Fox News: Flat tax "rooted in the Bible"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I was flipping through the channels on Saturday, waiting for Vash the Gal to finish getting ready so we could go frolick in the gorgeous weather outside, and I came upon Fox News. They had a hallejuah chorus on in favor of the flat tax, lead, of course, by Forbes (the rich, smug piece-of-shit that he is). They turned the camera on one guy, whose name I failed to catch, and he said the following (inexact quote):

Idiot Analyst: Our current graduated income tax system is based on Marx. The flat tax is rooted in the Bible.

Fox Anchor Idiot: So you're saying that there's a moral argument involved in the flat tax?

Idiot Analyst: Absolutely.

:grr: :nuke: :nuke: :grr: :argh:

[sakabatou]

1. Follow up question:

Where exactly does it say it?

[bunkerbuster1]

8. Titheing.

One tenth is supposed to be set aside for the less fortunate.

so you see, because some third-rate desert kingdom's handbook from four thousand years ago says you should do something, we should do it today in 2006. Apply this to everything and you have the RNC platform.

[zbdent]

13. If the rich would "tithe"

then poverty really would be eliminated . . . if all the rich people put 10 percent down, then they really would be paying their fair share . . . it actually probably would be several times what they're getting away with paying right now . . .

[greekspeak]

28. Tithing was not taxing

There were a lot more taxes, depending upon how extravegant the current ruler was. If a ruler built two new palaces, a new temple, and 15 new forts then the people would have that on their backs. Tithes were mostly for temple service.

[Igel]

39. You're right, tithing as such and taxing were distinct.

Taxing was secular, at least in the OT.

But there were three tithes, actually. None were specifically, at least originally, for the temple. One was in lieu of territory for the priests; they were not landowners, they were, in effect, homeless and at the mercy of the people for their 'patrimony'. Another was for the poor and widow and stranger, however often that one was actually paid(there are some ambiguities involved). One was for a person's family to observe religious occasions.

[ThomCat]

30. That is the best description I have ever read.

"some third-rate desert kingdom's handbook from four thousand years ago"

I hope you don't mind if I borrow that. :7

[bunkerbuster1]

36. Use it, but I hope I didn't come off as being anti-Semitic

I should add that I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments of the original inhabitants of Israel, it's just that in the great scheme of human history, theirs wasn't any great shakes as an empire. So I'm not sure why we would want to form our government in their image.

[ThomCat]

38. I can't speak for anyone else,

But I didn't think it was anti-semetic. I don't consider myself Jewish, but my family is. So you can take that for what it's worth. :)

[AX10]

62. Tithing is NOT a form of taxation.

Tithing is charity. Taxes are intended to provide money so that the government can operate it's various divsisions.

[Virginian]

74. Fundie doesn't know the Gospel? Matthew 22:15-22

Paying Taxes to Caesar
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

[Clark2008]

66. But that's not a tax - that's voluntary giving

So, the idiot analyst is WRONG.

Besides, I'd LIKE to see some of the 1 percenters give 10 percent of their income. Hell, we could wipe out the national debt if Bill Gates and some of his closest pals gave 10 percent of their income.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

88. Well ya got Marx on one hand and Jesus on the other. I think the choice

is pretty easy! :sarcasm:

[UrbScotty]

86. Jobless 11:23 (nt)

[EstimatedProphet]

2. There is a moral argument

The flat tax is immoral.

[breakfastofchampions]

43. why?

almost all tax is immoral

[EstimatedProphet]

45. That's a start

Tax is moral if it meets 2 criteria (among others)
1 if the tax burden is fairly distributed, and
2 it is used for the general public welfare

The flat tax at a minimum violates rule #1

[breakfastofchampions]

46. Right, but slightly off

How tax is collected has nothing to do with how it is distributed.

[EstimatedProphet]

50. I meant the tax burden, sorry-I edited

[Iris]

49. It is?

Why? What taxes are, in your opinion, moral? Which ones are immoral?

[breakfastofchampions]

51. taxation without representation

To me, that means, you take money away, but give nothing in return.
If the government build me roads, then tax my car to pay for it.
If the government protects me with police, then tax my house to pay for it.

