Spirituality
12 Dec 12
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by FMFI admitted to you before, I have a hard time not injecting my opinion, alongside the discussion of the actual issue.
This thread is about Obama being a "socialist" then?
Do you have ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE to add, other than to try and convolute the whole thread and drag it down into a pissing match because I'm mixing some opinion in with the actual issue I asked we discuss?
BYE FMF.
Someone please tell me how to put someone on ignore.
13 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidYou mischaracterized the President's comments. He campaigned on not extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and thus to go back to tax rates on the wealthy we had under Reagan/Clinton, and much less than we had under the Republican President Eisenhower, for example. Ofcourse, I guess you would call Reagan and Eisenhower socialists. My how the labels have changed. Fringe radical right-wingers like yourself have no clue.
Add to it that Obama ran his campaign on the promise that he would take directly from the wealthy, and hand it over to the people who are not wealthy. "Social Justice," "Wealth Redistribution," "Economic Justice," ... these are HIS terms. And that is why he is rightfully branded a Socialist. He uses Socialist terminology and promotes Socialist policies.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidYou said that that "Obama ran his campaign on the promise that he would take directly from the wealthy, and hand it over to the people who are not wealthy. "Social Justice," "Wealth Redistribution," "Economic Justice," ... these are HIS terms. And that is why he is rightfully branded a Socialist. He uses Socialist terminology and promotes Socialist policies." Surely this is up for discussion too?
Do you have ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE to add, other than to try and convolute the whole thread and drag it down into a pissing match because I'm mixing some opinion in with the actual issue I asked we discuss?
13 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969I think the wealthy gain more from the existence of the state, its order and its stability, its security, its safety net, its infrastructure etc. I don't see how they would be able to make as much as they do without it. Lower wage earners are paid as little as is mathematically possible. This is essential to the level of profits further up the scale. Taking these things into consideration makes a good justification for progressive tax rates.
If it so clear and readily apparent what you say that a flat tax is completely fair, where did the graduated tax system that we and all western countries have come from? Just totally ridiculous? Is it possible that there are issues of economics and fairness you are not considering? Again, where did the progressive tax schedule come from? If it so obvious ...[text shortened]... they have the greater capacility to pay a greater percentage, and are less impacted? Any logic?
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969You call it "not extending tax cuts" while the rest of us call it "raising taxes." I didn't mischaracterize anyone or anything.
You mischaracterized the President's comments. He campaigned on not extending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and thus to go back to tax rates on the wealthy we had under Reagan/Clinton, and much less than we had under the Republican President Eisenhower, for example. Ofcourse, I guess you would call Reagan and Eisenhower socialists. My how the labels have changed. Fringe radical right-wingers like yourself have no clue.
I have gone to great lengths to apologize for injecting my opinon about Obama into this, and admitting that any posts in defense of Obama are directly my fault.
But after about a full page of FMF's derailing efforts, I need to get steer us back on task.
The question was asked specifically of CHRISTIANS -- with non-Christians invited also, to judge this as objectively as possible using a legal framework...
Issue at hand: "Is it acceptable for a CHRISTIAN--who abides under the 8th Commandment not to steal--to vote in support of a politician who promises to raise the tax rate on one group and not the other?" The argument was presented by RC Sproul, who says that raising the tax rate on one group and not another is "legalized theft" and a CHRISTIAN is breaking the 8th Commandment by voting in favor of such a practice.
Is RC Sproul wrong in his argument, and if so, why?
Since he is using Scripture as his premise, it logically follows that any argument against his conclusion should be contained directly in Scripture. We have already seen a couple of arguments using Scripture, that basically instruct Christians to pay taxes. I have further explained (as did RC) that the issue at hand isn't whether or not we are to pay taxes, because we ARE supposed to pay whatever taxes are legally owed. The issue, again, is whether or not we should suppport laws that penalize one group in favor of another, through taxation.
13 Dec 12
6 edits
Why is the same rate fair or not theft? Arguably violates the 8th Commandment. Why not instead do the same amount? Say, everybody pay $1000 in income tax (if they make enough). That way everybody pays the same amount of income tax. Paying the same amount is completely fair. Obviously.
If I make $1 million, I pay $1000 in taxes. If I make $10,000, I pay $1000 in taxes. The same. Fair. If the rich have to pay more than $1000 income tax while the middle class pay $1000 income tax, then that is theft. Socialism. Violates the 8th Commandment.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidWhile maybe semantics, I will agree with you that it is a tax increase. That's fine. But is a tax increase that gives the same rate on the wealthy we had under Reagan/Clinton, and much less than we had under Eisenhower.
