Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior

Ben Carson Proposes Tax Plan Based on Biblical Tithing

First Prev Next Last
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Ben Carson Proposes Tax Plan Based on Biblical Tithing

    Presidential hopeful Ben Carson has proposed a new tax plan that is inspired by biblical tithing. According to Carson’s plan, taxpayers would pay 10 percent of their earnings to the government.

    "You make $10 billion a year, you pay a billion; you make $10 year, you pay one. That's pretty damn fair if you ask me," Carson explained.

    The Republican candidate told Fox News Sunday that the flat percentage tax is based on tithing in the Bible.

    "I like the idea of a proportional tax - that way you pay according to your ability. I got that idea quite frankly from the Bible,” he said.

    Christian Today reports critics said Carson’s plan would hurt the poor because they would be able to pay. The doctor-turned politician said that it was condescending to make such an assumption.

    "Poor people have pride, too, and they don't want to be just taken care of,” he said.

    I think the idea of a flat tax with all income taxed at the same rate is a good idea. It might be necessary to set the rate at something other than 10% depending on how much we need to operate the government. The tax would impose a greater burden on low income people. This could be corrected by allowing each taxpayer a personal deduction and taking all income above that level.
    Clyde Herrin's Blog

      I know I'll never see it, but I'd like for the government to get out of the business of know where my money comes from and where it goes altogether. No income tax. It used to be that way. Next, get rid of federal encumbrances that should be privatized or at state level, cutting cost, such as the NEA. Finally, to run the government, have just a sales tax. Most states do both. We should just have a sales tax. The more you make, the more you spend, thus the more you pay. Perhaps have a bottom-end cutoff for the poor, making them exempt, where they would be willing to prove to the government that they are poor and carry an ID card of tax exemption. NO system is fool-proof, as I know there will be cheating, as there is now. But I think this is the best solution and does away with an impossible tax code. It's called the Value Added Tax, or VAT.

        Originally posted by William View Post
        "You make $10 billion a year, you pay a billion; you make $10 year, you pay one. That's pretty damn fair if you ask me," Carson explained.
        Interesting, swearing while proposing a Bible-inspired idea.

        An absolute flat income tax is a terrible idea. The primary function of income taxes is to transfer money from those with more to those with less. That is, if you tax the poor, it's pointless to tax anyone's income at all. If there ever were an absolute flat tax, it would be complemented by a huge increase in the welfare state, which would also snag million of Americans not now on welfare, to offset the new tax burden (so much for the false generalization about the poor having pride). Other than not taxing, nothing is more fair than progressive tax rates.

        USA Today is now running the headline reporting the number of Americans identifying themselves as Christian is still rapidly declining. The other half of the story, not addressed by USA Today, is that those who still identify as Christian are getting dumber (for lack of better word). We have no Christian leadership in this country, so Christians are being led around by people who do not have Christian interests at heart -- false conservatives (neocons) and false Christians (nominal Christians). Christians don't need to be wasting energy supporting nonsense tax schemes which would only hurt Christians (e.g. that actually would grow the government, and further penalize Christians).

        Here a some ideas:
        Replace social security and medicare taxes with a national sales tax.
        Eliminate (or make optional) MFJ/MFS filing statuses.
        Eliminate most itemized deductions (including mortgage and tax deductions).


          Ted Cruz also plans to abolish the income tax or the IRS, and proposes a simple flat tax anybody could file on a post card. Interestingly, I read this years ago, and still can't shake it from the back of my mind whenever seeing so many people dependent upon social services. I guess, deleting the income tax still does not appeal to Liberals (generous gifts are no match for actually keeping more of what you yourself earn). I find Carson's "tithe" ideology quite interesting. I do not believe "giving" should be under compulsion, and that occurs whenever the Government is involved thereby stripping virtue from moral transactions. However, I suspect people would still give generously if not more abundantly, considering most statistics show Republicans and Conservatives contribute more to charity than their Liberal opponents.

          About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

          'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government'

          'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury'

          'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship'

          'The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'

          'During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:

          1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
          2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
          3. From courage to liberty;
          4. From liberty to abundance;
          5. From abundance to complacency;
          6. From complacency to apathy;
          7. From apathy to dependence;
          8. From dependence back into bondage'
          Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:
          • Number of States won by: Gore: 19 Bush: 29
          • Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000 Bush: 2,427,000
          • Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million Bush: 143 million
          • Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2 Bush: 2.1

          Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.

          God bless,

            Originally posted by William View Post
            Ted Cruz also plans to abolish the income tax, and proposes a simple flat tax anybody could file on a post card.
            Why propose a simple flat tax instead of proposing steps toward a simple flat tax? If Ted Cruz and Ben Carson are honest, why not start with more modest proposals? Why not steps toward what I just proposed in my previous post: Eliminate itemized deductions and the married filing status? By his grand proposal, he appeals to a certain crowd, but by the grandness of his proposal, he's relieved from being bothered to make progress. And, so, the tax code gets more complex and unfair with each year.

              A sales tax is unfair to the poor. Poor people must spend all or most of their income to provide the basic necessities of life. Since they pay little or no income tax they would see an increase in their cost of living without any tax savings to offset it. Rich people spend only a small part of their income for their basic needs. They have more freedom to choose how much they spend for other things. If the government depends on sales or value added tax the rich find it easy to choose how much tax they will pay.
              Clyde Herrin's Blog
              Articles - News - SiteMap