Conference yukon::christian_v7

Well, Garth, you may still be in luck.  I understand there is pending 
legislation that would exempt towns abutting New Hampshire from the 
MA sales tax.  You might want to check this legislation out and then 
post a follow up as to how this affects the tax burden of you poor 
Massachusetts residents.

Interesting.  You don't pay sales tax in NH, but the stores who sell you
the merchandize do pay tax which is rolled into your price.

Correction, you do pay a prepared meals tax, and taxes on Cigarettes 
and Alcohol.  (Would this mean double tax for you?)

(I'm smugly a New Hampshire Resident; anyone want to buy my house?)

I guess I'm surprized that "rendering unto Caesers" that which is *really*
Caesars is not a position of someone who "determines in their heart"
what they will give to God.  Both are scriptural and we've come to
the same issues from both perspectives.  Anyway, do what is right,
as we always say.

Mark

Re: .1  (Mark)

>I guess I'm surprized that "rendering unto Caesers" that which is *really*
>Caesars is not a position of someone who "determines in their heart"
>what they will give to God.  Both are scriptural and we've come to
>the same issues from both perspectives.  Anyway, do what is right,
>as we always say.

I don't understand what you mean by this paragraph.  Perhaps you have made
a grammatical error.

I am insisting that we should pay all our taxes and not evade any of them.
In this matter, we are under the law, not grace.  In the big picture, however,
when you render unto Caesar, you are rendering unto God, since Caesar is God's
appointed, per Romans 13:1-7, especially verse 6.

    RE:2

    Even though you are not paying a sales tax  tax in N.H. directly,
    you are paying a tax indirectly. Because N.H. doesn't have a sales
    or income tax, they get their revenue via real-estate tax. So, the
    merchant must raise the price of their merchandise to pay their
    tax. So indirectly you are paying taxes in N.H. when you make purchases
    there. If you paid Mass tax as well, you'd be taxing yourself double.

    Since I live in Winchendon, Mass and Wal-Mart has opened a store in
    Rindge N.H. I have found that the prices in stores in Mass are lower
    or equal even with the sales tax.  I think many people are fooled into
    thinking that its always cheaper to buy in N.H. because there is no
    sales tax.

    Aside from this,  when Jesus was asked about paying tax, it
    was an attempt by the Pharisees to trip him up, because Jews believed
    it was immoral to pay any tax other than to God via the temple tax. To 
    go off and pay tax to the government where you are not forced to based 
    on this reading is foolish.

     Jim

I'm not certain I see consistency of thought.  On the one hand I see
a legalistic approach (paying taxes; state law; scriptural) and on the
other hand, I never properly understood how this rings true with the
liberated approach to "tithing"/giving.  When the Pharisees tithed
their mint and cummin (things they ought to do), they became so focused
with these specifics as to "neglect the weightier" things (justice, mercy).
Because this was something they ought to do, was Jesus implying that 
legalism was the right thing?  On the contrary, he held that obeying 
the letter of the law was merely an outward expression of obeying the
spirit of the law.  Do you pay taxes before you give?  (Well, I do
only because of the way the paycheck is set up.)  Is this giving God what
is "left over?"

There is a "guilt" fund in some companies for those who feel; guilty when
they've taken a pen home in their pocket (usually unintentionally),
made phone calls to home, etc.  Some people make amends.  Some people 
figure it into cost of business and keeping an employee.  Sometimes
the former is right, sometimes the latter.

Am I advocating you to evade your taxes? No.  You must do what you believe
to be the right thing.  And thank you for pointing it out (he says happily
not under the tyranny of the MA govt).  Though, if I ever made a NH purchase
while living in MA, which I am sure I must have, I know I never filed and
never felt guilty.

I hope you never go over 55 mph in MA, too.  Should you pay the speeding fine
(volunteering yourself for correctove action) if you find yourself creeping 
up over 55?  It is breaking the law, isn't it?  Where does it end?

Mark

    Perhaps it'd be easier just to move to N.H.  or don't shop there at
    all ? ;)

    And what about Jesus having Peter catch a fish with a coin in its
    mouth to pay the taxes with ? Was Jesus abusing his power ? I mean
    the rest of humanity has to work to earn money in order to pay
    their taxes.


    Jim

�    And what about Jesus having Peter catch a fish with a coin in its
�    mouth to pay the taxes with ? Was Jesus abusing his power ? I mean
�    the rest of humanity has to work to earn money in order to pay
�    their taxes.

Hi Richard, I love that one, not because it's an 'easy out' on paying
taxes, but because Peter was puzzled at Jesus, as the Messiah, God, having
to pay 'temple tax' to His own Father.  Jesus response was that He paid it
not because it was legally due, but in order to identify with the people He 
had come to save.  The donation in the fishes mouth was a confirmation of 
this.

						God bless
							Andrew

Mark, Jim,  

Here I am, sharing something I just learned about the tax laws, and encouraging
people to obedience and good christian witness.  And what do you do?  Reply
with various kinds of complaints and excuses.  You really must do something 
about this kind of rebellious attitude, because it is unbecoming of those who
profess to fear God.  (I know, because I have had similiar bad attitudes in
the past, which I have been working on over the last few years.)  Especially
you, Mark -- didn't you write some essays on the subject of authority in this
notesfile?

And what does the scripture say:

	"This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's 
	servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone
	what you owe him.  If you owe taxes, pay taxes..."  (Romans 13:6-7)

Note that this is from Paul's letter to the church at Rome.  Think about what
it was like for Christians under Roman rule in the first century!

Yet, there is joy in giving to God's appointed.  Doesn't the scripture say,
"God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7)?  


Re: .3  (Jim)

>    To go off and pay tax to the government where you are not forced to based 
>    on this reading is foolish.

In this instance we are forced to.  The Mass. sales and use tax is the law.

According to the Mass. D.O.R. document I have, tax evasion is a felony, 
carrying a maximum fine of $100,000 and 6 months imprisonment for individual
offenders. 


Re: .4  (Mark)

>I'm not certain I see consistency of thought.  On the one hand I see
>a legalistic approach (paying taxes; state law; scriptural) and on the
>other hand, I never properly understood how this rings true with the
>liberated approach to "tithing"/giving.  

We are not under the Law of Moses, which was given to the Israelites, which
required tithing, and which the New Covenant has rendered obsolete.  

We *are* under the Law of our government.  A legalistic approach to the civil
law is appropriate.  Romans 13:1-7 is in fact a writing from the New Testament.
If you don't believe in being legalistic, try appearing before a judge in a
court of law and explaining how you are not under law, but grace, and are 
only bound to the principles behind the laws of the state.

>Am I advocating you to evade your taxes? No.  You must do what you believe
>to be the right thing.  

It is the right thing on an absolute scale.  It is not right for one person
and wrong for another.  We are all under the same authority (at least those
of us in MA.)

>I hope you never go over 55 mph in MA, too.  Should you pay the speeding fine
>(volunteering yourself for correctove action) if you find yourself creeping 
>up over 55?  It is breaking the law, isn't it?  Where does it end?

Nobody is suggesting volunteering themselves for punishment.  That is the
job of the authorities.  I don't plan on writing a check for $100,000 and
asking to be put in jail.  But I should hope that when we see ourselves
inadvertently exceeding the legal speed limit, we will recognize that we are
breaking the law, slow down to a speed under the speed limit, and endeavor to
pay more heed to our speedometers so that it doesn't happen again.

Re: .5  (Jim)

>    And what about Jesus having Peter catch a fish with a coin in its
>    mouth to pay the taxes with ? Was Jesus abusing his power ? I mean
>    the rest of humanity has to work to earn money in order to pay
>    their taxes.

