Give to caesar? What does this mean?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for all the replies so far, they make for good meditation.

So to continue my questions,

“Similarly, when the Catechism promotes the concept of paying (and not evading) taxes, the idea is (at least partly) that it is unjust for a person to dishonestly avoid paying their fair share even though they are benefitting from the roads and infrastructure, etc. It does not mean that there may not be cases when one could justly avoid paying taxes because it would violate their conscience. For example, suppose a government stopped helping the people and kept all the money for themselves in one location while the rest of the country crumbled, then one might be justified in refusing to pay.”

What if one considered the roads to be suboptimal and better provided by private contract (you’ll have to begrudge me my libertarianism for now, as the sinner has to be allowed his sin before he can convert)? Surely, if translated into this doctrine he could never, in good conscience, pay taxes yet the church does say that paying taxes at least once is good because one benefits from the tax revenues. Now this is where I am perhaps, slipping up, we pay our taxes not because we recieve the most benefit from them but because 1) the money is provided by the state (so that paying taxes is a recognition of their ownership over coins), 2) we receive some benefit from taxes so we should pay because we receive that benefit (but then, what if the benefit is extremely low)?
 
We are made in the image of God; therefore, we belong to God. The image on the coin was Caesar; therefore, money was created in the image of the government.

Today’s dollar is made in the image of todays’s government, an instrument of debt. The dollar has no intrinsic value. A Federal Reserve Note is an IOU nothing. Federal Notes are instruments of debt. Gold is the only real money. Gold does not represent debt. Gold will always have intrinsic value, unlike government money, the dollar.

Most of the ancient coins contained about 130 grains of gold. It did not matter what country minted the coins. The coins all had the same purchasing power.
 
fakename said:
we nevertheless recieve some benefits from unbacked paper money.
Click to expand...
Money is intended to be a stand-in for our work and our services, so we don’t have to barter them. If the money supply was exactly matched to the GNP, it should be rather stable. But when a great deal more currency–either paper or electronic–is created than is needed to stand in for the underlying goods and services, the money decreases in value.
 
"Money is intended to be a stand-in for our work and our services, so we don’t have to barter them. If the money supply was exactly matched to the GNP, it should be rather stable. But when a great deal more currency–either paper or electronic–is created than is needed to stand in for the underlying goods and services, the money decreases in value. "

Maybe, but how does this bear on the catechism and taxes?
 
fakename said:
"Money is intended to be a stand-in for our work and our services, so we don’t have to barter them. If the money supply was exactly matched to the GNP, it should be rather stable. But when a great deal more currency–either paper or electronic–is created than is needed to stand in for the underlying goods and services, the money decreases in value. "

Maybe, but how does this bear on the catechism and taxes?
Click to expand...
Sorry–it doesn’t!
It’s off topic.

As for taxes, we presumably have recourse in a democratic republic if we believe that the taxes levied are unjust or used for immoral purposes.

Taxes are intended to be used for public purposes and for the public good. If they are used mostly for immoral purposes, we have the right to petition for redress of grievances, and to vote out those officials responsible. We can even refuse payment if we believe that it is unconscionable to pay them; but in that case we must be prepared to accept the legal consequences, just as Martin Luther King and civil rights activists willingly accepted jail time to advance their just cause.
 
fakename said:
…we pay our taxes … because 1) the money is provided by the state (so that paying taxes is a recognition of their ownership over coins),
Click to expand...
Actually that is perceptive. Put it this way, if you don’t want to pay taxes or want to pay less taxes based on some moral principle then you would also probably want to deal with as little of the states money as possible (i.e. you would not be interested in greed and hoarding great amounts of wealth beyond basic needs). Jesus may have been showing the Pharisees their hypocrisy in exactly this regard.
fakename said:
]…we pay our taxes … because … 2) we receive some benefit from taxes so we should pay because we receive that benefit (but then, what if the benefit is extremely low)?
Click to expand...
If the benefit is unjust then one can seek to correct this by voicing their objections, earning and living on less income to reduce the amount of taxes they pay or for truly extreme cases (as someone mentioned) be willing to accept the consequences for refusal to pay.
 
Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business’ economic life.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. I contend that the government is destroying our country with their power to create money, debt and their power to tax. It would be naive to think that taxes are just used to fund legitimate government activities. Taxes are used mostly for government’s social and economic goals, none of which I think are legal under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

By the way, it costs more than $1 to collect a $1 of tax. Therefore, the costs of collecting income taxes is greater than the benefit! However, the benefit to the government of the income tax is to rearange the economic and social landscape.
 
Taxes
The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

In Article I, Section 9, the original document made clear that “no Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” It is moreover established that “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”

Since 1913, our Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property have been abridged and diminished by the imposition on each of us of Federal income, payroll, and estate taxes. This is an unconstitutional Federal assumption of direct taxing authority.

