Are Taxes Just?

[manualman]

Some here have commented that “legalized theft” is oxymoronic. I say no it is quite proper. Just because a legislature says it is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t theft. But, as Walter Williams points out, “Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we’d call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that’s exactly what thieves do – redistribute income. “

One can have a rational argument about whether our current system crosses the line into theft. But that explicitly is not what THIS thread is about. The OP asked if taxation is BY NATURE theft, not whether there is a line at which it becomes theft.

It’s really very simple. No taxes = no government. Is anybody here REALLY up for that?

 

[sw85]

Some here have commented that legalized theft is oxymoronic. I say no it is quite proper. Just because a legislature says it is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t theft. But, as Walter Williams points out, “Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we’d call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that’s exactly what thieves do – redistribute income. “

Walter Williams isn’t the Magisterium. He’s an economist and a talking head. His moral-theological pronouncements have about as much weight from a Catholic perspective as, well, VeritasLuxMea’s or my own – none, except insofar as they line up with the Church’s teachings.

Now I can agree that (our) (current) government’s (relatively recent) (ahistorical) policies on taxation are profoundly stupid and reckless, but that has nothing to do with the moral liceity of taxation in principle.

Worse still, the analogy misses the point entirely because it begs the question that the state is no different than the people who comprise it. This is flatly untrue and, worse, contrary to Catholic teachings, according to which the state is not only a natural and unavoidable good but that it enjoys divine sanction in the execution of its mandate to provide for the common good and to enact justice. The state also puts criminals in prison, after all, but no one imagines the state is kidnapping people and holding them against their will.

I do not believe it is a refutation of Christ, as much as it is a question of where did Christ command the bureaucrat to take my money and give to you? Nowhere in scriptures has this been proclaimed and I do not believe it is mandated by the catechism.

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” seems pretty definitive to me.

As for the Catechism, see CCC 2240: “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

It’s a pretty straightforward question, really: are taxes legalized theft?

To belay any confusion, I am asking about taxes promulgated by a just government in the interest of the common good. Simply put: are taxes per se ever just?

Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said that “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” But it is more accurate to say that taxes are the price we pay for an uncivilized society. In particular, at their best, it is a coercive means of achieving ends that could as well, or better, be managed voluntarily.

The most just and civilized society would not require taxes. But we do not live in a just society. We need police and army, for example, and we have to deal with free loaders would would enjoy the benefits of their services without supporting them.

The crucial question is whether increasing or decreasing taxes brings us closer to, or further from, a just society. Are taxes, and the bureaucracies they support, leading us toward or away from our ideal? Upon this question rests the most interesting debate.

Remember that Jesus never condemned slavery and it took hundreds of years for the Church to take a position against it. Ancient civilization depended upon the institution of slavery much as modern society depends on taxation.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” seems pretty definitive to me.

As for the Catechism, see CCC 2240: “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country…”

and that would include a special tax to fund abortion mills?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

and that would include a special tax to fund abortion mills?

Didn’t Caesar use taxes for worse purposes?

To my mind, Jesus command to subjects to pay taxes is similar to Paul’s command to slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8). Neither is an endorsement of the respective institutions.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

“Legalized theft” is a contradiction in terms, which is a good sign that you are smuggling into this conversation modern categories of speech designed to frustrate rational thought on these issues.

“Law” is nonsense. It is words set to paper, given a “magic” life of their own. Insofar as it reflects a proper understanding of the good, OK, insofar as it does not, very well then…

This is an assertion, not an argument.

“Abortion is murder” is an assertion as well. It happens to be true, unless you try to explain it away as so many do today.

This is a strange argument. For one thing, there are no “various interpretations” if by this you mean that the truth is somehow unclear from a Catholic perspective.

I’m not aware of any allegedly infallible statement regarding the interpretation of the one poetic verse in which Jesus addresses taxation, but the Church has no business overturning the Truth, anyway. So if the Church comes out tomorrow and says abortion is not murder, oh well. She would be wrong.

For another, if submission to authority results in the thriving of the Church that is a pretty good sign that it corresponds to human nature in a real and powerful way. People desiring their own good is the very definition of the natural law, so obviously, the moral liceity of taxation belongs at least to the natural law.

Kindly, that statement is both ludicrous and dangerous. The same could be said of “stop snitching” movement, or of cooperating with any of the numerous wicked “authorities” on Earth, past and present. Do you believe we live in a world where the wicked do not prosper? Look at the wars, the genocides, the thievery, the oppression… you do not see the wicked prospering? I ask you to look again.

This is, again, an assertion, not an argument. Whether or not the execution of criminals constitutes “murder,” and whether or not the collection of taxes constitutes “theft,” is exactly what’s under discussion here.

Do you believe that some men can kill, steal, etc. because they are ‘beyond good and evil’, because they have a special status? Was there an addendum to the 10 commandments that outlined who is/isn’t above the commandments?