But why are we paying for Haliburton to develop some operation that will benefit no one but themeselves?

[Iris]

53. I see what you are saying.

It's interesting, though, that we think that is immoral while the opposite side thinks taxing people in order benefit the common good is immoral.

[ulysses]

60. ?

Mind if I ask where you stand on taxes that support schools...if you don't have a school-aged child?

[breakfastofchampions]

63. for it

I don't use education, no child for me, but I do use education in the sense that the children getting educated now are gonna be running the country and taking care of me later on. It just makes plain sense to keep our country smart.

[Zynx]

67. So you're saying you have to get something out of it personally?

I agree with you on the Haliburton point, but I'm not sure I agree with the rest of your premise.

[breakfastofchampions]

77. if my money is taken and I get nothing in return, that is theft.

Doesn't matter if it's the government taking it.

[Zynx]

81. Society benefits from programs that don't benefit me personally.

[breakfastofchampions]

83. good for society

that part of society can pay for it.

That kind of thinking that I owe someone something is what has let big business get so corrupt.

[Debs]

107. Ahh no it isn't

A huge public investment goes into everyones ability to make money. The state of the art communication system, developed by the Pentagon. The transportation system. Were you educated? Were the other workers where you work? Without this investment the ability to be as prosperous as we are overall and individually simply would not exist. Think of it like this. Consider a city, where they have a huge central park ( I owe this one to Ethicist Peter Singer) In this park are a large amount of delicious berries. To make them available for the citizens to pick roads were built, an irrigation system, a netting to protect them from birds. In other words a huge public investment to maintain this the city asks that for every six baskets you pick you give one to the city to sell to recoup this investment and continue the maintenance. This is what YOU are calling theft.When you call it theft you are saying screw you I want to keep ALL of the berries I pick. Let someone else pay the bills

[Debs]

106. Many benifits arent that direct

What do you tax for the military? Police? Fire dept? For the research and development that created the internet? The satalite communication technology? Schools? I could go on but you see my point.

[Debs]

105. Taxes are the price we pay for society n/t

[4morewars]

3. Organized religion is a tool,

and so is fox 'news.'

[MADem]

4. And you should put aside cash for a rainy day, too=that's in there!!!

Hey, JESUS SAVES!!!!


They are morons, abject, total morons!!!

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. The Fundies

have been making this argument for years....

[Drifter]

6. It is probably true ...

the problem is that tax breaks are NOT rooted in the bible.

I am in favor of a flat tax ... provided there are NO EXCEPTIONS. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

People with money have many more options of avoiding to pay tazes on that money.
The reason we must tax the wealthy more is because there are so many loopholes in the tax code.

Cheers
Drifter

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Flat tax is bad, bad, bad

It hits poor and low income people far harder than it does the wealty.

[breakfastofchampions]

47. it hits everyone equally

what we have to worry about is where that tax goes once it is collected. Right now it goes straight from our pockets to big business with nothing to show for it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

52. No, it does not

Under the current progressive income tax structure, the filer calculates "disposeable" income, ie the amount left after paying for necessities, and pays tax only on that. The base tax rate is based on the amount of disposeable income, with a larger disposeable income resulting in a higher tax rate. The final amount of tax can be further adjusted to allow for individual financial circumstances.

Now, take two households, both with gross incomes of $50,000. Household A is a single, healthy person who rents. Household B is a married couple with 2 kids, a mortgage and medical bills arising because the wife was in a car accident and (like most Americans) the family did not have medical insurance and was thus forced to pay all expenses out-of-pocket.

Household A has a calculated disposeable income of $42,000. He pays $7,171 according to the 2005 tax tables, which is about 17% of his disposeable income or 14.3% of his total income.

Household B has a calculated disposeable income of $17,000. They pay $2,189 according to the tax tables, which is about 13% of their disposeable income or 4.3% of their total income.

Now, suppose a 10% flat tax on total income, without regard to whether or not it is disposeable. With both families, that is a tax of $5,000. Household A saves $2,171. Household B's taxes go up by $2,811, more than twice what they pay now.

