Taxes are evil only because they're needed. If humanity were right minded, there would be no one without any of the necessities of life while there would be no taxes or even money for that matter.

The world is so full of hardhearted souls though that taxes, even though they were originally devised by the greedy for the greedy (tribute), have been employed in many cases for the sake of the poor and lower-middle class and even middle class. They certainly have never hurt the upper-middle class. Only the upper class seems to be pained by them. It really offends them in a twisted way to share.

Right now there are many people downsizing to smaller homes or becoming renters or even homeless all together. That comes on top of what was already a difficult act: Paying off student loans, paying for daycare, covering health insurance, saving for their children's education, and planning and preparing for retirement. Along with the housing problem, now comes huge food- and fuel-price inflation. So, what is society to do?

Unless and until society is ready to be softhearted and do away with taxes and money and just cooperate while sharing the ownership of the whole thing (all of society) together at once and to treat the Commons better than they've ever treated even their own possessions, then the only thing to do is soak the rich.

What does that mean? It means raise taxes on the rich until not one of them has more than say four times the person with the least. In other words, the richest person would not be richer than the four poorest people combined. Now you have to understand that once the wealth in the form of wages and salaries is spread out that way, the poorest wouldn't be poor, not if the whole of society were to freely vote for this move. Being four times richer than the poorest at that point would be like being four times richer than some one in the solid middle class at its best in history. Not one person at that level would be wanting for anything.

What could be done with such greater leveling? All student loans could be forgiven. All healthcare could be universal and without direct fees (just paid for via taxes). All education through the doctorate level could also be without direct fees. Just imagine a whole nation of people who could obtain doctorates based solely upon ability to do the work rather than whether or not they come from a rich family or can ingratiate themselves with the powers that be. Think about the improvements in society that would result from such a much more highly educated base. Also, Social Security could easily be doubled or tripled or more. All infrastructure could be renationalized and upgraded. All the privatization could be reversed. All the fees for public places could be dropped. Why should U.S. citizens have to pay to stay at a National Park for instance? Why should there be any toll roads or toll bridges or bus fares or subway charges? Why should anyone have to pay a bill for water or electricity? If you're worried about waste, it could all be on governors. In other words, it could all be rationed. A home only needs so much water or electricity. The entire system could be switched over to solar and wind energy and other totally clean and safe systems, because the people could just will it via their representatives.

The reason the upper class like money is because they can gain it. The more things are paid for via taxes and the more the work is done by the people (their government – how the people choose and what the people choose), the fewer places the greedy rich can make profits off their fellow human beings, the fewer places they can make the decisions rather than the middle and lower classes (the common people) can make them.

Making a profit isn't inherently evil. What's inherently evil is when that gain is at the negative expense of anyone else.

It profits you to profit others. In fact, in so many words Jesus said that's the only real profit. He asked people what it profited them to gain the world but lose their souls. It's a great point. Is it really profitable in that sense to get anything when doing so deprives others of what they need?

Therefore, the whole of society can be set around that true meaning of profit. Then capital is defined as that which is of real worth and value. Then capital isn't evil. It's something else from how the term is used today (a medium of exchange or trade rather than giving and sharing). When everyone together owns everything and are taking great care of it, everyone will have all the real capital in the world.

Please understand that the only error in sharing that has ever been made is the use of force. It is an error to force sharing, and it is an error to force non-sharing. Sharing, per se, has never been evil. The only time sharing is evil is when what is being shared is harmful or the act of sharing is harmful. Sharing the spoils of aggressive war is inherently evil, because the act of waging a war of aggression is inherently evil. Sharing the bounty from working a proper organic farm, however, is not evil. Proper organic farming is not an evil act.

You might wonder what's an improper organic farm. Well, clear cutting the Amazon to plant organic row-crops would be improper. The farm in that case is improper. It shouldn't be there. The Amazon rain forest should be.

Anyway, the roaring 1990's (roaring 20's revisited) are over. The new Gilded Age too must end. The New Deal must be revived only much more so.

Frankly, the real Christian is for going all the way to pure communism, which is not militant, Marxist, atheistic materialism but rather pure love that is spirit pouring out from the heart.

I don't vote within the system though, because by voting, I would be seeking to have my vote count toward forcing others against their will. I don't want others to force me against my will, so I don't do it to others. It's not the Golden Rule to force others.

