What if 50 million Pro-Lifers stopped paying income taxes simultaneously?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bartolome_Casas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn’t such a mass action wake up America, and shake things up.
No. It would wake up the IRS, which has the means to prosecute by way of financial withholding. (So even do State tax boards and County tax agencies.) They engage in direct bank account seizures. They put liens on mortgages, claiming that money pursuant to any sale or refinance. They write to employers issuing paychecks to demand from the employer a schedule of future withholding (and redirection to the gov’t) what has not previously been paid by the employee, lest the employer receive penalties on top of the employee…

There are not enough taxpayers so radically committed to such causes to be willing to undergo the above. Nowhere close to 50 million. Because to do so would financially endanger any dependents of such taxpayers, except in the rare case of those who might be in a position to operate on a cash-only basis (which in itself is extremely risky).
 
No. It would wake up the IRS, which has the means to prosecute by way of financial withholding. (So even do State tax boards and County tax agencies.) They engage in direct bank account seizures. They put liens on mortgages, claiming that money pursuant to any sale or refinance. They write to employers issuing paychecks to demand from the employer a schedule of future withholding (and redirection to the gov’t) what has not previously been paid by the employee, lest the employer receive penalties on top of the employee…

There are not enough taxpayers so radically committed to such causes to be willing to undergo the above.

I hope you are wrong

Nowhere close to 50 million. Because to do so would financially endanger any dependents of such taxpayers, except in the rare case of those who might be in a position to operate on a cash-only basis (which in itself is extremely risky).
Therefore, to do the right thing - not pay these taxes - we are going to have to be courageous. We will have to be ready to accept the worse case. BTW, there is no dependents on these taxes except politicians and government employees; those that need benefits can get much more from charities, especially the Catholic church.
 
Here is where you said it is OK to kill the unborn.

And here is why you said that the unborn do not have the right to life.

So please explain.

Why do you think it is OK to kill the unborn because they’re not citizens?
Defeater +1

👍
 
BTW, there is no dependents on these taxes except politicians and government employees; those that need benefits can get much more from charities, especially the Catholic church.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by “dependents.” I was speaking of human beings (family members, relatives, spouses) dependent on a provider who does pay taxes. While a single person without financial responsibilities to others (such as an elderly relative, a needy or disabled sibling) might have a cavalier, “courageous” attitude about the severe and financially crippling consequences of not paying taxes, most providers to their families will not feel so cavalier, regardless of their religious convictions, but will seek other avenues of protest which will not immediately endanger the born people who are directly their personal responsibility.
 
I think you misunderstood what I meant by “dependents.” I was speaking of human beings (family members, relatives, spouses) dependent on a provider who does pay taxes. While a single person without financial responsibilities to others (such as an elderly relative, a needy or disabled sibling) might have a cavalier, “courageous” attitude about the severe and financially crippling consequences of not paying taxes, most providers to their families will not feel so cavalier, regardless of their religious convictions, but will seek other avenues of protest which will not immediately endanger the born people who are directly their personal responsibility.
Just to summarize: You mean by “dependent” the person who relies on the taxpayer; e.g., his children, wife etc.?
And you are not referring to those who are (for example) receiving welfare?

Well perhaps you have a point. And might I add, a very strong one at that. May I refer you to Chapter 6 the last two paragraphs in Mt.'s gospel. This is not a satisfactory answer to your concern. It does open a door to the plausibility of not paying our taxes. Would you not agree? Many a great and virtuous cause has been lost to anxiety.
 
Just to summarize: You mean by “dependent” the person who relies on the taxpayer; e.g., his children, wife etc.?
And you are not referring to those who are (for example) receiving welfare?

Well perhaps you have a point. And might I add, a very strong one at that. May I refer you to Chapter 6 the last two paragraphs in Mt.'s gospel. This is not a satisfactory answer to your concern. It does open a door to the plausibility of not paying our taxes. Would you not agree? Many a great and virtuous cause has been lost to anxiety.
David, the responsibility to provide for one’s dependents is a primary & fundamental responsibility for anyone with dependents who have no other resources. It is not defined as “an anxiety.” Federal, State, Local tax agents really do have the power and really do execute that power to collect taxes. It may not be the brutal way that the ancient Romans collected taxes in an authoritarian form of government, but it is no less a real and realized power on the part of (a gentler, more modern) government.

Long ago it was easier for U.S. citizens to evade, avoid, escape, & delay paying taxes. The process was all snail-mail, court orders, and took years. Now, with electronic and enforcement tools available, and with aggressive intents on the part of governmental bodies dealing with contracting operating budgets, you best believe that the tax arms of these governmental bodies Mean Business. Their purpose is not to create “anxiety” but to collect the money, & swiftly. When they threaten, they have every intention of carrying through with the threat.

You personally may not consider it a real threat, but others perhaps more acquainted with this first-hand know that it is not an idle threat, but Step One, Step Two, etc., progressively, until the money is collected by any means, including the seizing of personal property & real property if bank accounts have been emptied.

We do not have to answer to God for mega-events or governmental policies beyond our control. We do have to answer to God for the level of responsibilities we fulfill to those closest to us – their health and safety, at the least. The Fourth Commandment applies equally to parents as to children.

And no, I hardly think that withholding taxes is even the most effective way to be a “Pro-Life” person, even if it did not result in jeopardy to one’s direct dependents. I think it’s a poorly targeted strategy, likely to dilute arguments rather than focus arguments and drive them home.
 
We all know that if in the present time any nation began a genocide against its Jewish citizens, that the State of Israel would use its military forces (including, perhaps nuclear missiles) and its networks of spies and assassins to launch a deadly blow to the government of the nation carrying out that genocide.

The government of the State of Israel has made clear that it is ready and willing to use violence to protect Jews around the world.

We Catholics should never use violence, however. We should never take up the sword.

But like the government of the State of Israel, we should do something EFFECTIVE, something likely to change the status quo, regarding the current genocide that is happening regarding unborn children.

We are sleeping too well at night, I think.
 
David, the responsibility to provide for one’s dependents is a primary & fundamental responsibility for anyone with dependents who have no other resources.

No doubt; and I will add, “with love”.

It is not defined as “an anxiety.”

I do not understand what you mean by “it”, what is “it”, the responsiblity? If you are referring to my comment regarding anxiety will then I am referring to Christ’s command to not be anxious about food, drink or shelter. This is found in the last paragraph of Mattew 6. So if we do what I suppose is just and not pay our taxes as a protest against the government’s killing, we may end up very poor, but God will insure we have food, clothing and shelter - do not be anxious about these things as the gentiles do. God will provide.

Federal, State, Local tax agents really do have the power and really do execute that power to collect taxes.

OH yes! absolutely. And they have been brutal about it; often! However, just because one has a heavier hamer doesn’t mean he makes a better house or is right or moral

It may not be the brutal way that the ancient Romans collected taxes in an authoritarian form of government,

I submit to you, as one with much experience in this, it is and has been just as brutal as the Romans

but it is no less a real and realized power on the part of (a gentler, more modern) government.

Yes, unfortunately you are absolutely correct; albeit, when the Constitutiion was written we were not to have had our income taxed

Long ago it was easier for U.S. citizens to evade, avoid, escape, & delay paying taxes. The process was all snail-mail, court orders, and took years. Now, with electronic and enforcement tools available, and with aggressive intents on the part of governmental bodies dealing with contracting operating budgets, you best believe that the tax arms of these governmental bodies Mean Business.

Amen, you describe it well

Their purpose is not to create “anxiety” but to collect the money, & swiftly.

God bless you Elizabeth, but this is a half truth. The purpose is to collect money & swiftly; HOWEVER, the method is to create anxiety.

When they threaten, they have every intention of carrying through with the threat.

You personally may not consider it a real threat,

Oh, I do.

but others perhaps more acquainted with this first-hand know that it is not an idle threat, but Step One, Step Two, etc., progressively, until the money is collected by any means, including the seizing of personal property & real property if bank accounts have been emptied.

We do not have to answer to God for mega-events or governmental policies beyond our control.
Well, I don’t know about that.

We do have to answer to God for the level of responsibilities we fulfill to those closest to us – their health and safety, at the least.

For sure, but no where no enclycal no verse in the bible no logical person has said that "when helping people go to the government and let them have your money and let them do the helping. It is our job, especially, us Catholics to help people. We have sold our heritage to the devil; now he does our work. For shame

The Fourth Commandment applies equally to parents as to children.

And no, I hardly think that withholding taxes is even the most effective way to be a “Pro-Life” person, even if it did not result in jeopardy to one’s direct dependents. I think it’s a poorly targeted strategy, likely to dilute arguments rather than focus arguments and drive them home.
**God bless you, Elizabeth. May I suggest you read a wonderful Catholic’s work written in 1848? The Law, by Frederic Bastiat. It is very short. If you like I will end you a free copy. Just go to my private data and I will send it to where ever you suggest; perhaps your parish.

God bless you again, Elizabeth. It appears you are on the right track: you do love Christ, you are concerned with life and you don’t want us to get hurt.**
 
We all know that if in the present time any nation began a genocide against its Jewish citizens, that the State of Israel would use its military forces (including, perhaps nuclear missiles) and its networks of spies and assassins to launch a deadly blow to the government of the nation carrying out that genocide.

The government of the State of Israel has made clear that it is ready and willing to use violence to protect Jews around the world.

We Catholics should never use violence, however. We should never take up the sword.

**Where and how have you come to that conclusion? To not fight for those that are being killed unjustly, those being raped, those being tortured; is unjust? Chesterton said something to the effect that those who do not fight for just causes are violent people.

Well, let’s not get off topic; who of us has the courage to not pay our taxes in protest the government killings?**

But like the government of the State of Israel, we should do something EFFECTIVE, something likely to change the status quo, regarding the current genocide that is happening regarding unborn children.

We are sleeping too well at night, I think.
 
