I heard this today on a Neal Boortz radio show. He is a devout Libertarian.
A straight "A" 4.0 gpa girl asked her dad how she would know if she believed in the Republican philosophy or the Democratic philosophy.
He said, "How would you feel if the girl down the street was a student with a 2.0 gpa. She did not really excell in anything and just did the minimum to get by in school. And the teacher said, 'Since you have achieved so much and have applied yourself and excelled, you don't need so much and so I will take a point from you and give it to her. That way you both have a 3.0 gpa. and the playing field is even now.' "
The daughter replied, "That's not fair!"
"Then you are a Republican" quipped the father.
Just reporting what I heard on the radio. Of course referring to wealth redistribution and taxing the rich at a higher rate because "they can afford it".
Wow, will this get any responses?!
15 comments:
I agree! That isn't fair! She earned her GPA, she should get to keep it. If I earn a million dollars...I should be able to pay my FAIR share of taxes and keep the rest. If I earn $10, I should be able to pay my FAIR share of tax and keep the rest. I shouldn't be able to take from my million dollar neighbors pocket just to make us even when I didn't earn that money. Is it Neil Bortz that also beleives in the fair tax inititive or is it called the flat tax inititive, where we all just pay the same percentage of tax on what ever money we make. ie...we are all taxed 17% on whatever we make...so we are all being taxed at the same percentage rate. What we pay will depend on the amount of money we earn. I always thought that is a fair way to do it. It seems that it would be a lot easier to do too. The current tax processes and laws are so complex. I say do away with the complexity and just pay a percentage based on our income. I don't know enough about it though to know what kind of repercussions that would bring. It just sounds fair and easy. No fancy forms or deductions or credits for crazy things...just a flat percentage rate for everyone and boom baby...taxes are done.
Dad and I agree. Flat taxes is a fair way.That is the Lord's way.
The Lord's way? The only thing the Lord said was to give to Caesar what was Caesar's. He never mentioned anything about a flat tax, percentages, tax brackets, or even that paying taxes at all is fair or unfair. To my knowledge, no modern day prophet of the church has made any declaration at all on the subject. Obeying the (tax) laws of the land is the only admonishment I know of along these lines. A flat tax is not the Lord's way until He says it is and He hasn't.
As for the Neal Boortz story, this is feeble reasoning and compares very poorly to the philosophy behind paying taxes. It is an 'apples and oranges' comparison. Comparing the assigning of grades to taxation is ridiculous. They are two different categories. If you want to compare, compare the Canadian or the French or the English or the Russian tax systems to ours, now that makes sense. I think you are confusing tithing with taxes. Not the same thing. Tithing has very different goals than taxation, thank heavens!
The Lord said to give it ALL away. In the spirit of what the Lord said, the very least one should do is to keep enough to sustain oneself and one's family, all surplus ought to be given to the poor. Remember the Lord at one time instructed agrarian Mormons to live the United Order which is communism pure and simple. Didn't last, not because the concept is so awful (otherwise I doubt the Lord would have commanded it), but because it was too tough to do.
I agree the world is not ready for United Order. And the early Saints failed at because it is hard to do. I know I would struggle with it. I am however, willing to share with those in need and have done all they can do, but I don't think it is right to be forced to share with those that are lazy and don't want to do all they can do. In that sence the the GPA story is relevant and comparable. Leaving "the Lord's way" out of this....it still seems fair that we should all pay the same percentage of tax no matter what our income. Taxing the rich more heavily doesn't seem fair to me. It kind of tarnishes the American Dream. Why dream big, if the government is going to make me pay a heavier price. I am perfectly happy if the government takes my fairly paid taxes and uses it to fund programs to help those that are in need, and I am perfectly happy to donate to good charitable causes for those in need. I am always there to help my neighbor and I have given to those less forntunate than I. I have given money to fund children's schooling while living abroad on several occasions and have donated to other causes. I am my brothers keeper.
Unfortunately, not everyone will give willingly. I understand that. But should Uncle Sam still be allowed to take more from me because I have it? I beleive and support paying taxes. I just think it should be a equally fair tax based on a percetage rate. The rich will always pay more that way than the poor. But percentage wise, it is fair. It seems to me anyway.....T
I believe it is comparing apples to apples dispite what Doug says. "The Lord's way" thing wasn't even in my mind.
Mr. Boortz is a proponant of the Fair Tax and so am I. It is a flat tax but is called the Fair Tax Iniciative. It is gaining ground but is still years away.
