Is a "Flat Tax" compatible with Social Justice teaching?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Army
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Roman_Army

Guest
Is a “Flat Tax” in which the middle class and poor pay the same tax as the rich compatible with the Church’s Social Justice teaching or is the current progressive tax in which the rich pay more percentage-wise more compatible? Is there any Church teaching or at least any theological theory that explains when just taxation ends and stealing begins?
 
Most of he flat tax plans that I have seen are set at a percentage of income. Is there one that proposes to charge all the exact same amount? I have never heard of such a plan.
 
an issue thousands of years old, the tax collector was welcomed by Jesus, most of what I know is based on the collectors rather then references to taxes themselves, the closest I can remember is Jesus turning over the money lenders in the temple. I think that if you can afford to pay taxes you should. The Flat tax is a fake scam. it adds tax to taxes already imposed and the very rich get a huge break.

Example : a person making more then 1 million dollars under the new 999 or 909 depending on the day lol, will actually save 400k where it would take those that normally wouldnt have to pay much or any tax.

Im canadian, but not for any party, they are both liars, all of them feed what the people want to hear but break under pressure, todays government only care about there own agenda and corperations, it makes me want to cry, gone are the days of jesus, where at least you could count on your beginners or family…
 
Your question is misleading. At the same percentage, the rich still pay more in dollars than those who are not rich.

20 percent of $2,000,000 is $400,000.

“Social Justice” is a nice warm & fuzzy term that is all too often a euphemism for socialism, which is not supported by doctrine. Charity cannot be legislated via fear and punishment of incarceration. Stealing from someone to give to another in the guise of charity is a distortion of what true charity is.
 
When God through Moses was establishing the principal of the tithe, as recorded in the Torah, He did not say, “if you had a bad harvest, you don’t have to bring anything; if you had a good harvest, you have to bring 10%, and if you had a really bountiful harvest, you have to bring 30%.” It was a straight 10%. Period.
 
The current system is so incredibly screwed up that this question doesn’t have an easy answer. Most people suppose that our “current system” is one in which there are several tax brackets and your percentage of tax increases with income. But this is only true of WAGES. VERY few of the rich have high income from wages. The very rich get their income from capital gains, mostly. And IIRC capital gains is taxed FAR lower than the lowest tax bracket for wages.

I’d be OK with a modified “flat tax” if it had a large personal exemption (~$8,000 each) and taxed wages and capital gains exactly the same. That level of exemption wouldn’t tax the bare bones essentials of daily life and would tax everything above that.
 
I believe some guidance can come from Paul’s letter that said that those who do not work, do not eat, no freeloaders on the system. All need to critribute to the common good.
God asked for 10%. Certainly a flat tax and no difference based on income.
 
In my personal opinion, it would make sense to have a flat tax of 10% across the board on all income (regardless of the source) above $20,000 a year except for gifts (including inheritances) which would be tax-free, and the sale of personal property up to a value of $200,000.00 per year. People making less than $20,000.00 a year would not be taxed, and you would not be taxed on money received from garage sales, the sale of used cars, or the sale of your summer cottage.

Unfortunately, such a simple system would lead to massive unemployment, as it would put all of the tax accountants out of work, and they would have to be retrained under some kind of government program. 🤷
 
jmcrae said:
In my personal opinion, it would make sense to have a flat tax of 10% across the board on all income (regardless of the source) above $20,000 a year except for gifts (including inheritances) which would be tax-free, and the sale of personal property up to a value of $200,000.00 per year. People making less than $20,000.00 a year would not be taxed, and you would not be taxed on money received from garage sales, the sale of used cars, or the sale of your summer cottage.

Unfortunately, such a simple system would lead to massive unemployment, as it would put all of the tax accountants out of work, and they would have to be retrained under some kind of government program. 🤷
Click to expand...
All together now:

AW-W-W-W-W-W!!!
 
Good fun banter above, but in point of fact, the Church has never weighed in on whether taxation should be flat or progressive. Catholics are free to contemplate either system, or alternates, and choose.
 
10% of 30,000 cuts WAY deeper into that person’s quality of life than 10% of 10 million.

it makes the struggle harder for struggling people and removes a large degree of communal responsibility from the ones who have benefited the most.

money’s benefit to human needs is not a simple matter of straight math addition/multiplication/division/subtraction.

didn’t Jesus say the woman who gives the one of the only pennies she has gives more than someone who gives a large number out of his surplus? Why?

Wealth helps people in a real way only to a point, and then it becomes a diminishing return. Some studies say the sweet spot of wealth:happiness today is somewhere around $200,000-yr if I’m not mistaken.

If you are dying of thirst, 1 glass of water is of HUGE importance.

If you are not getting enough fluids to be healthy, 8 glasses of water is of significant value.

If you are fully hydrated at all times, 200 glasses of water is useless to your needs, 100 is way more than you need, and if there’s a 100 people outside who thirst, you’re absolutely wrong to withhold it from them.

So…
 
po18guy said:
Yet, that one million takes away many $30,000 jobs. What is then gained?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that the government uses tax money to employ people, as well, so regardless of how much we are taxed, we are always providing jobs - just not necessarily jobs in our own companies. And since all of the money has to be spent in every budget year, there is no temptation to sock the money away into a savings account somewhere and remove it from circulating through the economy.
 
