Should "In God We Trust" Be Taken Off Of US Currency? What Would Follow?

When I learned the pledge, in 1952, it did not have "under god" in it and it should not have it now. Just return it to the way it started. Oh, and I am fine with the "INDIVISIBLE" part of the pledge, since I feel that states have too many rights and too much power in this modern age.

 

It is ironic that the US Constitution itself establishes the means for the dissolution of the United States of America. Article V allows the 2/3rds of the states to call for a Constitutional Convention and at that convention the states could propsose abolishing the US Constitution completely and if 3/4ths of the states agreed then the United States would literally cease to exist.

There is nothing that the federal government could do to prevent this from happening. The existance of the United States government is and has always been subject to consent of the States and it is not indivisible. It was created by the States and can be abolished by the States.

 

This would be impossible today, most Americans are just that, AMERICANS. Very few sane, people would vote to remove any state from the USA. Geez, what would the Russians, Chinese, Mexicans, and Muslims not love about that? Roflolollolololololololo

 

You mean banned? Employers are already free to impose reasonable standards of dress.

By "additional" do you mean "any at all?" Because currently those institutions are tax-exempt. They should pay their fair share like the rest of us.

Depends on where it is displayed.

It should be.

Volunteer chaplains/rabbis/imams, etc. should be made available to those service members who desire their services. But commissioned as officers? I don't see the point.

And yes, the offensive slogan you reference should be removed from our money.

 

A lot of private companies and some major corporations are also tax exempt. Would those corporations and companies be 'religious' or is there a prejudice being expressed in your statement. After all, if churches and religious organizations (currently tax exempt) should be required to pay taxes like all the rest of us, then should not that same rule be enforced against all companies and corporations equally across the board?

 

Yes, we all need to pay our fair share.

 

Wrong! "We all" is self explanatory and simply means all inclusive; "need to pay" is projecting the necessity of a future event. However, that alleged necessity (need to pay) is not necessarily true. Some of us have already made that investment and are now receiving dividends from their investment and are no longer required to pay taxes (other than cross the counter sales tax). The point is : There are always exceptions.

 

I have no problem exempting taxes from church monies spent on charity. However, what they spend on a building, land, kitchens, schools, etc, should be taxable.

 

Then our public schools which are part of the 'state' corporation should also be taxed. Very good.

 

Agreed. To the extent that they can prove to the IRS that the money they collect goes to charity and complies with the regulations and reporting requirements, it should be tax-exempt like any other charitable organization. But a $3 million sound system? In a $10 million building? On $20 million piece of land? No, I don't think so.

 

Sorry, but the only thing taxable in public schools are salaries. You cannot tax the government, since its only source of money is you. Well you could, but that would mean the govt would have to raise your taxes to pay for the taxes you want them to pay, so in effect YOU would being paying the taxes of the govt, lol. Just like you pay corporate taxes now for all the corporations. Churches have money they get from you, That money, unless it is spent for charitable purposes should be taxable. Churches get a tax relief because they are a charity, then their charitable expenses should be tax exempt, not their other expenses. Because they want a 20 million dollar meeting hall for comfort should NOT be tax exempt- let them meet in fields as Jesus supposedly did. If it is NOT charity, it should be taxed. At least if you have a charitable organization. Non-profit businesses operate a bit differently but they also get away with murder and many should be paying a taxes on much of their income.

 

The exact same thing holds true for NON-PROFIT tax exempt status. The local head of our RED Cross makes 280,000 dollars a year, she has 118 people paid employees working full-time under her. That is ridiculous. Tax exempt business should NOT be allowed to throw money away in such a manner. They do not need an 18,000 dollar a month office on the 50th floor of a building when one the same size on the first floor is only 2,000 dollars.
Removing these LOOPHOLES in tax exempt status would go a long way to helping reduce out national debt, and every bit, long of short counts.

 

You seem to disregard the FACT that this alleged government is a "CORPORATION" and a tax exempt corporation. So what you are suggesting is that it is OK to have and use double standards in the field of 'COMMERCE'.

Well, according to the US Supreme Court, that is not necessarily true.
"CORPORATE GOVERNMENT
Clearfield Doctrine


"The government does business on business terms and its no different than any other corporation doing business. Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen, where private corporate commercial paper and securities is concerned.
See: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States , 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943)."
The federal government is not the sovereign for ones who are not United States citizens. The government is the sovereign to corporations or persons it creates. One who is in a position of being the servant cannot question the demands of the master. The government possesses what is called "sovereign immunity" in relation to those it creates.

No King But King Yahu'shuah!
Galatians 5:1 ¶ In the freedom with which Messiah has made us free, stand firm, then, and do not again be held with a yoke of slavery. ISR (Institute for Scripture Research) "

So, in fact, you may deem yourself to be subject to taxation through your consent to allow the government to claim you as a subject (US Citizen), but that is your choice. So when you start talking about matters of law, you need to do your research.

The actual language is cited in :
United States v. National Exchange Bank, 270 U. S. 527, 270 U. S. 534, "The United States does business on business terms." It is not excepted from the general rules governing the rights and duties of drawees "by the largeness of its dealings and its having to employ agents to do what if done by a principal in person would leave no room for doubt." Id.,";

The National Exchange Bank was the precedent case for the Clearfield Doctrine.

 

Religious private schools would have to pay the same taxes that any other private insititution. The same with the churches. Nonsense the rest.

 

You can rant and rave all you wish, but the concept is still totally stupid and ignorant. Where exactly do you think the govt would get the money if YOUR will were done? The ONLY income of govt is taxes and revenue from minor sources such as building rental, land leases and sales, etc.
The only way the govt could raise YOUR taxes on the govt would be to raise YOUR taxes, ROFLOLOLLO. So you are basically saying you would love to have a tax increase on your income.

personally, I would not mind a tax increase to help bring the debt under a bit of control, but I SERIOUSLY doubt you would agree.

 

I have been to court as a witness a number of times, I have sworn to tell the truth with my right hand on my heart. I have never sworn on the bible and it has never been a problem. As an atheist the bible is totally meaningless to me as anything other than a historical source of information. No one is forced to swear on a bible or anything else, the only requirement is that you swear to tell the truth.