Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

“What is the biblical view of taxes?”

Posted by truthtalklive on October 16, 2008

Our guest host today Kevin McCullough will be asking you this question.

You may be asking yourself, “Who is Kevin McCullough?”

Mr. McCullough is a Syndicated Columnist and Contributor for TownHall.com.

He is the author of the “MuscleHead Revolution” blog…

Author of the best selling book: MuscleHead Revoluion: Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking.

Author of the BRAND NEW book: The KIND of Man EVERY Man SHOULD Be!.

And he’s host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show: “Baldwin/McCullough ‘Xtreme’ Radio”.

We look foward to your comments!


Overturning Liberalism with Commonsense Thinking


26 Responses to ““What is the biblical view of taxes?””

  1. Jim said

    Listening to the show, wouldn’t a 45% tax off the top encourage more freeloading and people going into the bottom bracket? Wouldn’t that be more detrimental to the health of the economy?

  2. Greg said

    You are right about the Marxist leanings of our government. I think the whole conversation about who has the best or worst tax plan is irrelevant. The true question is “Why are we still paying income taxes?” They are illegal anyway! After many decades of throwing our money away to this illegal state institution, we are deep, deep in debt as a nation anyway. It is time we stop expecting the government to be our saviors in everyday life. The federal government’s only domain is to protect people from external threats like foreign governments or local criminals. Protecting the liberties and sanctity of human life according to the ten commandments (the basis for US law) is its function. We’ve given the government far too much authority in community life.

  3. A said

    I am disappointed with what I was willing to hear today. I heard all opinions and no Bible. I mistakenly thought that the show was about the Bible. The host was not willing to listen to opinions other than his own. Stop encouraging people with differing opinions to call if your only purpose is to shout them down. That is not what truth is all about. That is bullying. This approach is common on many TTL shows.

  4. jAsOn said


    I don’t disagree with you regarding the tone and manner in which many of the shows are presented, but I don’t think asking “waht is the biblical” view of taxes” is the right question at all. Certainly, the bible has much to say regarding princilples that we many employ as our country’s policies are formed, but I bet you wouldn’t find a single systematic theology that dealt with the “doctrine” of taxes. as Christians, we have to enderstand that there is no “Christian” economic plan, or form of government…essentially, representative deocracies are no more or less Christain than any other form of goverment. In othr words, there are persons serving in all forms of governments throughout the world and through time who are godly Christians, and are not in sin because they served in a monarcy, comunist, or socialist government. So the question that should be asked is this, was American ever set up with the provision of evolving into anything other than a representative democracy. I say that it was not. Capitalism and rep/dem go hand in hand, and socialism is antithetical to capitalism, thus it cannot do anything but minimize rep/dem to the degree that it is allowed to exist. Americans were fooled into socialism when FDR established progams to redistribute wealth. I have heard people say that Obama isn’t a Socialist, so what’s the big deal? Consider this:

    So, is Barrack Obama a Socialist? He may say no, but these are the actual words from his mouth…the words of a true Socialist.

    “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

    Socialism: “Socialists hole-heartedly share the belief that capitalism by nature concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society, and therefore is evil and unfair. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved” – Michael Newman. (2005) Socialism: A Very Short Introduction

  5. jAsOn said

    Sorry about all the misspelled words in the previous post…forgot to edit.


  6. Mike S. said

    Good point on Obama. No better source than his own mouth to see that he most certainly IS a socialist.

    I went to listen to John Allison (CEO of BB&T) speak about our economic crisis this morning at a Winston-Salem Chamber meeting. He gave a great layman’s explanation of how and why we got into this crisis and how we can move through it. If you want to hear some good reasons against socialism and why it will ultimately lead to the breakdown of our country, take some time to watch the video of his speech. It will be posted on the Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce website later today. He also recommended a book written in 1957 by Philosopher Ayn Rand that eerily paints an accurate picture of our current economic state today. This is the second time that this book has been recommended to me this week. I think I will go and get it.

  7. abc's said

    Let’s not forget that we are talking about a candidate for the presidency. If Obama is elected, he will not become a dictator that can change all the rules and turn America into a socialist state. He will still have to contend with the Senate and the House of Representatives on legislation issues. We have a balance of power in government for a reason.

    Both unregulated Capitalism and Socialism are inherently flawed. What we need is a good balance between the two. I think it is a noble goal that everyone should be able to live indoors, have access to health care and a job. I think social welfare programs do more good than harm.