The Internal Revenue Service is the enforcement arm of the Federal government’s present unjust tax system. Citizens, both in groups and as individuals, have repeatedly sought responses from the IRS bureaucracy as to the basis for the agency’s tax policies and procedures. No answers have been forthcoming although a responsible government must be answerable to the people and has a duty to those it is supposed to serve.

We propose legislation to abolish the Internal Revenue Service, and will veto any authorization, appropriation, or continuing resolution which contains any funding whatsoever for that illicit and unconstitutional agency. We are opposed to the flat-rate tax, national sales tax, and value added tax proposals that are being promoted as an improvement to the current tax system.** The Sixteenth Amendment does not provide authority for an un-apportioned direct tax.**
Moreover, it is our intention to replace, with a tariff based revenue system supplemented by excise taxes, the current tax system of the U.S. government (including income taxes, payroll taxes, and estate taxes.)

To the degree that tariffs on foreign products, and excises, are insufficient to cover the legitimate Constitutional costs of the federal government, we will offer an apportioned “state-rate tax” in which the responsibility for covering the cost of unmet obligations will be divided among the several states in accordance with their proportion of the total population of these United States, excluding the District of Columbia. Thus, if a state contains 10 percent of the nation’s citizens, it will be responsible for assuming payment of 10 percent of the annual deficit.

The effect of this “state-rate tax” will be to encourage politicians to argue for less, rather than more, federal spending, and less state spending as well.

To the extent permitted by the Constitution, we believe that the taxation of corporations is an appropriate source of government revenue. The Supreme Court has defined “income” as a “gain or increase arising from corporate activity or privilege.” People are not corporations, and corporations need not be treated as “people” for the purposes of taxation.

There is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. When elected, we will act to cease collection of direct Federal personal income taxes. We also support ratification of the Liberty Amendment which would repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, and provide that “Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.”

We support the use of motor fuel excise taxes, at rates not in excess of those currently imposed, to be used exclusively for the erection, maintenance, and administration of Federal highways. These taxes should never be used for “demonstration projects”, mass transit, or for other non-highway purposes.

We support the use of excise taxes to curb the use of tax dollars for media advertising, and to provide so-called “tax abatements,” “tax incentives,” and “economic development grants,” which are pretexts to raid the public treasury and rob the workingman for the benefit of wealthy interests favored by the politician
 
“If the benefit is unjust then one can seek to correct this by voicing their objections, earning and living on less income to reduce the amount of taxes they pay or for truly extreme cases (as someone mentioned) be willing to accept the consequences for refusal to pay.”

Now for the inevitable question: how is this any different from just spiriting your money away to a tax-free island? Or making under-the-counter income?
 
This is a political question though and not a religious one. As someone stated earlier on in the thread, the Church has (and does) exist in all manner of countries that are governed in all manner of ways. The Church says that we should submit to all legitimate authority. Thankfully, in the US we have a good method for influencing government, changing individual law-makers, and even changing major law.

That being said, how the US currently chooses to tax its citizens and how that money is spent doesn’t affect our responsibilities as Catholics, according to the Catechism, to submit to legitimate authority.
CPA2 said:
Prior to the enactment of the income tax, most citizens were able to pursue their private economic affairs without the direct knowledge of the government. Individuals earned their wages, businesses earned their profits, and wealth was accumulated and dispensed with little or no interaction with government entities. The income tax fundamentally changed this relationship, giving the government the right and the need to know about all manner of an individual or business’ economic life.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. I contend that the government is destroying our country with their power to create money, debt and their power to tax. It would be naive to think that taxes are just used to fund legitimate government activities. Taxes are used mostly for government’s social and economic goals, none of which I think are legal under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

By the way, it costs more than $1 to collect a $1 of tax. Therefore, the costs of collecting income taxes is greater than the benefit! However, the benefit to the government of the income tax is to rearange the economic and social landscape.
Click to expand...
 
So if there are problems in a country (either due to taxes or something else) as long as those problems are somewhat less than heinous, the catholic attitude towards such a state would be one of acquiescence with a hope of reform?
 
fakename said:
Now for the inevitable question: how is this any different from just spiriting your money away to a tax-free island? Or making under-the-counter income?
Click to expand...
You should consider whether it is fair for others to pay more than you for those beneifts of taxation that you do receive.
 
Roman coinage had the face of Caesar on it. The Caesars demanded to be worshiped as Gods. Therefore, Jesus was telling the citizens of the Roman Empire to give to Caesar his own idols; they belong to him anyway. God cannot take away what is truly good, however.
 
"You should consider whether it is fair for others to pay more than you for those beneifts of taxation that you do receive. "

Oh, I see.

But I think that there could be an ethical argument in favor of the rich to escape taxes. This is because, rich people don’t use public roads and such yet pay most of the taxes. So they should keep the bulk of their income.

