Kent Hovind and his wife were found guilty of 58 counts of tax fraud, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee income taxes, facing up to 288 years in prison in what appears to be something of a kangaroo court. One thing I noticed as I watched many of Kent Hovind's videos was his constant appeal to Christians to do something for the Lord; it doesn't matter what necessarily, but it's important to do something for the Lord. As I was telling my son that Kent may spend the rest of his days in prison when he could be out carrying on his ministry if he had just paid the money and went along with the crowd, I realized what a hypocritical attitude I had. Looking back through history, I am very grateful for all those who didn't go along with the crowd, but made waves, BIG waves, that brought about the necessary changes to get us to where we are today - free.
But are we really free? Why is this SO important to Kent? To him, this was worth risking going to jail for the rest of his life. He is not a kook; there must be something worth learning here. So I took a look around and discovered Aaron Russo's site, Freedom to Fascism, which has a private movie that came out this summer exposing the fact that there is NO law that requires American citizens to pay income taxes. Check out the 14 minute trailer; it will make you think, at the very least. For Christians, there is a timeline there that should ring a bell somewhere.
So, my son wants to know, how can they charge Kent Hovind with a crime if there is no law requiring him to pay taxes for his employees? I haven't researched this fully, so I surely must be missing something somewhere.
Meanwhile, what to do? I hate it when I learn something new; now I am responsible for what I know!
11 comments:
A conclusion that there is no law that requires the payment of government taxes is reminiscent of a conclusion or assertion that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. Whatever the details that purport that conclusion, that denies as untrue or irrelevant all the proof that the government (federal, state, local) has passed taxes and requires payment of taxes. Imagine a case going through all the appeals up to the Supreme Court, claiming that there is no law requiring payment of income taxes. Beyond the remarkable denial of such abundant proof, do we really want to turn this country from normal operation by the support of taxes to a very different operation by support of donations? Do we really want the extreme consequences of removing the taxes? If the idea is that only income taxes are not required in law (equally remarkable and false as the idea of all taxes not required in law), then do we want property taxes or other fees to be raised sufficiently to replace the income taxes? Surely the government does very bad things with tax money, and I am not denying that. Taxes are the means by which national defense, courts, police, roads, traffic lights, and countless other benefits are provided to everyone. Paul did not say, don't pay taxes to Rome because Rome does bad things. Romans 13:1-7 This direction (I have heard of such in the past, claiming that there is no law that requires payment of taxes) seems to be anarchy, or anarchism. I have found Kent Hovind's conclusion and insistence sad, especially after details you have told about him (apparently sincere, generous, not greedy). I think he has gone a false way, tragically. I would be glad for Mark to write on this, when he is free to. Also others. If I am mistaken, I would be glad to be shown where I have missed.
I have had a tiny bit of experience with this. Years ago, I got audited. Ready to be the perfect citizen, I showed up at the IRS with my big box.
The kind of treatment I received was horrifying. I was threatened and treated like a criminal and I have never had any legal problems before in my life! I was freaked out. I left there with another meeting planned and immediatly started making phone calls looking for a lawyer to represent me.
I found a former IRS investigator who quit when they forced him to foreclose on a woman who was dying of cancer and near the end. He could not take it anymore. And he knew the game because as he said, No one knows the laws.
He taught me quite a bit. He said the agents are evaluated on how much they can get from each audit. It is not how much you owe...its how much they decide you owe. He said that they are under great pressure to up the amount of each case.
He said, the worse thing you can do is show up and be perfect cooperative citizen becuase they only see a chump that they can use to up their claim amount quota.
Had I hired him right away, things would have turned out very different. As it was, he saved me about 10,000. He also used every trick in the book. Never let them in your home for a meeting. Take breaks during the meeting to stall. Make it NOT worth their time to deal wiht you. They must close their cases and move on.
I was absolutely amazed at how this worked. Then I read Shelly Davis' book about the IRS and it became clear to me we have created a monster that no one will touch including presidents.
I am posting this anonymous for obvious reasons!
