If the Hyde Amendment is repealed, will you still pay taxes?

[LeafByNiggle]

A thing is taken with force or it is given voluntarily.

Can’t be both.

Yes, and if you don’t pay your taxes, they will be taken from you by force, and it will not be theft. Just because taxes are enforced by force, that does not make it theft.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Rothbard’s moral failing in accepting infanticide doesn’t diminish his observations on the abuses of the state…

I would not trust his sense of morality to know when something is an abuse.

(do keep in mind it is state power that keeps abortion legal)

No, if there were no state, abortion - and everything else - would be legal. The state is not forcing anyone to have an abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I find it odd the USCCB should be taken seriously in areas of government.

Why are you citing the USCCB? pnewton cited the Catechism - a document of the universal Church. It is not a USCCB document.

If you don’t think the Church should have any say in what government does, how can you maintain that the Church should have a say in what the government does about abortion? Or is it that you like when the Church agrees with you, and you declare the Church “out of bounds” when she says something you don’t like?

 

[JonNC]

“Taxation is theft, purely and simply even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match. It is a compulsory seizure of the property of the State’s inhabitants, or subjects.”
― Murray N. Rothbard

This is not true of all taxes, however. Sales taxes do not fit the category described above because they are paid as a result of the choice of the purchaser. One makes a conscious decision / choice to buy a product or service and, therefore, pay the tax.

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is not true of all taxes, however. Sales taxes do not fit the category described above because they are paid as a result of the choice of the purchaser. One makes a conscious decision / choice to buy a product or service and, therefore, pay the tax.

Jon

When that product or service is an essential necessity of life, the choice to buy it can hardly be called a voluntary conscious choice.

 

[exnihilo]

Calling taxes “theft” is useless rhetoric. Like most political talking points, rhetoric does nothing to advance discussion and understanding. Save that sort of stuff for bumper stickers.

It’s not useless rhetoric at all. I don’t see how taxes are not theft. I don’t see how what we call government isn’t any different from a street gang. I don’t see how an obligation to the state is different from slavery that you are born into. This being so I find it hard to reconcile various notions put forth to underpin moral claims. The best I can make out is that we are all in fact born into a form of servitude and are obligated to some extent to obey. But that is for the most part ignored or denied making various moral proclamations hard to make into a coherent teaching.

 

[JonNC]

When that product or service is an essential necessity of life, the choice to buy it can hardly be called a voluntary conscious choice.

Of course it is a choice. I can choose to buy expensive food, or bulk foods, clothes at Macy’s or Good Will. And of course, most federal sales tax plans include a cost of necessities refund of some kind.
But if you’re suggesting that necessities not be taxed, by all means. Maybe companies that produce foods shouldn’t be taxed either, since the consumer ends up paying those taxes in the price of the products

Jon

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course it is a choice. I can choose to buy expensive food, or bulk foods, clothes at Macy’s or Good Will.

You can reduce your sales tax by conscious choice, but you cannot avoid it. Similarly, you can reduce your income tax by conscious choice of how high a life style you choose to live. It is a distinction without a difference.

And of course, most federal sales tax plans include a cost of necessities refund of some kind.

…or simply not charging sale tax for food items, as many states do. It is just a recognition of the regressive nature of sales tax, and an attempt to make them more just. But it does not show how one kind of tax is theft while another kind is not theft. For that you would need a qualitative difference - not a quantitative one.

Before we get too far from the main topic, remember that it is about whether it is moral or immoral to pay taxes.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s not useless rhetoric at all. I don’t see how taxes are not theft. I don’t see how what we call government isn’t any different from a street gang.

A street gang is not a legitimate authority. A government, when it is the legitimate authority, can morally levy taxes and they are not considered theft because the taxes are licit and the government is entitled to them. Theft is the taking of something to which you are not entitled. For more information on government acting as the legitimate authority, see the Catechism, sections 2234 to 2243. It is clearly a Catholic concept - something you should be familiar with.

 

[Geist]

If you don’t think the Church should have any say in what government does, how can you maintain that the Church should have a say in what the government does about abortion? Or is it that you like when the Church agrees with you, and you declare the Church “out of bounds” when she says something you don’t like?

