Mocking The Poor

[The Nehor]

Basically this is a straw man comparison.

 

Yep, pretty much.

 

 

There are many ways to improve society without resorting to extreme comparisons.

 

Yeah, but they're dumb and boring.

 

 

What you need to understand is the capitalism has many isms. There isn't just one capitalism.

 

So you're polycapitalist? This kind of makes you a heretic doesn't it? There is one Capitalism and the Lord of America is his name.

[why me]

 There is one Capitalism and the Lord of America is his name.

I know. And that was my point. The discussion on this thread has taken many forms, mainly with the american concept of charity, reflecting the social gospel that came as a direct result of social darwinian capitalism. The salvation army was mirrored in the social gospel as were other christian organizations and charities. In a way, it was a circle. The system created poverty and charities acted as a stop gap so these poor people did not starve to death or freeze to death. But very few blame the system for creating such poverty.

 

As people needed more aid because the system was more focused on profit, the government began to get involved through welfare measures. Why? The great depression was a warning shot to the fathers of capitalism that something needed to be done or the workers would become more radical. In europe, social democracy (capitalism with a human face) came to power while in america, a welfare program was developed. Social Democracy was very successful in combating poverty but the welfare society that was implemented in the united states was less successful since the capitalism was much more individualist in nature. And the people on welfare were vilified by many segments of the population. The american system failed the poor.

 

But as you so noted it is the american model that rules the waves. And thus, the poor are growing in numbers. I am including not just material poverty but spiritual poverty as loneliness, marginalization, alienation, etc blossoms in societies. As the brother from sweden noted, it has also taken root in his country  and it has had poor consequences for the people of sweden.

Edited January 12, 2014 by why me

[bcuzbcuz]

It is sad. I remember Olaf Palme very well. He was a great guy and true blue democratic socialist. It was a sad day when he was murdered on the streets of stockholm. That sweden of economic justice and social equality murdered with him. I am afraid that your neighbor to the east Finland has followed the example of sweden. And poverty has returned to that country too.

 

And you are correct about the IMF. All this happened in 1989 when eastern europe was shedding its communist ideology  and Thatcher's 'no alternative' took root in the mainland of europe. No alternative to market capitalism. And thus, poverty and marginalization, soup kitchens have returned.

I agree in part to your evaluation of Finnish economics, but I think because of their educational system, which, unlike Sweden, is not deteriorating,, they have the possibility of change.

Finland still leads the PISA surveys, because their teachers are well educated, and their school system has not collapsed into a fanatical hunt for economic profit, as in Sweden. So I still hold out hope for Finland.

The US on the other hand, for other reasons, has an educational system in a free fall from bad to worse. Therefore, the chances of the broad base of community understanding difficult economic interpretations of reality will be sadly lacking. When incomplete theories, present incomplete representations of economic reality to a public incompletely educated, bad economic decisions will be made. Even experts in economics try to present ideas that justify the need for the extremely poor...to provide cheap products, etc. etc.

You'll probably see my bias. I believe in good education. Not that well educated, intelligent people don't make bad decisions. There are abundant examples where the opposite can be demonstrated.. But a well educated population will be, more likely, able to make information based decisions. .......I hope....

[bcuzbcuz]

I made a mistake. I should have written sweden. I was referring to sweden. But I put america instead. I changed it in my original post. Sorry.

 

The nordic countries had an educational system that emphasized social justice and social equality. The educational system supported the nordic welfare model in outlook. Now, however, it is has changed into a neoliberal model and such concepts as justice and equality have disappeared. The system is becoming much more american in tone and philosophy inside the education system.

 

http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=5

 

You can read the last paragraph about the new winner take all educational system in Finland but this also applies to Sweden etc.

Excellent article, thank you. I must read it again, for comprehension, this time. lol

[why me]

For consideration. There is no reason why the united states could not do what the norwegians do:

 

http://www.wabcradio.com/common/more.php?m=58&ts=1389451620&article=3D2AC3F17ADC11E3B51EFEFDADE6840A&mode=2

 

WHY NORWEGIANS ARE MILLIONAIRES AND AMERICANS ARE PAUPERS

 

(NEW YORK) --  Among the reasons Norwegians can celebrate Norway are the '80s band A-ha, the narrow geological formations called fjords, oil and the biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world.