The financial situation for Household B is far more common than the financial situation for Household A. In general, most people would see their taxes go up than go down, and those people would be the Americans least able to afford to pay higher taxes.

[breakfastofchampions]

78. that could go many ways

say household A saves up a lot of money over the years because their disposable income is so high. Say he disposes of 32K every year and saves the rest. Over ten years household A will have saved 130K under flat tax and under progressive tax just over 100K. Now say while household A has been saving money, a relative has accumulated a massive gambling debt and must pay 125K that he doesn't have or face certain death. Being the good relative that household A is, the money is given. Under flat tax, household A will still be left with a small saving and be able to rebuild. Under progressive tax, household A is left in financial ruin and might have to sell the car and stop paying the electricity.

Not a pretty picture.

[Debs]

109. Sorry I didnt read this before I posted

My virtual dupe

[Debs]

108. No it doesnt hit everyone equally

If you live in an area where subsistance living costs you 20,000$ for a family of three and you make 50,000$ (which is HIGHER than the median income in America) say the flat tax is 15% then the 7,500 $ you pay represents about 25% of your disposable income. If your family makes one million dollars a year that 150,000$ represents just over 15% of your disposable income. Ten million even closer to exactly 15% Since when you say HITS you ARE talking disposable income then NO it doesnt hit everyone just as hard

[nickinSTL]

14. The problem with a flat tax...as I'm sure others will point out...

is that regardless of whether everyone pays the tax, it's unfair to the poor and lower wage-earners.

Someone who makes $200,000 a year can afford to pay out 30% of income in taxes. Someone who makes $20,000 a year CAN'T.

Ever tried to raise a family on $14,000? I haven't, but I've tried to support 2 adults on considerably more. I can, but I'm hardly well-off - I can't afford cable/satellite TV, I can barely make my car payments + DSL + car insurance + rent + credit card debts, etc. So, I can only imagine how rough it'd be on someone trying to live on a &20,000 a year income - especially with kids.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. It's not fair or moral.

Someone making $20k/year needs a larger portion of their income just to survive than does someone making $200k/year. The person making $20k needs every penny while the person making $200k does not. I don't see how making them pay the same proportion is anywhere even remotely approaching fair or moral.

[Bandit]

37. So you think the Internet should be taxed or at least items bought

from the Internet? How about if you buy something in Europe and bring it to America. Should that be taxed? Does it matter where you buy things or does your "fair tax" only apply to buying things in America? I can envision huge loop holes in the "fair tax".

[Kellanved]

65. flat tax is extremely bad for the economy

As it generally shifts the burden from the higher incomes to the lower. The problem is, lower income households are very likely to spend every penny, thus keeping the local economy going. Higher incomes are more likely not to be spent anywhere near the local economy, thus taking a bigger part of them is a very reasonable thing to do.

[stray cat]

7. So is the year of jubilee

All financial debts are forgiven every 7 years to keep the rich from getting richer and abusing the poor

[greenbriar]

16. hey, I can do that

its about time for my year 7

[gratuitous]

26. Actually the Jubilee Year was every 50th

Debts forgiven, land returned to its "original" owners. It's pretty hare-brained, but it's biblical.

[Igel]

40. 7th year was the year of release;

slaves (lic. 'indentured servants', at least in part) were freed; debts forgiven; land fallow. The 7th year was the same for everybody.

50th year was the jubilee. Land returned to the families that sold it. Simply put, you couldn't sell land for more than 49 years' worth of income from it, and at the end your clan would get it back.

It meant poverty, as long as population was under control, was temporary. It prevented build-up of wealth. It was also highly contrary to "big" capitalism, where large-scale factories could be built. After all, presumably any loan would vanish in the year of release. Need money for a new car and it's year 6, you don't get it; need money for a house and you can't pay it back before the year of release, it means anybody who loans it to you is giving you money. Need to float bonds to build a school or a factory? They vanish in the year of release.

I've heard it 'corrected' to only mean personal loans, since business and government loans weren't contemplated. But then a 10-year mortgage for a house is still ruled out. It's only suited to a deeply agrarian society.

[Blue_Tires]

59. wow...i did not know that

i'm down with that 'tradition!'

[annabanana]

58. And we should REMIND them of that... every time!

Flat tax is in the Bible?

all together now..

"So is the Year of Jubilee!"

[Flying Dream Blues]

9. But it's easy to see where this may be going. This is how

they'll get the "true believers" to rally round the flat tax. The Jesusland factor is beginning to truly scare me.

[BlueManDude]

10. How does the affect Supply Side Jesus? n/t

[zbdent]

11. Tell you what

I'll buy a multi-million dollar home with a 100-year mortgage (or whatever I can get with the least amount for monthly mortgage payment).

Pay the minimum for 6.99 years.

Bible says all debts to be forgiven after 7 years, right?

[Taxloss]

15. Graduated taxes were around decades before Marx - and are in the Bible.

This clown doesn't know what he's talking about.

Luke 21:

"And he looked, and saw rich men putting their donations into the treasury. And he also saw a certain poor widow donating two mites. And he said Truly, I tell you, that this poor widow has cast in more than all of them: for they have all given but a portion of their great wealth, as an offering to God, while she, in her poverty, has given all that she had."

[greekspeak]

29. Smackdown...good job!

:bounce:

[Taxloss]

34. Thank you.

It's fun to hit Bible with Bible. It really twists RWers' noodles.

[Igel]

42. But the word doesn't mean 'tax' or even 'tithe', but

'gift'.

An appreciation for the differing importance of the two gifts is there, but Jesus doesn't take it any further. The piety behind the gifts was his concern, giving all that you could, till it hurt.

He didn't address whether or not the poor and rich should tithe differently--and that's left ambiguity for the tithing community, some of which expect the poor to tithe even if they receive a different tithe--nor did he address whether or not the poor should be exempt from the (secular) poll tax. I suspect he'd have argued that even the poor should tithe--tithing was part of being righteous--and said that the secular tax was not his concern. But since he didn't say, well, it means he didn't say.

He did say that the Pharisees were right to be scrupulous in their tithing. But not all Pharisees were rich, nor were all the rich Pharisees.

[Taxloss]

44. In the parable, though, he endorses the principle of a

progressive "sliding scale" - or rather, stresses the parity of differing contributions. Couple this with his belief that taxation is a purely secular concern, and that the law should be honoured in that regard, he certainly doesn't seem to have anything against graduated taxes. I don't know, there are certainly instances that do seem to say otherwise. But there is a bit in Ephesians (I think) that says the Lord think that workers should be paid fairly.

[Igel]

85. I don't think he'd have anything against graduated taxes

or be especially for them.

Workers should be paid fairly, but if it's the 'don't muzzle the ox as it treads the grain' line, that's usually taken to refer to ministers. On the other hand, when I worked for a restaurant the manager applied it to the employees--we'd get leftovers to take home and meals that couldn't really be fit into the IRS scheme. True, she had us being metaphorical, but we didn't care.

[Yupster]

87. Wasn't Jesus' basic attitude on government

pretty dismissive anyway?

He didn't much pay attention to what the government was doing. His interests were on a whole different plane. Just do what you have to do to not get in trouble with the local government and otherwise ignore it.

[Lars39]

17. And debts will be forgiven every 7 year, right?

:sarcasm:

[MUAD_DIB]

19. Crucifying is also rooted in the bible as well as

slavery and marrying several wives.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. And let's not forget the Bible's ringing endorsement of genocide.

All that stuff about going forth and destroying utterly the Midianites and Amalekites.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. That's why these guys

love the Bible so much.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

20. Who would Jesus Tax?

He was against the money changers & for the poor. This is just more of the typical right wing bible thumping - to associate any issue with the bible. Lets not forget that the bible has been used to support slavery & racism of all kinds.

[tsuki]

22. Idiot Analcyst - Get a life; outside the Bybul.

[Inkdrinker]

23. LMFAO!

Here's what I don't get. If Earthly governments are supposed to follow God's law, what's the point of him returning to establish his kingdom? By that logic, the second coming is not needed since we have fundies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Welcome to DU!!