I agree with Teresa that it is not the governments job to take more from one than another because they have more. I do believe that basic human decency would dictate that those who achieve more should give more but not be forced to give more. That is too much power in the government.
Again I think the example is very appropriate.
Dad meant Tithing.
Perhaps one of the reason that the government has to tax us the way they do is because they haven't figured out how to work within a balance budget. I don't even know why they do a budget since they can follow it. Of course most american are following in the same footstep. My point is the the "fair tax inititive" won't work because that would mean less revenue for the Gov. I wish they would do away with the stupid programs that they keep funding even after they have gotten there answer or resolution to that study.
Just a thought.
Isabelle
The comparison of taxes and tithing, I was waiting for that bomb to drop. Considering that Mormons consider themselves to be citizens of the Lord's Kingdom (a spiritual kingdom), the flat tithing (voluntary) is the Lord's way, so wiljac is indeed correct, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can or should be applied to a nation of people. Taxes (compulsory) are unavoidable in that a government must have some resources in order to function.
So there is the key difference.
One is voluntary and the other is compulsory. This difference also applies to the comparison between the United Order and communism. The former is voluntary and the latter is compulsory. So the UO and communism are not the same, pure and simple.
Interestingly, the following formally communist countries have adopted a flat income tax system.
Slovakia 19%
Romania 16%
Georgia 12%
Russia 13%
Serbia 10%/14%
Ukraine 13%
Estonia 22%
Latvia 25%
Lithuania 15%/24%
and more are considering a flat income tax (which seems to be upsetting for Western European government).
For that matter, many states, including Utah, have flat income tax rates.
Colorado: 4.63%
Illinois: 3%
Indiana: 3.4%
Massachusetts: 5.3%
Michigan: 4.35%
New Hampshire: 5%
Pennsylvania: 3.07%
Tennessee: 6%
Utah: 5%
"Wow, will this get any responses?!"--Brian
I'll say it has! Fun! I'm having a blast reading and responding and challenging.
I don't know where to start. So I'll start with my first paragraph. If I had known that Dad and Jacqueline meant tithing, I would not have written my first paragraph at all. Now that I know what they meant, of course tithing is the Lord's way. It is the Lord's way for those who believe in Him and in the church they believe He established. No argument to be had there. He just hasn't ever said anything about how to tax.
I agree with Alan, I said very plainly that taxes and tithing are not the same thing. Tithing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is flat and it is not a tax. Alan is right, tithing is voluntary (although non-compliance carries negative religious consequences, the altruistic edge being very dulled) and taxes are compulsory. I can't see how my comments could evoke any notion that I was comparing them as being similar. I don't think that I dropped a bomb at all.
As for the United Order, Alan is right to a degree. I poorly chose my words: I should have said the United Order was very similar to communism. Regardless of whether one is forced to live either of them or not, the underlying principle is the same: one's gains are handed over to a central agency that redistributes them according to need. In the case of communism in Russia, if one's monetary gains were non-existant, one's labor was contributed to production in common and the product was redistributed and one received what one needed to live. The core principle for both systems is the same: you give what you have and get back what you need. I was foolish to use an absolutist term like 'pure and simple', but I think that I am right, they are very similar in principle and neither worked.
As for the Boortz story, this is why it is bad reasoning and a poor comparison: a grade is an evaluation of your progress in gaining, synthesizing, and applying knowledge. It (a grade) is not an award that can be taken to the bank, divided up or taken from you and given to others, it is an evaluation. Taxes take from you some of the money or goods you have earned and (hopefully!) are redistributed. Grades do not function in any way like that at all. The comparison doesn't work.
If you want to find another anecdote wherein something earned is taken and given to someone else, go for it. But a grade is not an award, it is an evaluation.
There also seems to be a false belief regarding graduated taxing that many accept. The notion is that the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor, that wealth is being redistributed somehow. I don't understand this argument at all.
Wealth in it's true meaning is not being redistributed. This would mean that wealth is being distributed in such a way that everyone has some level of wealth. Money is indeed given to the poor and unfortunate, but they are given any 'wealth' in the true sense of the word. The wealthy stay wealthy and the poor remain poor. If the wealthy cease to be wealthy, it is not because they were taxed out of it and if the poor become wealthy, it is not because the riches of the wealthy were given to them!