However, if you are going to force anyone to do anything, the least you can do is seek to fill the needs of the needy. It's better than using that same system to vote more for the rich and less for the poor, which is what the ultra rich managed to hypnotize much of society into doing under Ronald Reagan (the second worst president in my lifetime) — George W. Bush being the worst. Yes, they are both worse than was Richard M. Nixon; however, they did build upon what Nixon began: Tearing down the New Deal of probably the best overall president for the people in history, Franklin D. Roosevelt (warts and all).

That's not to nominate FDR for sainthood, far from it. Being the best U.S. president ever really isn't saying much.

If the rich tell you that soaking the rich is a bad idea, well the common person was never better off than when the rich were soaked. The common person's welfare has been going down right along with the undoing of the soak-the-rich policies and programs of the federal government.

Listen, the rich don't get into heaven before a full size, natural camel goes through the eye of a regular, handheld sowing needle. The reason for that is because their hearts are full of falsehood. The fruit of the false-hearted is falsehood. So when they tell you that soaking them is a bad idea relative to letting them continue getting more while everyone has less and many are even dying, tell them all you're hearing from them is falsehood because their hearts of full of greed and selfishness that is evil, per Jesus Christ.

Don't forget that the rich own the companies from which all the pro-rich stories come. They pay people to trick you. Who do you trust, Jesus or the rich?

Do an Internet search on "soak the rich" and just see for yourself how afraid they are that you'll catch on. Just look at all the energy they put into trying to convince everyone who isn't rich that improving things for everyone else (as the New Deal did) is bad. Just look at all the people the rich pay to put those stories out there. Ask yourself why the advocates of common people like you aren't at the top of the search results. Someday they will be if people such as you start seeing the light about giving and sharing across the whole of society (state and church and charity, etc.).

Don't continue being a dupe of the rich. Don't be their minion. Don't fall for their lies. They are not the source of wealth.

They also play fast and loose with statistics and charts and graphs. When taxes on the rich go down, their incomes go up really high. The incomes of the rest actually go down. Therefore, the rich pay more as a percentage of total taxes. However, total tax revenues go down. There is less money in the government for social services. Then the rich say to cut social services more. It's a vicious cycle of obfuscation they figure you'll never be smart enough to see or have or make time to find out about.

Raising the taxes on the rich will increase the general revenues to pay for the social services. Just don't let them decide how to run those services, because they'll run them into the ground to destroy them. That's what they did with the housing projects for the poor. They deliberately mismanaged them to destroy the hope of the poor to have any share in the wealth. It's biblical.

The common people together through their representatives can choose where to invest their money (taxes) better than the rich can decide where to invest.

Just look at where the rich put their money: Hedge funds that backed the subprime-mortgage crisis. Don't forget how the poor were tricked into taking out mortgages they couldn't afford. All the money of the poor was transferred to the rich. Then all the equity the poor thought they would build was not only not forthcoming but the poor became poorer. Now real estate values have gone down and the only people with the money to buy up property are those same rich ones who bilked the poor in the first place.

The common people would not have chosen to put collective wealth into creating the subprime-mortgage crisis. The common people would have put it into education, healthcare, housing, food, retirement, smart energy, peacemaking, and the like.

When Ronald Reagan said that you could spend your own money better than can bureaucrats (who were people like you) in Washington, he was just working for the ultra rich to get the money into their hands via consolidation from deregulation. He was just working to take the collective decision-making power out of your hands (common people's hands) to place it back in the hands of current-day robber barons. All that deregulation postponed all the things that could have been done and should have been done to stop the pollution and to shift to clean, alternative, non-toxic waste producing (non-nuclear) energy. The common people want to do good things for all the people. With very few exceptions, the upper class wants only for the upper class. That's painfully obvious.

If the New Deal had been strengthened rather than destroyed by the neoliberals including Bill Clinton, the levees around New Orleans would have been repaired. Perhaps Hurricane Katrina never would have hit New Orleans. In fact, it wouldn't have. The bridge in Minnesota wouldn't have collapsed.

Also, if we had stopped the military spending and concentrated on non-carbon-based and non-nuclear energy, we wouldn't have been in the Middle East angering Muslims. How could 9/11 have happened? In fact, we would have been in a position to help the whole world shift from oil burning.

Everything would have been better had the people not listened to the greedy ones: The "materialistic pigs" they used to be called when I was a boy.

A good conversation on some of this may be found in the articles/interview, "Have we fallen behind our parents? Author Nan Mooney argues that the middle class is slipping, and fixing it is going to take more than cutting out lattes," by Katharine Mieszkowski. May 14, 2008.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.