The sovereign fund, which the country uses for investments that benefit their economy and people, reached 5.1 trillion crowns, or about $818 billion, due in large part to the rising price of oil, according to a report out this week. That surge in the fund, called the Government Pension Fund Global, theoretically makes each of Norway's 5,096,300 people a millionaire in crowns.

Translated into dollars, the fund's crowns (spelled "krone" in Norway) per capita is about $161,660, said Michael Maduell, president of the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute.

Despite all that money in the wealth fund, Norway still has a national debt of 759 billion crowns or about 25 percent of gross domestic product. By comparison, the US debt of $17.3 trillion is 102 percent of GDP.

But Norwegians aren't going to retire on that sovereign fund's money for several reasons.

Norway's Government Pension Fund Global was created to be an intergenerational savings vehicle to secure income from a fossil fuel resource and to prevent "Dutch Disease," or the economic phenomenon when an increase in natural resources leads to a decline in other sectors like manufacturing or agriculture, explains Maduell.

The sovereign wealth fund is integrated into Norway's fiscal budget: four percent of the fund's assets can be spent each year by the government. Unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund, no dividends are paid out each year to its citizens.

"The rest of the money accumulates in the sovereign wealth fund, which is why it is so large today," Maduell said.

Oil and gas are financial drivers for many of the sovereign funds in the world. Norway happens to be the seventh largest oil exporter.

After Norway, the country with the second-largest sovereign wealth fund is Saudi Arabia with over $675 billion, followed by the fund for Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates with $627 billion, according to the Sovereign Wealth Fund Institute. Alaska has one of the highest sovereign wealth funds of the U.S. states with about $47 billion.

Barry Bosworth, economist at the Brookings Institution, said the Norwegian fund is usually held up around the world as a model of how to run a sovereign fund.

"Norway has done an excellent job of saving and investing a portion of its oil revenues for future generations," says Bosworth, a former economic advisor to Jimmy Carter.

He said the country has come under pressure from voters to pay out a larger portion of the assets, which Bosworth said is "understandable," given the successful growth of the fund.

Contrary to the belief of some, Bosworth said he believes the existence of the country's wealth has not depressed citizens' willingness to work, pointing to the Norwegian labor force participation rate -- that is, the percentage of people who are working or actively looking for work, which is equal or above to that of most age groups in the U.S. The most recent data from the U.S. Labor Department showed that the labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 62.8 percent in December, a 35-year low.

In addition, Bosworth said there isn't evidence of imprudent levels of public or private debt in Norway, unlike much of Europe. The sovereign fund is recorded as an asset of the Norwegian government and now equals about two times their income, he explains.

However, oil exports have raised the exchange rate and led to a loss of manufacturing jobs, Bosworth said.

Besides fjords and other commodities, Norway is also known for another export.

"Finally, I note that Norway has excellent mystery writers, although I have no proof that it can be traced to the sovereign fund," he points out.

Copyright 2014 ABC News Radio -

Edited January 12, 2014 by why me

[rodheadlee]

People are not fat because they can't get whole grain foods. What a load. I am sorry. They are not fat because they eat at mcdonalds. THey are fat because the caloric intake is greater than what calories they burn in a day. It really is not any more complex than that.

I'm sorry but it is more complex than that. I suggest a trip to Am Samoa where you will be worked under the table by heavy women that work real hard. I watched them work on a 3 level hotel during a tsunami warning marching up and down the stairs to move stuff to high ground. They wore me out trying to keep up. I am a fit 205lb 6 '2" semi muscular guy.

[Tacenda]

I'm sorry but it is more complex than that. I suggest a trip to Am Samoa where you will be worked under the table by heavy women that work real hard. I watched them work on a 3 level hotel during a tsunami warning marching up and down the stairs to move stuff to high ground. They wore me out trying to keep up. I am a fit 205lb 6 '2" semi muscular guy.

So true. Alot of it is genetic. People jump to an incorrect conclusion. Some overweight people eat like a bird and their bodies go into starvation mode and metabolism slows down, IMO.