    The extremely wealthy people and corporations in America will still exercise their control over the economy even though they may lose some of their current tax breaks.

    I’m a fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy.

  8. Mike S. said

    Socialism encourages laziness. Look at what just happened in Hawaii. They stopped their state run health care because even the people who could afford it themselves cancelled their policies so that they could get the free insurance.

    About 30 years ago I had a friend (notice past tense here because I no longer considered him a friend after I heard him say this) who was out of work. He described to me, very proudly, that he knew how to “work the system” to keep his unemployment benefits going. He went in to this prideful description of how he was getting over on the government by doing only what was necessry to keep his benefits. I told him that he was not only cheating the government but all taxpayers. We have to figure out how to stop the free rides and only take care of the ones who truly need it.

    Robinhood socialism is not the answer!

  9. Barney said

    Capitalism encourages slavery. Look what happened in the British Empire. Are right wingers pro-slavery?

    Unrestrained Capitalism is not the answer either!

  10. Mike S. said

    Didn’t say it was Barney. I encourage you to watch what Mr. Allison has to share. I’m sure it will get “some” coverage in the Journal in the morning, although with a left wing spin I’m sure.

  11. Stanley said

    Take any stance to its conclusion, and it no longer works. A balance must be made.

  12. Mike S. said

    Will a balanced stance work past it’s conclusion?

  13. jAsOn said


    I agree that neither capitalism nor socialism is perfect in their unrestrained form, but I definitely do not think that adding in a little socialism is the way to restrain capitalism or minimize whatever negative effects it may cause. I don’t understand how anyone could say that social welfare has cause more good than harm. The government taking my money to financially support others is an injustice. Why do you think the government should have the right to do so?

  14. Stanley said

    Not a complete balance, that isn’t what I meant. Compromise would be a better word.

  15. Mike S. said

    I think you missed my point Stanley. You said ANY stance taken to its conclusion doesn’t work. A balanced or compromised stance is a stance and therefore would not pass your philisophical test.

  16. paul said

    When a person takes something that doesn’t belong to them it’s called theft and it’s wrong. When the Government does the taking is that just legalized theft. IT IS STILL WRONG WHEN ARE WE GOING TO WAKE UP?

  17. Stanley said

    You completely missed the point…

  18. Paul said

    In economics, this covenant structure is as follows:

    1. Ownership
    2. Stewardship
    3. Law
    4. Profit and Loss
    5. Economic Growth or Contraction
    Applying these five principles, we get this:

    1. God Owns the World
    2. Man is a Steward
    3. Theft Is Immoral
    4. Edenic Scarcity Has Been Cursed
    5. Covenant-Keepers Inherit in History

    This is a biblical economy not socialism.

  19. Paul said

    “Economic democracy” is the system whereby two wolves and a sheep vote on what to have for dinner.

    Christian socialists and defenders of economic planning by state bureaucrats deeply resent this interpretation of their ethical position. They resent it because it’s accurate.

    When Christianity adheres to the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces free market capitalism.

    On the other hand, when Christianity rejects the judicial specifics of the Bible, it produces socialism or some politically run hybrid “middle way” between capitalism and socialism, where politicians and bureaucrats make the big decisions about how people’s wealth will be allocated. Economic growth then slows or is reversed. Always.

    Free market capitalism produces long-term economic growth. Socialism and middle-way economic interventionism by the state produce poverty and bureaucracy. If your goal is to keep poor people poor, generation after generation, you should promote socialism. But be sure to call it economic democracy in order to fool the voters.

  20. Barney said

    I don’t know about economics, but I do know about fried baloney sandwiches and I smell baloney!

  21. Mike S. said

    Barney you forgot to wipe your face off after lunch!! You have some fried baloney on your upper lip.

  22. Maz said

    Mike: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! That was so funny!!

  23. F. L. A. said

    Processed meat.
    Blaugh! Gag me with a shovel.

  24. Maz said

    F.L.A: Ha ha ha ha ha! More humour to pass the time.

  25. Paul said

    We say that conservatives suffered a great defeat in this election. I strongly disagree: this country has not seen a genuine conservative candidate in the major parties for several decades (no, not even Reagan in practice). The problem is this: at the heart of conservativism lies a great compromise with the nastiest of moral enemies: covetousness and theft. These sins permeate every human heart, and they cross every political boundary. If the commandments of God Himself do not slow their spread into human choices (read: votes), then no stated principles of a political party will have much effect either.

