Christian Robin Hoods

Again if you are Christian they should not have to take it by force. The Bible does not call taxes stealing, so neither should we. There is a cost to live in a civilized society. If you don't want to pay taxes move to a deserted island and start your own land of anarchy.

 

read post #60 and get back to me.

Oh, and while you base your knowledge on your grade school education, I'll stick to actual constitutional history, which by the way does NOT support your assertions. At the very least you can argue that James Madison did not intend for the federal government to provide for the general welfare, but the constitution definitely did not limit the states from doing so. Alexander Hamilton on the other hand argued that the power to tax and spend for the general welfare to be a seperate power altogether. The SCOTUS agreed with him also in United States v. Butler (1936), in one of the first New Deal cases.

 

Yes, I did. Article I, Section 8.

 

Amen, brother. :thumbs:

 

Again Article I se. 8 cl?

There is nothing in this article that expressly denies the government from using tax money for general welfare purposes. In fact it says just the opposite, and the Supreme Court agrees, as did founding father Alexander Hamilton.

Even so the state can use tax money for whatever they want including welfare programs, unless of course you deny the 10th amendment. So again where exactly are you talking about?

Constitutionally there is no argument here, no matter how much you disagree.

 

Originally Posted by BillyShope
The central government can not provide welfare, get involved with education, etc. for the simple reason that such activity is not defined in the Constitution.




Amen!:thumbs:

 

What types of taxes are they limited to enacting?

Can any of these be limited (not all are federal but is a good representation of the burden placed on those providing for all the general welfare being passed around)?

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax ,
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax),
Liquor Tax,
Luxury Tax,
Marriage License Tax,
Medicare Tax,
Property Tax,
Real Estate Tax,
Recreational Vehicle Tax,
Road Usage Tax (Truckers),
Sales Taxes,
School Tax,
Service charge taxes,
Social Security Tax,
State Income Tax,
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA),
Telephone Federal Excise Tax,
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax,
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax,
Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax,
Vehicle License Registration Tax,
Vehicle Sales Tax,
Watercraft Registration Tax,
Well Permit Tax,
Workers Compensation Tax.

What is the line where we should become offended? We give the various layers of gov't bureacuracies 48-52% of what we earn for our labor. Will we consider ourselves slaves when we hit 75% or will we wait 'til 100%? Or even if it is 100% will we consider our benevolent leadership to be operating within constitutional confines because they are taking all of our money for the general welfare? What is the difference between a democratic socialist state and a constitutional republic if both systems can do anything they want so long as it is defined as being for the general welfare of the nation?

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546​

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson​

 

Maybe if all Christians were stepping up to the plate and giving to others and helping those in need like we are told to do in the Bible, there would be no need for the federal government to be a "robin hood" as you call it.

It is sort of like the debates of the role of women in the church. If men were really being men, and leading their families to church, there would be enough men there to fill the positions, wouldnt there?

Lots of these situations exist because we didnt do what we should have in the first place.

 

Specifically, as laid out in the constitution "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States", or rather Congress cannot impose different tax rates on various regions or require citizens of one state to pay higher taxes than citizens of other states, there must be geographical uniformity. (Article I sec. 8)

Then there is Article I sec. 9 that holds that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state", and lastly "no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken", ( this is also stated in Article I sec. 2).

As far as limiting state/local taxes. The ONLY constitutional limitation prohibits them from taxing imports and exports, and any cargo of vessels using the nations ports. (Article I sec.10)

so like I've been saying whine and complain all you want but taxes are constitutional, and the government can use tax money for whatever they deem necessary for the general welfare of the US. Based on the writing of Hamiliton in the Federalist papers the SCOTUS has agreed. Even if you still want to deny this constitutional right to the federal government, the state may still do so. As quoted by Madison in Federalist, No. 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite...The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concerns the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Again, as means-tested social welfare spending is funded primarily by the states, in addition to supplemental black grants from the government where is your constitutional argument?

 

Again all that a constitutional republic means is that we, the people, elect representatives to represent us in the three branches of government, and that those whom are elected are bound by a law, namely the constitution.

 

The constitutional argument is within the definition of "general welfare". Your arguments make slavery constitutional for if the federal gov't can tax our labor at 10% what limits them from taxing us at 100%? Electing representatives is something even democracies do and should not be considered dramatic. Limiting those representatives by way of a constitution is something constitutional republics do and is a big deal. Your general welfare interpretation allows gov't to take unlimited actions. Interpreting the general welfare clause the way Crockett, Jefferson, and Madison did, places limits on gov't.