[thesometimesaint]

You still have not addressed unless I have missed it in your many claims of your own choice to stay...those people who do not have the ability to choose...have those who are unable to immigrate to other countries also "volunteered to stay" in this one? If they have,how have they? By not committing suicide or going to jail?

 

Get with your like minded friends and change the laws through the ballot box.

[Calm]

Get with your like minded friends and change the laws through the ballot box.

Still not answering the question....how many times is this?

The question is how have those who never made a choice to be here and can't choose to leave even if they want to because other countries won't legally accept them....how have these people volunteered in any sense of the word?

What if they aren't effective in changing laws no matter how hard they try? What of those who were born here or brought as children and were given no say in the matter and have no ability to go anywhere else? Do you call them volunteers and is so how did they volunteer? Because they choose to breathe and eat and not slit their wrists?

Why are you trying so hard to avoid the question by giving all these irrelevant answers to questions I never asked.

A baby is born and place in a hospital bed by the nurse. He did not ask to be put in the bed. He wants to stay with his mother most likely..but no one bothered to ask his opinion. Has he volunteered to be in that bed even if it is impossible for him tI move out out it.

Edited January 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Still not answering the question....how many times is this?

The question is how have those who never made a choice to be here and can't choose to leave even if they want to because other countries won't legally accept them....how have these people volunteered in any sense of the word?

What if they aren't effective in changing laws no matter how hard they try? What of those who were born here or brought as children and were given no say in the matter and have no ability to go anywhere else? Do you call them volunteers and is so how did they volunteer? Because they choose to breathe and eat and not slit their wrists?

 

I have already given you ample ways we are volunteers in our government. I have given you ways to feel part of our government. I have given you ways to leave leave our country if you don't like it. I have even given you peaceful and legal ways to change it. There is only one way left and that is to get with your like minded friends and revolt against your government. A word of caution that very seldom works out well.

[Calm]

Still not answering the question for those who do not have the resources to leave nor the clout to make it acceptable.

For examples, the slaves back in the early 1800s...had they volunteered to live under this country's laws, after all they had their feet for walking and borders were much more open then.

In what way have those who made no choice to live here volunteered to live in this country if it is the only option open to them?

Pointing out that options may exist for others...others may have the finances and legal opportu ity to move, others may have enough political influences to stay and change things...but for those who don't, who can't make it work...are you really suggesting that telling someone try to overthrow the government is some sort of answer to the question "did this person who made no choice to come here and can't leave "volunteer" to be here?

Why is it so crucial to you to be able to make the claim that everyone who lives in the US has volunteered to do so? Do you feel the same wat about North Korea? Are the people there all volunteers to live under that form of government?

Edited January 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

I think we all agree that at least individually we have a moral obligation to care for the poor.

 

Where we tend to disagree most is in terms of the nature and means for conveying our charity and service.

 

In deciding between the competing ideas, isn't it advantageous to ask whether the proposed options actually work in terms of helping the poor (particularly long term)? Would it make sense to actively promote an option that doesn't help raise people out of poverty, particularly in the long term, but causes more and more people to become poor and/or more impoverished, or where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need? Does God want us to completely remove the mind from matters of the heart?

 

I ask because I have some thought-provoking statistics in relation the oft proposed option of compulsory charity through the auspices of the government, and there is little point in posting them if people are of the belief that charity need not or likely will not make sense.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 12, 2014 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

Still not answering the question for those who do not have the resources to leave nor the clout to make it acceptable.

For examples, the slaves back in the early 1800s...had they volunteered to live under this country's laws, after all they had their feet for walking and borders were much more open then.

In what way have those who made no choice to live here volunteered to live in this country if it is the only option open to them?

Pointing out that options may exist for others...others may have the finances and legal opportu ity to move, others may have enough political influences to stay and change things...but for those who don't, who can't make it work...are you really suggesting that telling someone try to overthrow the government is some sort of answer to the question "did this person who made no choice to come here and can't leave "volunteer" to be here?

Why is it so crucial to you to be able to make the claim that everyone who lives in the US has volunteered to do so? Do you feel the same wat about North Korea? Are the people there all volunteers to live under that form of government?