Unfortunately for you, they aren’t up for discussion. The Church has already ruled definitively on the matter and your libertarian prejudices are completely alien to the Catholic moral theological tradition. Discussion is closed. Continue at peril of your own soul.

I shall respond in kind: you are a moral relativist, sir. You take the moral law from God and you apply the rules differently based on who has ‘power’ and who does not. Is that not the case?

manualman:

It’s really very simple. No taxes = no government. Is anybody here REALLY up for that?

Yes. If by no government you mean no extortion and murder, then yes. I am really up for that. Really.

 

[Fairwinds]

Didn’t Caesar use taxes for worse purposes?

To my mind, Jesus command to subjects to pay taxes is similar to Paul’s command to slaves to obey their masters (Ephesians 6:5-8). Neither is an endorsement of the respective institutions.

general tax revenues go into a general fund, might be used for bridge building or supporting armies; you pay into the general fund and no “percentage” of your dollar is earmarked for anything specific.

special tax revenues are for one specific purpose, in my hypothetical, an abortion mill.

the OP asks of the second tax is just. is the special tax just?

 

[St_Francis]

I do not believe it is a refutation of Christ, as much as it is a question of where did Christ command the bureaucrat to take my money and give to you? Nowhere in scriptures has this been proclaimed and I do not believe it is mandated by the catechism.

Where has the Church taught that taxing is inherently wrong? Instead, the Church has promoted government and taught that we must contribute to society, partly by paying taxes.

As to where Christ taught that governments should collect taxes… he fact that Christ did not come out and say, Governments should collect taxes does notean that we can assume that taxation is theft! This is precisely why Christ left us with the Magisterium! So, tell us where the Church teaches that governments should not collect taxes? Remember, we are not talking about redistribution taxes (which the Church does not entirely dissaprove of), but taxes in general.

 

[Fairwinds]

Where has the Church taught that taxing is inherently wrong? Instead, the Church has promoted government and taught that we must contribute to society, partly by paying taxes.

As to where Christ taught that governments should collect taxes… he fact that Christ did not come out and say, Governments should collect taxes does notean that we can assume that taxation is theft! This is precisely why Christ left us with the Magisterium! So, tell us where the Church teaches that governments should not collect taxes? Remember, we are not talking about redistribution taxes (which the Church does not entirely dissaprove of), but taxes in general.

does the Church teach that confiscatory taxes are just?

 

[manualman]

Yes. If by no government you mean no extortion and murder, then yes. I am really up for that. Really.

This is over the top. Without government, you’re rather a lot MORE likely to suffer extortion and murder. Who’s going to make crime not pay? Let me guess, you are your gun totin’ buddies? Please.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

general tax revenues go into a general fund, might be used for bridge building or supporting armies; you pay into the general fund and no “percentage” of your dollar is earmarked for anything specific.

special tax revenues are for one specific purpose, in my hypothetical, an abortion mill.

the OP asks of the second tax is just. is the special tax just?

I didn’t read him that way, he said, “To belay any confusion, I am asking about taxes promulgated by a just government in the interest of the common good.” [Emphasis added.]

There are all sorts of distinctions that can be drawn but most of them are more illusary than they might at first appear. But I think he’s asking if taxes are ever just. To answer that we have to imagine the best case, not the worst case.

Now the distinction between the general welfare and handing out goodies to political supporters is a useful distinction but you underestimate the cleverness of politicians. All that is required is for them to declare that abortion is a public good, that children need to be aborted for the sake of the general welfare.

Still, you raise an interesting question: what do we do when faced with a special tax that is explicitly declared to be for the purpose of abortions. More generally, what do we do when the law demands us to do what would otherwise be a grave sin. With Obmacare, this is no longer a theoretical question.

 

[St_Francis]

Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. said that “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” But it is more accurate to say that taxes are the price we pay for an uncivilized society. In particular, at their best, it is a coercive means of achieving ends that could as well, or better, be managed voluntarily.

The most just and civilized society would not require taxes. But we do not live in a just society. We need police and army, for example, and we have to deal with free loaders would would enjoy the benefits of their services without supporting them.

The crucial question is whether increasing or decreasing taxes brings us closer to, or further from, a just society. Are taxes, and the bureaucracies they support, leading us toward or away from our ideal? Upon this question rests the most interesting debate.

This is not at all what the Church teaches. We live in a fallen world filled with people suffering the effects of Original Sin. The only place where you will find good people living in perfect justice is in Heaven.

The ideas that you are espousing, that man is corrupted by society, that man can be perfected by placing him in a perfect environment, are ideas from the anti-Catholic “Enlightenment” thinkers.

Remember that Jesus never condemned slavery and it took hundreds of years for the Church to take a position against it. Ancient civilization depended upon the institution of slavery much as modern society depends on taxation.