Whether you earn 20K a year or 200K a year, the government doesn't try balance it out by redistributing it. The government does try to help the poor and unfortunate through various programs. One can dispute the effectiveness of the programs, one can suggest reforming or replacing programs, one can argue for government-religious partnerships, but I can't see how any of this is redistribution of wealth. It is a matter of compassion to help those in need and churches and charitable organizations alone cannot cover all the bases.
I know that we all give to charities. Teresa is right on, but still a great many fall through the cracks.
As for flat taxes in other countries, I am guessing that they have other ways to increase income that we don't. National sales taxes, elaborate value added taxes, various 'fees'. I think it would be necessary to see the entire tax structure of the said countries before assuming (and I am not saying Alan is assuming this) that it is a trend that we ought to follow. I don't know about the other states, but Utah has 'fees' and sales tax to help in their income structure. My point is that countries and states may well make up what I do assume is a weaker tax flow precisely by taxing in other areas.
I could be very wrong, but I think that Isabelle is right, the overall take on taxes would be less.
I also assume that most of the deductions we appreciate would be eliminated under a flat tax, we would very likely all pay more. But again, I am not sure about that. It is worth knowing that however before deciding you are for a flat tax!
Time to sleep!
Go Broncos! Both the Boise State variety and the Denver species!
The bomb that I was referring to was the wiljac implication that taxes and tithing are the same. It was sure to ignite a lot of response, and it did! I agree completely with DougW that they are not the same.
The "religious consequences" of not paying tithing would be better stated as "spiritual consequences." I don't know of anyone who was reprimanded or kicked out of the church for non-compliance. (Although, I (we) know of some overly zealous church leaders who have gone overboard is carrying out their duties, but that is another matter).
DougW has convinced me that the grades vs taxes comparison is indeed apples to oranges. GPA has a ceiling of 4.0, but income has no ceiling. Even if it were possible for me to earn an unlimited GPA, say 9.0 or 10.0, or even higher, and all I needed to obtain a good job or entry into college was 4.0, then I would have 6.0 units left over to contribute to someone else. Of course this is ridiculous because giving GPA points to someone else is not going to help them become smarter or more diligent in their studies. Money, on the other hand, just might help, but only for a short while. Job skills are vastly more useful than money itself, but that is also another matter.
As for the tax structure of the flat-tax countries, surely they have other sources of revenue. I just found it interesting that a large number of the formally communist countries use a flat-tax system.
Lastly, I have to agree with Doug about the Broncos (the Denver species). There is something about Mike Shanahan's style of football that I really like. I used to be a big BSU fan, now I am a small fan. I am a BYU fan now. (I have trouble giving allegiance to more than one team.)
Would like to respond but no time....will write later...in Seattle and got to catch a flight...stay tuned.
The religious consequences I was thinking of were the withholding of a temple recommend if not in compliance or the kind-of-fun notion that tithing is fire insurance. I used to hear that said jokingly in priesthood meetings, I think that there must be a passage of scripture that states something about being spared when the earth burns, of something to that effect. Maybe things have changed and one can be considered worthy of a temple recommend even if one hasn't paid tithing.
I thought of 'religious' as being some kind of consequence levied from without and 'spiritual' as an impoverishment of the soul from within. I assume that failure to pay tithing brings both.
Doug.....you said "Maybe things have changed and one can be considered worthy of a temple recommend even if one hasn't paid tithing."
answer: No, that has not changed. One must still pay tithing to be worthy for a temple recommend.
You said "I thought of 'religious' as being some kind of consequence levied from without and 'spiritual' as an impoverishment of the soul from within. I assume that failure to pay tithing brings both."
(I don't understand what you are trying to say there. Can you say that differently or clarify?)
Also, one eroneous comment about tithing (has little to do with our conversaition)....tithing brings spiritual blessings as well as physical blessings. Tithing brings about miracles that can't be explained by science but only by there being a greater force under which even science is ruled. I have an unbelievable personal experience of a miracle because I paid my tithing. Too incredible and too sacred to write here, but very real and very miraculous, no coincidence or science in the world could convince me otherwise.
Teresa
Maybe this post should be split...what was a political post seems to have turned into a religious post and not on subject for which this post was intended.
Sure, Teresa (and others I confused, sorry!), I just meant that although paying tithing is voluntary (reference to Alan's second response in this post), it is not as altruistic as just volunteering and receiving nothing in return. If one is non-compliant, there are privileges withheld. So I call that a 'religious' consequence, that someone of authority in the religion would not give you what you wanted because you didn't obey. I call a 'spiritual' consequence a private suffering (guilt, impoverishment of the soul) not imposed by anyone else.
Post a Comment