Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Tax Karma
Does paying taxes support arms trade, armed forces, war and therefore killing?
Since I know roughly what my tax dollars are spent on ($450 billion on "The War on Terror" in the U.S.), do I incur negative karma by paying those taxes anyway?
What is the solution? Withholding the percentage you know would go to the war effort? Not paying taxes at all? Protesting physically and verbally? Writing your congressman?
Since I know roughly what my tax dollars are spent on ($450 billion on "The War on Terror" in the U.S.), do I incur negative karma by paying those taxes anyway?
What is the solution? Withholding the percentage you know would go to the war effort? Not paying taxes at all? Protesting physically and verbally? Writing your congressman?
0
Comments
I'm all for this.....
Little by little I have adjusted my lifestyle; recycled, reused and refrained from purchasing to a point that I now comfortably live on less than the UK government allow as the basic tax allowance. I now pay no income tax and, due to the lack of buying very much at all, pay very little purchase tax.
stuart hamilton
www.DanaBowl.com
Taxes also go to things like public education, heath care for the disabled, et cetera.
In my view, the answer is no. Kamma means intention actions, so unless you are intentionally paying taxes in order to support war, you do not "incur negative kamma".
The solution is to vote for government representatives that do not support war, and that would use taxes to pay for other things like universal health care, diplomacy, et cetera.
I understand the concept of refusing to pay the share for military but did the Buddha not recognize a King's right to have a standing army?
I pay my taxes; my burden as a citizen of the US. If I didn't could a poor family suffer; would a child lose an educational chance; could a person turn to crime lacking assistance; would someone go hungry? Compassion tells me to consider the cause and effect, regardless how remote the possibility.
People should be law-abiding to the extent that the law is just. Prohibition and slavery were once lawful, but not just in the slightest. Wouldn't compliance on these issues be our legal obligation?
Slavery isn't legal today, cite a law that is in place today that you determine to be unjust, and then explain who gets to decide justness and using what criteria.
The whole debate over legal recognition of gay and lesbian partnerships or, even, over abortion, suggests that there can be real difference of opinion over specific laws. In addition, different nations have different laws. Indeed, different states and counties in the US have different laws: on alcohol consumption or the age of marriage for example. Law is a human creation and, in democratic nations, subject to the scrutiny of the population. Laws that are no longer acceptable tend to be broken. To take the example cited by KoB, Northern US abolitionists were quite prepared to break the law to aid slaves running away from their 'owners' - and we deem this, today, to be a good thing; it was, nevertheless, unlawful.
I asked for an example of a CURRENT unjust law. Perhaps some will cite the death penalty, which isn't a law.
Do you imagine, Zopa, that the current code of laws is perfect, despite the fact that it was not in the past (e.g. slavery or prohibition), that all laws now on the statute books are just? And is this true throughout the world or is it only the USA which benefits from this state of grace attained by no other nation of which we have a record?
As citizens of our respective States have representatives to make the laws we believe necessary. We have courts to apply those laws and interpret them as well. Where in the legal system are individuals given the right to ignore a law that they disagree with?
Do I imagine that the current code of laws is perfect? No, not in your wildest dreams. There probably are inadequacies in many, oversights in many, and perhaps even archaic concepts and societal mores remaining in many. But I've not gone through all the Statutes seeking those I view as just or unjust and was asking for a specific example.
We have a system in my country for dealing with laws that we disagree with, it isn't to ignore the law and plod forward holding high our individual banner of morals and righteousness.
I personally believe that any tax levied against the American people without first going to the vote is unjust. For instance, here in Cleveland, the city and its liberal newspaper were snowballed into another tax hike that promised to raise Cleveland from the ashes (again). The money would allow for a Medical Mart to be brought into Cleveland.
Now, I'm not an anarchist so I don't believe all taxes are evil, but I believe in the precept that says "No taxation without representation." If you believe there is a worthy cause that people should be taxed for, then fine. But put it to a ballot and let the people decide. Americans seem to have forgotten that the country was founded by a bunch of stubborn people who thought that Taxation with Representation was common sense.
Oh, and here is another example of governmental abuse of power pretty close to home for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_Domain#Private_economic_use_of_properties_acquired_through_eminent_domain
That is why we have a Democratic Republic. You elect representatives to make those decisions for you! Had to be that in the late 1700's due to the distance, time factors, but today could it be changed???? But, unless you jurisdiction's Charter or similar baseline legal document requires the vote; all you get is the smiling politician as a representative. Ain't he/she just so purrrrteee!
Many people have ignored or defied laws and made history; many more ignore laws and make the bulletin board at the Post Office.
First of all, I would like to quote one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who said:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
I think this speaks to the culture of America. Rules and laws alone are not what make up a people. It is also how we behave in relation to those rules. There is a time and place for dissent (in my opinion). Rebellion, even unlawful rebellion, serves a purpose.