 

Blacks and slaves weren't citizens and didn't have the freedom to voluntarily leave.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

 

As I remember reading it. The US Civil War was a revolt by the South to keep blacks as non-citizens. That didn't work out real well for the South.

 

I'm pretty sure you've heard of the Underground Rail Road.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_Railroad

 

Without influence, means, or ability to effect change through peaceful and legal means the only alternative, other than slitting your own writs, is rebellion. When you preclude peaceful change you are advocating the unpeaceful kind.

 

Despite its name North Korea(Democratic People's Republic of Korea) isn't anywhere near what we'd call a democratically elected republic. I feel sorry for those long suffering North Koreans and wish there was a way to legally and peacefully for them to change their government.

[thesometimesaint]

I think we all agree that at least individually we have a moral obligation to care for the poor.

 

Where we tend to disagree most is in terms of the nature and means for conveying our charity and service.

 

In deciding between the competing ideas, isn't it advantageous to ask whether the proposed options actually work in terms of helping the poor (particularly long term)? Would it make sense to actively promote an option that doesn't help raise people out of poverty, particularly in the long term, but causes more and more people to become poor and/or more impoverished, or where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need? Does God want us to completely remove the mind from matters of the heart?

 

I ask because I have some thought-provoking statistics in relation the oft proposed option of compulsory charity through the auspices of the government, and there is little point in posting them if people are of the belief that charity need not or likely will not make sense.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Most of us in the US are but one or two paychecks away from poverty. The bills keep coming in whether you are employed or not. Unemployment benefits help bridge the gap by keeping the unemployed in the job market. IE; Without a home address, food in your stomach, and a phone, job hunting becomes all but problematic.

 

The long term unemployed are a separate but related issue. Potential employers don't look kindly on any job history breaks. In this fast paced competitive market for jobs after about six months of unemployment you loose those social contacts that allow for an easy transition back to employment. In highly competitive positions it can be a matter of weeks if not days you lose those contacts. Nine months and you start to lose skills(IE; Education, OJT) needed for you to return to your former job skill set. So additional education, retraining is needed. Even assuming you don't become discouraged and drop out of the labor market entirely before hand. After about 2 years sometimes less you are effectively unemployable.

 

We Saints are required by Scripture to give charity and pay taxes.

[wenglund]

Most of us in the US are but one or two paychecks away from poverty. The bills keep coming in whether you are employed or not. Unemployment benefits help bridge the gap by keeping the unemployed in the job market. IE; Without a home address, food in your stomach, and a phone, job hunting becomes all but problematic.

 

The long term unemployed are a separate but related issue. Potential employers don't look kindly on any job history breaks. In this fast paced competitive market for jobs after about six months of unemployment you loose those social contacts that allow for an easy transition back to employment. In highly competitive positions it can be a matter of weeks if not days you lose those contacts. Nine months and you start to lose skills(IE; Education, OJT) needed for you to return to your former job skill set. So additional education, retraining is needed. Even assuming you don't become discouraged and drop out of the labor market entirely before hand. After about 2 years sometimes less you are effectively unemployable.

 

We Saints are required by Scripture to give charity and pay taxes.

 

Okay...but how about answering the questions that I asked?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

Still not answering the question....how many times is this?

The question is how have those who never made a choice to be here and can't choose to leave even if they want to because other countries won't legally accept them....how have these people volunteered in any sense of the word?

What if they aren't effective in changing laws no matter how hard they try? What of those who were born here or brought as children and were given no say in the matter and have no ability to go anywhere else? Do you call them volunteers and is so how did they volunteer? Because they choose to breathe and eat and not slit their wrists?

Why are you trying so hard to avoid the question by giving all these irrelevant answers to questions I never asked.

A baby is born and place in a hospital bed by the nurse. He did not ask to be put in the bed. He wants to stay with his mother most likely..but no one bothered to ask his opinion. Has he volunteered to be in that bed even if it is impossible for him tI move out out it.

 

Your question is why can't people opt out of the society and government they were born in?

 

The answer is: Because they can't. It won't work. There are no sovereign citizens. They just have to deal with it. It may not seem fair. Oh well.

 

This is akin to demanding why people have to grow old. Because they just do and demanding a right not to will get you nowhere.