Mark responds by pointing an accusing finger at me.  Now you respond by
pointing an accusing finger at Jesus?  

I don't see the merit in your objection.  If you found a coin in a fish, 
wouldn't you keep it?  Yes, we have a responsibility to work for our money.
But the Lord provides, sometimes in miraculous ways.

With God as our provider, we shouldn't worry about paying what we owe.  But
if we don't do what is right, we should fear consequences from God himself,
for he is also able to miraculously bring sudden disaster to those who
disobey.

Hi Mark,

Whether you consider it right to calculate your tithe on your nett or gross 
salary, and the question of the heart attitude versus legalism towards your 
outgoings isn't really pertinent to the point of the base note.

[ � Do you pay taxes before you give?					]
[  - This question is not generally concerned with the relative timing 	]
[ of the payments, but with the basis of calculation of the tithe.	]

When Jesus spoke of the heart attitude :
� ... he held that obeying the letter of the law was merely an outward 
� expression of obeying the spirit of the law.  
This was not essentially referring to the social / administrative 'law of
the land', but to what we give to the LORD, of our material resources and 
time, etc.

This note is about keeping the law of the land, as laid down in 1 Peter 
2:13, and Romans 13:1-7 :

 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there 
  is no authority except that which God has established.  The authorities 
  that exist have been established by God.  Consequently, he who rebels 
  against the authority is rebellling against what God has instituted, 
  and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves.  For rulers 
  hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.  
  Do you want to be free from the one in authority?  Then do what is 
  right, and he will commend you.  For he is God's servant to do you 
  good, but if yuo do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword
  for nothing.  He is God's servant, an angel of wrath to bring punishment 
  on the wrongdoer.  Therefore it is necessary to submit to the authorities,
  not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience.

  That is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, 
  who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone what you owe him: 
  If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then 
  respect; if honour, then honour."

We are not called on to judge the law, except when it conflicts with God's 
law (as in Acts 4:19-20, 5:29), which lies outside the scope of this 
discussion.

The point of obeying the law in the above passage is that we can live free, 
and not die from the accusations of our conscience.  ;-}

This particular law seems strange to many of us, but how it is obeyed lies
between MA dwellers and their conscience before God.  The whole question of
legality on such issues, where the law varies between states and over time,
is usually made subject to the possiblity of enforcement, which looks 
impossible in this instance.  That in itself does not make the law right or 
wrong.  In fact, I am sad that laws here (UK) are brushed aside as
unenforcable, when they should exist as a moral principle.  Enforcement is
a different concern; righteous laws should be a guideline and principle,
rather than a whip or straightjacket. 

� I hope you never go over 55 mph in MA, too.  Should you pay the speeding fine
� (volunteering yourself for correctove action) if you find yourself creeping 
� up over 55?  It is breaking the law, isn't it?  Where does it end?

Mark, I presume from the way you phrase this that you consider such action 
excessive legalism.  However, if your conscience were so tender that you 
could not bear any human action to stand between you and the LORD, 
confession would not be something to be scorned, but an inner part of the 
need to live at peace with all mankind, as far as in you lies.  This world 
would be a *much* better place if people listened to such active 
consciences.  Just because it is so far from it, does not mean that we 
should reject the principle.

					God bless
							Andrew

    Someone ought to tell vendors in states outside of MA who frequently
    advertise, publically, that you can save by shopping there (NH, CT,
    etc.) because you don't have to pay tax.
    
    That's pretty misleading if we're (MA residents) actually supposed to
    pay some sort of tax ourselves....
    
    Thanks for the info....
    
    Steve

This law is not unique to Massachusetts.

There are only about two states that have no sales tax.

Almost every state that has a sales tax has this same requirement.

At least Massachusetts only requires Massachusetts residents to pay the
difference in tax on purchases brought in to Massachusetts.  Virginia
requires Virginia residents to pay the difference in sales tax on any
purchase made out of state, whether brought back to the state or not!

These laws are widely ignored.  But Garth is correct, tax evasion is a
sin; it is shirking one's responsibility to participate in the good of
society; it is not loving your neighbor as yourself.

/john

>� I hope you never go over 55 mph in MA, too.  Should you pay the speeding fine
>� (volunteering yourself for correctove action) if you find yourself creeping 
>� up over 55?  It is breaking the law, isn't it?  Where does it end?
>
>Mark, I presume from the way you phrase this that you consider such action 
>excessive legalism. 

I do, excessively.

Anyone drive 55 on route 128?  Is there something about going with the flow of
traffic?  It is a defense used in court successfully.  A cop couldn't single you
out - though you suppose he could - unless he was also getting the others.

And I think the part about watching your speedomoeter is garbage, though I
recognise this is a presumption on my part.  Tell me you don't deliberately
drive above 60 mph on the MA highways when everyone else is driving 
usually above 65 mph.  I do.  But I drive at about 63, which is most
often safe from the buffer that the Smokeys allow (which they claimthey don't).

Next, look into MA law about a grace allowance of perhaps $500.00 or so
on your taxable purchases.

I buy merchandise and allow the merchants to pay the tax.  I pay taxes
on my income (Fed) and on my property, and I pay them through the business
tax that the NH business pass along to me.  If I lived in MA (which I don't
by choice), I doubt that I would concern myself for the times I "crossed"
the border, to keep and catalogue all my purchase, and if I felt "sufficiently
wounded in spirit" I would add a few bucks to my Massachusetts State Income
Tax (and pray that it wouldn't be used for graft).

Some time ago, the MA State police sat out in unmarked cars outside the state
liquor stores.  When they saw a carriage come out and load into a car with
MA plates, they'd radio to another trooper down in MA and stop the car for
transporting untaxed goods.  Concord, NH, found out about this and started
arresting MA cops for loitering at their state-run liquor stores.  Big news.
The practice stopped.

I see this in the same light as paying the organist at church, then paying
the music director, then paying the sunday school ministries director,
then paying the nursery staff, then paying...  excessive legalism.

Mark

>Mark -- didn't you write some essays on the subject of authority in this
>notesfile?

Yes, did you read them?

>"God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7)?  

2 Corinthians talks about a specific free will offering, but you would
use this as the basis for giving what you purpose to give to God.
Jesus said you ought to tithe.  Okay, he said it to Pharisees; Jewish
people, and okay, how do you tithe - gross, net, on your *benefits*?

>You really must do something about this kind of rebellious attitude, 
>because it is unbecoming of those who profess to fear God.  (I know, 
>because I have had similiar bad attitudes in the past, which I have 
>been working on over the last few years.)

One thing I'll do is refrain from commenting on what I think I see here.

Mark

From the inside back cover of the 1990 Massachusetts State Income Tax Forms
Booklet:

An Explanation of the Massachsuetts Use Tax

One source of revenue that helps fund many of the vital public services
listed on this page is the Massachusetts sales and use tax.  While the
5 percent sales tax is levied on purchases made in Massachusetts, a
corresponding use tax applies to certain out-of-state purchases that
are used in Massachusetts.  Implemented in 1966 in conjunction with the
Massachusetts sales tax, the use tax helps keep Massachusetts businesses
competitive with merchants in other states by requiring that either a
sales or a use tax be paid on goods or services used in the Commonwealth
regardless of where they were purchased.  All 45 states that have a sales
tax also have a corresponding use tax.

Under what circumstances are you required to pay a use tax?

If you make an out-of-state purchase of goods or services that would be
subject to the Massachusetts sales tax if purchased in Massachusetts,
and pay no sales tax or pay sales tax at a rate less than the 5 percent
Massachusetts rate, then you are responsible for paying a use tax on
those goods or services.  This applies to goods or services used,
stored, or consumed in Massachusetts and includes purchases made over
the phone and via direct mail.

