Scott_Lafrance:
If the government takes my money to give to someone else under the pretenses that I am contributing to my own retirement, then they are in violation of the seventh Commandment. I realize that many, if not most citizens do not have much understanding of the Social Security System. However, the system was set up in public, and any and all amendments to it have been in the public view. The government makes no pretenses. The system is complex as the rules are complex, but the government doesn’t make any pretenses as you state. They tell you today what you will receive at various retirement ages based on your earnings to date. If you are under the impression that your money is being “put away” for you, it is not because the government has stated that, it is because you presumed it. I knew 40 years ago that the system was a “pay as you go” system when I started paying into it.
To qualify as a violation of the 7th Commanment, you have to show me that the government does not have a right to tax me; and taxes predate the Church, and Christ refused to say that the government did not have a right to tax when the Pharisees attempted to trap him.
My question stands: where is it in moral theology that the government does not have a right to tax us, and that taxation is immoral?
Scott_Lafrance:
Sounds like government sponsored racketeering to me.
Rackateering is defined a little differently, I am afraid. It is a really nice word to throw around, as it sounds really “legal” and hints at “criminal” activiites.
Buying stock in a company means that you pay the company for a share with the hopes that the company will make a profit; the possibility exists that the company may never make a profit and you will lose your investment. That is not racketeering either, as long as the company has not defrauded you by false information. There is no significant difference between paying money for stock and hoping for a profit, and paying taxes into Social Security and hoping for a benefit
]in terms of racketeering.
I don’t see that the government has given us any false information. They have made projections into the future based on assumptions of growth of the economy and jobs, number of taxpayers versus number of Social Security recipients, etc. and while the information is complex, I have seen no legitimate evidence of fraud in their projections.
The bottom line seems to be that you don’t like Social Security. My comments should not be taken as an indorsement of the program; I am simply challenging the statement that Social Security taxation is immoral. I await the evidence.
The debate as to whether or not the government should have anything, and if so, how much, to do with assisting people who do not have enough money to live on is often cast in moral terms. However, by and large the issue is not so much moral as philosophical and political. The Gospels, the Epistles, and the writings of the Early Church Fathers leave no question at all that we, each and every one of us, have a moral duty to the poor. Having said that, how that moral duty is carried out is much more political and philosophical than it is moral.
To anyone who has the stance that everyone is responsible for themselves and that there is no responsibility for others, I would suggest that you have ignored 200 years of Church teachings. If, however, we are discussing how that responsibility is played out, that is a different question. There is ample evidence through history of the Church stating that taxation is valid, and that government support of the poor by means of taxation is also valid. You and I may agree, or disagree as to how much of the burden of the poor the government should assume as opposed to individuals and private charity. But the legitimacy of some form of government help of the poor has long been established by the Church. And just as many Caatholics ignore the teaching of the Church on birth control, so many Catholics ignore the Church teachings on our individual and collective duty to the poor.
My question stands.