[Calm]

Your question is why can't people opt out of the society and government they were born in?

The answer is: Because they can't. It won't work. There are no sovereign citizens. They just have to deal with it. It may not seem fair. Oh well.

This is akin to demanding why people have to grow old. Because they just do and demanding a right not to will get you nowhere.

Exactly...so what is so hard about saying that? Why dance around the reality that not everyone "volunteers" for the government they live under?

Actually my question was more in line with why TSS was acting like all people had other options than living in a particular nation...thus if they lived in a country...at least the US that was a defacto choice to do so.

Edited January 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Okay...but how about answering the questions that I asked?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Already did. That we Saints are required by Scripture to give charity and pay taxes.

[bcuzbcuz]

Exactly...so what is so hard about saying that? Why dance around the reality that not everyone "volunteers" for the government they live under?

Actually my question was more in line with why TSS was acting like all people had other options than living in a particular nation...thus if they lived in a country...at least the US that was a defacto choice to do so.

Akin to this question is the "why" people do not make attempts to move to another country, even when the possibility exists??

Governments, the ruling powers, would rather have their own people stay. The country invests in education, health care, etc and have a "vested interest" in wanting people to stay. Presently, in Europe, there is a supposed free market of movement between member countries, but even here the movement is not free of costs. Money will need be invested in education, language instruction, to say the least,, and expansion of existing infrastructure. Therefore, certain nations encourage increased birth rates,, resist abortion, on financial basis.

Cheaper measures exist to keep people from moving. It is in a countries interest to convince their citizens that they live in the best possible of all possible choices.. I have yet to visit any country in Europe, or South or Central America where people will talk about why they think their country is NOT the greatest place to live. It goes beyond merely "cheering for the home team", it is an emotional evaluation of what they have and an emotional evaluation of that they have it good...even in the face of opposite evidence.

Even in poor countries, they recognize that they are not able to have certain things, but still think their country is great. I've been to Cuba twice, and that country is definitely poor, not just because of Castro, nor to the American 50 year blockade.. But Cubans love their country and only a small, invisible minority would ever think of moving.

Americans don't seem to want to recognize what a sales job is done on them from cradle to grave. Everwhere I have visited in the US and definitely from news coverage of electiions, etc, Americans repeat their mantra of living in the best country in the world. Reality doesn't seem to play a role in this evaluation.. A very small, very invisible minority in the US would ever think of moving to another country. How many Americans even have passports to be able to visit other countries? Last I heard it was less than 15%..

So people are disinclined to want to move and propoganda reinforces this inertia, even when the living conditions are far from satisfactory. A small percentage of people decide to tear up their roots and replant themselves in a new country.

It's much easier to say to oneself, "Despite everything, I've got it good. It's probably not any better anywhere else."

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly...so what is so hard about saying that? Why dance around the reality that not everyone "volunteers" for the government they live under?

Actually my question was more in line with why TSS was acting like all people had other options than living in a particular nation...thus if they lived in a country...at least the US that was a defacto choice to do so.

 

Actually I have never argued that everyone everywhere is free to leave. I choose to live in the US is the only answer there can be. I act, in concert with others, to change the laws that I(we) don't like through the peaceful and legal means of the ballot box. If I agreed with North Korean laws and practices I'd move there. I don't so I don't. N.K. is oppressive regime that through the force of the gun maintains its hold on its people.

 

Blacks in our country were held at the point of a gun and there was no peaceful and legal means by which they change the laws or leave. That took a violent and bloody civil war.

[bcuzbcuz]

I think we all agree that at least individually we have a moral obligation to care for the poor.

Where we tend to disagree most is in terms of the nature and means for conveying our charity and service.

In deciding between the competing ideas, isn't it advantageous to ask whether the proposed options actually work in terms of helping the poor (particularly long term)? Would it make sense to actively promote an option that doesn't help raise people out of poverty, particularly in the long term, but causes more and more people to become poor and/or more impoverished, or where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need? Does God want us to completely remove the mind from matters of the heart?

I ask because I have some thought-provoking statistics in relation the oft proposed option of compulsory charity through the auspices of the government, and there is little point in posting them if people are of the belief that charity need not or likely will not make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think we have a moral obligation, as individuals, to care for the poor. As it says in scripture: to care for the poor, the naked, the unhealthy.