While I am not personally a proponent of the flat tax, I see no reason why such a tax would be in opposition to the Church’s teaching concerning social justice. Under the social teaching of the Church, the government, together with each and every individual person, has a responsibility to strive to assure the common good. No particular method or approach to taxation has been mandated by the Church. Furthermore, the Church should make no such mandate, since to do so would go beyond the areas of competence (faith and morals) of the teaching office of the episcopate.
 
RyanBlack said:
While I am not personally a proponent of the flat tax, I see no reason why such a tax would be in opposition to the Church’s teaching concerning social justice. Under the social teaching of the Church, the government, together with each and every individual person, has a responsibility to strive to assure the common good. No particular method or approach to taxation has been mandated by the Church. Furthermore, the Church should make no such mandate, since to do so would go beyond the areas of competence (faith and morals) of the teaching office of the episcopate.
Click to expand...
Well, I do agree that it’s not within the Church’s competence to decide which tax system is best. However, if a form of taxation negatively affects people’s basic material needs: food, clothing, shelter, and proportionate health care, then obviously it is immoral. So, when choosing a form of taxation we must take that into account. A regressive tax for example that makes it very difficult for families to merely put food on the table would be immoral, in my humble opinion. So, there is an element of morality in this. Then on top of that when you’re taxing money from someone to give freely to another who can reasonably work for it, there is also something wrong with that picture, not that there aren’t people out there who actually need the assistance because they honestly can’t work.
 
po18guy said:
Yet, that one million takes away many $30,000 jobs. What is then gained?
Click to expand...
that “millionaires=job-creators” line the right is selling like a broken record is filled with myth and contradiction
 
Roman_Army said:
Well, I do agree that it’s not within the Church’s competence to decide which tax system is best. However, if a form of taxation negatively affects people’s basic material needs: food, clothing, shelter, and proportionate health care, then obviously it is immoral. So, when choosing a form of taxation we must take that into account. A regressive tax for example that makes it very difficult for families to merely put food on the table would be immoral, in my humble opinion. So, there is an element of morality in this. Then on top of that when you’re taxing money from someone to give freely to another who can reasonably work for it, there is also something wrong with that picture, not that there aren’t people out there who actually need the assistance because they honestly can’t work.
Click to expand...
For the most part, I agree with you. Taxes that place undue burdens on the poor are, in my opinion, immoral. However, a flat tax does not necessarily place undue burden on the poor, especially if there are exemptions in place for those with the lowest incomes, or if there are social welfare programs in place. Having said that, I’m not a proponent of the flat tax. I have no problem with the idea that my wife and I should pay a higher percentage than a couple whose income is a fraction of ours, and I have no problem with the idea that those whose income is many times what ours is should pay a higher rate than we do. I just do not agree that a flat tax is intrinsically immoral or intrinsically opposed to Catholic social teaching.
 
jmcrae said:
Keep in mind that the government uses tax money to employ people, as well, so regardless of how much we are taxed, we are always providing jobs - just not necessarily jobs in our own companies. And since all of the money has to be spent in every budget year, there is no temptation to sock the money away into a savings account somewhere and remove it from circulating through the economy.
Click to expand...
Very little liquid asset is ever socked away, when it can return many times as much though even average investments. Those who do not invest are losing money. Take that money out of circulation (i.e. government waste), and our brothers and sisters lose jobs. We are drowning in evidence of this.
 
EDIT: I don’t know why there’s an angry face on my post, but I didn’t intentionally put it there lol. Wish I could figure out how to remove it. Anyway, I’m not angry 🙂
po18guy said:
And the brilliant solution from the left is…

(insert sound of crickets)
Click to expand...
a progressive tax is the typical solution from the left, and while maybe not brilliant, it is more just than a flat tax.

but i would beg you not to let all that “job creator” talk trick you. It’s one of the most disingenuous (and pompous) claims being made these days.

the CEO:worker pay difference is larger than ever before

the super wealthy (bless their hearts) continue to get richer, profits of huge companies continue to rise, and yet where are all the extra jobs that should pouring from all this excessive wealth? …i’ll wait…

Exceptional hearts aside, the intrinsic natural goal/role of the standard capitalist CEO is not to hire people and pay them as well as possible. It’s to impress their shareholders more each quarter and/or just make a ton of profit for themselves. That profit is the only “bottom line” that the current system has them worshiping at the altar of each day.

Furthermore, the pomposity comes in with the notion that everyone should be lining up to kiss their feet for the chance to work for them.

People are becoming more and more desperate for jobs of any kind and any pay while the control of wealth/productivity/opportunity is concentrating into fewer hands, and the end game seems pretty obvious: let americans claw and plead for the “honor” and “blessing” to be overworked by the greedy rulers of resources until there’s an entire enormous class of dirt-cheap laborers right here at home.

People can be their own job creators if given a decent chance at resources, education, health, transport, public square, land, etc.

They want the title “job creators” all to themselves, so everyone else will desperately need them.

There’s another way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top