Paying Taxes

[mikekle]

I agree with this interpretation. I think what Christ is telling us is that worldly authority must be obeyed in an earthly way. After all, what does it matter? Money is money. We are Christians, we don’t care for these things because we care about the Kingdom of Heaven.

So, yes, we should obey the laws of man (with exceptions, of course). But we should also know that God has bigger and better plans for us.

I dont know about that, Im not so sure God cares either way about earthly authorities/ Govt/ Law enforcement, etc. I believe he is more concerned with HIS laws and whether people are obeying them or not, He is fully aware (much more than us) that our time here on earth is extremely short, so when looking at the big picture, earthly laws/ matters/ concerns are not that important.

I think when some priests say otherwise, its just an attempt to mend fences with local authorities and trying to keep a good relationship going, after all, if priests were to start telling parishioners in the OT God, instructed people to go out and kill other people, sometimes just for blasphemy or not believing in the one true God, or some other verses that many local govts would not like their citizens taking part in, or hearing about.

As a general rule, churches and local cities do not really get along, both have very different opinions on a number of issues, both go about resolving problems in a different way, Local Govts are not concerned with Gods laws, all they care about it people obeying THEIR laws, even if it clashes with Gods law, they come up with pathetic excuses why people should choose to follow cities laws versus Gods, that is not surprising though, however the Church needs a bit more aggressive about which laws are more important, I think alot of parishes care way too much about mans/Govts laws, when they should be concerned with Gods.

In the end, when we are all in the afterlife, NO Govt made law is going to matter, they are not that important imo.

 

[theplummer]

Allow me to interject with a short document to read by a very intelligent economist, by the name of Warren Mosler.

If you would please read section one of the attached link, then answer the OP’s question again. I’m really interested in hearing opinions about the whole paying taxes is a sin thing, once a true understanding of how taxes and a sovereign government truly operate.

Here’s the link. moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

 

[exnihilo]

It seems to me that not paying your taxes in some circumstances would be a good and noble thing to do. We can imagine a government that is exceedingly wicked and not just typically wicked. For instance the government could set a tax rate of one hundred percent. I would think citizens of the US have a much greater liberty to not pay taxes since the founding of this country was based on the principle that people can refuse to pay taxes and in fact overthrow the legitimate government.

Not paying taxes could seriously harm you and your family, so it is not advisable. The exception would be of course if you are a member of the government, for instance the Treasury Secretary. In that case you should only pay your taxes once it is discovered through some aberration that you take advantage of the privilege of power.

 

[sw85]

Would you ever refuse to pay taxes because you felt that your government was using the money for immoral means?

If so, at what point would you refuse to pay?

Jesus addressed this in Scriptures. The Pharisees came to him asking whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. He responded that they were to render to Caesar what was Caesar’s – without, in fact, specifying what was properly Caesar’s.

What he was doing was chastising them for going only half the way. They wanted the convenience and safety and comfort of Caesar’s rule but not the inconvenience of paying taxes to him. Christ was saying that if you accept Caesar as a just ruler, then you owe him and ought to pay him taxes; and if you revile Caesar as a heathen tyrant entitled to nothing but a view from the gallows, then you ought to pay him with rebellion.

We don’t get to half-*** this. If we accept the government as a just authority, then we owe it taxes, because paying taxes to a just authority is morally obligatory. If it’s not morally obligatory, it can only because the government is not a just authority, in which case we owe it rebellion. So to answer your question, the only circumstances under which I would refuse to pay taxes is to an unjust authority against whom I was actively waging a just war (for instance, if America were invaded by a communist foreign power or something).

 

[donsnow]

Allow me to interject with a short document to read by a very intelligent economist, by the name of Warren Mosler.

If you would please read section one of the attached link, then answer the OP’s question again. I’m really interested in hearing opinions about the whole paying taxes is a sin thing, once a true understanding of how taxes and a sovereign government truly operate.

Here’s the link. moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

Good afternoon, theplummer,

I tried reading this thing, which has been heavily redacted (gaps in the text). Once I got past all the blurbs praising Mosler, I finally got to Prof W. Mosler’s introduction. So, after that, I went on and found the text too complicated to follow. It might be simple to you, but it was a chore for me to read it. At least, he has offered a solution to America’s economy.

God loves you,
Don

To the OP.

As far as the OP, since my income is below the Federal poverty line, I am not taxed. So, I’m outside your paradigm. I am interested in seeing the New World Order started by the American revolution in 1776 withstand the propaganda, economic, judicial and legislative assault we are under from socialism. The One World Order, to my understanding, is trying to steal the title of New World Order from our Constitution; and the assault attempts to bring America under a socialist economy/government.

So, we’re right in the middle of a war of ideas, just like during the Cold War against the USSR.
If you’'ll remember, both Pres Geo W. Bush and Barak H. Obama II have referred to our country as a government of laws. So, this government of laws is trying to replace the government of the people, for the people and by the people which we won with the end of our Civil War in 1865. So, the real enemy is all the establishment politicians of either major party, and the present President who had a mouth full of socialism while running for office, and still does preach socialism instead of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That is to say, the enemy is us.

So, I’m too old to fight, I just go and vote to remove all the establishment politicians who favor a “government of laws” from office; and replace them with young politicians who are interested in preserving our government of the people, for the people and by the people. I’d rather be governed by people instead of by law, any day.

God loves you,
Don

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…If you’'ll remember, both Pres Geo W. Bush and Barak H. Obama II have referred to our country as a government of laws. So, this government of laws is trying to replace the government of the people, for the people and by the people which we won with the end of our Civil War in 1865…I just go and vote to remove all the establishment politicians who favor a “government of laws” from office; and replace them with young politicians who are interested in preserving our government of the people, for the people and by the people. I’d rather be governed by people instead of by law, any day…

The term “government of laws” has always meant to be taken in comparison to a “government of men”, meaning a government where all decisions of justice are made by the individual officials based on their own personal code of right and wrong. The founding fathers were well aware of the shortcomings of such a government, having just broken away from such a government. A government of men can be very good if the men in office (like the King) happen to be good people. But such a government can be very bad if the men in office are bad.

The founding fathers devised a governmental structure that replaces most of the discretionary decisions with decisions based on carefully deliberated laws. This limits the ability of a corrupt judge, for example, to deliver corrupt decisions. It doesn’t make it impossible to be corrupt, but it does make it harder when a judge has to justify his decisions based on law and precedent. There is still room for individual discretion. But it is more limited when you have a government of laws. On the other hand, the discretion is unlimited when you have a government of men (or women).

That’s what the term means. It is in no way opposed to the concept of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In fact, it serves that purpose better than a government of men.