Unlike sales tax payments which are remitted by the vendor, use tax
payments are made by taxpayers directly to the Commonwealth.  To make
your use tax payments on most purchases you need to file DOR's Form
ST-10/11 once a year for purchases made the previous calendar year.
For example, if you bought furniture from an out-of-state business
during calendar year 1990 and paid no sales tax, you need to make a
use tax payment on that purchase by April 16, 1991.  An important
exception to this annual filing requirement involves the purchase
of cars, boats, or airplanes.  To find our more about the Massachusetts
use tax or to obtain Form ST-10/11, please call DOR's Taxpayer
Assistance Bureau at (617) 727-4490.  DOR staff are available to
answer your questions Monday through Friday, from 8:45 am to 5:00 pm.

The grace is $2000 in purchases ($100 in remittance) over a one-year period,
but all purchases, no matter how small, must be accounted for in the $2000.

/john

Thanks for the information, John.

----

I buy a candy bar in NH; I live in NH; I pay a tax indirectly.
I visit MA; I buy a candy bar; I live in NH; I pay a tax directly.
You buy a candy bar in NH; you visit NH; you pay a sales tax indirectly
  to the state you visit.  In MA you will have to also file a form,
  even if this is your only NH visit and your only pruchase and pay
  a penny (or two).

The long and short of it is; don't visit other states; don't buy goods
in other states... unless you carry your Triple AAA United State's Guide to 
State Taxes and Liabilities, all in the name of being a good Christian
witness.  Include your testimony to the MA department of revenue.

And the 55mph speed limit applies, whether you *intentionally* speed or not.
You didn't intentionally evade taxes, yet when it is brought to your attention,
you intend to make amends and show your Christian witness.  How is this
any different?  You might say, one is a tax, one is a fine.  But in a
society that almost universally defines the speed limit by common definition
(which is part of what you'll read in my essays on Authority), a speeding ticket
is little more than a random highway tax.  Definition must be enforcable to
be authoritative.  And after you press your influence of slowing down traffic
in your lane, as the good Christian witness (perhaps on the bumper sticker),
there will be other areas to "not compromise."  Excessive legalism even in
the name of the law of the land?  Yes, I think so.

When I worked in MA and lived in NH, I paid MA income tax (without 
representation).  It translated into a $4/day toll to travel on the roads.
Well, roads have to be maintained.  I don't pretend to know all the 
tax laws and how they operate.  (If I worked here in NH and my wife travelled
to work in Maine, Maine would demand that both my wife and I pay income
taxes to Maine.)

Purchasing goods, such as gasoline (watch those fill-ups in other states)
and other items, is made unreasonable, untenable, unenforcable, and excessive
in legalism when carried to an extreme.  If you buy a car here, MA will 
tax you.  If you buy a wahser/dryer, perhaps you should cough up a few
bucks for your state.  But let's not kid ourselves that speeding isn't
breaking the law (intentionally or not) as much as not paying the penny or
two on a candy bar you bought over the border.

mark

>The grace is $2000 in purchases ($100 in remittance) over a one-year period,
>but all purchases, no matter how small, must be accounted for in the $2000.
>
>/john

So there *is* a grace!  How many of you exceed $2000 out of state?
This is much more reasonable.  You would have to make a WHOLE LOT of 
"no matter how small" purchases to even come close.  I'd total up my 
big ticket items and if it was close, I'd estimate my small purchases.
In most cases, I wouldn't have come NEAR $2000 in out of state purchases.

So, even in the law, there is some reasonability at times.  Still, 
if you are meticulous enough to keep a notebook, God bless you and your
witness to this detail of citizenry.

Mark

Mark,

Not meaning to climb on here - I didn't see Garth's reply until after I put
mine in... but just wanted to clarify from .11 ...

The question isn't whether a law is excessively intrusive or not; the law
is the law.  It's not 'ok' to exceed the limit by the margin that the
police permit, just because you won't be picked up for it.  I wouldn't
despair of you as a heinous reprobate for exceeding the speed limit, but I
wouldn't defend it as a 'right' or excusable.  Wherever it is.  Sometimes I
have difficulty in keeping strictly to the speed limit (my family would
laugh at the first word of that sentence, 'cos they luv me;-), but such
*is* my general intent. And I believe that I feel better for keeping to it.

� And I think the part about watching your speedomoeter is garbage, though I
I don't understand what you mean here.  Are you saying that it is not
possible to drive keeping the set limit on the speedo, or that even people
who claim to, intentionally or unintentionally let it drift over? 

� Some time ago, the MA State police sat out in unmarked cars outside ... etc
How they apply their law is irrelevant to the way that we keep the law - or 
break it.  I see the days coming - and believe that some people have felt 
them already - when Christians will be deliberately and legally trapped by 
laws which others never have any thought of keeping.  Laws which can be 
applied as a lever to undesirable portions of society.  This world is not 
our hoome; we are aliens here.  Render to C�sar what is C�sar's, and to God 
what is God's.  Our treasure is in heaven, and chains and a cell cannot 
limit the glorious freedom that our LORD Jesus has bought for us.  Much 
less obstructive laws, which deal only with temporal things....

							Andrew

My, but I have to sympathise with you being stuck down at 55 officially.
'way back when we had a 70 mph limit clamped on our motorways, people
couldn't believe it - thought it was some sort of a poor joke, until the
police booked a funeral procession that was topping the ton.  Reportedly
there's a 'permitted' window up to 85, but there's all sorts of tricks
around which are liable to nail people even within this.  I'd rather drive
with my conscience than without it...  My newspaper gives a list of 'top 
tens' each day, and one day last week it gave the top ten reasons for jams 
on the motorway.   One of them was a police car doing 50 in an inside lane.
- everyone gets red lights flashing in their mind when they see one, and 
to actually pass it takes some nerve ... ;-)

>� And I think the part about watching your speedomoeter is garbage, though I
>
>I don't understand what you mean here.  Are you saying that it is not
>possible to drive keeping the set limit on the speedo, or that even people
>who claim to, intentionally or unintentionally let it drift over? 

Yes.  I have a cruise control system and intentionally set it at 63 when
the prevailing speed is going about 65ish.  I often intentionally set it at 
67 in 65 mph zones (which are very rare in MA).  The prevailing speed in
such zones place me in the average area of speed.

>One of them was a police car doing 50 in an inside lane.
>- everyone gets red lights flashing in their mind when they see one, and 
>to actually pass it takes some nerve ... ;-)

This is a way that the governing body enforces definition - by threat of
enforcement (because it cannot be applied universally).  And I have little
problem with it, actually.  I don't mind the prevailing speed being brought
down, but I would mind travelling 55 (and not a foot per second more) if
it meant a hazard of sorts to the rest of the traffic.  No such fear of
passing me.

The point I was making is that it is fine and dandy to say "the law is 
the law" but another thing when application of the law is not universally
or consistently approached, by either the individual, the courts,
the enforcers, or even the law makers.  In court, the law is always being
"interpreted" as to its INTENT.

Example: If you come to a cross roads at 3 am in some lonely rural place
and the light turns red, both you and I would stop.  If you were the only
one there at the time, would you wait for the red light to complete its
cycle?

I would - out of habit, unless I debated fast enough with myself.  The
intent of the red light is safety.  At 2:30 am, and no one around, it is
safe to continue (treating it as a stop sign instead of a stop light).

If you or I apply this to traffic laws, why not all laws?

