If you want to bring the whole LDS Church to its knees, just get all the
membership in the same time zone on Monday night.
The author is simply indicating that each member pays 10% of their income. No
loop holes and no deductions for this and that (except those who cheat the
church as equally as they cheat the government [read "us"}).I'm
not mormon anymore, but I'd LOVE to have a 10% value added tax instead of
volumns and volumns of tax code that only benefit the richest among us. 10% value added on everything one purchases except groceries. Everyone
pays. No loop holes.
I didn't know that was the goal... but thanks for telling us your goal...to
bring the LDS Church to its knees...Now that is a noble and
honorable goal...continue on
Re: a consumption tax, I think it's an excellent idea. My USC tax prof Ed
McCaffrey -- whose politics were very liberal -- wrote a book entitled "Fair Not
Flat" defending the consumption-tax idea from a left-of-center perspective.Basically, the liberal argument for a consumption tax is that many rich
people have the ability to structure their income so they don't realize any
income. Their wealth comes from the appreciation of assets, against which the
rich borrow to get cash flow. Borrowing generally isn't taxed, so the rich can
consume huge amounts of wealth without ever paying taxes on it.A
good consumption tax system would include a large personal exemption, based on
the belief that the government has no business taking away from the bare minimum
consumption needed to get by. That would also make the tax progressive, because
for every dollar above the exemption the taxpayer makes, a greater percentage of
his income is subject to taxation, resulting in a greater percentage of his
income being taxed.
Want to bring the LDS organization to its knees?Talk everybody into
withholding their tithing.The way the economy and rate of inflation is
going, this might be sooner than we all think.
I think most people are taught some variation of the principle that "where much
is given, much is required." Many here seem to think that a rich man's money is
totally his, to do exactly as he pleases with. (No he DID NOT earn it all on
his own--many other people, laws, tax breaks and resources also helped get him
what he now has.)But we in this country also have an obligation to
each other as citizens. We enact laws to help those who are most the most
needy. We, as a nation, usually step in and help other Americans during natural
disasters (lack of help during Hurricane Katrina seemed totally UN-American!)
and for other emergencies and essentials.It only makes sense that
those who are more able to help would be called upon before those who are the
least able, doesn't it?Have we forgotten that we're all in this
Kim@ Really now, the whole country is drowning in debt and foreclosures are at
an all time high...I imagine the LDS church wishes they had 10% of all that
To "Kim 2:05" so, what is your point. All it says is that you know a lot of
people that don't know how to budget.I live on a budget, and am able
to give my 10% faithfully. We aren't talking rocket science, just you can't
spend more than you earn, and you should probably spend less than you earn.
Alot of LDS have problems paying their bills part because they are paying their
10% faithfully no matter how streched they are fincecially,rather leave a bill
for the next month as long as our 10% are paid to the church.
with a consumption based tax (say 10%)...those who have more...and by extension
spend more...will surely pay more. It has nothing to do with equal footing and
every thing to do with class warfare...and no, I am not wealthy...I just want to
pay my share...and I want others to pay theirs...from every demographic.
Mixing these ideas or even worse equating mandetory-taxes with
voluntary-contributions is not a good direction to go. I see where your going
with this one (everyone should be on equal footing instead of rich being taxed
more, etc), but I don't like the pretext the idea is based on.We
should all be treated as "equal" by our government but that is irrelevant to our
charitable contributions (the 2 concepts shouldn't be mixed). We should
contribute as much as we can to charity/church (not one number or percentage
fits all) that's why we also have "Fast Offerings" for those who have been
blessed with plenty to help the poor who are temporarily struggling to get by on
their way back to prosperity.
who are you to say that those who have more should pay more? It's
complete income redistribution that you seek...so tell us all, who are you to
say that those who have more should pay more?I say, let those who
have more keep theirs. It's not the governments and it's not their neighbors.The left has this philosophy that the rich are bad people; bad bad
people and to make it all right they need to pay more. Foolishness.Taking from one to give to another is nothing more than government induced
stealing....Without your emotional pleas....please explain the
rationale that someone should pay more than someone else based on income or bank
account?When buying a car, house, shoes, tennis racket, flowers,
kitchen table, rakes, shovels...do you pay a different price based on ability to
pay? No.I don't make much money, but I sure don't follow your
"logic" to steal from someone to give it to another...why don't you just go
knock on your neighbor's door and say you are here to collect your $200? They'd
laugh you off the porch....Frank...please explain!
If the government decides to look at the LDS church and their practices, I hope
they also look at the church Welfare sytem.If they are going to
borrow ideas, they should get all of the good ideas possible.
Besides.... Tithing is about more than money, it is about Faith. Everyone feels
to sorry frank:Thank you for making my point. I was referring to the
letter writers line of "equal footing" and making the point that there is no
such thing as equal footing. No where did I say that we should all have the same
checking account, just that those who have more SHOULD pay more. I think the
real argument is where that line (have more) should be drawn. And its
fr1nk not frank.
would be an offense to the "government is god" left. Why would it be an
offense? God only requires 10%. The government (in some minds) deserves much,
And FR1NK has got it right, and self-importance is now the overwhelming norm in
Frank says that those who enjoy the most privilege in our society should share
the most responsibility...Can you explain where this thought process
stems and why it is true?Why should those who make more also be
taxed more? Who says? You? What makes your opinion correct in this matter?Again the liberals for some reason think that everyone should have the
same bank account numbers. This line of thinking is delusional. People are never
going to be equal in monetary terms; never have, never will be.The
concept to be that way is straight out of communism and we can see how well that
works.Just as closing the border is the first step in stopping
illegal immigration, the first issue that needs to be resolved in monetary terms
is the overspending of Congress.Stop this an many of our issues will
go away. Why? Because there won't be the political pandering for votes through
stealing from one person and giving it to another.
How does that put us on "equal footing"? I was raised in a big family with one
wage earner working an under appreciated government job. I had to work the
entire time I was in school. I drove a old crappy car all through college, and I
was lucky to have that car. Yet some have it much worse than I did. Jon Huntsman
Jr was born a multi-millionaire. He has never had to do a real day of work in
his life. There is no such thing as equal footing. Those who enjoy the most
privilege in our society should share the most responsibility.
"Mitt wins a national write in campaign" - please - Let it rest until 2016.
I'm fine with a consumption tax (fair tax) the writer (or possibly the editors)
left out the abolition of the income tax. I would never agree to a consumption
tax until the (16th?) amendment allowing taxation of income is abolished
otherwise you're just asking for both
If the US is to have a flat tax, I propose one where the pain of taxation is
equally spread. I person making 600 million to run a company into the ground,
if that person were taxed at a 99% rate, it would hurt them less than if a
person who has a wife and kids making $24,000 a year were taxed at 1%.We can have a flat tax were every citizen is charged the same amount of
dollars, say $3000 per citizen per year. Or we can have a flat tax where every
person is charged the same percentage of their pay, or we can have a flat tax
where the pain is spread equally. I vote for the latter.
Tithe for Government?? What ever happened to the happy talk of cutting taxes,
spending our brains out, and blaming everyone but ourselves for our dilemma.
Balancing the nation's checkbook as we do our own would help more than tithing,
but if Mitt wins with a national write in campaign anything could happen.
If anything the LDS tithe is proof a flat tax is viable.
"Strongest religion financially in the world?"My dear Mr. Taylor -You have not the slightest inkling of the Roman Catholic Church's holdings -
Since when is Mormonism the "strongest religion financially in the world"? Has
the writer lost sight of the vast oil wealth of Islam or the incredible wealth
of the Catholics?