Questions about Subsidiarity and Just Taxation

[Illmatic15]

I will join you guys anytime complaining about the US tax code and complaining that the principle of subsidiarity has been completing abandoned my modern governments.
That said, the Church teaches taxes are certainly just in normal times:

From the CCC

And this is not some new fangled teaching. Aquinas certainly acknowledged the power of taxation for just causes:
newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article8

Glad you feel the same way about our government brother
I don’t really get what you refer to as “normal times”. The taxation I am against is that which is not needed, violating subsidiarity or not intended towards the common good. Also, this CCC passage isn’t a mandate commanding the govt to tax, but rather for citizens to pay their taxes. It is also noteworthy to mention that the purpose of doing so is to create the common good, and that the vast majority of taxes don’t give concern to subsidiarity (a principle that I believe could possibly end nearly all taxation), which is an essential device to truly reaching the common good. And I also agree with Aquinas, but I am pointing out that much taxation today is unjust because it doesn’t give care to subsidiarity, which would make it inherently unjust due to the tyrannical nature it forms when it replaces private charity and orher voluntary means without giving it a chance.
So, I accept just taxation, but only as a last resort (like just war).

 

[Illmatic15]

From the CCC

Notice the use of the term COMMON GOOD.

If the authority we are supposed to share responsibility with uses our taxes to benefit certain individuals or specific groups then that authority is NOT providing for the common good and has over-stepped its authority and responsibility.

I have no problem with that. I would only mention that we Christian “colonists” had a jolly little revolution because a king over taxed us and would not allow us to “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

I like Aquinas, Notice again the reference to the COMMON GOOD and “extortion” by means of violence.

There are good princes and kings who collect fair taxes and provide for the common good (Everyone) There are good governments whose functions are: the police, to protect us from criminals; the military, to protect us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect our property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. This is the only purpose of a legitimate government. Basically to protect our rights. As long a s a government functions that way it is not robbing us by taking our taxes.

I agree. Taxation, in theory, is certainly permissible to exact, however the key idea is that it must be JUST, which would provide it to be for the common good. In practice however, I think that if the common good was truly considered, with subsidiarity in mind (since that this is integral to justly bringing about the common good), then taxation could be ended with all the possible voluntary means taken. Aquinas makes it clear that there is a line between just taxation that is truly needed and unjust taxation that authority has no right to impose.

 

[tafan]

Glad you feel the same way about our government brother
I don’t really get what you refer to as “normal times”. The taxation I am against is that which is not needed, violating subsidiarity or not intended towards the common good. Also, this CCC passage isn’t a mandate commanding the govt to tax, but rather for citizens to pay their taxes. It is also noteworthy to mention that the purpose of doing so is to create the common good, and that the vast majority of taxes don’t give concern to subsidiarity (a principle that I believe could possibly end nearly all taxation), which is an essential device to truly reaching the common good. And I also agree with Aquinas, but I am pointing out that much taxation today is unjust because it doesn’t give care to subsidiarity, which would make it inherently unjust due to the tyrannical nature it forms when it replaces private charity and orher voluntary means without giving it a chance.
So, I accept just taxation, but only as a last resort (like just war).

I intended the phrase “normal times” (it was admittedly unclear) to be a juxtaposition of your idea that taxes are only for extraordinary circumstances (like just war).
I am a conservative politically, but perhaps a different sort than you. I do not share your extreme libertarian (I would almost say anarchist) views of the state. I do think we do way too much at the federal level, and not enough at the state and local level, which results in both a government structure and tax structure that is effectively an inverted pyramid ( and hence ignores subsidiarity). But I do not think most of our taxes, and by implication, government functions could just be done away with if we restored subsidiarity in public policy. In brief, I doubt we are very close to “brothers” when it comes to political thought. I am admittedly, a rare bird, on political issues.
Let me ask you this, which of the following societal functions you do not want performed by the government:

1. education
2. granting and securing private property rights
3. final settlement of contractual disputes
4. roads/infrastructure
5. regulation of commerce
6. social well being
7. preservation of environment
8. criminal law jurisdiction.

I could go on, but the list is long enough. All of these, in admittedly lesser forms, have been performed to one extent or another by states throughout history. You seem to be saying that since they are not part of providing for a common defense, they can all just be done away with in the interest of not paying taxes. It is, as I described above, an anarchist point of view, and one that I am decidedly opposed to.

Now, please do not read into this that I am a modern day liberal, I have never voted for a national democratic party candidate in my entire life.