To the point, if I lived in MA, I would monitor my major purchases and 
not pay attention to my minor purchases.  The intent of the use law
is to fund state government.  (Some of it is reprehensible, and taxation
without representation.)  Oh, and I would give clothing to charity and
esitmate its cost.  We could take this to levels of absurdity, I think,
but I'll quit.  After all, I live in NH, I shop in NH, and I work in NH.
When I buy in MA, I grumble about the sticker price not including the 
tax.  Government will collect coming and going.  I will not strain gnats
to swallow a camel.

Mark

Hi Mark,

but we are not ultimately answerable to the courts, but to the LORD.  Not 
for legally 'disregarding a particular law', but for effectively 
dishonouring the rulers of our state.  That's the significance of the 
Romans 13 passage.

The other point is that *how* a person chooses to regard the law, is up to 
his own conscience.  You may think a certain interpretation is legalistic, 
because it is stricter than the way you take it, but that is up to that
individual; not up to you.  Your only responsibilities in the matter are:
	- to live according to your conscience
	- not to judge your fellow

Where a law states a precise limit, it's up to the individual whether they 
take that 'as generally observed', or 'precisely'.  

But I see it as very important not to satisfy myself with the standards of 
the world.  Their standards fall down everywhere else.  It is in applying 
their compromise that the law becomes a burden, because trying to find 
excuses and loopholes to bend the application means that one is focussing 
on / living up to the legal limit.  

� but I would mind travelling 55 (and not a foot per second more) if it
� meant a hazard of sorts to the rest of the traffic.  
Unlikely.  Over here, keeping to the speed limit might create queing
conditions, but the only *hazard* it might generate would be in the minds
of those queuing...  I suspect that this is really the case in the US too,
where driving is *very* much more placid than in the UK.  But each of us
drives to our own conscience.  Not to anyone else's. 

You keep looking for loopholes, where you imagine that 'most people' would
not conform to the strict letter of the law.  Each one is the responsibility 
of the individual (whether as a Christian, or as a member of society).  
Many would probably not see themselves as acting outside the law in such 
instances, even if it were obvious to most of us thaht they were.
However, underlining them as you are doing seems to stress that you see
them as letters of the law which you are rather conscious of 'breaking'. 
It implies that underneath, there is a Mark which would be more at peace if 
you were to relax and conform... ;-?


							Andrew

    
    
    My brother-in-law is a cop in NY state. He has told me and has proven
    it many times that there is not a car on the road that he cant pull
    over for violating some law that is on the books.  Even a brand new car
    right out of the dealership.  Legalism is legalism.  There are many
    scenarios that can be painted that speak to greater vs. lesser
    violations under the law.  There are also appropiate times to break the
    law, and be justified. 
    
    Dan

>You keep looking for loopholes...

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.

>It implies that underneath, there is a Mark which would be more at peace if 
>you were to relax and conform... ;-?

Not sure I understand what you mean by this.  It implies that underneath,
there is very little in this life, this legal system of government, or this
interaction of people on God's green earth that is consistently applied
in a legalistic fashion.  The Israelites could NOT obey all the laws.
We, as Dan says, cannot obey all the motor vehicle laws.  Should we
obey the law?  "Absolutely!"  But we cannot absolutely.  

But you can obey this one, and then you can obey that one.  Loopholes?

Let's bring religion into this further.  Some people feel that giving is
a law of love, and by giving to one you break the law of love to another.
But wait a minute, I have a limited resource!  Where is your faith?
Sound silly?  Not if >legalistically< applied.

You mention conscience, Andrew, and this is good.  Jesus said all the law
and the prophets hand on one commandment - to love God with everything.
If we love God, we should obey the law - but the law CANNOT be obeyed 
in its entirety, whether Jewish law, of the laws of this land.  Sounds
paradoxical, doesn't it.  

>You may think a certain interpretation is legalistic, 
>because it is stricter than the way you take it, but that is up to that
>individual; not up to you.  Your only responsibilities in the matter are:
>	- to live according to your conscience
>	- not to judge your fellow

Have I done any more than to write a "certain interpretation?"  Have I
forced my interpretation on anyone?  Have I said that one ought to do
thus and such?  On the contrary, I have said what I would do and why and
that each must do as they feel they should.  Therefore, I at least, have
met the only responsibilities you say I have.

Mark

	Be strict with yourself and merciful to others.

I inquired of the Mass. D.O.R. by telephone.  The "$500" / "$2000 grace
allowance" has no substance to it.  Must be wishful thinking.

I guess it depends on who you talk to on the phone.

I had originally posted a reply saying that there was no grace amount
(because I thought I had checked into it before).  That was .13, now
deleted.

But I decided to check to be sure, in case there had been a change, so I
called the Mass D.O.R., and they told me there was no grace amount on
individual purchases, but that annually, if you would have to remit less
than $100, you need not do so.

Do you have the form and instructions?  That should clear it up.

/john

    I hope no-one is offended if I put my 2 cents in. I see it this way.
     If what is being done OR not done is considered sin,in Gods eyes,rest
    assured that "your sin will seek you out". Remember this, Satan is the
    accuser of the brethren" he will remind God of wrong doing on our part.
    God cares for us more than we realize, and if speeding or not paying a
    few dollars in taxes is displeasing to him, rest assured he can and
    will allow you to be caught,just as any loving father would.
    
    Am I saying keep sinning until you get caught? NO. What I am saying is
    this. Let your conscience guide you. 
    I have no problem driving 60-65 in a 55 mph zone, and I dont believe
    God falls off the throne when he sees me doing this, but if it did
    displease him dont you think he would arrange SOMETHING to get my
    attention and let me know.
    There are just more important issues to concern our selves with.
    Do you think Jesus paid for the swine that ran off the cliff and
    drowned when entered by Legion.No, I dont believe he did.So who is
    going to bring this up to his attention. Not me. I will not squabble
    over a few dollars because Im sure in the vast configuration of things,
    everything balances out.
    
                    In His service:
                      Sylvain
    
    
    
    
    

Re: .11, .12, .16, .17, .19, .22  (Mark)

>Anyone drive 55 on route 128?  

55 mph would put you on the borderline of being in violation of the law.  
Something less than that would be more prudent.

>Is there something about going with the flow of traffic?  

We aren't to conform to the world's standards.  It doesn't matter how fast
everyone else is going.

>It is a defense used in court successfully.  

Okay, I'm calling you on this one.  Please provide references to substantiate
this statement.

>A cop couldn't single you
>out - though you suppose he could - unless he was also getting the others.

By making the above statement, you are saying that it is right for you to
disregard the law because the police cannot handle the quantity of offenders.

>I do.  But I drive at about 63, which is most
>often safe from the buffer that the Smokeys allow (which they claimthey don't).

"Smokeys" and "cops" are slang phrases that are generally considered
disrespectful.  We must strive to respect the authorites.  They are "police
officers" and "state troopers". 

>Yes.  I have a cruise control system and intentionally set it at 63 when
>the prevailing speed is going about 65ish.  I often intentionally set it at 
>67 in 65 mph zones (which are very rare in MA).  The prevailing speed in
>such zones place me in the average area of speed.

The prevailing speed is due to the prevailing attitudes.  The prevailing
attitudes should not affect us.

>down, but I would mind travelling 55 (and not a foot per second more) if
>it meant a hazard of sorts to the rest of the traffic.  No such fear of
>passing me.

If you are obeying the law, then it is they who are creating the hazard,
not you.  One of the purposes for the speed limit is to reduce the incidence
of death and injury.  And if all abided by the speed limit, there would not be
the speed differential that you speak of.  But given that they don't you
suppose that you are justified in speeding as well.  Care to comment about
condom distribution in the schools? 

>Example: If you come to a cross roads at 3 am in some lonely rural place
>and the light turns red, both you and I would stop.  If you were the only
>one there at the time, would you wait for the red light to complete its
>cycle?

Yes.  It is against the law to pass a red light.

>I would - out of habit, unless I debated fast enough with myself.  The
>intent of the red light is safety.  At 2:30 am, and no one around, it is
>safe to continue (treating it as a stop sign instead of a stop light).

Here's how to test your integrity in this matter.  If you approached the
intersection, and there was a manned police cruiser parked at it, would
you still pass the red light?  

>society that almost universally defines the speed limit by common definition

Substituting popular opinion for the law, to avoid admitting that you are
breaking it, then...

>(which is part of what you'll read in my essays on Authority), a speeding
>ticket is little more than a random highway tax.  

...redefining the fine as a tax, to avoid admitting that you are being
punished.

(Looks like I didn't read your essayes carefully enough.)

>Definition must be enforcable to be authoritative.  

This is double-talk.  If the authorities lack the resources to catch the
criminals, you think you have a right to disregard them.  Shall they now spend
more money to put one police cruiser on the road for every motorist?  Shall
they trace down every purchase through all the retailers at Pheasant Lane Mall?
You know they would have to raise more tax dollars to do this.  But you don't
want to be taxed more!  Your reasoning boils down to: "the mob rules". 

>And after you press your
>influence of slowing down traffic in your lane, as the good Christian witness
>(perhaps on the bumper sticker), 

More sarcasm.  Now you are appealing to mere flesh.  You don't like it when
you get stuck behind drivers like me.

> there will be other areas to "not compromise."

More defeatism on your part.  But I should think we ought to welcome these
"other areas" as more opportunity to change our ways and do good. 

Re: .11, .12, .16, .17, .19, .22  (Mark)

>The long and short of it is; don't visit other states; don't buy goods
>in other states... unless you carry your Triple AAA United State's Guide to 
>State Taxes and Liabilities, all in the name of being a good Christian
>witness.  Include your testimony to the MA department of revenue.

Sarcasm.  Defeatest attitude.

>The point I was making is that it is fine and dandy to say "the law is 
>the law" but another thing when application of the law is not universally
>or consistently approached, by either the individual, the courts,
>the enforcers, or even the law makers.  In court, the law is always being
>"interpreted" as to its INTENT.

Criticizing the judicial system to justify the crime.  Placing yourself above
the law.  But we are to avoid even the appearance of evil.

>is to fund state government.  (Some of it is reprehensible, and taxation
>without representation.)  

"Taxation without representation"?  A useless cliche'.  Do you think that
the Christians to whom Romans 13 was addressed lived in a representative
government?  And what have you to say about the person who said the 
following?:

	"'You have gone too far!  The whole community is holy, every one
	of them, and the Lord is with them.'"  (Numbers 16:3)

>>"God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7)?  
>
>2 Corinthians talks about a specific free will offering, but you would
>use this as the basis for giving what you purpose to give to God.

I wish you would stop misrepresenting me with statements like this.  I believe
in giving 100% to God (at least that should be our goal).  I believe in giving
"what you have decided in your heart", when it comes to free will offerings to
various Christian ministries, as 2 Cor 9 says.

>Jesus said you ought to tithe.  Okay, he said it to Pharisees; Jewish
>people, and okay, how do you tithe - gross, net, on your *benefits*?

It is you who are now inconsistent.  By your quote, "You should have practiced
the latter, *without neglecting the former*.  So now I turn your logic against
you.  Why do you apply Matt 23:23 to tithing, but not to taxes and motor
vehicle laws?

> Excessive legalism even in the name of the law of the land?  Yes, I think so. 

Placing yourself in submission to God-ordained authority is not "excessive
legalism."

>to work in Maine, Maine would demand that both my wife and I pay income
>taxes to Maine.)

	"If you owe taxes, pay taxes."  (Romans 13:7)

>Purchasing goods, such as gasoline (watch those fill-ups in other states)

Yes, watch those fill-ups in other states.  You have to pay tax to
Massachusetts if the goods are bought for use in the state of Massachusetts. 

>and other items, is made unreasonable, 

5% is not unreasonable

>untenable, 

They aren't required to defend it to your satisfaction, but it is a source
of revenue for the state.  In any case, it is the law, and that makes it
tenable.  

>unenforcable, 

"Mob rules" is the fault of the mob, not the law.

>and excessive in legalism when carried to an extreme.  

Again, we are under the law of the state.  Is God even more "legalistic",
if he had the man who was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day put to death
(Numbers 15:32-36)?  Or how about Uzzah, who just wanted to steady the ark (2
Sam 6:6-7)? 

Re: .25  (John Covert)

>But I decided to check to be sure, in case there had been a change, so I
>called the Mass D.O.R., and they told me there was no grace amount on
>individual purchases, but that annually, if you would have to remit less
>than $100, you need not do so.

I called the Mass D.O.R. this morning again.  They repeated that there is 
no such thing, and that you are responsible for any amount.  This is also
consistent with the official documents that I have.

Furthermore, I'll cite the following:

"Oral advice given by DOR personnel is offered as a public service and
is informational only.  It does not replace or supersede any written
sources on the Commonwealth's tax laws and only written advice is binding
on the Department."  (_A Guide to Sales and Use Tax_, Stephen W. Kidder,
Commissioner of Revenue, p.31)

I think you should get something in writing.  

	Garth,

	The next verse says "Owe nothing to anyone..." (Rom 13:8a).

	Does this apply to home, auto, and personal loans, etc.?

ace

    Re: Note 510.30 by LEDS::LOPEZ
    
>	The next verse says "Owe nothing to anyone..." (Rom 13:8a).
>	Does this apply to home, auto, and personal loans, etc.?
    
    I say so.  I have no loans.  My wife and I are living in premises
    rented from a Christian friend.  We are saving up to buy a house.
    We've saved almost $100k aus so far.  It drives the real estate
    agents around the psychological bend!
    
    (Though it disheartens me that renting from someone who has a loan out
    simply to pay for the property we live in is really just an indirect
    loan... even if they *are* making money on the whole sequence)
    
    James

Re: .30  (Ace)

>	The next verse says "Owe nothing to anyone..." (Rom 13:8a).
>
>	Does this apply to home, auto, and personal loans, etc.?

I don't see loans mentioned anywhere in the context of Romans 13, so
I would assume that the specific exhortation has to do with what we
owe the governing authorities.  In context:

	"This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's
	servants, who give their full time to governing.  Give everyone
	what you owe him:  If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then
	revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.  Let no
	debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to lover one
	another..."  (Romans 13:6-8)

But the principle of "Owe nothing to anyone..." can be applied to other
areas as well.  It is certainly a wise decision to get out of debt and
stay out of debt in the areas you mentioned, for a creditor has a
certain claim to the life of those in debt to him, and God would have
it that we be free from our debt to people and institutions in this world.

It is also good stewardship to eliminate your monetary debts, for interest
is being collected by the creditors, and that interest money could be put
to better use by you towards God's kingdom if you didn't have to pay it.

    >Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to lover
    >one another..."  (Romans 13:6-8)
    
    Now that's a debt I'd like to collect! :-) :-)  We all should owe, we
    all should owe.

Been giving some thought to this red-light thing.....

Garth, in .27 you reply to Mark as follows:

(Mark)
>>Example: If you come to a cross roads at 3 am in some lonely rural place
>>and the light turns red, both you and I would stop.  If you were the only
>>one there at the time, would you wait for the red light to complete its
>>cycle?