Glad to have you on board!! :yourock: :toast: :grouphug:

[Inkdrinker]

31. Thanks!

Anime fan, I assume (Due to your name)? Hehe. Thanks again.:)

[ThomCat]

32. Welcome to DU.

I hope you enjoy the mirth, madness and mayhem. :P

[OnionPatch]

25. So if we are going to start following the Bible

for our economic advice, when are they going to abolish interest on loans?

Deuteronomy 23:19-20 Do not charge your brother interest (ursury), whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.

(There are several other verses like this one.)

[depakid]

27. Could have sworn there was a passage in there

about render unto Caesar....

Must have been in that pesky New Testiment that the fundies don't like to acknowledge....

[jonnyblitz]

35. damn, I saw that, too, while channel surfing. I gasped but I am not

sure why I was surprised considering it was FOX. I didn't catch this person's name either, btw. :shrug:

[Telly Savalas]

41. Why stop there? Apply the Bible to municipal policy-making.

It's about time we end the scourge of secular humanist zoning laws.

[CBHagman]

48. Hey, they're breaking the 10 Commandments right on Fox!

Not that that would be anything new on Fox, of course.

At any rate, they were bearing false witness. If they actually bothered to read the Bible, they would have caught that passage where the disciples pooled their resources and held everything in common. Or they'd have noticed the numerous stern admonitions to help the poor, the stranger, the imprisoned. Or they would have read the passage about rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and rendering unto God what is God's. Or they'd have noticed the references to jubilee years.

What they would not have found is a reference to the flat tax or to market economy as espoused by today's Norquist and Bush types.

By the way, a link would be helpful in this case, though I know you just saw a flash of a program.

[Radical Activist]

54. The apostles were socialists.

They demanded followers give all their money to the church and a lot of it went to single mothers. That is in Acts. Their defense budget was zero. People who lied about their income were struck down dead by God. The conservative christians cheating on their taxes should think about that one.

[Yupster]

89. That's not right

It was not demanded that anyone give up anything.

Peter makes that clear to Ananias in Acts 5. He tells him that the land was Ananias's before he sold it and the proceeds were also his to dispose of as he saw fit.

Where Ananias ran afoul though was in claiming he was giving all when he was really lying and holding back.

You have not lied to men but to God was the last thing Ananias heard before he died.

When Sapphira also lied about the sale, she fell over dead too.

[Radical Activist]

98. So it was voluntary

That doesn't change the fact that the early church was engaged in a massive socialist income redistribution program.

[Yupster]

100. Ask Catholic Charities

or the St Vincent DePaul Societies or any of a thousand other church charities and they'll tell you they still are today.

Heck the YMCA started out that way.

[dolstein]

55. Of course, the Republicans advocate a wage tax, not a flat tax

The Republicans wouldn't investment income (interest, dividends, capital gains) or income realized through inheritance AT ALL. What they're talking about is incredibly regressive (all the more so once you factor in payroll taxes that cut off after around $90,000).

[Virginian]

76. PNAC's Steve Forbes was 4 flat tax. Many Rs are 4 Nat'l sales tax.

A national sales tax would tax people on what they bought, not what they earned or what they had.

This is the most regressive of all forms of taxation because as we all know, the poorest spend all their income just for food, clothing and shelter.

They may have to live off the generosity of their families when they are elderly and unable to support themselves rather than leaving an inheritance to them.

The rich have a lot more that can be saved and invested so that they can create generations of haves and have mores.

There are letters to the editor by these people all the time. Their website is www.fairtax.org. This is absolutely the way to keep the poor from ever having anything.

[Kailassa]

56. The current American regime most definitely follow the Bible.

Raping and pillaging, taking slaves, forcing women to marry you, these things are all ordered by God in the Bible.
God ordered his chosen people to wipe out town after town killing everyone in them but a few pretty virgins to keep for their own use. We have the example of Sodom and Gomorrah to show that God was quite happy to use something like a nuke to wipe out all those who were not behaving as he wanted.