 

[tafan]

Zoltan Cobalt:

Notice the use of the term COMMON GOOD.

If the authority we are supposed to share responsibility with uses our taxes to benefit certain individuals or specific groups then that authority is NOT providing for the common good and has over-stepped its authority and responsibility.

You seem to be equating the term “Common Good” with the idea that any function of the state must benefit all members of society equally. Perhaps I am reading too much into your point of view, but I think not. It is a point of view that if made a principal for all state activity, would lead to anarchy.

I

have no problem with that. I would only mention that we Christian “colonists” had a jolly little revolution because a king over taxed us and would not allow us to “lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

True, colonist basically wanted to pay almost zero taxes and paid much less than people living in England. Certainly brings into question if the American Revolution was a just war. But I doubt if that was the point you were making.
You will also remember that many other countries had revolutions which led to utterly tyrannical governments that were the result of states which ignored many of the needs of society.

 

[jlkelly]

With taxation, there are questions, not only of uses, but of sources. The sources of taxation must be just as well as the uses, otherwise we will subscribe to the Machiavellian adage, “the ends justify the means.”
For instance, if we just taxed the Jews and spent the money on something acknowledged as just, the SYSTEM would still be unjust. It does matter where you get the money.
The government may take as much as it’s owed. And what is it owed? Well, the government provides important and valuable services to us: national defense, enforcement of contracts, protection from crime and fire, open borders among the states for people and goods, etc. Where is this value manifested? Where is this fund from which the government can take by reason of its value creation?
My labor is not part of that fund. My labor is something I create. Whether I am feeding chickens or dreaming up new smartphone apps, my labor is something of mine that I am the sole generator of. The government does not create my labor. However, from time immemorial, governments have looked covetously at its citizens’ labor as something it could take, usually at the point of a sword. We are so used to it today that we do not consider its moral component. Such a system, especially in a democracy, cultivates envy, deceit and lobbying for special privilege by the powerful.
If I am prudent with the earnings from my labor, I can store some of it up to use in creating more wealth. This is called capital. Capital is essential in any economy. Once again, it is not the creation of government. So the government has no moral claim on it.
The government does create land value, however. I may own the land, but its value is not much due to things I have done - it is due to the activities and investments of the government and of the community around my land. If we had to pay rent for the value of the land we owned, and our labor and capital were untaxed, the economy would boom and the distress claims against government would plummet.
“Just” refers both to how the tax money is spent and its source. Remember, it cannot be said that Jesus endorsed the Roman system of extortionate taxation. And also remember that the source of public revenue prescribed by God’s Law in the Bible was the tithe - Land Rent.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You seem to be equating the term “Common Good” with the idea that any function of the state must benefit all members of society equally. Perhaps I am reading too much into your point of view, but I think not. It is a point of view that if made a principal for all state activity, would lead to anarchy.

Oh…I hardly think it would lead to anarchy. But if it did, I would rather lean toward anarchy than tyranny.

Government should not be the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income. The nature of proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion.

A proper government is the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens. It is an “agent” who must be paid for his services, not a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

True, colonist basically wanted to pay almost zero taxes and paid much less than people living in England. Certainly brings into question if the American Revolution was a just war. But I doubt if that was the point you were making.
You will also remember that many other countries had revolutions which led to utterly tyrannical governments that were the result of states which ignored many of the needs of society.

Yes many other revolutions led to “the dark side”.

But ours led to a Constitutional Republic form of government that makes the United States…exceptional.

 

[tafan]

Oh…I hardly think it would lead to anarchy. But if it did, I would rather lean toward anarchy than tyranny.

Government should not be the owner of the citizens’ income and, therefore, cannot hold a blank check on that income. The nature of proper governmental services must be constitutionally defined and delimited, leaving the government no power to enlarge the scope of its services at its own arbitrary discretion.

A proper government is the servant, not the ruler, of the citizens. It is an “agent” who must be paid for his services, not a benefactor whose services are gratuitous, who dispenses something for nothing.

Yes many other revolutions led to “the dark side”.

But ours led to a Constitutional Republic form of government that makes the United States…exceptional.

I have no disagreement with the idea of American exceptionalism, nor with the idea of the government properly being a servant of the citizens. I do not understand why you think being a servant and being a ruler is mutually exclusive. The proper Catholic way of thinking of all authority is as a servant, the two go hand in hand. The state is both a ruler and a servant of the citizens. That is proper and how it should be.

I agree that the government is not given a blank check on citizens’ income.

As to the issue of anarchy. Again, your previous claim seems to be that concept of the “common good” is the same as equivalent benefit for all citizens. I hope my understanding of your point of view is wrong, but it seems more and more accurate since you did not correct me before. It is an impossible requirement. Implementing it would equate to the government doing nothing, absolutely nothing. And that is an extreme form of anarchy. You do not want that, trust me. We are a fallen race, things will go bad. Very bad.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I have no disagreement with the idea of American exceptionalism, nor with the idea of the government properly being a servant of the citizens. I do not understand why you think being a servant and being a ruler is mutually exclusive. The proper Catholic way of thinking of all authority is as a servant, the two go hand in hand. The state is both a ruler and a servant of the citizens. That is proper and how it should be.

Not in the United States.

Our government is not a ruler. We operate under the Rule of Law.(Lex Rex not Rex Lex.)
Our government enforces laws. It does not rule. That is proper and how it should be.

I agree that the government is not given a blank check on citizens’ income.

As to the issue of anarchy. Again, your previous claim seems to be that concept of the “common good” is the same as equivalent benefit for all citizens. I hope my understanding of your point of view is wrong, but it seems more and more accurate since you did not correct me before. It is an impossible requirement. Implementing it would equate to the government doing nothing, absolutely nothing. And that is an extreme form of anarchy. You do not want that, trust me. We are a fallen race, things will go bad. Very bad.

You are correct. Common good is equivalent benefit for all. Like “equal protection under the law”. I would rather see a government do nothing than grant favors for votes and power and spread the wealth to benefit a few.

In a fully free society, payment for governmental services would be voluntary. Since the proper services of a government, the police, the armed forces, the law courts, are demonstrably needed by all individual citizens and affect their interests directly, the citizens would (and should) be willing to pay for such services, as they pay for insurance.

 

[sallybutler]

Furthermore, look at the example of the Great Chicago Fire, or the San Francisco Earthquake. These devastating incidents took place before there was any public “safety net.” In SF, there was no state help and certainly no federal help. The people of the surrounding areas gave immediate help of food water and shelter. Then help from the rest of the country began pouring in. The city was rebuilt in short order and began growing faster than before.
In the Chicago Fire, which happened over thirty years earlier, the same circumstances of no outside governmental help were there but the outpouring of help and succor was overwhelming. Chicago even raised the ground level of its downtown (the Loop) about ten feet in the rebuilding process, so as to diminish swampyness and prevent disease. Twenty years later, thistown, which didn’t even exist seven or eight decades before, hosted the 1893 World’s Fair.
Now have a look at how New Orleans fared after Katrina. Most of the Lower ninth Ward is still unrebuilt. The population has dropped precipitously. But what is now flourishing there? Private and Charter schools. Test scores have zoomed. THis is not government’s doing - it is the people. Generally, the government efforts have been botched or have failed outright.
Or look at Ground Zero after 9-11. For a decade all the public entities argued over the site. That after billions of dollars of federal aid. Finally, they started building, and zip! They were done.
Even our most populous places cannot be beaten down if allowed to take care of their own affairs. Subsidiarity does work. An expansive, top-down welfare culture is a demonstration of faith in man, not God. Somehow, when we were free to take care of things ourselves, we did. God gave us the power and He believes in us.

Actually, you are wrong about the 1906 earthquake in SF. The army was a big help. For more information, here is a good site.

history.army.mil/documents/sfearthquake/1906earthquake.htm

 

[Illmatic15]

I intended the phrase “normal times” (it was admittedly unclear) to be a juxtaposition of your idea that taxes are only for extraordinary circumstances (like just war).
I am a conservative politically, but perhaps a different sort than you. I do not share your extreme libertarian (I would almost say anarchist) views of the state.

Welcome to the conversation! And yes, I am a proud anarchist, but let me make it clear that anarchists are not against government, but against, at minimal, the centralized state. I am an anarchist in the same sense that Dorothy Day and the Catholic Workers employ it: extreme subsidiarity, which calls for radical decentralization of govt in opposition to the state. I used to be a conservative, but I was struck by 1 Samuel 8, which led me to libertarianism (because I had been so brainwashed and misinformed about anarchism), but then I realized to be completely consistent in opposition to the centralized state, I had to reject it totally.

I do think we do way too much at the federal level, and not enough at the state and local level, which results in both a government structure and tax structure that is effectively an inverted pyramid ( and hence ignores subsidiarity). But I do not think most of our taxes, and by implication, government functions could just be done away with if we restored subsidiarity in public policy.