(Garth)
>Yes.  It is against the law to pass a red light.

	(me ;-)

	Though "right on red" is allowed at some intersections, I think
	your comment is correct in the context of the discussion....

(Mark)
>>I would - out of habit, unless I debated fast enough with myself.  The
>>intent of the red light is safety.  At 2:30 am, and no one around, it is
>>safe to continue (treating it as a stop sign instead of a stop light).

(Garth)
>Here's how to test your integrity in this matter.  If you approached the
>intersection, and there was a manned police cruiser parked at it, would
>you still pass the red light?  


(me again now...)

When I first read this integrity test I concurred, but then I thought about 
it.  From my experience, when driving home late at night after playing 
music (with a truck full of expensive sound equipment), passing through a 
red light (when no traffic is around) is a matter of personal safety, not 
personal choice to break a law.  News reports are full of carjacking stories, 
theft, etc., while innocent victims wait at red-lights.

My uncle, a police officer, told me that if I was ever travelling late at 
night in such circumstances, I should not sit at the light.  He even said 
that if I felt suspicious about a crusier (especialy an unmarked one) 
trying to pull me over, I should not pull over, but drive to the nearest 
police station and explain that for the sake of personal safety, I felt it 
more prudent to take that course of action.  He said no officer would fault 
a driver for that action.

Yes, I realize this is not scientific data, but it is my experience.

Which brings me to your integrity test.

If an officer were at the light, I probably would not pass through it; not 
because my conscience couldn't take it; but because I would feel much less 
threatened as regards my personal safety (which isn't to say there aren't 
people foolish enough to try to pull off a robbery in sight of an officer, 
but...).

You're right in that no matter what the local laws are, we should do our 
best to observe them.  However, the issue has its extremes, such as the 
late-night red-light example, or on the other end of the spectrum, if we 
lived in Nazi Germany, would we observe those laws simply because it was 
the law of the land?  Or even closer to home, laws in America are getting 
pretty foolish and I've no doubt they'll soon reflect and perhaps even 
surpass the insidiousness of Nazi Germany's "law".  What then?

Let each man be convinced....

"Choose this day whom you will serve...as for me and my house, we will 
serve the L-rd."

Steve

I've just now caught up.  

Garth, I think you're being excessively legalistic and I am convicted by
your legality, not because I commit these offenses (because I don't, living 
in NH, I am not subject to your MA use tax) but because I know that I would 
not be so meticulous about keeping the law of the use tax if I lived so 
close to the border of NH from MA.  Even after becoming aware of the use
tax, I still would not be meticulous about observing the MA law about goods
I bought in other states.  By the law, if I lived in MA, I am guilty.

I caution you, though, that those who live by the law are responsible to it.
And while some may feel that this is not troublesome because they endeavor
in every way to adhere to the jot and tittle, those who hold others accountable
will themselves be accountable the moreso, and those who show mercy will be 
shown mercy the moreso.

>>In court, the law is always being "interpreted" as to its INTENT.
>
>Criticizing the judicial system to justify the crime.

This is the only point to which I'll make comment about your replies to me.
The spirit of the law always precedes and supercedes the letter of the 
law.  Jesus was accused of law-breaking, but his accusers could only make
a case against the letter of the law; man's tradition.  Jesus defined the
spirit of the law and went on to set the matter straight.

Mark

(I also do not see how loans cannot be considered owing something to someone,
 or group of someones.  --Great going, James!  I'm glad for you to be able to 
 do that.--  I think Ace makes a valid point, and I'm accused of double-talk.)

Re: .34  (Steve)

I would rather obey the God-ordained authority and trust that God would
take care of me.  It is when I disobey God-ordained authority that I fear
loss of His protection.

Make sure that, if you disobey a governmental authority, it is because you
are compelled to obey God instead as a higher authority in the particular
matter.

OK, I found out what probably was the reason the person I talked to last
week claimed that there was a $100 grace amount.  It was basically faulty
memory or confusion over another provision not applicable to this discussion.

Garth is correct: there is no grace amount at all.  A Massachusetts resident
who goes to New Hampshire once in an entire year and buys a twenty cent item
must by law file the form with next year's income tax and pay the one cent tax.

The $100 limit applies to stores.  Stores which collect sales tax are
required to pay it monthly, quarterly, or annually, depending on their
business volume.  If they would be remitting less than $100 in a year,
they need only remit annually; if they would be remitting $101 or more
in a year, they need to remit quarterly or monthly.

/john

Re: .35  (Mark)

>I caution you, though, that those who live by the law are responsible to it.

Those who live under the law are responsible to obey it.

>And while some may feel that this is not troublesome because they endeavor
>in every way to adhere to the jot and tittle, those who hold others accountable
>will themselves be accountable the moreso, and those who show mercy will be 
>shown mercy the moreso.

You are not accountable to me for how you observe the law, for I don't have
authority over you.  I am accountable to God for obeying the law, and also
for testifying to the truth.

>>>In court, the law is always being "interpreted" as to its INTENT.
>>
>>Criticizing the judicial system to justify the crime.
>
>This is the only point to which I'll make comment about your replies to me.
>The spirit of the law always precedes and supercedes the letter of the 
>law.  Jesus was accused of law-breaking, but his accusers could only make
>a case against the letter of the law; man's tradition.  Jesus defined the
>spirit of the law and went on to set the matter straight.

True, but let's review the context of your original statement, and my reply:

MM>The point I was making is that it is fine and dandy to say "the law is 
MM>the law" but another thing when application of the law is not universally
MM>or consistently approached, by either the individual, the courts,
MM>the enforcers, or even the law makers.  In court, the law is always being
MM>"interpreted" as to its INTENT.

GW>Criticizing the judicial system to justify the crime.  Placing yourself
GW>above law.  But we are to avoid even the appearance of evil. 

Of course the law is always being interpreted as to its intent.  But the
intent of the God-ordained authorities to which you are to be submitted to is
that you obey their law, as interpreted by their judicial system.  To place
your own interpretation of intent above theirs is disrespectful of them, and
therefore disrespectful of God, who put these authorities in place. 

>(I also do not see how loans cannot be considered owing something to someone,
> or group of someones.  --Great going, James!  I'm glad for you to be able to 
> do that.--  I think Ace makes a valid point, and I'm accused of double-talk.)

Loans are a matter of owing something to someone, and I agreed with Ace's
point, in principle.  Although Romans 13 does not explicitly address such
loans, the principle taught there can be applied to loans, as well as many
other principles in scripture.

>Garth is correct: there is no grace amount at all.  A Massachusetts resident
>who goes to New Hampshire once in an entire year and buys a twenty cent item
>must by law file the form with next year's income tax and pay the one cent tax.

The 20 cent item then costs 50 cents.  20 cents for the item, 1 cent for
the tax, and 29 cents for the US postal stamp to send the form, not including
the cost of the form or getting the form.  The moral: stay in your own state.

 (And frankly, I'm tired of MA escapees to NH who ply their liberal definitions
 on those of us in NH.  Yes, I'm a MA escapee - lived there 10 of my 34 years
 - but I haven't come to change NH but to get away from absurdities such as
 this one in MA.)

Perhaps I'm a terrible person, but I would have a threshhold up to which I
would feel inclined to pay the tax (just like the speedometer), and this
would make me guilty under the strict eyes of the law.  I confess it.
I do not advise anyone to believe or act as I would given the MA/NH (MA/USA)
situation. I merely voice my own personal opinion which does not stand up
to MA law.