It's quite easy to say, " I won't give any money to this or that person because I don't know what they will spend the money on." It's also easy to not find any joy in paying taxes because: There are better ways to do it, The money is not going to what I would prioritize, This method produces the wrong outcomes, etc, etc, etc.

You say you have thought provoking statistics, I'd be happy to hear them. Do you have propositions for ideas that will actually work, or is it just criticism of all present methods and models?

I personally think my government does not do enough for the poor, the sick, the uneducated. I would willingly pay more. I vote for and support a party that wants to increase taxes.

But this doesn't prevent me from giving time and money for programs or efforts that provide the kind of care I endorse. I have given many years in active service to those less fortunate and as soon as my wife goes into pension we have a plan to once again be active in supporting services that lie close to our hearts. We've got it good. We give away half of what we have and still have it good.

If I knew how to post it I'd post to a YouTube page, "Spearhead, 'Hole in the Bucket'", by Spearhead. I don't think he's singing about a bucket.

Edited January 13, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[Calm]

Actually I have never argued that everyone everywhere is free to leave. I

So are you changing your claim that "[a]s a citizen of this country you volunteered to pay taxes" since you have just stated not everyone is free to leave and therefore not everyone is free to reject their citizenship?

[Ahab]

I think we all agree that at least individually we have a moral obligation to care for the poor.

Where we tend to disagree most is in terms of the nature and means for conveying our charity and service.

In deciding between the competing ideas, isn't it advantageous to ask whether the proposed options actually work in terms of helping the poor (particularly long term)? Would it make sense to actively promote an option that doesn't help raise people out of poverty, particularly in the long term, but causes more and more people to become poor and/or more impoverished, or where scarce resource aren't prioritized and end up channeled to those less in need? Does God want us to completely remove the mind from matters of the heart?

I ask because I have some thought-provoking statistics in relation the oft proposed option of compulsory charity through the auspices of the government, and there is little point in posting them if people are of the belief that charity need not or likely will not make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's just cut to the chase while admitting that there are enough resources on this planet for everyone to have at least a modest home and modest clothing and a modest amount of food and all of the other needs we have on this planet, including medical care and transportation. The only thing we haven't worked out yet is getting everyone to agree on how that should be done, as if that is necessary, and I contend it is not necessary as long as all of us have a say in the process at least in our own country or state or province.

As a citizen of the Pacific NW area of the U.S. I'm in a pretty good place for most of the resources I need, but I'm willing to share what I have with people in other parts of the world. Are you? If not are you at least willing to put it up to a vote? If not other people are already voting on it and making decisions on this issue and you can choose to be part of the solution, even if it takes replacing the people who are in positions of power. It is up to all of us to choose what we will do, and because I have been given much I believe I must give, too.

[thesometimesaint]

So are you changing your claim that "[a]s a citizen of this country you volunteered to pay taxes" since you have just stated not everyone is free to leave and therefore not everyone is free to reject their citizenship?

Read the claim again. "As a citizen of this country..." . You are free to leave this country. We have people do it every day voluntarily. Other countries MAY have different laws.

 

There are essentially three ways to not pay taxes in this country. Not earn enough money to be pay them, or earn so much money that you can find legal loopholes to not paying them, or change the laws, through the ballot box, to ones you like. In any event our tax system is voluntary. If you use the assets of this country you have at least a moral obligation to pay for them. As a Saint I'm pretty sure you're familiar with our Article of Faith # 12:  We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Edited January 13, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

Read the claim again. "As a citizen of this country..." . You are free to leave this country. We have people do it every day voluntarily. Other countries MAY have different laws.

There are essentially three ways to not pay taxes in this country. Not earn enough money to be pay them, or earn so much money that you can find legal loopholes to not paying them, or change the laws, through the ballot box, to ones you like. In any event our tax system is voluntary. If you use the assets of this country you have at least a moral obligation to pay for them. As a Saint I'm pretty sure you're familiar with our Article of Faith # 12: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Joseph neglected to mention we believe in trying to change laws when we don't like them, too, including changing some people who make some laws for us.