Even if it isn’t ended, it should at least be localized and be able to prevent a centralized state from forming.

In brief, I doubt we are very close to “brothers” when it comes to political thought. I am admittedly, a rare bird, on political issues.
Let me ask you this, which of the following societal functions you do not want performed by the government:

1. education
2. granting and securing private property rights
3. final settlement of contractual disputes
4. roads/infrastructure
5. regulation of commerce
6. social well being
7. preservation of environment
8. criminal law jurisdiction.

Actually, I see government as possibly having a part in all of these things if it can’t be effectively performed by the private sector. However, we should try to keep government local and decentralized (although it will generally be more centralized in times such as war). #5 especially jumped out at me: commerce should generally not be regulated, but it can be if it truly causes threat to the common good, taking subsidiarity into account.

I could go on, but the list is long enough. All of these, in admittedly lesser forms, have been performed to one extent or another by states throughout history. You seem to be saying that since they are not part of providing for a common defense, they can all just be done away with in the interest of not paying taxes. It is, as I described above, an anarchist point of view, and one that I am decidedly opposed to.

Now, please do not read into this that I am a modern day liberal, I have never voted for a national democratic party candidate in my entire life.

I don’t really know where you got the idea I was saying all taxes should go toward common defense. Common good also extends to welfare, infrastructure, etc. I believe government can have a part in creating the common good, but we must be careful to let individuals, families, businesses, charities, and other private sector bodies take a shot at it. And once again, I believe in government, but not when it takes the form of the centralized state. Anarchists of various schools acknowledge government, but strive for it to be radically decentralized.

 

[Illmatic15]

Jkelly: thank you so much for pointing out that the ends don’t justify the means, this principle will make it much easier to explain why subsidiarity is needed in taxation
Zoltan: you are absolutely correct that govt is the servant of the people. The catechism makes this very clear that all social bodies, from the family to the state, are at the service of the person. This is what personalism is: The Church rejects all forms of collectivism, and also rejects an individualism that treats the person as an isolated body; instead, it affirms the individuality of the person, but also affirms that the person is interconnected to the family and rest of society.
Tafan: Anarchy is not as bad as it is cracked up to be: Anarchy doesn’t mean “no rules” but “no rulers”. I don’t see why you see anarchism as being so bad, even if society is ordered and the common good is met. If govt is our servant, then why must we keep on receiving its service if we can handle things on our own? I accept government, we need it, but the voluntary private sector must be used first so that subsidiarity is fulfilled, and govt must be as decentralized as needed.

 

[Illmatic15]

Also, another point of interest is the rather anarchistic state of Israel before it created a king. Government in ancient Israel during the period of the Judges was very decentralized, with the people having great amounts of freedom and no centralized state. Authority was generally in the hands of local tribal elders, and even then their authority was limited. However, in times of crisis, God would appoint a judge to be a military and judicial leader, and to centralize the tribes to fight off an enemy nation. After the crisis ended, normalcy would kick back in, and authority would stay local and decentralized. This period of time is known as the “Theocracy”, because God was truly the ruler over Israel, and the Israelites trusted in God rather than man to grant them salvation from their enemies. Theocracy here is taken in its true form, meaning the rule of God rather than of men. The word theocracy has been highly demonized and mistakenly used synonymously with tolalitarian ecclesiocracy, which is the rule of man, rather than of God. In 1 Samuel 8 however, we see that the people start to grow envious of foreign kings and demand Samuel to give them a king. Samuel, who saw the evil in this, consulted God about it, who told him that they were rejecting Him (God) by asking for a king, but he still told them to otherwise grant them a king because of his respect for our free will. Samuel warms the Israelites that a king will lead them into militarism, conscription, and taxation, and that they themselves will become the king’s slaves, but the people still grant for one and Saul is eventually made king. It is important to note how God saw this new centralization of human authority as a rejection of God as their king, and how they were defying subsidiarity by giving such authority to a man out of fear and wish to conform with other nations. The period of the Judges should be seen as a model for subsidiarity, so that government can be decentralized, and a larger body can only take on a function when it cannot be effectively accomplished at a lower level, rather than the creation of a centralized state, a rejection of God

 

[jlkelly]