>>but he did so at the expense of his employees. He deserves to be in jail. He has an OBLIGATION to pay employee income taxes...I wonder how THEY felt when trying to file THEIR income taxes...>>
first of all, was he taking the money out of their checks but not paying the government OR was he not taking any taxes out at all?
(Maybe he was calling them contract labor which never works with the IRS.)
If he was not taking any deductions out at all, then they would have figured that out real quick...like the first pay check, right?
David, I would like to see it perhaps, mini-extreme.... of only taxes for defense federally and infrastructure paid to the state state. If they abolished half of the departments in DC, we would not miss them. The highly paid Federal Workers with their great retirement plan would, though.
Let us not forget that one of the biggest problems during the Revolutionary War was collecting money from the states to pay soldiers!
As far as I know, all his employees were working on a "missionary" status, knowing full well that taxes were not being paid on their behalf. Each "missionary" was fully aware, and supportive, of this practice. I would guess that they all agreed with his tax protester beliefs. I did talk to a couple of them about it, and they backed Kent strongly. As far as I know, no one was deceived.
Actually, "missionary" is Kent's term for them, not mine. I don't think he considered them contractors, per se, but chose to look at it through a biblical perspective. Unfortunately, our government is not set up that way, and he knew this day was coming. He planned for this day, and so did his "missionaries." I won't say if they are right or wrong, but changing the laws (or lack thereof) has to start somewhere, and sometimes it just takes one courageous person to get the ball rolling.
I agree. I find him more of a hero than a criminal.
Jen, thanks for pointing me to the blog entries. I checked for a couple times when I posted those original comments, but after seeing other comments coming in on that entry, I assumed my comment was too off-topic for that particular entry, and so just went on with life.
The Bible teaches us that we ought to obey God rather than men, and that in the context of preaching the gospel. I think it is also all right to break the law to save innocent lives, as the Ten Boom family obviously did (like Rahab, or the Hebrew midwives, or as Proverbs says -- rescue those being delivered to slaughter).
As regarding taxes, I am in agreement with the first comment on this entry, and I see no biblical warrant for Hovind to have disobeyed the government's edicts, and believe me, I support tax cuts and vote for those who claim they support tax cuts. This was not a matter of preaching the gospel or of trying to save innocent lives.
Many Scriptures come to mind: "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's" "For this reason you pay taxes" "Honor the king."
The same Peter, who "obeyed God rather than men," said this:
"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
Jesus Himself told Peter that although they didn't *have* to pay a certain tax, it would be proper for them to pay it, in order to not give offense, and so Peter was sent to find the money in a fish's mouth.
Thanks for posting your thoughts on this issue.
Simple Gifts, I fully agree with all your Scriptures you have posted here. If it were only that easy in this case. I believe Kent Hovind is trying to prove that there is no actual law for these taxes, and he's willing to take a hard stand on it. Something similar happened in our Revolutionary War, and I'm grateful for those who fought back, when others around them were willing to just go with the flow rather than cause waves.
I am not saying what Kent did was right or wrong; I don't know enough about it. But I think he has a good point!
Metochoi, I'm afraid I can't really answer your questions. I don't know enough about Kent's personal positions on each of your questions to be able to give you an answer. And that is why I won't take a strong position on what he's done. I just don't know enough about it yet. I have addressed the parts I can, that parts I do know, and mostly I just wanted to tell a little personal background. He is not like any other Christian "celebrity" I've ever met, and I like that about him. That does not mean that I either agree or disagree with what he does. Sorry I can't be more helpful this time.
Well is there is no law for paying taxes then the government should make one. Isn't that obvious? What is the fuss about? Can a country survive without taxes from its people? People defending "Doctor" Kent hovind can go to any extent to rationalize anything.
And i am not surprised that Kent has found followers whom he can preach bible in jail. The jails are filled with Bible- believers ( or any religious minded for that matter).
If I were to judge purely by attitudes, I would choose Kent Hovind's godly approach rather than your bitter one any day.
Post a Comment