Public Welfare vs. Seventh Commandment

[rjseyko]

How does the Church officially reconcile its support for public welfare programs (funded through the forcible taking of private property) with the Seventh Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Take Someone’s Private Property) ?

 

[runningdude]

Your premise deeply flawed. Welfare is funded through taxes. “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”.

Taxes are not stealing, so there is **nothing **to reconcile.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

How does the Church officially reconcile its support for public welfare programs (funded through the forcible taking of private property) with the Seventh Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Take Someone’s Private Property) ?

Taxes are not theft. There is an elementary distinction beween the two.

Or do you not use tax money yourself? Roads, schools, etc.

Everybody uses “welfare” of some sort. And the vast VAST majority of us take more than we give.

 

[1ke]

How does the Church officially reconcile its support for public welfare programs (funded through the forcible taking of private property) with the Seventh Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Take Someone’s Private Property) ?

Wow.

 

[rjseyko]

My premise is not flawed at all. Regardless of what it’s used for, taxation is still theft. But you answered my question. If the Church believes taxation is not theft, then there is nothing to reconcile. And as far as the “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” I just don’t agree with it. We owe Caesar nothing. But what right is Caesar entitled to my property? Caesar has the power, but not the right.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My premise is not flawed at all. Regardless of what it’s used for, taxation is still theft. But you answered my question. If the Church believes taxation is not theft, then there is nothing to reconcile. And as far as the “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” I just don’t agree with it. We owe Caesar nothing. But what right is Caesar entitled to my property? Caesar has the power, but not the right.

Taxation is not theft…

What an odd notion.

Tell me, do you feel guilty for taking that “stolen” money?

 

[rjseyko]

We’re not getting anywhere; we just disagree fundamentally. I appreciate your responses.

 

[PolarGuy]

Hmmm…sorry, I think the issue is more complex than some are making it appear.

Although the whole “render unto Caesar…” position is valid to some extent, what happens when taxes reach confiscatory levels? And that’s not a hypothetical worry, either: People forget that as recently as the 1950s, income taxes sometimes exceeded 90% of income, and my school district in 2016 funds tennis courts, a world-wrestling-federation-quality light system, etc., for the local school, at the expense of soaking businesses who are fleeing the town. Some posts here make it look like “all taxes are OK,” for no other reason than because posters personally think the tax usage is reasonable.

 

[powerofk]

My premise is not flawed at all. Regardless of what it’s used for, taxation is still theft. But you answered my question. If the Church believes taxation is not theft, then there is nothing to reconcile. And as far as the “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,” I just don’t agree with it. We owe Caesar nothing. But what right is Caesar entitled to my property? Caesar has the power, but not the right.

Jesus Himself stated to “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s” when asked by the Pharisees and Herodians whether paying taxes was lawful. Jesus pretty much answed that, since you use Caesar’s money as exchange in your commerce, and you rely on public projects completed with Caesar’s money, you can’t complain when Caesar asks you for some of the money that you are using. In other words, our use of currency created by our government and our use of public projects (including freeways, schools, etc.) that the government needs money to build gives the government the right to tax us. But we are always to give God the devotion and point of primacy in our lives due Him.

 

[jmcrae]

How does the Church officially reconcile its support for public welfare programs (funded through the forcible taking of private property) with the Seventh Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Take Someone’s Private Property) ?

Acts 5:1-11. God gives us the goods of the earth in order that we may share with the poor; not to hoard for ourselves.

As to Caesar’s right to tax, you are living on his land, driving on his roads, borrowing books from his libraries, and attending his schools, as well as drinking his water and using his electricity.

 

[PolarGuy]

Sorry, jmcrae, I’m living on MY land, that I paid for. I pay a private utility company for my electric power and my daughter attends private school.

Does the sovereign pay for my military defense? Sure, and lots of other things too, many of which I’ll never use. They also pay $400 for a toilet seat; abortions; and lots of other things I fundamentally disagree with.

None of these things address the question I posed before: What happens when taxes reach confiscatory levels?

 

[on_the_hill]

Sorry, jmcrae, I’m living on MY land, that I paid for. I pay a private utility company for my electric power and my daughter attends private school.

Does the sovereign pay for my military defense? Sure, and lots of other things too, many of which I’ll never use. They also pay $400 for a toilet seat; abortions; and lots of other things I fundamentally disagree with.

None of these things address the question I posed before: What happens when taxes reach confiscatory levels?

When that happens the system is changed. We’re not paying 90% tax rates anymore.

 

[jmcrae]

Sorry, jmcrae, I’m living on MY land, that I paid for.

You paid for the whole thing? You have your own army and police force, and paving crews for the roads, and well diggers getting out the water for you from under the ground? Or is it just one house, on a street with other houses, along with public property and public services?

I pay a private utility company for my electric power and my daughter attends private school.

And the private utility company charges you the entire cost of the electricity you use, with no grants from the government to offset research and development?

You pay the entire yearly wage of each of your daughter’s teachers, and all of the infrastructure costs, with no support from government grants? And from where did the teachers get their certifications, so that you can be assured that they are qualified to teach your daughter?

Does the sovereign pay for my military defense? Sure, and lots of other things too, many of which I’ll never use. They also pay $400 for a toilet seat; abortions; and lots of other things I fundamentally disagree with.

