the rest of the book sound voluntary?
Yes. How about when the people donating the materials used to construct the tabernacle and all the instruments thereof? They didn't do it because they were under penalty of law, they offered those things from the heart. In fact, they were offering so much that finally Bezaleel asked Moses to tell them to stop, that he already had more than enough.
Robert Snow
New Member
Yes. How about when the people donating the materials used to construct the tabernacle and all the instruments thereof? They didn't do it because they were under penalty of law, they offered those things from the heart. In fact, they were offering so much that finally Bezaleel asked Moses to tell them to stop, that he already had more than enough.
As soon as the U.S. government is interested in building a tabernacle for the Lord, I will support freewill offerings for this task. As far as the U.S government acquiring the monies necessary to operate the country day by day, I support taxes.
I think we all do, Robert. The problem is that the government is acquiring a lot of money that is not necessary to run the government. They are spending money on unnecessary and often frivolous things.As far as the U.S government acquiring the monies necessary to operate the country day by day, I support taxes.
And furthermore, the government acquires this money through oppression and injustice. There is no legitimate reason for the death tax, because the money has already been taxed, and taxing it again amounts to double jeopardy in a financial sense. There is also no legitimate reason for a graduated income tax. People who make more should not pay more for the same services. It's the reason why rich people pay the same for a gallon of milk, or a new suit, as poor people do.
The fact that someone has money does not entitle someone else to take it, even for "good reasons."
Robert Snow
New Member
I think we all do, Robert. The problem is that the government is acquiring a lot of money that is not necessary to run the government. They are spending money on unnecessary and often frivolous things.
I imagine we all feel that way about some of the spending, but if a citizen doesn't like the way the U.S. government is spending the tax money, then the correct response is to either impeach or vote them out of office.
And furthermore, the government acquires this money through oppression and injustice.
I guess that's a matter of opinion. I may favor spending our tax money in ways you don't approve of, but the opposite may also be true.
There is no legitimate reason for the death tax, because the money has already been taxed, and taxing it again amounts to double jeopardy in a financial sense.
This is true of many things. For instance, when a person purchases cigarettes, they pay taxes on the product and they also pay sales tax.
There is also no legitimate reason for a graduated income tax. People who make more should not pay more for the same services. It's the reason why rich people pay the same for a gallon of milk, or a new suit, as poor people do.
No one likes giving their money to anyone, but we've been paying income tax since 1913 (actually the first income tax was started in 1862). I have heard other who espouse your point of view complain all my life about income tax. In fact, I've complained myself. However, since we have been paying this tax for decades and no one particularly likes it, I am surprised that it has survived. But, it seems like neither the democrats nor the republicans will ever do anything to stop it.
The fact that someone has money does not entitle someone else to take it, even for "good reasons."
You are correct. But, as long as income tax is legal, I guess we will have to pay it.
Yep.I imagine we all feel that way about some of the spending, but if a citizen doesn't like the way the U.S. government is spending the tax money, then the correct response is to either impeach or vote them out of office.
Yep, I would actually be in favor of a national sales tax instead of income tax. Tax consumption, not production. But whatever we do, we cannot have both.This is true of many things. For instance, when a person purchases cigarettes, they pay taxes on the product and they also pay sales tax.
That's true, but we don't have to like it.But, as long as income tax is legal, I guess we will have to pay it.
It's one thing for the government to tax its citizens. But consider what they do.
First they tax your income. Then they tax you as you spend that income. So my money is being taxed twice. It's being taxed when I made it and when I spent it. So, a logical possible solution is to save it. Wrong. If I save that money for the rest of my life and leave it to someone, the government will tax it even more than if I spent it. Either way, my money is being taxed twice. Any way you slice it, that is wrong. If they are going to tax my money when I make it, they don't need to tax it when I spend it or save it. If they want to tax me when I spend it or save it, they need to get rid of the income tax. They are absolutely out of line to tax me twice.
First they tax your income. Then they tax you as you spend that income. So my money is being taxed twice. It's being taxed when I made it and when I spent it. So, a logical possible solution is to save it. Wrong. If I save that money for the rest of my life and leave it to someone, the government will tax it even more than if I spent it. Either way, my money is being taxed twice. Any way you slice it, that is wrong. If they are going to tax my money when I make it, they don't need to tax it when I spend it or save it. If they want to tax me when I spend it or save it, they need to get rid of the income tax. They are absolutely out of line to tax me twice.
I doubt anyone objects to you paying for what you use. the problem is paying for what other people use ... If you are in the mood, you can pay mine. That's what the tax system does with a lot of stuff.I pay for my water and then I pay for my sewer. I buy food and pay for garbage collection. Do you also find this objectionable?
I doubt anyone objects to you paying for what you use. the problem is paying for what other people use ... If you are in the mood, you can pay mine. That's what the tax system does with a lot of stuff.
Exactly. Taxing consumption and taxing income are two separate issues. Taxing both is ridiculous. If the government wants to tax consumption, I have no problem with that. I don't really like the income tax, but that's fine. What really bothers me is taxing both. That's ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous than that is taxing inheritance.
This family keeping the money will NOT generate any new jobs for the working class people nor will it help the US economy in any way.
Don't suppose you've heard of these little things called "banks," "investments," "savings," and "interest?"
Wow, I'm amazed at how some folks just miss basic facts.
Don't suppose you've heard of these little things called "banks," "investments," "savings," and "interest?"
Wow, I'm amazed at how some folks just miss basic facts.
Additionally, many small businesses are passed from one generation to the next upon death of the owner.
If there is not sufficient cash available to pay the death tax it is not uncommon for the business either to be sold or liquidated to raise the cash.
A liquidated business doesn't employ anyone.
Oc course, they should, and were they paying for it, they would be making sure they were getting their money's worth out of it. Education is just like food, or transportation, or housing or whatever else. You use it; you pay for it.Then only people with children in school should pay for school costs?
Here in the states, most pre-college education is a fixed curriculum with very little flexibility until the last year or two of high school. So everyone would be paying the same thing. But in a senior year, where someone is taking only half a load, they should only pay for it.And I suppose payment should be based on a credit hour system as colleges use?
AGain, this is pretty common sense stuff. It's not hard to figure out.