But thinking about the fairness doctrine further, children don’t pay taxes yet benefit greatly from roads and schools so how is it moral that someone should gain all the benefits of something without paying for it?

I’m not trying to smugly reductio ad absurdum your argument but rather am I truly interested in asking the question.
 
fakename said:
But I think that there could be an ethical argument in favor of the rich to escape taxes. This is because, rich people don’t use public roads and such yet pay most of the taxes.
Click to expand...
There could many factors involved such as they are rich from investments that require less fortunate to use roads. Or they benefit from government and bank security more. Jesus also directed a rich man to use his wealth for the poor and follow Him.
fakename said:
But thinking about the fairness doctrine further, children don’t pay taxes yet benefit greatly from roads and schools so how is it moral that someone should gain all the benefits of something without paying for it?
Click to expand...
Children should also be educated to carry their fair share as they reach ages where someone will pay them for work or they participate in business.
 
Caesar does not know know what you owe in taxes. Even the tax courts do not know how to interpret the tax laws in about 1/3 of the tax cases.

CPAs typically take the IRS position. ** Everything is income unless the IRS says that it is NOT income. Nothing is a deduction unless the IRS says that it IS a deduction.** There is no wiggle room above the IRS line. On the other hand, there is no wiggle room below the fraud line. Don’t cross it! Everything between the IRS position and the Tax courts is tax planning and tax avoidance, which is legal.
 
Look a piece of paper. Look at the bottom of the paper. That is fraud. Everything below the paper is fraud. Look at the top of the paper. That is the IRS position on taxes. There is nothing above the IRS position. CPAs tend to have the same viewpoint about taxes as the IRS. On the other hand, tax attorneys tend to have a viewpoint closer to fraud.

My last CPA only charged me $50/hour. However, she was the most expensive CPA that I ever had. She always took the position of the IRS. She even argued with my tax attorney! I told her that she worked for the IRS, not for me. I can understand her position. The IRS holds a CPA responsible for signing any fraudulent return. I asked her if she was worried if the IRS would blackball her. If the IRS audits all of her clients, she would soon be out of business. This kind of pressure from the IRS affects a CPA’s judgment. A CPA is more likely to take the IRS’s definition of the tax law. This is what I mean when I say that my former CPA worked for the IRS.

I divide CPAs into two categories: audit type personalities and tax type personalities. Audit type personalities are rules oriented people. They may be very smart, but they make terrible tax preparers. They work for the IRS. On the other hand, tax type personalities are far more creative. They know the tax regulations better than the IRS. They dot every “i” and cross every “T.” Tax personalities follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. The goal is the lowest legal presentation. This goal is the opposite of financial accounting.
 
“There could many factors involved such as they are rich from investments that require less fortunate to use roads. Or they benefit from government and bank security more. Jesus also directed a rich man to use his wealth for the poor and follow Him.”

True, but one could argue that they already pay this fee to society in lowering their prices or in increasing real wages or some such thing.

But for kids, surely if a teenager knew that taxes provided some benefits -would he/she be obligated to pay them now?

And as for government officers themselves, why should they pay taxes (since they own the money)? Obviously they shouldn’t.

But as for more mind experiments, what if the gov. was to make its money from money printing. That would mean that taxes would be superfluous?
 
fakename said:
What if one considered the roads to be suboptimal and better provided by private contract (you’ll have to begrudge me my libertarianism for now, as the sinner has to be allowed his sin before he can convert)? Surely, if translated into this doctrine he could never, in good conscience, pay taxes yet the church does say that paying taxes at least once is good because one benefits from the tax revenues. Now this is where I am perhaps, slipping up, we pay our taxes not because we recieve the most benefit from them but because 1) the money is provided by the state (so that paying taxes is a recognition of their ownership over coins), 2) we receive some benefit from taxes so we should pay because we receive that benefit (but then, what if the benefit is extremely low)?
Click to expand...
fakename

I don’t agree with you that a private consortium would be the most optimal (more optimal? optimaler?)… would be more efficient than a government at building roads but if for argument’s sake we say they were…

the consortium would need mechanisms in place to plan the route of the road; to acquire land and rights-of-way; to establish and enforce safety standards; to collect revenues; to resolve disputes over use and access; regulate connections to the roads of other consortia; etc, etc
so they would either have to have these powers within themselves, just like a government. OR they would have to be operating under and existing external legal framework… something sort of like a government.

AND (as an engineer it pains me to say this) efficiency is not always the best basis for government. (I recall some governments that were known for making the trains run on time that were… lacking in other areas) Governments are not businesses. One of their reasons for being is to preserve the Common Good not necessarily your personal individual good. So your perception that you are receiving low value for your dollar doesn’t really offer you an exemption. It may obligate you to work to change the system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top