Catholic arguments against Universal Basic Income

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14159821]The exact mechanics of how the tax is collected is not what makes it moral or immoral.

Of course the mechanics can make it immoral. I consider it entirely immoral, for example, for a local government to increase property such that an elderly couple on a fixed income, who owns their house outright, can loose it to the government because they are taxed out of it.

The fact that income tax withholding is done by the employer on behalf of the government is just a mechanism and has no moral implications. If you are self-employed, for example, there is no withholding - just periodic estimated tax payments. So this “off the top” notion is not a fundamental characteristic of income tax - just an implementation detail.

The issue regarding income is not about the employer, or withholding. It is about the government essentially setting a rate of the amount of your money they let you keep. That is what the income tax is - government gets the first cut, and allows you to keep some. That’s off the top. Yes, that’s an implementation detail, but its the same process as protection money made legal.

That is not a distinguishing characteristic. You could just as well say that one chooses how much income tax to pay, based on how much one chooses to earn. If you don’t want to pay so much sales tax, don’t buy so much. If you don’t want to pay so much income tax, don’t earn so much. They are the same in this regard.

Well clearly not. Because the products one buys under the sales tax is theirs without fear of it being confiscated by a later higher sales tax being assessed. With the income tax (and property tax), your property is never really yours if the government can threaten to take it over taxes. Under a sales tax, you pay the tax when you buy it, and the government’s hands are out of it. With income tax, every year there’s the threat penalties, interest, confiscation, frozen bank accounts without due process,liens, etc.

Are you sure about that? I think with sufficient due process, one’s already owned property could be in jeopardy to satisfy any debt, including private debts, taxes, fines, whatever. The ownership of property is almost sacrosanct, but not completely so. It would be the last resort to satisfy a debt.

Under a sales tax system, once I buy my car, house, you name it, it is mine. That’s never the case with the income tax and property tax.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course the mechanics can make it immoral. I consider it entirely immoral, for example, for a local government to increase property such that an elderly couple on a fixed income, who owns their house outright, can loose it to the government because they are taxed out of it.

In that case the immorality or injustice stems from the magnitude of the tax in relation to the couple’s situation - not whether the tax was defined as a property tax.

The issue regarding income is not about the employer, or withholding. It is about the government essentially setting a rate of the amount of your money they let you keep.

This is true of every other tax as well - not just income taxes. Even a sales tax - the kind you prefer - effectively puts a limit on how much money you are allowed to keep.

Well clearly not. Because the products one buys under the sales tax is theirs without fear of it being confiscated by a later higher sales tax being assessed. With the income tax (and property tax), your property is never really yours if the government can threaten to take it over taxes. Under a sales tax, you pay the tax when you buy it, and the government’s hands are out of it…Under a sales tax system, once I buy my car, house, you name it, it is mine.

OK, here is a scenario that contradicts your claim. You buy a camper from an RV dealer and you pay the required sales tax. Then, a few months later, you also buy an expensive yacht. But you buy it privately - not from a dealer - and do not pay sales tax, even though sales tax is owed, even for private sales. But in this case it is up to you to pay the tax yourself instead of having the merchant collect it on behalf of the state. A year later, the state finds out that you bought the yacht without paying sales tax and they demand payment of that sales tax. You refuse. And you hide the yacht somewhere the state cannot find it, so they cannot confiscate it. But they do see your camper. As a last resort, they will take your camper. This, despite that fact that you own the camper outright, and already paid the sales tax for it. So it appears that when you buy something, it still might not be yours forever.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Are you trying to argue that you, in concert with your fellow countrymen, do not have the moral authority to levy taxes? Of course you do. Well, not you all by yourself. But you as a member of the community. The CCC clearly says that you have a duty to pay your taxes. They would not say that if the government did not have the moral authority to levy the taxes.

No, I do not. Government derives its power from the consent of the individuals. No individual has the power to levy taxes. Numbers do not make a difference. To claim otherwise is to engage in the bandwagon fallacy.

No, that is quite different.

No, property taxes are just taxes. Period. They are not rent.

If you do not pay up, you lose the ability to use your “property”. Please explain the difference.

 

[Rau]

No, I do not. Government derives its power from the consent of the individuals. No individual has the power to levy taxes. Numbers do not make a difference. To claim otherwise is to engage in the bandwagon fallacy.

Best addressed by referring the matter to the Supreme Court. Oh, wait surely there must be a few tens of thousands of lawyers who’ve thought about making a name for themselves by doing just that - then decided not too. I wonder why?

 

[po18guy]

St. John Chrysostom pointed out that confiscating the wealth of the rich and giving it to the poor will a) cause the rich to become bitter and resentful of their stolen goods, and b) the poor will not appreciate the gift, since it comes from bureaucratic demands instead of loving, voluntary giving.