This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every corner of the city, and country--it will wait upon the ladies at their toilet, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into parlor, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will accompany him to his bedchamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labor, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them will be GIVE! GIVE! - Brutus​

 

Right, but by defining general welfare as you do you have unbound them to any law for they can do anything they want so long as it is within their definition of general welfare. It's no surprise that the CSA took this clause out for they expected folks would abuse the intent and definition of this clause, exactly as you are advocating for.

 

CSA? Don't know what you are referring to.

Did you ever wonder why the founding fathers left ambiguous language in the constitution? They freely admitted there was ambiguous language, and considered it an asset because it fit compatibly into the overall philosophies of checks and balances and separation of power.

Besides constitutionally speaking the argument is not whether Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare and what that entails. Clearly the constitution gives them that right. The argument is the scope of the necessary and proper clause. What is constitutionally "necessary and proper" to provide for the general welfare of the US.

A constitutional republic is a political ideology, much as a democracy. It can mean a myriad of things depending on the country that adopts such ideology. The governement in a constitutional republic is bound by the constitution, and in our case the ambiguous language in our constitution is bound by their definition of said language. The only check on that power is the judiciary, and ultimately the Supreme Court. That is the way the framers of our constitution intended it, and a cursory glance through history will show you that they had very little respect for the opinion of the masses, in fact they thought very little of that opinion, especially Jefferson, hence the insistence on a representative government and not a pure democracy.

 

Confederate States of America, my apologies as assumption of acronyms is a pet peeve of mine and I did it to you. The CSA copied the constitution pretty closely but their were some changes and this is one of the statements that got removed.

They did not find general welfare to be ambiguous, it is only later interpretations that changed this.

Not meaning to be redundant here but I say again that you're advocating for a slave state. When will enough taxation be enough. I believe it is not in the best interests of the general welfare of the citizens to be taxed on their labor. The congress apparently, thinks it is and they and the other forms of gov't continue to sponge more and more and more off of the productive class in order to redistribute to the unproductive or those in need. This is a socialist principle and is not a principle that our forefathers nor our Bible share.

If you are a fan of Jefferson then why are you opposed to his position relative to this issue?

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson​

 

Yes, but it also reflected to some degree the failed Articles of Confederation in which the State is the central power of government.

Yes, they did. Specifically Madison and Hamilton butted heads about this very issue. Hamilton claimed the constitution clearly gave Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare. A power given in addition to other granted powers and not limited by them. Madison on the other hand argued that the power to provide for the general welfare was in reference to the other enumerated powers, or rather the ability to tax and spend is limited by the enumerated powers.

Clearly the ambiguous language was ambiguous from the start. Regardless the Supreme Court sided with the views purported by Hamilton.

Frankly I am not advocating for any such thing. My argument is that there is not a CONSTITUTIONAL barrier to said taxes. I agree with Chief Justice Marshall who claimed, "the power to tax is the power to destroy". Really it boils down to who we elect to represent us in government. Personally I do not disagree with social welfare programs, and believe them to be necessary, although they need to be completely revamped. The problem with taxes is that a large share of our tax money is being spent on frivalous pork barrel projects. If we eliminated half of these nonsense ventures our personal tax burden could be lessened and there would still be available money for necessary social welfare programs.

As to the bible and socialism, I will just say I disagree. The bible does not advocate any type of government system.

Never said I was a fan of Jefferson. I said he and other founding fathers held the opinions of the general public in very low esteem. Frankly they did not think we were capable of making informed decisions, but rather incapable of resisting the "temporary delusions" of public opinion.

As far as founding fathers are concerned I am particularily fond of the writings of Brutus the Anti-Federalist for the sheer irony alone.

 

That's hard to do when the government takes the lion's share of your money.

 

Thats a cop out excuse. How many Christians will forgo their material desires in order to help the poor and downtrodden? There are more ways than just monetarily to help the poor anyway.

Being that there is so much discord in churches and denominations today, how can we realistically expect that if the government would abolish all forms of social welfare the church would be able to efficiently and fairly pick up the slack? We cannot agree on even the simplest of matters, how would we be able to do so on a grand scale?

 

No, it's an opinion, your opinion.

I am of the opinion that it is neither unconstitutional nor immoral to use tax money for social causes.

 

A little off topic, how would America be changed if the Gospel was given out as freely as our money, that is certainly more of a need than any other benefit welfare gives out!