You can get tax breaks for supporting pro-life charities, thus taking that portion of the tax that might have paid for an abortion, and using it to save lives. And there is something to be said for living in a country with well-defended borders.

As to the $400.00 toilet seats, I agree there is a lot of waste in government, but that doesn’t mean we don’t need government services.

But, if no one pays any taxes, then we lose the infrastructure that makes us different than people who live in countries without infrastructure, who are forever dying of water-borne diseases and starvation due to widespread lack of education, medicine, and basic skills training.

None of these things address the question I posed before: What happens when taxes reach confiscatory levels?

Invest off-shore.

 

[PolarGuy]

It’s awfully simplistic to just say, “when taxes get too high the system changes.” Why do I say it’s simplistic? Many reasons, including:

–What if the system doesn’t change? My illustration from 2016 is useful for showing that confiscatory taxes often just keep going up, without change.
–It’s entirely subjective what constitutes “too high taxes.” Usually the statement “taxes are too high” come from people who want what the taxes fund, and would like the government to pay for those things.

The whole “render unto Caesar” IMHO is being misused to justify statist attitudes.

 

[PolarGuy]

jmcrae, I swear I thought you were Barack Obama with a fake screen name, since your post amounts to, “you didn’t build this.”…

…except that I DID. I did buy ALL my land, and ALL the electric power I use at my own land, and the state should have nothing to do with my educating my daughter. Heck, they don’t even have a right to tell me I have to send her to their schools.

And your emoticon at the end doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t answered my question: What happens when taxes become confiscatory (because they already are, of course!).

 

[1ke]

Thou Shalt Not Take Someone’s Private Property?

That isn’t the Seventh Commandment.

I suggest studying ALL of the seventh commandment in the Catechism and the source documents quoted there. Focus on the universal destination of goods.

 

[dmar198]

My premise is not flawed at all. Regardless of what it’s used for, taxation is still theft.

How do you answer this counterargument?

Premise 1. Jesus did not support theft.
Premise 2. Jesus did support taxes. “Give unto Caesar, etc.”
Conclusion. Taxes are not theft.

That is basic logic. Either one of the premises is flawed, or the conclusion is true. So which is it?

 

[PolarGuy]

I’ll answer the question everyone else seems scared to: At some point, taxes do in fact become theft of private property. Heck, a good case can be made that many taxes today are nothing more than state-sanctioned theft. The example that springs to mind is estate taxes. Estate taxes are nothing more than legal robbing of the rich to give to the poor.

Further, the whole line of reasoning that says, “taxes pay for good things like the military, roads, and libraries,” is a complete red herring, and logically unpersuasive. Why? Because if that line of reasoning works, any theft of money becomes licit if the thief uses the money for some socially-desired use or project. Unfortunately for proponents of that, theft to fund good things is still theft.

I admit my amazement that actions that posters would condemn, if undertaken by a private actor, get a pass from posters (and society!) when done by the government.

Finally – a good thread on the moral theology forum! Thanks, OP!

 

[dmar198]

I’ll answer the question everyone else seems scared to: At some point, taxes do in fact become theft of private property. Heck, a good case can be made that many taxes today are nothing more than state-sanctioned theft. The example that springs to mind is estate taxes. Estate taxes are nothing more than legal robbing of the rich to give to the poor.

Further, the whole line of reasoning that says, “taxes pay for good things like the military, roads, and libraries,” is a complete red herring, and logically unpersuasive. Why? Because if that line of reasoning works, any theft of money becomes licit if the thief uses the money for some socially-desired use or project. Unfortunately for proponents of that, theft to fund good things is still theft.

I admit my amazement that actions that posters would condemn, if undertaken by a private actor, get a pass from posters (and society!) when done by the government.

Finally – a good thread on the moral theology forum! Thanks, OP!

As someone who agrees with taxation and estate taxes, I want to say that I like this post, and I mean that. Thank you for making a logical case for your position and against ours. It is good to know that people can disagree rationally.

I agree that taxes can be theft if they are too high. Perhaps also if they are used for evil purposes. I don’t agree that estate taxes are theft. I’ve never thought how to justify it before, but two thoughts come to mind: it is a form of property tax, and it might be a form of income tax. I think that the argument “taxes pay for good stuff” can be correct or incorrect, depending on context. I agree that it would be wrong to argue that thieves are actually doing good as long as they use the money they steal for good purposes.

I think there are some things the government can do that a private actor can’t do. One of them is tax you. Another is declare war. Another is banning drugs from someone else’s house.

 

[PolarGuy]

Thank you dmar.

The only thing more fun around here than a good thread, is a good thread civilly argued.

I agree that some taxes are appropriate. Jesus said as much. The problem is: Where to draw the line? I admit I have no ready answer to that. Some answers leap to mind, which sadly are all conceptual:

–taxes become theft when they deter rational people from engaging in the taxed activity merely to avoid the tax (or the level of tax);
–taxes become theft when they are so burdensome that they prevent livelihood, or the transmission of one’s wealth to the next generation;
–taxes become theft when they require the taxed to sell their possessions to pay the tax.

This is all just off the top of my head. I’ll give it more thought.