Also, anyone who has studied economics knows that the minimum wage does not lift anyone out of poverty. In fact, all it does is artificially increase the cost of employment, leading to a labor surplus (aka unemployment).

Does no one study even elementary economics? (the answer is obvious). The problem with any “fair” or “equitable” progressive idea (oh, do we have progressives in the Church) is that it must be applied in the political realm - and that invariably leads to some form of socialization or collectivism, which violates the principle of subsidiarity. (CCC1882-1185).

 

[JonNC]

=LeafByNiggle;14160281]In that case the immorality or injustice stems from the magnitude of the tax in relation to the couple’s situation - not whether the tax was defined as a property tax.

This is true, as well, but the underlying notion that government should hold this kind power over private property is immoral, too.

This is true of every other tax as well - not just income taxes. Even a sales tax - the kind you prefer - effectively puts a limit on how much money you are allowed to keep.

The difference is with sales tax, it is not off the top. Government doesn’t claim a share of your property, or labor, before you receive it. With sales tax, government doesn’t hold a future claim of power to confiscate the property.

OK, here is a scenario that contradicts your claim. You buy a camper from an RV dealer and you pay the required sales tax. Then, a few months later, you also buy an expensive yacht. But you buy it privately - not from a dealer - and do not pay sales tax, even though sales tax is owed, even for private sales. But in this case it is up to you to pay the tax yourself instead of having the merchant collect it on behalf of the state. A year later, the state finds out that you bought the yacht without paying sales tax and they demand payment of that sales tax. You refuse. And you hide the yacht somewhere the state cannot find it, so they cannot confiscate it. But they do see your camper. As a last resort, they will take your camper. This, despite that fact that you own the camper outright, and already paid the sales tax for it. So it appears that when you buy something, it still might not be yours forever.

How is illegal action a contradiction of the fact that, with sales tax, ones ownership of the property is not threatened in the future once paid? Whereas, with property tax, one never truly owns the property if government has the power to come in and confiscate it. If sales tax is charged at the point of sale, then the property is yours without government threat.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, I do not. Government derives its power from the consent of the individuals. No individual has the power to levy taxes.

No, but the government does.

Numbers do not make a difference. To claim otherwise is to engage in the bandwagon fallacy.

The government is legitimate not because of the numbers of people that make it up, but by being given by God the authority to act on behalf of the people for the common good.

If you do not pay up, you lose the ability to use your “property”. Please explain the difference.

This is true of any debt - not just taxes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is true, as well, but the underlying notion that government should hold this kind power over private property is immoral, too.

Reason?..

The difference is with sales tax, it is not off the top. Government doesn’t claim a share of your property, or labor, before you receive it.

No, it claims a share of your money, which, as I showed in my example above, could lead to placing a claim on your property as well.

How is illegal action a contradiction of the fact that, with sales tax, ones ownership of the property is not threatened in the future once paid?

My example showed how, even though you paid for the RV and paid the tax for it, you still might have to forfeit it to satisfy some debt if there is no other way. So in that sense no one ever owns anything absolutely. And even if the government does not take it away from you, some day God will, when you die. So all ownership of property is subject to some limitations.

Whereas, with property tax, one never truly owns the property if government has the power to come in and confiscate it.

That only happens if you refuse to comply with the law. Things happen to people who break the law. That is their fault - not the fault of their government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Does no one study even elementary economics? (the answer is obvious). The problem with any “fair” or “equitable” progressive idea (oh, do we have progressives in the Church) is that it must be applied in the political realm - and that invariably leads to some form of socialization or collectivism, which violates the principle of subsidiarity. (CCC1882-1185).

Where have I heard that kind of argument before?.. Oh, I remember. It was Harold Hill talking to the people of River City, trying to convince them of the evils of a pool table.

 

[JonNC]

Reason?..

No, it claims a share of your money, which, as I showed in my example above, could lead to placing a claim on your property as well.

My example showed how, even though you paid for the RV and paid the tax for it, you still might have to forfeit it to satisfy some debt if there is no other way. So in that sense no one ever owns anything absolutely. And even if the government does not take it away from you, some day God will, when you die. So all ownership of property is subject to some limitations.

That only happens if you refuse to comply with the law. Things happen to people who break the law. That is their fault - not the fault of their government.

Reason? Because it undermines the basic individual right to property acquired with “clean hands”. It is this reason why I also oppose the death tax.