In addition, there are a kajillion laws still on the books that are ridiculous or outdated. Some of them are silly and don't apply to modern life, but no one has bothered to take them off. Yet there are other laws still in effect that we simply do not obey, because we no longer agree with their premise. Again, no one has bothered to take them off the books yet, but, because of our culture it is accepted that it is not necessary to follow these laws. Some interesting examples:
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/texas/
These are just a sampling of "dumb" Texas laws, but they bring up some interesting thoughts for me. I find it offensive we would require an elected officer to acknowledge some sort of god. To me, that violates equal employment for people of all religions (including atheism). I'd say that law is unjust, and I think I have important Amendments to back me up on that one.
What exactly is defined as homosexual behavior? If I hold hands with my girl friend, have I committed a misdemeanor? How about if we kiss each other?
And, of course, I would like to know who the hell cares if I own six or more dildos? (For the record, you cannot legally sell or purchase sex toys in the state of Texas. You have to call it a "massager.")
People break these laws every day. Is this okay? Is it more or less okay because the likelihood you would actually be punished for breaking these laws is so slim?
And finally, I would just like to offer this article up as food for thought:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18060
I frankly don't know that much about this topic, but I know my husband has gotten pretty into American economics recently and this came up. If the Amendment was not brought about in a legal fashion, do we still have to follow it?
Just trying to be a pain in the butt!! :poke:
That is a fascinating article. Says a lot about what really goes on in a "democracy".
That said, let me chime in, too.
There are so many worthy causes that our taxes support, that I'd sure like to pay a lot more of them. In fact, I wish I could afford to pay a couple hundred millions a year.
The Property Tax, though, in my opinion, is the fairest, as you actually own real estate and should have police protection, etc.
And, of course, the law is an Ass, all made by get-ahead landgrubbers who really don't care about the working families. And the South WAS BUILT by the Blacks, but they weren't good enough to come to the front door. That was The Law.
Palzang
I fear there may be some deluded souls who do believe it, just as people believed that Saddam had WMDs. It makes a good slogan, a banner under which to make war on the 'anti-democracies'. Sometime in the future, a different socio-economic political model will arise, perhaps a return to the norm of human polity, the empire. Perhaps, indeed, we are seeing a return to a semi-feudal system: the advent of compounds where people live, work, shop and play within walls is all-too-reminiscent of "the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate".
Your comment, O Palzang, demonstrates that people are beginning to see through the "we're a democracy" myth. It was always an emperor with new clothes anyway, like every political and economic system. They lose their power when they lose credibility. The demagogic cant around democracy from the political class only goes to convince me that it is, effectively, dead.
Few things demonstrate the reality of the Dharma Seals as effectively as politics and political regimes.
You're right about that. Someone once said that when it is time to go to the hell realms, one takes rebirth as a politician!
Palzang
There are strong plants, huge trees, and trillions of healthy seeds for government for the people. But the HUGE obstacle is Militarism. It gets people all riled up on many sides and creates a polar atmosphere in which the other guy is made to look like a traitor or a villain. And, of course, if you even sneeze in the presence of a hero or patriot, you're in league with the devil.
Before Sep 11, 2001, it looked like a lot of really good stuff was coming up and was gonna come 'round. But some savage acts put all that on the back burner, as the temperature soon rose...
All's well in the garden till a noisy rascal comes around pushing his tricks.
What can the people do? I ask.
I wonder, Nirvana, if people said much the same about 14 July 1789 or May 28 1453. The fall of the Bastille or of Constantinople must have seemed even more of a watershed than a terrorist attack which, terrible as it was to our generation, has not resulted in a total regime change.
I shall not live long enough to see whether there is any truth in the glib statements about "everything is different now" but I have real doubts that anything substantial was changed by that tragedy. It provided a casus belli for a conflict that was already long-planned, similar to the assassination of the Archduke Franz-Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Genuine horror and grief were cynically manipulated (and continue to be so) by self-serving governments and corporations.
The voices of those of us who attempt to remind the world that "hatreds never cease through hatreds in this world" have not been heeded nor echoed by the holders of secular or religious power.
Good point.
-bf
Because he lived when he did, the Buddha also endorsed monarchy. Are you USians OK with that too?
If they're out there and they're beneficial, I'm down with that. Unlike the tyranny of the Brits...
Zing!
Love you, Simon.
-bf
The Buddha's political speeches appear to have been missed out of the texts that I have read. I'm not sure how many democracies or republics there were in the subcontinent 2500 years ago but my guess is that there were somewhat fewer than one.
As we are seeing in Burma and Sri Lanka, Buddhist monks fell strongly enough about political abuse to take to the streets, even down to refusing to accept what is being offered to them as alms from a government of which they disapprove.
Methinks one of the great strengths of Buddhism is that it does not set out a particular social, economic or political system, At the same time, it is a problem and a challenge because we are required to make decisions for ourselves based on the teachings we have received. Mind you, this is also the challenge of democracy - and one that is so often shirked.
Palzang
It does appear that the hereditary principle is alive and well in the US - very strange.
Palzang