Yes, lets get into “picking and choosing”.

Why does the Church tell me I am morally obligated to pay taxes while it enjoys its wholly voluntary tax exempt status?

Taxes are bad for them but good for me?

Also, abortion is a moral issue, one that the state inserted itself into to declare by judicial fiat is legal, and thus enjoys state protection. Often what is legal is not what is moral (see: slavery).

Step onto an abortion providers property with even one toe during a protest and watch how fast you’re cited or arrested to see this in practice.

 

[Geist]

It’s not useless rhetoric at all. I don’t see how taxes are not theft. I don’t see how what we call government isn’t any different from a street gang. I don’t see how an obligation to the state is different from slavery that you are born into. This being so I find it hard to reconcile various notions put forth to underpin moral claims. The best I can make out is that we are all in fact born into a form of servitude and are obligated to some extent to obey. But that is for the most part ignored or denied making various moral proclamations hard to make into a coherent teaching.

I have searched for this supposed “social contract” that I apparently signed but cannot find it anywhere.

Governments are indeed the biggest gang-bangers out there. They have territory(borders), protection rackets(police+armies), run numbers (lotteries), smuggle drugs (well, the CIA does anyway) and wear colors(uniforms).

Uncanny isn’t it?

 

[exnihilo]

A street gang is not a legitimate authority. A government, when it is the legitimate authority, can morally levy taxes and they are not considered theft because the taxes are licit and the government is entitled to them. Theft is the taking of something to which you are not entitled. For more information on government acting as the legitimate authority, see the Catechism, sections 2234 to 2243. It is clearly a Catholic concept - something you should be familiar with.

What is a legitimate authority? That is a key phrase. Is a legitimate authority something you agree to be bound by or are you born into subjugation? Or is there a third option?

Let’s take the US government. I myself never consented to its authority. I was born into it. That is no different from some street gang that tells me I owe them money because I happen to live in a certain location. You might counter that the US is a legitimate authority. Well what makes them legitimate? As far as I can tell the only reason could be the US got there first. But as it turns out the British were in control prior. So how did the US get control? They engaged in violence to overthrow the previous authority. So US authority would seem to rest on the successful use of violence. Again, that sounds like a street gang.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, lets get into “picking and choosing”.

Why does the Church tell me I am morally obligated to pay taxes while it enjoys its wholly voluntary tax exempt status?

The Church, like any non-profit organization, is exempt from income tax. But everyone who works for the Church, including clergy, are not exempt. They pay income tax on their income. The Church is not exempt because it is a church. It is exempt for the same reason that the Boy Scouts of America are exempt.

Taxes are bad for them but good for me?

As I said, people in the Church pay their taxes too.

Also, abortion is a moral issue, one that the state inserted itself into to declare by judicial fiat is legal…

You have that backwards. By declaring abortion illegal, the state would be inserting themselves into the issue. If they did nothing, they are not inserting themselves. Now actively subsidizing abortions is another matter. That would be the state inserting themselves into the issue. And of course that is the issue of this thread. But it is incorrect to say that you want the state to simply stay out of abortion policy. I think you probably do want the state to be involved by making abortion illegal. (And so do I, by the way.)

Step onto an abortion providers property with even one toe during a protest and watch how fast you’re cited or arrested to see this in practice.

Step into your dentist’s office with a protest and you will be arrested just as quickly. This is not a special protection that is afforded only to abortion providers. It is just that hardly anybody protests dentists.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What is a legitimate authority? That is a key phrase. Is a legitimate authority something you agree to be bound by or are you born into subjugation? Or is there a third option?

What do you mean by your question? Are you claiming that there is no such thing as legitimate authority? Did you read those sections of the Catechism that I cited?

As to your second question, it is not necessary for a legitimate authority to make the application of that authority continuously subject to the consent of each individual. When a criminal is taken into custody, for example, the police do not have to ask him if he would mind terribly if the officer puts handcuffs on him. It is done against his will, and it is just. When decisions are made for the common good, there are always some in the community who may disagree with those decisions. Yet they are still bound by those decisions under the 4th commandment. An individual citizen of a nation does not get the opt out of any decision he chooses. Again, read those sections of the Catechism on the 4th commandment.

You might counter that the US is a legitimate authority. Well what makes them legitimate? As far as I can tell the only reason could be the US got there first. But as it turns out the British were in control prior. So how did the US get control? They engaged in violence to overthrow the previous authority. So US authority would seem to rest on the successful use of violence. Again, that sounds like a street gang.

All authority comes from God. Unless that authority is being exercised in a grossly unjust manner and not serving the common good, that authority is legitimate. If you have some argument why the US Government is illegitimate, you had better be prepared to show how it is exceptional, otherwise you would be arguing that no government can ever be legitimate, and that is clearly contrary to the 4th commandment as explained in the Catechism.

 

[Geist]

The Church, like any non-profit organization, is exempt from income tax. But everyone who works for the Church, including clergy, are not exempt. They pay income tax on their income. The Church is not exempt because it is a church. It is exempt for the same reason that the Boy Scouts of America are exempt.

Sir, you seem unable to understand my point. The Catholic Church filed for and receives tax exempt status. It is *not *automatically granted. It is maintained with the filing of other forms such as the form 990.

it can dissolve it’s tax exempt status at any time and join us in the moral good of paying taxes.

**So…why doesn’t it? **

 

[exnihilo]

What do you mean by your question? Are you claiming that there is no such thing as legitimate authority?

I’m asking how I know what a legitimate authority is. If I can’t know what a legitimate authority is then how can I obey? Can you describe what makes a legitimate authority? There is no way of knowing if there is or is not a legitimate authority unless we know what the term itself means. If you are claiming there is legitimate authority then it should be simple enough to tell me what that even means.

As to your second question, it is not necessary for a legitimate authority to make the application of that authority continuously subject to the consent of each individual. When a criminal is taken into custody, for example, the police do not have to ask him if he would mind terribly if the officer puts handcuffs on him. It is done against his will, and it is just. When decisions are made for the common good, there are always some in the community who may disagree with those decisions. Yet they are still bound by those decisions under the 4th commandment. An individual citizen of a nation does not get the opt out of any decision he chooses. Again, read those sections of the Catechism on the 4th commandment.

I think you are right. Authority doesn’t depend on consent. But then why do we in the West, including many Christians, insist on consent as being the ultimate in morality? Why do we reject authority structures because they lack consent?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I realize that different denominations of Christianity see this differently, Sy, but I can only stand on the position of the Catholic Church, which considers abortion a grave evil. Praying for you.

Thank you for acknowledging that different branches of Christianity see abortion differently and thank you for your prayers. James taught us to pray for one another so I reciprocate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sir, you seem unable to understand my point. The Catholic Church filed for and receives tax exempt status. It is *not *automatically granted. It is maintained with the filing of other forms such as the form 990.

it can dissolve it’s tax exempt status at any time and join us in the moral good of paying taxes.

**So…why doesn’t it? **

Why should it? Do you think the Boy Scouts of America should dissolve their tax exempt status too?

The Church does a lot more moral good in her own way than any for-profit company.

 

[phil19034]

Mt 22:21

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m asking how I know what a legitimate authority is. If I can’t know what a legitimate authority is then how can I obey? Can you describe what makes a legitimate authority? There is no way of knowing if there is or is not a legitimate authority unless we know what the term itself means. If you are claiming there is legitimate authority then it should be simple enough to tell me what that even means.

Any government that currently is governing its people, and is not grossly undermining the common good, and has the consent of the majority of its people is a legitimate authority. That does not mean that everything a legitimate authority does is moral. Governments can and do sometimes engage in immoral acts. When a government insists that you do something immoral, you have a duty to refuse to obey, regardless of the consequences to you. But that does not give you license to disobey any law that you think is poorly written, or stupid, or not to your liking. Nor does it nullify the fact that it is still a legitimate authority.

Let me ask you this, since you profess to be a Catholic: What you do think the Catechism means by a legitimate authority?

I think you are right. Authority doesn’t depend on consent. But then why do we in the West, including many Christians, insist on consent as being the ultimate in morality? Why do we reject authority structures because they lack consent?

We in the West see great moral value in having authority that depends on the consent of the governed. But it is communal consent, not individual consent.