True, regarding abiding with the law, including the couple on a fixed income. And that’s the point, there is no civic reason to impose a tax that puts people in that position. There is no civic reason to have a tax that, by its mechanics, places government the owner of the percentage of every workers labor.
Jon

Money, earned by the fruits of one’s labor is property.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Reason? Because it undermines the basic individual right to property acquired with “clean hands”. It is this reason why I also oppose the death tax.

True, regarding abiding with the law, including the couple on a fixed income. And that’s the point, there is no civic reason to impose a tax that puts people in that position. There is no civic reason to have a tax that, by its mechanics, places government the owner of the percentage of every workers labor.
Jon

Money, earned by the fruits of one’s labor is property.

Actually, I am in favor of the death tax. The least painful of all taxes, are those that I pay when I am dead. It is the taxes I pay when I am living that are really painful. But I won’t miss the money at all when I am dead.

 

[JonNC]

Actually, I am in favor of the death tax. The least painful of all taxes, are those that I pay when I am dead. It is the taxes I pay when I am living that are really painful. But I won’t miss the money at all when I am dead.

Interesting approach. Make sure the charities and family members you want to give the money to before you die have it before government can get their hands on it.

The death tax is just another progressive wealth redistribution program.

 

[Rau]

…The death tax is just another “progressive” wealth redistribution program.

Lots of folks dislike death taxes (where they exist) because they are applied upon death, not because they are a tax, perhaps even structured to be larger for the better off. Perhaps it is the greater unpredictability of when the tax will hit, and what effect it might have, that disturbs people.

There is a great arbitrariness about taxes. What transactions are taxed, when, what rate, what deductions can apply, flat or progressive, etc. I don’t think we can say there is a “right” answer to much of this. The best we can hope for is a kind of grudging acceptance that the system seems more or less reasonable by most people. Perfection and unanimity of opinion is likely impossible.

 

[JonNC]

=Rau;14163518]Lots of folks dislike death taxes (where they exist) because they are applied upon death, not because they are a tax, perhaps even structured to be larger for the better off. Perhaps it is the greater unpredictability of when the tax will hit, and what effect it might have, that disturbs people.

I guess I have a leaning toward property be held by the owner’s family.

There is a great arbitrariness about taxes. What transactions are taxed, when, what rate, what deductions can apply, flat or progressive, etc. I don’t think we can say there is a “right” answer to much of this. The best we can hope for is a kind of grudging acceptance that the system seems more or less reasonable by most people. Perfection and unanimity of opinion is likely impossible.

we may not be able to say what is entirely right, but what taxes are wrong are rather noticeable.
But you are right in this sense; in America, the tax burden falls far more on those who can afford it. One would think that the false political mantra of “the rich need to pay their fair share” would end.

Jon

 

[Rau]

…But you are right in this sense; in America, the tax burden falls far more on those who can afford it. One would think that the false political mantra of “the rich need to pay their fair share” would end.

I recall Warren Buffet remarked how he payed a smaller share of his income in tax than did his secretary and found that perplexing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The death tax is just another progressive wealth redistribution program.

How is that different from any other kind of tax?

 

[Rau]

How is that different from any other kind of tax?

Depends what one means by “progressive”. Sales Tax is a “flat tax” (or “regressive”) as opposed to a “progressive” tax (income taxes are usually progressive - the rate paid grows with income). But Jon may be using the p-word in the socio-political sense (better avoided in my view, as I find that word potentially nebulous and defined by whomever is using it).

 

[JonNC]

I recall Warren Buffet remarked how he payed a smaller share of his income in tax than did his secretary and found that perplexing.

What I found perplexing was how this was perplexing to him. He probably takes advantage of every deduction available, as well he should. In the end, he probably pays an amount exponentially greater than his secretary.

 

[JonNC]

How is that different from any other kind of tax?

A death tax has one purpose: to take money from the family of the deceased. That’s all. Its sole purpose is wealth redistribution.
Taxation’s only purpose should be to fund the legitimate function of the level of government levying the tax. Not to redistribute wealth. Not to encourage or discourage behaviors. Not to be a weapon to bash unfairly particular income levels

 

[Rau]

What I found perplexing was how this was perplexing to him. He probably takes advantage of every deduction available, as well he should.

Regardless of how it comes about, it is perverse. Tax concession that only wealthy can access are not uncommon of course.

In the end, he probably pays an amount exponentially greater than his secretary.

Given his income is perhaps 1,000 times greater - you’d hope so!

A flat tax rate of say 15% means: The person earning $40,000 pays $6,000 tax (and moves dramatically closer to the poverty line) and the person earning $400,000 pays $60,000 tax and as a consequence, perhaps can only afford the mortgage on a 5 bedroom house instead of 6.

By and large (in my experience) most people feel a flat income tax structure is contrary to justice, albeit “fair” in a kind of unsophisticated mathematical sense.