The humiliating mistreatment of captives was also covered in the Bible.
Isaiah 20:2-3 "And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and Ethiopia; So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt."

In biblical tradition, gang-rape and murder are fine so long as they don't involve homosexual sex.
From Judges 19: "Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing." ... So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. ... When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts ...

And we have incest too, with Lot insisting afterwards that he was drunk, it was not his fault, his daughters made him do it.

Buschco have shown a distinct preference for a tax code that is completely in accord with Matthew 25:29.
"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." You can see that sentiment carefully incorporated into every decision they make.

For as long as the American people accept that laws should be based on Christianity, Buschco will feel free to follow whichever parts of the long-winded, self-contradictory piece of fiction that suit them. We must stop being superstitious savages blinded by theocracy, and once more, as the founding fathers intended, base our laws and customs on rational decisions as to how the country can best be served while caring for the people and protecting their rights.

[saltpoint]

57. Nailing people to boards is also referenced in the Bible.

That doesn't make it a good idea of an idea worthy of emulation.

"Flat tax" !?!?! Is Steve Forbes behind this?

Don't tell me he's considering another doomed run for the White House.

Please don't tell me that.

[smoochpooch]

61. It is easier for a camel to pass through a needle's eye,

than for a rich man to see the kingdom of heaven. Or something like that.

[NMMNG]

64. Throwing over the tables of tax collectors is rooted in the Bible

"So you're saying there's a moral argument involved in the attacking of tax collectors?"

"Absolutely"

[Mr_Spock]

68. Fox News - Morons Psychopaths & Mental Defectives

They are not worthy of comment.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. That is indeed true.

But I was too outraged for words. I had to share. I am truly sorry if I wasted your time. (Sincere, not sarcastic)

[Mr_Spock]

71. It's kinda hilarious to hear some of their BS at times

I was making a broader comment about Faux "News" - definitely not trying to be insulting - it's a shame the world has to exist with such evil :(

[1932]

69. A 100% estate tax is rooted in the bible: if you die rich, you're going to

to have a very hard time getting into heaven.

[Virginian]

73. Easier 4 Camel go through eye of needle than rich man go to heaven

According to the Gospel:

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew (ch. XIX, v. 24)

[gasperc]

72. We should just stop paying our taxes

I mean what's the fucking point, oh yeah, they get deducted

[sofa king]

75. Thomas Jefferson: Communist

Here is a fine example of how the right wing has completely left behind any pretense of respect for our nation's history or institutions. Pinning the idea of a progressive tax on Karl Marx ignores a couple of figures who are arguably more important to American history.

This Wikipedia article quotes both Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson as early proponents of progressive taxation. Alexander Hamilton left the door open for it in The Federalist Papers, and, once trying to tax whiskey didn't work out so well, the Federal Property Tax was enacted in 1798. It was intended to be a progressive tax (and it sparked a little rebellion of its own: see Fries' Rebellion).

The Federal Property Tax assessed its tax by the number and size of windows on a property. Shortly thereafter, homes were assessed by counting its doors. This contributed greatly to the perfection of the Early Federal style of large cabinetmaking, so that people could avoid being taxed for their closets. There are still bed-and breakfasts in Savannah, Georgia where one must step out the window to sit on the balcony. Of course we hated those taxes--you may recall that this nation was founded because of it.

That's some of the enchanting early United States history which is inextricably entwined with progressive taxation. Be sure to remind your flat-tax friends about it when they call our nation's founders Communists.

[LittleClarkie]

79. God likes poor people so he wants us to make more of them?

I'd LOVE to hear where they think they see biblical support for the flat tax, and where they see Marxism in the graduated tax.

Is that all he said, or did he back up that odd-ass statement?

[librechik]

80. delete: wrong thread

[David Zephyr]

82. The Bible is Marxist.

"And all that believed were together and had all things in common. And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all , as every man had need." Acts 2:44-45.

[LittleClarkie]

90. And Jesus was a revolutionary

Jesus was all about the poor and redistributing wealth.

[Yupster]

91. Not Marxists

because the pooling and coming together was voluntary.

More like a commune. They were big in the Sixties. I'm sure there are many of them still doing very well today.