You call it "not extending tax cuts" while the rest of us call it "raising taxes." I didn't mischaracterize anyone or anything.
I have gone to great lengths to apologize for injecting my opinon about Obama into this, and admitting that any posts in defense of Obama are directly my fault.
But after about a full page of FMF's derailing efforts, I need t ...[text shortened]... ]suppport[/i] laws that penalize one group in favor of another, through taxation.[/b]
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by moon1969This is off-topic but I'll just say, yes, I'll admit, this nation has experienced growth under a higher tax rate. However, when in a recession, and a shaky economy as we are in, the absolute worst thing to do is raise taxes on anyone in the private sector. And our president said as much 2 years ago.
While maybe semantics, I will agree with you that it is a tax increase. That's fine. But is a tax increase that gives the same rate on the wealthy we had under Reagan/Clinton, and much less than we had under Eisenhower.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidFor it to be theft, one must show that the wealthy have a right to keep all of that money for themselves. We have so many laws dedicated to allowing individuals to accumulate wealth. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the wealthy to pay a higher percentage.
Thank you! Someone is submitting an opinion and using a legal argument.
Be mindful though, that RC was careful to say Christians are obligated to pay the taxes we are told to pay. We should and do render unto our government what is legally our government's.
However, what RC is taking issue with, are the Christians who SUPPORT the lopsided tax ...[text shortened]... ntly higher tax rate) and he calls it legalized theft. Is he wrong? I can't see where he is.
I just don't take the whole 'punishment' claim seriously when these people have all of the luxuries life has to offer.
13 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidA slightly different issue but good point. My comment was that in terms of "socialistic" tendencies. Obama proposes to tax the wealthy at the same rate as was done under Reagan and much less than under Eisenhower.
This is off-topic but I'll just say, yes, I'll admit, this nation has experienced growth under a higher tax rate. However, when in a recession, and a shaky economy as we are in, the absolute worst thing to do is raise taxes on anyone in the private sector. And our president said as much 2 years ago.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis train of thought is completely foreign to me. It, in my opinion, contains a disturbing element of spite and malice.
For it to be theft, one must show that the wealthy have a right to keep all of that money for themselves. We have so many laws dedicated to allowing individuals to accumulate wealth. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the wealthy to pay a higher percentage.
I just don't take the whole 'punishment' claim seriously when these people have all of the luxuries life has to offer.
Think about it this way. These wealthy people (apart from the scant few that inherited everything) worked their fingers to the bone, taking great risk, making great sacrifices, working 80 hours a week for years on end, to get their businesses up and running... all in the name of one day finally succeeding and hopefully, against all odds, making a whole bunch of money so they can provide for themselves, their family, and future generations of their family. Why should they be PUNISHED for succeeding? And, regarding the subject at hand... are you saying that taking from one group and giving it to another (for any reason) should not be defined as theft? And if not, why not, in a strictly legal sense.
Pretend we are in front of a judge, submitting legal points and counterpoints. The judge obviously wouldn't have any interest in what you personally think is fair or not. The judge wants an IRAC presentation. Issue, Rule, Argument, Closing.
Is there a rule that you can cite, that refutes the points made by RC Sproul.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidAren't there poor people and struggling middle class people "making great sacrifices" and working hours on end "so they can provide for themselves, their family, and future generations of their family" too?
Think about it this way. These wealthy people (apart from the scant few that inherited everything) worked their fingers to the bone, taking great risk, making great sacrifices, working 80 hours a week for years on end, to get their businesses up and running... all in the name of one day finally succeeding and hopefully, against all odds, making a whole bunc ...[text shortened]... money so they can provide for themselves, their family, and future generations of their family.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by sumydidWell, what's the conventionally accepted legal definition of "stealing" and "theft"? These definitions might go some way towards refuting RC Sproul's use of the 8th Commandment.
Is there a rule that you can cite, that refutes the points made by RC Sproul.
13 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIn a word. No. Not on the same level. And if they did sacrifice in the same way, they wouldn't be poor anymore. There are exceptions, of course. But the vast majority of legitimately poor and middle class people either work one full-time job, or work less than full-time with some government benefits, or don't work at all and live on the government dole.
Aren't there poor people and struggling middle class people "making great sacrifices" and working hours on end "so they can provide for themselves, their family, and future generations of their family" too?