MM

I wrote:

>Garth is correct: there is no grace amount at all.  A Massachusetts resident
>who goes to New Hampshire once in an entire year and buys a twenty cent item
>must by law file the form with next year's income tax and pay the one cent tax.

Mark replied:

>The 20 cent item then costs 50 cents.  20 cents for the item, 1 cent for
>the tax, and 29 cents for the US postal stamp to send the form, not including
>the cost of the form or getting the form.  The moral: stay in your own state.

Getting the form is a call to an 800 number; mailing the form adds no cost to
the cost of mailing it, as required, together with the annual income tax form.

/john

>Of course the law is always being interpreted as to its intent.  But the
>intent of the God-ordained authorities to which you are to be submitted to is
>that you obey their law, as interpreted by their judicial system.  To place
>your own interpretation of intent above theirs is disrespectful of them, and
>therefore disrespectful of God, who put these authorities in place. 

Did you answer Steve's question about Nazi Germany?

>>(I also do not see how loans cannot be considered owing something to someone,
>> or group of someones.  --Great going, James!  I'm glad for you to be able to 
>> do that.--  I think Ace makes a valid point, and I'm accused of double-talk.)
>
>Loans are a matter of owing something to someone, and I agreed with Ace's
>point, in principle.  Although Romans 13 does not explicitly address such
>loans, the principle taught there can be applied to loans, as well as many
>other principles in scripture.

Then no doubt you must be working to pay off what loans you may have and
endeavor to never borrow again. (?)  Credit cards?  (Some people swear
against them.)  Coins for a Coke for a very short period of time?

I've said too much, I think.  And for this I apologize to the readership.
I agree with those who have said to do what you will, and especially Ace
when he said to be strict with yourself and merciful to others.

Mark

	I was wondering..

	If a NH resident buys something in Mass, are they entitled to a rebate?

	8*)  8*)  8*)

ace

>>The 20 cent item then costs 50 cents.  20 cents for the item, 1 cent for
>>the tax, and 29 cents for the US postal stamp to send the form, not including
>>the cost of the form or getting the form.  The moral: stay in your own state.
>
>Getting the form is a call to an 800 number; mailing the form adds no cost to
>the cost of mailing it, as required, together with the annual income tax form.

Well, that's ONE way of getting the form.  Another is going to the PO and
picking one up.  The state pays postage to send it to you, too for that
penny's revenue.  So in paying your taxes, you may actually cost the
state MORE in tax expenditures, in the absurd cases.

>	If a NH resident buys something in Mass, are they entitled to a rebate?
>	8*)  8*)  8*)

Yeah, it would!  But there is something about State lines and sovereinty that
I have not understood well enough because of being spoiled by the freedom to
go from state to state with impunity.  I saw a glimpse of this by some people
with the former Soviet Union who were agog at the idea of being able to
go from say, New York to Pennsylvania, without checking in at the border
patrol and proper papers.  (I saw it on "Red Oktober" I remember now.)

I see the need for local governments and then larger systems to help ties
all the smaller systems together, but sometimes the sense of it breaks 
down.

Mark

Re: .41  (Mark)

>Did you answer Steve's question about Nazi Germany?

Yes.  Reply .36, second paragraph.

>Then no doubt you must be working to pay off what loans you may have and
>endeavor to never borrow again. (?)  Credit cards?  (Some people swear
>against them.)  Coins for a Coke for a very short period of time?

Yes.  I have paid cash for the last three cars.  I use a credit card for 
convenience and pay the bill in full each month, so as to not incur 
interest.  I did marry into a mortgage debt on a house.  We're working 
to get that to zero, putting as much into the principle as we can afford
on our budget.  $30K to go as of June!  Lord willing, we'll be free
of that in 2 years.  Then... no more debt, ever!  (Except maybe the continuing
debt to love one another 8^) )

>I use a credit card for convenience and pay the bill in full each month, 
>so as to not incur interest.

While I congratulate you on your other efforts - we are similarly taking
care of our money - this is still borrowing, even if only for a short time.
You pay the credit card company and not the merchant.  The credit card
company pays the merchant from which you bought stuff on credit.

Incurring interest doesn't matter - that's a fortunate policy of the credit
card company.  You take out an implicit loan of cash every time you use your
credit card (even for convenience, and when you pay it promptly).

Whimpy used to say, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
He was borrowing with intent to repay.  That is what you do and fortunately,
God has blessed you with the means to repay the bill in full each month.

Perhaps someday, you will be sufficiently debt-free to dismiss your
credit cards entirely and carry cash for convenience, not borrowing from
these credit companies.  And I hope that sufficiency will not harm you,
spiritually when you become debt-free.  I hope this for myself, so don't
take this too personally.

>Make sure that, if you disobey a governmental authority, it is because you
>are compelled to obey God instead as a higher authority in the particular
>matter.

This matter is not so very clear cut, especially with governments that 
promote evil, such as Nazi Germany.  One might argue that civic services
needed to be maintained, but a work stoppage, for example, might have brought
a halt to the war effort.  (Of course, many people in Germany supported Hitler
in the early years and later Hitler had too much power to be stopped.) 

Be strict with yourself and have mercy on others.

One might argue that it is only using credit if you make purchases in
excess of money you already have on hand, floating the purchase until
the bill comes.  If you have the money, it is only a convenience.

It would be possible to convert to a VISA or M/C debit card which
removes the money from your account automatically as each purchase is
made.  I have a Barclay's VISA card which functions this way, but it
debits a sterling account in Reading which only has about �20 in it
at the moment, so I rarely use it.

The VISA card I normally use automatically debits my checking account
for the full amount of all purchases once a month.

/john

Re: .46  (Mark)

>>I use a credit card for convenience and pay the bill in full each month, 
>>so as to not incur interest.
>
>While I congratulate you on your other efforts - we are similarly taking
>care of our money - this is still borrowing, even if only for a short time.
>You pay the credit card company and not the merchant.  The credit card
>company pays the merchant from which you bought stuff on credit.

Nonsense.  That is just a bill, not a loan.  Bills have due dates, loans
are payed back over time with interest.  It is true that the credit card 
company is acting as a middle man, but so does your bank when you write
a personal check, and so does the U.S. Treasury when you hand out cash.
So I don't see the difference between the credit card, a check, and cash.

>>Make sure that, if you disobey a governmental authority, it is because you
>>are compelled to obey God instead as a higher authority in the particular
>>matter.
>
>This matter is not so very clear cut, especially with governments that 
>promote evil, such as Nazi Germany.  One might argue that civic services
>needed to be maintained, but a work stoppage, for example, might have brought
>a halt to the war effort.  (Of course, many people in Germany supported Hitler
>in the early years and later Hitler had too much power to be stopped.) 

I don't know of a government that hasn't promoted evil.  Can you name one?
I thought that the principle I gave was very clear cut.  Civic services 
are fine and proper.  Shedding innocent blood is something we will not do.

    Garth,
    
    My Oxford dictionary defines a loan as a sum to be repaid with or
    without interest.  According to the dictionary, the way you use a
    credit card is a non-interest loan (i.e., you buy good/services with
    someone else's money and pay that party back at the end of the month
    without adding interest).
    
    Steve

    This brings up another question for me...
    
    A couple years ago, I took a long term interest free loan from Digital
    to buy a PC in the employee purchase program.  As one who wishes he
    didn't have as much credit card debt as he does (to say nothing of a
    huge mortgage), is this a bad idea, or a smart use of money in your
    (generic) opinion?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve

> It is true that the credit card 
>company is acting as a middle man, but so does your bank when you write
>a personal check, and so does the U.S. Treasury when you hand out cash.
>So I don't see the difference between the credit card, a check, and cash.