Well said. (Did you read my book, “The Other Law of Moses?”) The period of the Judges is, as I think you point out, not well understood and dismissed by scholars as a time of - you guessed it - anarchy. If we view that time in an American Constitutional context, it would go like this: God is the author of the Law (legislative). The executive branch is dispersed. The either elected or inherited leaders of the twelve (actually thirteen) tribes were ultimately responsible for their members keeping the Law. There seemed to be little enforcement nnecessary, since the Law was so much in tune with human nature. Finally, when there was an unresolved dispute, the two parties would agree on a judge to decide the case. This judge was just an ordinary person who the two parties felt would properly judge the case without prejudice, honing to the Law. Some judges became renowned for their wisdom and fairness and were called upon more often. But there was no class of judges, no school (that we know of) for judges. They were selected from the general population by the litigants themselves.
The period of the Judges (200 - 400 years!) was so named because this system was in effect. But the book itself, along with I Samuel and Ruth, dealt with what was going on at the time. The characters in the story were seldom judges themselves (Sampson, Gideon, etc.) but rather military leaders.
However, this system was subsidiarity to the max! There was no central government for centuries. And compliance with the Law was common, usual, and almost universal. The number of military skirmishes, battles and wars recounted were fewer than those the U.S. experienced in its first two hundred years. But military stuff is more engaging to a reader than - “Malachi got up that morning, kissed his wife, greeted his children, had breakfast, went out to do his chores, etc., etc.” So it’s military stuff that fills the Book of Judges and that gives scholars the impression that this period was all about war and anarchy. A better view is the one given in the Book of Ruth.

 

[jlkelly]

One more thing (maybe more). Because of this system of decentralized government and the tithe, these people had tremendous freedom. Far more than any other people in the civilized world. They had order. And they had great prosperity. Israel became the world’s first middle-class society. It was also the most prosperous nation in the world, per capita. But the wealth was not seen in great governmental concentrations like palaces and temples. It was in the homes and fields of the people.
We absolutely ignore this in our histories. I suppose it’s because it just seems so, well, anarchic. Just like America seemed so anarchic to Europe. (Give the people freedom? Insane!) Hmmm.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Happy “Income Redistribution Day”!!

Excessive and unjust taxation led to the first American Revolution, and our government today appears heedless of that history as it seizes income for purposes clearly** not authorized by our Constitution**. Much of that income is redistributed to liberal Democratic constituents in return for their political allegiance that, in turn, drives more growth and redistribution. This cycle is perilous to Liberty.

 

[jlkelly]

Sally Butler, thanks for the info. Clearly, the Army lent a hand. I need to change my story a little, but truth is better than fiction.

 

[jlkelly]

Zoltan, something to think about … If local, state and federal governments collected the land rent and completely untaxed labor and capital, they could burn the rent receipts in a furnace (another unconstitutional use) and yet the collection system alone would still encourage economic growth. Land would be put to higher and higher uses and labor and capital would always be in shortage, increasing the return to each.
Does this make sense to you or does it sound like another crazy Irishman?

 

[Inisfallen]

Happy “Income Redistribution Day”!!

Excessive and unjust taxation led to the first American Revolution, and our government today appears heedless of that history as it seizes income for purposes clearly** not authorized by our Constitution**. Much of that income is redistributed to liberal Democratic constituents in return for their political allegiance that, in turn, drives more growth and redistribution. This cycle is perilous to Liberty.

Funny, when I look back at tax rates over the years, I see that the personal income tax rates are much, much lower than they were in the 50s and 60s.

Could it be that we’re going in the right direction, not the wrong one, as you seem to indicate?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Zoltan, something to think about … If local, state and federal governments collected the land rent and completely untaxed labor and capital, they could burn the rent receipts in a furnace (another unconstitutional use) and yet the collection system alone would still encourage economic growth. Land would be put to higher and higher uses and labor and capital would always be in shortage, increasing the return to each.
Does this make sense to you or does it sound like another crazy Irishman?

It takes a wacko Hungarian to truly understand a crazy Irishman.

I’m not sure about “land rent”. That assumes the government owns the land. Or is it a land tax? confused

I think another crazy Irishman said it best:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget…As national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance” .—John F. Kennedy

 

[Inisfallen]

It takes a wacko Hungarian to truly understand a crazy Irishman.

I’m not sure about “land rent”. That assumes the government owns the land. Or is it a land tax? confused

I think another crazy Irishman said it best:

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget…As national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues. Prosperity is the real way to balance our budget. By lowering tax rates, by increasing jobs and income, we can expand tax revenues and finally bring our budget into balance” .—John F. Kennedy

Sounds like the Stockman “supply side” plan during the Reagan years. That didn’t work out all that well.