David, please do not include your comments inside a boxed quote. It prevents your respondents from quoting you, and is not the standard way to reply to CAF users.

By “it” I mean the real, actual, and executed ability of the government to collect taxes. Jesus did not mean that providers of families should trust God blindly to provide food in all cases. He was talking about excessive concern about security. Being sensibly responsible about being evicted in a capitalistic and individualistic economy is not an example of excessive or irrational concern (anxiety).

And Jesus was addressing a First Century agrarian culture whose extended-family and community lifestyles were markedly different from the independent nuclear-family units which dominate U.S. economy and daily life. It is not a virtue to be irresponsible, nor did Jesus mean that by his words.

No, the government’s methodology is far more than mere threats, or the encouragement of anxiety. They don’t paritcularly care whether an individual taxpayer is anxious or casual or arrogant or laid back or terrified. They care only about getting their money. The means are not the threats. The means are the steps in the process, as I said: Step One, Step Two, Step Three – irregardless of the citizen’s emotional response to each step. It’s actually rather impersonal and non-emotional and matter-of-fact.
 
And Jesus was addressing a First Century agrarian culture whose extended-family and community lifestyles were markedly different from the independent nuclear-family units which dominate U.S. economy and daily life. It is not a virtue to be irresponsible, nor did Jesus mean that by his words.

\
God bless you Elizabeth. I do not know how to take a part of a message out and “quote” it then respond then take another part out and “quote” it then respond.

**How does a “First Century agrarian culture whose extended-family and community lifestyles…” create a different interpretation of a Gospel message that commands us to not be anxious about food, drink and clothing? Why would one conclude that not being anxious - a command from God - leads to being irresponsible?

Perhaps, when one has little trust in God and doing God’s will, he will call God’s will irresponsible. Where in fact the issue is a lack of trust in God leading to a loss of courage. Nothing so brings converts as doing the right thing: exemplem docet.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. The first step in Wisdom is fearing the Lord; the last step in Wisdom is loving God and His people.

By doing God’s will you may end up loosing your home, your job, your fishing weekends (Help us Lord!!!); but He has promised us He will give us what we need to live. It may not be a three room home; maybe just a light bulb. He WILL provide.

Forgive me if I am being acerbic. I KNOW that the problem we have with the Catholic church here in America is because we are addicted to our gods: fishing, nice home, the Marlins, our car, our bigger home; we will not give them up. We are not really Catholics. BTW, I am a free market no government libertarian.

You want to see where the Church is really growing? Where there is persecution; e.g., Africa. Those irresponsible Africans, that have put their life, families and homes on the line for Jesus Christ. We consider it irresponsible when we put our gods on the line; they consider it irresponsible when they put their Jesus on the line.

Oh, well I do not know even if I have the courage to do this.

God bless you Elizabeth**
 
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. The first step in Wisdom is fearing the Lord; the last step in Wisdom is loving God and His people.
One of the Christian virtues is prudence. Wisdom is not blind trust. Wisdom includes prudence. Please read St. Paul on the virtues.
By doing God’s will you may end up loosing your home, your job, your fishing weekends (Help us Lord!!!); but He has promised us He will give us what we need to live. It may not be a three room home; maybe just a light bulb. He WILL provide.
And he will ask you at your Particular Judgment why you left your children homeless & threatened their futures – futures which might have included being a contributing, productive member of the Body of Christ, carrying out His Will. If one wants to sacrifice one’s self, that’s one thing, but sacrificing the futures of one’s own dependents who have no choice in the matter is not something that is virtuous or Christian.
I KNOW that the problem we have with the Catholic church here in America is because we are addicted to our gods: fishing, nice home, the Marlins, our car, our bigger home; we will not give them up. We are not really Catholics. BTW, I am a free market no government libertarian.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t say anything about luxuries or fishing or “bigger” homes. I’m talking elemental needs: basic, humble shelter which costs cash which will not be available if the IRS seizes it, etc.
 
We Catholics should never use violence, however. We should never take up the sword.
Incorrect.

We do have a right to defend ourselves.

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

We are not told that we are not allowed to defend ourselves anywhere, if that were true, that is tantamount to suicide - a mortal sin.
 
Incorrect.

We do have a right to defend ourselves.

“But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

We are not told that we are not allowed to defend ourselves anywhere, if that were true, that is tantamount to suicide - a mortal sin.
Amen Bob
Was it Chesterton who said one can be labeled a murderer if he does fight??? I am sure it is not quite that.
 
Amen Bob
Was it Chesterton who said one can be labeled a murderer if he does fight??? I am sure it is not quite that.
Under our ridiculous gun control law (where only non-criminals get controlled) - use a gun in self defense, and watch the police give YOU the third degree.
 
Under our ridiculous gun control law (where only non-criminals get controlled) - use a gun in self defense, and watch the police give YOU the third degree.
OH Bob,

I made a mistake. I should have written “Chesterton said something to the effect, ’ if one does not defend or fight for another he should be labled a murderer…’” Those are not his exact words; but certainly to the effect.

God bless you Bob. I think we are on the same page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top