Ummmm, the type of slavery practiced in the time of Christ was not the same as the chattel slavery practiced by some of the explorers, which was condemned by the pope when it came to his attention.

 

[Fairwinds]

I didn’t read him that way, he said, “To belay any confusion, I am asking about taxes promulgated by a just government in the interest of the common good.” [Emphasis added.]

There are all sorts of distinctions that can be drawn but most of them are more illusary than they might at first appear. But I think he’s asking if taxes are ever just. To answer that we have to imagine the best case, not the worst case.

Now the distinction between the general welfare and handing out goodies to political supporters is a useful distinction but you underestimate the cleverness of politicians. All that is required is for them to declare that abortion is a public good, that children need to be aborted for the sake of the general welfare.

Still, you raise an interesting question: what do we do when faced with a special tax that is explicitly declared to be for the purpose of abortions. More generally, what do we do when the law demands us to do what would otherwise be a grave sin. With Obmacare, this is no longer a theoretical question.

you’re right, I forgot the context of the OP.

I wasn’t making a distinction between taxes used for good and bad purposes so much as saying that there is no defense to a general tax by pointing out that bad purposes will be found among the good.

different call, I think, with a special tax or a general tax that is a pretense for something else.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This is not at all what the Church teaches. We live in a fallen world filled with people suffering the effects of Original Sin. The only place where you will find good people living in perfect justice is in Heaven.

The Church does not teach that we should be indifferent to the sins of the world and await justice in Heaven. We did not have to await perfect justice to abolish slavery.

The ideas that you are espousing, that man is corrupted by society, that man can be perfected by placing him in a perfect environment, are ideas from the anti-Catholic “Enlightenment” thinkers.

I have nowhere espoused that man is corrupted by society or that man can be perfected by his environment. Please back up and try again.

Ummmm, the type of slavery practiced in the time of Christ was not the same as the chattel slavery practiced by some of the explorers, which was condemned by the pope when it came to his attention.

True, but irrelevant. The Church condemned slavery long before the version that appeared in the western hemisphere. It condemned, and continues to condemn, even the type of slavery that was practiced in the time of Christ.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I wasn’t making a distinction between taxes used for good and bad purposes so much as saying that there is no defense to a general tax by pointing out that bad purposes will be found among the good. different call, I think, with a special tax or a general tax that is a pretense for something else.

As I said, this is a very good question. From all that I have heard and read the Church is still struggling with it. My guess is that we will soon hear that we may, but not that we must, refuse to pay such a tax, or to follow regulations of a similarly compulsory nature. It’s only a matter of time before we see bishops in jail.

 

[St_Francis]

The Church does not teach that we should be indifferent to the sins of the world and await justice in Heaven. We did not have to await perfect justice to abolish slavery.

I have nowhere espoused that man is corrupted by society or that man can be perfected by his environment. Please back up and try again.

True, but irrelevant. The Church condemned slavery long before the version that appeared in the western hemisphere. It condemned, and continues to condemn, even the type of slavery that was practiced in the time of Christ.

I apologize, I misunderstood the intent of your post.

 

[Fairwinds]

As I said, this is a very good question. From all that I have heard and read the Church is still struggling with it. My guess is that we will soon hear that we may, but not that we must, refuse to pay such a tax, or to follow regulations of a similarly compulsory nature.** It’s only a matter of time before we see bishops in jail.**

(emphasis added)

this would be a good thing, not because I want to see bishops in jail, but because we’ll need some good examples to follow.

 

[on_the_hill]

(emphasis added)

this would be a good thing, not because I want to see bishops in jail, but because we’ll need some good examples to follow.

I’d rather not follow someone into jail, though.

 

[Fairwinds]

I’d rather not follow someone into jail, though.

I had a chance to consider that as an exercise of civil disobedience. it never came to that (an issue over where homeless could be fed was resolved), but I’d made up my mind that if someone was going to be arrested, it wouldn’t be me.

 

[sandomenico]

There has been some good discussion here, and I thank all involved for their thoughts. I will make a few additional comments.

Thank you, Bubba Switzler, for clarifying this point: I am asking about the justice of taxes themselves. There is no question of taxes due for an unjust cause like abortion or an unjust war; in such cases, we must not support any means to private sin and public wrongdoing.

Man is only a caretaker and steward of God’s gifts, of which gold is one. Significantly, Christ first answered the Pharisees with this question: “Whose seal is upon this coin?” He first established that Caesar owned the coin, and then said it is just to return to Caesar what belongs to him.

In the case of taxes, is it just to pay Caesar whatever he demands? Or is Caesar also bound by justice not to demand what is beyond his due? What is Caesar’s due?

Is Caesar’s demand Caesar’s due?

God love you,
sandomenico