    Let’s face the truth: both major political parties are inherently socialist.[1] Both believe in the creation of wealth via fiat money (created out of nothing by the federal reserve) and the control of the vast majority of these created reserves by government decision. Even when the people oppose the creation of —and it is a rare event to get a near-unanimous voice as we recently did—the parties do not. Both Senate and House ignored the flood of calls and emails of vast and vehement opposition to the “bailout” (later re-dubbed “rescue”), and they voted it through. This was a fundamental failure of democracy (and yet Obama had the nerve to praise the “power of democracy” in his victory speech, after he himself voted for the bailout against the democratic voice). Both parties were partners in crime in this disaster and this was only one of many.

    Conservative Christians oppose liberals in general. We pretend we have the moral high ground. We oppose abortion, the homosexual lobby, etc. And yet Christians accept, almost across the board, socialist wealth-redistribution schemes. We accept, and through our practices and choices approve, the principle that money can be taken from someone else by force in order to pay for a cause we believe is good. The most glaring example of this is education. Christians, almost to the person, accept and fight for the institution of public education funded by other people’s wealth. Christians will employ every intellectual artifice imaginable in order to justify public education. And yet what is government education based on except a wealth-redistribution scheme? Likewise, what is Social Security except a gargantuan behemoth of a wealth-redistribution scheme? What is the authorization of billions to prosecute unnecessary war except a wealth redistribution scheme? Christians will fight to the end for these things as morally right, and yet the funding for these things is based on institutionalized theft. Oh hear the justifications and rationalizations roll in against this claim! But there is no good rebuttal. Face it: most Christians believe in theft under the cover of a majority vote. Face it: most Christians (and most conservatives in general) are Socialists. Christians and conservatives condemn Obama for wanting to “spread the wealth around,” and yet most base their lives and their children’s lives on the same principle.

    And since Socialism is the accepted norm across and between the two major parties, not conservatives but really liberals and progressives have the moral high ground. With the exception of abortion and gay rights, conservatives cannot claim the moral high ground on the most widely pressing issues. Liberals claim to believe in taking care of the poor, caring for the elderly, caring for the oppressed, caring for medical expenses, care, care, care, care, care. Granted, there are many practical problems with the implementation of liberal programs, but details are largely irrelevant to public motivations. As long as our government is going to print billions (even trillions) and then distribute that cash around, why not send it down to the most needy, why not subsidize health care, instead of funneling the hoards of cash solely to the biggest of banks (who had a great hand in causing the financial problems), big international business, and foreign destruction and reconstruction projects (given to big-companies without any public bid)? Why not? Why not, please tell me, if we are going to accept the principle of socialism anyway, why not have the fiat money go to our kids, our health, and our grandmas instead of bankers and bombs? Instead of cliques and cartels? Why not distribute the money evenly to all for common needs instead of selectively? There is no good answer.

    That government welfare and socialism are the accepted terms of the debate, the status quo, the accepted means to the end, eliminates the moral high ground for anyone who dares to not promise government “care” in some form or another. Until we stand opposed to fiat money and wealth-redistribution absolutely, we legitimize the liberals’ method.

    Christians, you give up your claim to the moral high ground when you accept public education. You send you children to learn about socialism, from socialists, on a socialized buck. You are teaching your kids that you are socialists, they will be too, and socialism is morally acceptable. Don’t complain when the liberals push for more consistent socialism: you have complied with it, practiced it, and fought for it thus far. The same is true for caring for the elderly, insurance, etc.

    If the next two years (at least) involve a steam-rolling of the liberal legislation through this nation, we will be justified in calling it the judgment of God that we have brought on ourselves.

    Until conservatives grow a moral backbone and deny the federal treasury’s right to demand created billions, deny the principle that government should care for the people, deny that it is acceptable to vote based on the cash benefits and services government can provide, and in general, promote individual responsibility and accountability, America will decline. It will “change” into the tyranny that we fear most, yet have brought on through our own institutionalized covetousness and theft.

    Until we remove the wickedness at the core of the system, we Christians can preach all we want, but we will prove that we have no better answers to covetousness and theft than the secular world around us.

  26. Fiat for sale…

    […]“What is the biblical view of taxes?” « Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com![…]…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: