Tan Tax

[philber]

I think some people don't see taxation as a form of punishment.

How can a government rightly "punish" a wrongdoer law-abiding citizen for doing something legal???

Government restricts freedom all the time without declaring something illegal. Do you then assume that any restriction of freedom that is not an explicit law with resultant criminal punishment is unscriptural? I would say that if you do, then the onus is on you to prove why that is.

[faithofjob777]

I think some people don't see taxation as a form of punishment.

How can a government rightly "punish" a wrongdoer law-abiding citizen for doing something legal???

Government restricts freedom all the time without declaring something illegal. Do you then assume that any restriction of freedom that is not an explicit law with resultant criminal punishment is unscriptural? I would say that if you do, then the onus is on you to prove why that is.

Good question.  I will take a shot at it, and this is obviously just my own opinion.  The danger of the civil government restricting freedom without calling something illegal, is that it finds itself a newer and greater kind of power to control its citizens.  No longer does it only stop certain sins by the sword as God has commanded, it can now even restrict people from doing what they are supposed to freely and legally do as men.

Egypt:

Exodus 1:9-14

Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. 13 So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves 14 and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves.

Overpopulation of men with a dangerous culture is like a growing number of people with skin cancer due to excessive tanning; they are a threat and a hindrance to people having an opposing worldview, whether it be with regards to morals or physical health.  The Egyptians saw the Hebrews as that danger, and without directly restricting the freedom to procreate, they did so indirectly by oppressing them to the point of breaking their spirit.  This is one glaring example of how the civil government can find any excuse to stifle godliness, in the guise of a supposedly greater good.

I wholeheartedly accept that it is outrageous and stupid for me to compare people who excessively tan with the procreating ancient Hebrews. The Hebrews were God's chosen people, while people who tan do not have that kind of special privilege.  But the parallel I find is the accusation upon them: they are both hindrances to progress, as perceived by ungodly men.  Such a hindrance may have some appearance of nobility; for indeed, if the inferior Hebrews were to overtake the wiser and mightier Egyptians, what great disaster would that be to mankind! 

This makes perfect sense to men who want continued progress in their society using their own worldview.  The godly and the ungodly can agree that for this to happen, there should be no cancerous kinds of people taking hold of power. Yet the ungodly also understand that instead of murdering such cancer-causing people (they must still serve as slaves after all), their population can be reduced by more workload and injustice.

In a similar kind of argument, it also makes perfect sense to curb skin cancer by targeting people who cause its incidence to rise.  They just need to be further punished, and still keep them as productive slaves. But as the ancient Egyptians also teach us, tyranny shall not end with one kind of oppression.  It will further enlarge its scope, to cause more destruction to other men.

While we may argue that the civil government today shall never be like ancient Egypt, we better think again.  It already is, doing so by subtle increments each day.  And the reason it has grown with such power is because Christians have remained stuck with rehashing sermons on personal piety, without unmasking and unpacking the evils of political and religious Babylon.  The ungodly can only flourish when the godly stay blind.

Jaime

[Quibbles]

Government restricts freedom all the time without declaring something illegal.

That's why we don't look to the self-law of godless states for our standard of justice.

Do you then assume that any restriction of freedom that is not an explicit law with resultant criminal punishment is unscriptural?

The government's role is to punish public, evil acts, not punish (which you believe a sin tax to be) private and/or public acts that the government - in its infinite wisdom - deems undesirable.

I would say that if you do, then the onus is on you to prove why that is.

No, the onus isn't on me to explain why a godless state that operates according to self-law - as here in Canada and as in the U.S. - is unscriptural.

But...let me offer a gift: Romans 13. 1 Peter 2.

[faithofjob777]

Nearing the end of Douglas Wilson's "Excused Absence" (great book!):

"Compulsory education is oxymoronic.  It is the inevitable end produced by the god of pragmatism--the idea that we can educate everyone if we merely put enough legal strength into our efforts.  When we consider what we should be willing to force other people to do, the answer should be limited to those things God requires us to force upon them.  For example, we should be willing to force people to refrain from murder, stealing, adultery, and so forth.  But we should not force them to quite smoking, eating refined sugar, coveting, lusting, and engage in other similar activities.  Neither should the state try to force people out of their ignorance with compulsory education.

...

This leads us to the distinction between sins and crimes.  A crime is a particular behavior which has a penalty attached to it.  A sin is something which is morally reprehensible but which should not have a civil penalty attached to it.  Assuming just laws, all crimes are sins, but not all sins should be crimes.  Lazy ignorance is certainly a sin, but ought not be a crime.  Consequently, compulsory education should appall us because it is a sin that has been elevated into a crime.

Because we have blurred the distinction between sins and crimes and have penalized people for their sins, at the end of the day, the busy statist will be manufacturing sin-laws to penalize sinners."