Nonsense.  Here's the difference:

A credit card uses someone else's money.
A check uses your own money (like the debit card that John described).
And cash...  well, you know.

Credit cards are LOANS.  Debit cards are using what the bank holds for
you.  Overdrafts of these debit account and checking accounts are also
LOANS.

>I thought that the principle I gave was very clear cut. 

I know you did and do [thought that].  You have a lot of clear cut
thoughts.

Mark

> Nonsense.  That is just a bill, not a loan.  Bills have due dates, loans
> are payed back over time with interest.  

I see where Mark is going with this.  The verse you are using to eliminate
loans doesn't say "don't have loans" or "don't pay interest," it says "owe
nothing to anyone."  When you use a credit card, from the time you make the
purchase until you pay the bill, you owe money to the credit card company. 
It's for a shorter period of time than if you only paid part of the bill, and
you don't pay interest, but you *DO* owe money.

Checks are completely different.  You deposit money in a bank, you write
checks against that money.  At no time do you owe any money to anyone.

Legalistically, to be consistent you shouldn't use credit cards at all if you
want to avoid oweing anything to anyone.  You should figure out a way to pay
the electric company and the phone company in advance, too.  Otherwise you
owe them money for a period of time until you get the bill.  In fact, you
should never do *ANYTHING* that requires you to be billed.  If you receive
the goods or services prior to paying, you owe money until you pay the bill.

That's a bit too legalistic for me.  I take the same attitude towards credit
cards that you do, we pay off our bill in full every month.  And we built our
own house specifically so that we would have as small a mortgage as possible,
so we pay less in mortgage per year than we do in property taxes.  Debt is
something we strenously avoid, this is an attitude and a way of life.  But I
have no need to make it into a rule.

Paul

>    A couple years ago, I took a long term interest free loan from Digital
>    to buy a PC in the employee purchase program.  As one who wishes he
>    didn't have as much credit card debt as he does (to say nothing of a
>    huge mortgage), is this a bad idea, or a smart use of money in your
>    (generic) opinion?

I have six months left to pay on my 450dx2 and at zero interest, it is better
for me to pay it off monthly, although I could pay it off at once.  And for
some lenders, they would prefer the monthly income to the lump payoff, 
especially if interest is involved!

When I was first married, we managed our money and purchases fairly well
and used the credit card.  We had school loans to pay, to boot.  It wasn't 
until our tenth or eleventh year of marriage that we were hovering consistently
above or near the black line.  When the car needed a new engine, it was put on 
credit.

I have no qualms with Jamed Cameron's management of money, saving up to
buy a house outright.  God bless him.  I don't have a qualm with Garth's
use of a credit card, especially when he pays it off as he does, and as I
do.  But having been in the straits of young married with children and
making money decisions that were not the most frugal (but neither were they
outlandishly foolhearty), I have no qualms about people taking loans.
Where I have the problem is when the management of assets has such a grip 
on the manager that it hurts the person spiritually.  And this can be with
someone who is debt free! as well as someone who is struggling and sincere
about becoming a wise steward of the resources in their charge.

The PC for me was a business investment.  I was right, by the way, because 
many of the skills needed for the job market require PC experience.  I am
glad my wife saw this as well, (because we make large purchase decisions
together).  Even if some of your credit card debt is questionable, making
an appropriate investment is not a bad idea when you know what the investment
is likely to return.  Jesus' story about the talents showed "investments" of
the master's money.

Mark

Ok, Steve McConnell wins and I am wrong.  I can't argue with a dictionary.
My American Heritage Dictionary also has 2. Anything lent for temporary use.

So I guess my outstanding purchases on my credit card, my electric bill,
phone bill, and etc. are "loans".  Things I have taken possession of but not
yet paid for.  Things I "owe", as the bible says.

Well, I see no reason to be legalistic about this business of owing things,
anyway.  I've got the money in the bank to pay for everything when the bills
come.

Actually, there is something to be said for doing away with credit cards.
The credit card company takes 5% from the merchant for each sale.  Since
the merchant has to absorb this cost, the result is that the prices of
goods must be higher or the merchant must be poorer.

From the merchant's perspective, the credit cards result in more sales,
since the masses demand the convenience, and only some gas stations 
pass on the cost to only the credit card customers.

I suppose the collective mindset of us consumers has resulted in this
extra expenditure to the middleman.  

I must confess that I don't know how to morally evaluate this situation.

    re: I "win"....it's not really a contest ;-)
    
    Ultimately, the (im)morality issues (including credit) will one day be
    resolved forever.
    
    
    
    Maranatha,
    
    
    Steve

Re: .56 (Steve)

>    Ultimately, the (im)morality issues (including credit) will one day be
>    resolved forever.
    
In the meantime, we would do well to search our consciences to see if we
need some corrective action.  We need to prayerfully consider whether we
are acting out of selfish motives, or charity, allegiance to self, or God.

When the day of Judgment comes, it will be too late to reverse what we 
have done.

    Just to insert a few more James Cameron comments into the current
    discussion;
    
    I don't prepay my bills, but since I am a tenant and not a landowner,
    natural gas, electricity and telephone service provides require a
    security deposit from me, so in effect I am prepaying those.
    
    When I am accommodated away from home, on business or not, I pay the
    proprietor in advance.  (I refuse to use a company credit card).  This
    also tends to make the proprietor better disposed towards me.
    
    However, when I eat at a restuarant, I do not pay in advance.  The
    contractual proceedings are so well entrenched there that it would be a
    royal pain to attempt it, plus you *often* do not know how much you are
    going to pay until the bill arrives.
    
    Interesting side issue; by contract law goods in a shopping trolley
    still belong to the store, and the prices on the shelves are an
    invitation to treat.  The total displayed at the checkout is the
    contractual offer.  Only when you have handed over the money does a
    contract at law exist and the goods become legally yours.
    
    (If you run out of money, you leave the goods with them.  That means
    that the only thing you have caused by failing to pay for the goods you
    have collected is a minor nuisance.)
    
    By contract law, you are entitled to negotiate the total at the
    checkout.  Few do.  Try negotiating it *upwards* some day.  Say that
    you think it is worth more.  Offer extra to round it up to the nearest
    dollar, and *refuse* to accept the goods at any other price.  This is a
    counter offer.  The store may accept or refuse the offer, though most
    accounting systems these days will not cope properly with it.
    
    James

    Re: Note 510.55 by KALI::WIEBE
    
>From the merchant's perspective, the credit cards result in more sales,
>since the masses demand the convenience, and only some gas stations 
>pass on the cost to only the credit card customers.
    
    In our country it is illegal to quote two prices for goods; one for
    cash and one for credit card.  It is, however, legal to provide a discount
    at time of sale for payment in cash.
    
    This law was constructed because the banking organisations required it
    before they would provide credit card systems for public use.  (!)
    
    James

.55 Garth

>I must confess that I don't know how to morally evaluate this situation.

There is no legal parser for every situation.  And even though in many
cases we can see clearly what is legally right and wrong, it does not
apply to all similar cases.


.57 Garth

>In the meantime, we would do well to search our consciences to see if we
>need some corrective action.  We need to prayerfully consider whether we
>are acting out of selfish motives, or charity, allegiance to self, or God.

On the same token, we also need to guard against over-analyzing such that
pride is found in our "selfless" actions.  This sort of recursion can 
lead to the type of deadlock: the very things we should do become a
stumbling block.

I completely concur that we would do well to search our consciences.
But if I have done so and found it acceptable to use a charge card 
while my brother does not find it acceptable, what then?  

Psalm 139
 23  Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
 24  And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
everlasting.

Mark