Peter makes it clear in Acts that no one should be forced to pool his assets. It must be voluntary.

That is certainly not Marxist where the power of the state enforces the pooling.

[LittleClarkie]

94. Communes... Communists... GASP!

Jesus was a COMMIE!!!!!

Oh, the shame of it.

[David Zephyr]

101. "Force" is your term, not mine.

I can't argue with words that you put into my mouth. I didn't say it wasn't voluntary. You only imply that I did and then argue against it.

In any event, Jesus and his disciples hardly were advocates of capitalism, greed and exploitation of others for material gain.

Question: I assume that you are a Christian and would like to know if you think that the Kingdom of Heaven, as you understand it, will have a capitalistic economy?

[Yupster]

102. Can you have Marxism without the power of the state?

I've never heard of it anyway.

On heaven, I guess I never thought of heaven having an economic policy. I never thought of heaven as a place where there was a need for possessions so there wouldn't be any economic system.

Never really thought about it.

[iconoclastNYC]

84. We have to reframe it.

When we get the reins of government we should by all means redefine what a flat tax is.

We should redefine flat to mean only one deductions and no credits. While retaining the different tax brackets. In fact I'd argue for not brackets but a continually progressive taxation scheme...something like a curve that goes up to 70% for people making over 5 million a year.

One of the most unfair things about the tax bracket is when you make $100 more and your tax rate jumps up 10%.

It's not looking up the tax thats the hard part it's all the deductions and credits and calculations. Looking up your tax due on the schedule is the easiest part.

There is probably a better word than flat to use that would actually have broader appeal.

The first thing we need to do is massively overhaul the tax system in a big huge way with a 50-100 year legacy.

The DLC Democrats would never let this happen because it would mean we'd have a good chance at a permenant majority and who wants that.

[Yupster]

92. Your tax rate doesn't jump up 10 % more

if you make $ 100 more.

It's only the amount above the threshhold that's taxed at the higher rate.

For instance if the rates are

10 % -- up to $ 6,000
15 % -- up to $ 40,000
25 % -- up to 125,000

Then a person making $ 6,000 would pay 10 % (ignoring the standard deductions, etc)

A person making $ 6,100 would pay 10 % of the $ 6,000 and 15 % of the last $ 100.

The difference would be $ 5 more tax between whether you paid 10 % of the whole amount or 15 % on the last $ 100.

[iconoclastNYC]

96. Thanks for explaning that.

Now I know.

I still think if you erase the notion of "brackets" you can call it a flat tax.....it'd be more like a curved tax....rather then a stair step......... you could show a graph of a nice elegant curve next to the stair steps.

[Yupster]

93. The problem is each thing you want to change

runs into some interest group.

Want to get rid of deductions?

You're going to have the middle class up in arms if you touch the mortgage deduction. You're anti-family if you mess with the kid deduction. You're anti-poor if you mess with the charitable deduction.

Every deduction has its interest group which will go up in arms.

That's why everyone talkks about massive changes in the tax code, and no one ever does it. When it does get changed it becomes Christmas as everyone gets and no one gives.

[iconoclastNYC]

97. Absolutely.

That's what so annoying about Clinton not getting single payer thru.... he was basically going up against two industries. This would be a bigger challenge potentially but if Bush taught us anything it's that a razor thin margin = a mandate and you have to use your capital best you can. So he didn't get SS reform, but he got his wreckless tax cuts and all these other things.

When we get back into office we have to be bold and we can't wimp out and live in fear of lobbying.

[LibertyorDeath]

95. My foot rooted in their ass.

I wish only vile and unspeakable things on these lying pos.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

99. According to one of the religious leaders on MTP on Sunday...

He said the Bible calls for a re-distribution of wealth every seven years? Maybe we need to find that chapter and verse?

However, the Bible does say to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's... Which means there is a definite difference in the two establishments.

[Debs]

104. Really what about

To whom much is given much is expected? Also St Thomas Aquinas, one of the great teachers of moral law said. What each man has in superabundance belongs by natural right to the poor for their sustenance. The guy has lost all touch with reality