(p. 120)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Amen!  Even worse, the busy statist is already inventing sin-laws to penalize potential sinners.  He doesn't stop there, and is also penalizing people for doing good.  An upside-down world indeed.

Jaime

[Rberman]

Nearing the end of Douglas Wilson's "Excused Absence" (great book!):

"Compulsory education is oxymoronic.  It is the inevitable end produced by the god of pragmatism--the idea that we can educate everyone if we merely put enough legal strength into our efforts.  When we consider what we should be willing to force other people to do, the answer should be limited to those things God requires us to force upon them.  For example, we should be willing to force people to refrain from murder, stealing, adultery, and so forth.  But we should not force them to quite smoking, eating refined sugar, coveting, lusting, and engage in other similar activities.

I wonder what Wilson thinks about the WLC parts I mentioned earlier.  Why is it OK to criminalize certain of those applications of the Sixth Commandment but not others?

[faithofjob777]

Nearing the end of Douglas Wilson's "Excused Absence" (great book!):

"Compulsory education is oxymoronic.  It is the inevitable end produced by the god of pragmatism--the idea that we can educate everyone if we merely put enough legal strength into our efforts.  When we consider what we should be willing to force other people to do, the answer should be limited to those things God requires us to force upon them.  For example, we should be willing to force people to refrain from murder, stealing, adultery, and so forth.  But we should not force them to quite smoking, eating refined sugar, coveting, lusting, and engage in other similar activities.

I wonder what Wilson thinks about the WLC parts I mentioned earlier.  Why is it OK to criminalize certain of those applications of the Sixth Commandment but not others?

Maybe you can ask him on his blog or facebook wall! 

I would say that it is the same argument why we do not criminalize the act of hating or belittling another person.  As is said in one interpretation of the 6th commandment (in relation to WLC 135-136):

Scope of the sixth commandment
According to the biblical method of interpreting the commandments, this command
reaches the heart, and it requires the opposite duty, love to one’s neighbor.

Jesus taught that this commandment reaches the heart, and requires one not to hate or
belittle his neighbor (Matt 5:21-26). Political or economic systems, such as Communism or
Nazism, which do not recognize the individual as a creature of God will often break this
commandment horribly, inspiring in the people the idea that individuals are to be hated or
disregarded because of their class or opinions.

Since God created man in his own image, and since man still bears that image, man’s life
is regarded as sacred. Each of us is obligated to maintain and preserve our own life, and the
lives of others.

Jesus says that sheer evil hatred for another person is really the heart of murder, but His Word says that it is not a crime to be punished by the state.  It is a sin that God Himself will punish.

As for alcohol and smoking in relation to killing one's own self, the typical intent is not to consciously do it for the sake of suicide. It is the same as it is for any kind of luxurious hobby that can cause injury or death (bungee jumping, skydiving, mountain-climbing).  It is to get a high of sorts, or relaxation.  The primary intent or motive to kill one's self is not even there.  As a matter of fact, it would be typical for a mountain-climber or smoker to seek medical help when he is injured, so that he could continue living.

And even if there will be cases of intentional destruction of the body to the point of death out of vile pleasure or desperation, we do not automatically penalize, tax, or imprison people who are planning to do so either.  We do not put in jail or tax the actors in the MTV show "Jackass" for endangering their own lives when they do their utterly dumb antics. 

We can say we should, but God has shown a much better way for certain sins.  While He has commanded His prophets to speak against drunkenness, He did not spell out punishments for being drunk, as He did for the crimes and sins of public blasphemy, theft, or murder.  The high priest Eli reprimanded Hannah because he thought she had too much to drink, and that was it. God never told the civil government to arrest or punish the drunkards, unless they committed true crimes He had clearly defined in His Word.  It is the primary role of the family, church, and concerned citizens to persuade the person not to willfully destroy his own body through excessive alcohol drinking. 

We do the same when we reach out to people who further ruin their own spirits by habitually lusting.  It is akin to fulfilling the desire for smoking and excessive drinking.  We exhort them to turn away from such a sin.  They are already committing the sin of adultery.  But it is not the actual crime of adultery having the consent of the other person, which is punishable by the civil government according to God's Word.

Jaime

[Quibbles]

Nearing the end of Douglas Wilson's "Excused Absence" (great book!):

"Compulsory education is oxymoronic.  It is the inevitable end produced by the god of pragmatism--the idea that we can educate everyone if we merely put enough legal strength into our efforts.  When we consider what we should be willing to force other people to do, the answer should be limited to those things God requires us to force upon them.  For example, we should be willing to force people to refrain from murder, stealing, adultery, and so forth.  But we should not force them to quite smoking, eating refined sugar, coveting, lusting, and engage in other similar activities.

I wonder what Wilson thinks about the WLC parts I mentioned earlier.  Why is it OK to criminalize certain of those applications of the Sixth Commandment but not others?

Still not on the same page. Since when was a sin tax applied to a criminal behavior?

[kevin47]

It seems relevant to note that the government is not taxing tanning salon attendance on the basis that tanning is a sin.  The justification for the tax is that it increases the cost of a service government is providing. 

By this standard, the government can provide services for the sole purpose of punishing those who drive up the cost of those services.  If the government wanted to curtail non-minority reproduction, for example, they could introduce services (say, federally-funded preschool) aimed at helping children that will be funded by a tax on larger non-minority families. 

Why would they do this? Well, if Democrats are in charge, the incentive is obvious.  However, a ban on reproduction won't be popular, so by taxing legal behavior, government can control the populace to its own Godless ends. 

Leveling assessments in lieu of banning a practice is simply the means of exploiting a loophole, and gives the government a blank check to force us to do its bidding. 

[Quibbles]

It seems relevant to note that the government is not taxing tanning salon attendance on the basis that tanning is a sin. 

This raises the question of why they "randomly" picked tanning. Why is it that people would agree for tanning to be taxed? Because it's considered a "sin".

[kevin47]

I don't think it's regarded as a sin, so much as something that is socially unacceptable.  Most people don't visit tanning beds, and those who don't find the practice absurd.  Politicians know that no constituency will mount a serious fight. 

One thing you'll find with the left in this country is that they like to legislate their preferences.  They don't like chain restaurants or Wal-Mart, but do like having abortions and listening to public radio.  I think this has more to do with that.  Tanning salons tend to be frequented by the people liberals do not like, and who participate in an activity that they do not like.

As such, I think the justification for the law's existence is more problematic than the actual reason for it's existence.  Under normal circumstances, politicians have to justify a position.  Abortions are about freedom, Wal-mart underpays employees, public radio is educational, chain restaurants kill people etc... 

In this case, the link between government interest and the tax enacted is so tenuous, it come perilously close to removing ANY link between the public good and government action. 

[exodus16_36]

Most of the time, the tendency is to tax something that the taxers deem non-beneficial in some way (cancer-causing in this case), but not illegal. 

...which is why the taxing of income, either personal or corporate, will never make sense to me.

[faithofjob777]

One thing you'll find with the left in this country is that they like to legislate their preferences.  They don't like chain restaurants or Wal-Mart, but do like having abortions and listening to public radio.  I think this has more to do with that.  Tanning salons tend to be frequented by the people liberals do not like, and who participate in an activity that they do not like.

I would think this would be a problem for the left and the right.  Everytime we no longer abide by the Word of God, we are coming up with "bogus crusades."  That is the term used by Douglas Wilson in his book:

Our culture is afflicted with bogus crusades.  Because we will no longer learn our morality from the Word of God, we find ourselves inventing a list of things to be indignant about, including tobacco, rain forests, and western European history.  Christian parents nonetheless still enroll their children to be taught by these crusaders who have just enough wisdom to make a jaybird fly crooked.

p. 135

We now see the product of public education, when Christians who grew up in such systems can no longer reason out from God's Word why many of the things the state is doing is unscriptural.  The brainwashing has been quite effective, and it is a daily struggle to understand why something looking so noble, is really the wisdom akin to making "a jaybird fly crooked."

While we should still tackle the problems with tobacco smoking, gutting of rain forests, and rewriting of any kind of history, the bigger problem is that these issues are inflated, while the deeper moral problems in society are downplayed or turned into virtues.  When black is white, white is black, it also happens that the gnat becomes a camel. 

Jaime

[faithofjob777]

Wal-mart underpays employees

While this can be true, it assumes that the state has workers and leaders who are pure like Jesus Christ is.  But even if Walmart is suppressed by much legality, it does not solve the problem of unjust workers in the state doing the same thing Walmart is doing to its employees.  It just one bigger wolf telling another wolf who is the alpha male and leader of the entire wolf pack.

We can add more laws of course, which also means more loopholes.  Bail-outs.  And excuses, scapegoats, backbiting, conspiracies. Wolves do what they do best, which is to tear their prey apart.

While Walmart is not immediately related to tan taxes, it is related that it is in the same playing field for wolves.  I would not side with either Walmart or the state, but the Word of God.  Theft can be restrained by laws, but not lust.  Lust for any worldly thing will always find varoius means to pervert any law that stands in its way.   People will always be underpaid, taxed, or penalized unjustly by wolves who look like men.  They are the true werewolves, coming from either the den of Walmart or the socialistic state.  Thankfully, we have the example of the apostle Matthew as a promise that even werewolves can be redeemed by Christ. 

Jaime

[Quibbles]

I don't think it's regarded as a sin, so much as something that is socially unacceptable. 

I get the political reasoning behind the tax. But it's still a sin tax even though it's not a sin per se.

[Quibbles]

...which is why the taxing of income, either personal or corporate, will never make sense to me.

Income tax was justified on a whole different basis...World War I. Then people got used to the Marxist concept (and, of course, the government wasn't about to repeal it) and thought it was normal.