Questions about Subsidiarity and Just Taxation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Illmatic15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Inisfallen said:
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?
Click to expand...
If personal income tax rates are going down…that is a good thing.

But…

I was commenting on where tax $$$ were going.
 
Reagan’s economic legacy. 20 million more jobs. Per-capita GDP +32% in real dollars. Massive anti-factual propaganda. Stockman didn’t think it would work. He was finally fired.
 
Zoltan, I wasn’t clear. I believe the gov’t should take the land rent as tax.
 
Yes. The ideal would be that the local gov’t collected it all, kept about half, sent the state about 40% and the feds about 10%. But no tax on buildings, sales, etc. Just on the land. The pure setup would be supplemented by offshore oill leases (another land tax) spectrum auctions, etc. as well as user fees for highways, parks, etc. Fantasy, yes, but the closer we can get to it, the better.
 
jlkelly said:
Yes. The ideal would be that the local gov’t collected it all, kept about half, sent the state about 40% and the feds about 10%. But no tax on buildings, sales, etc. Just on the land. The pure setup would be supplemented by offshore oill leases (another land tax) spectrum auctions, etc. as well as user fees for highways, parks, etc. Fantasy, yes, but the closer we can get to it, the better.
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. I have always liked the idea of local gov. collecting taxes and splitting it 60-30-10 with state & federal.

My main concern is that taxation is scrupulously FAIR. (If I pay…everyone pays) Those who cannot pay…cannot vote.
 
There can be a difference between fairness and justice. And fairness itself is not necessarily moral. If everyone in town is to be whipped at noon, it’s fair, but not right. If, under my plan, my land is worth $1 million and yours is worth $100,000, charging us both the same would be fair, but not just. But justice is served if we each have to pay the same rate.
Justice is also served under the land tax plan because God made the land for us all, not just whoever’s grandpa got there first. Through land taxation we all share in the benefit of the land (the rent put to public purposes), but we don’t need to insist that each person has title to the same amount of land.
This would be a great, non-violent land reform for Latin America.
See ya tomorrow.
 
jlkelly said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, too many people assume the Judges period as a time of chaos and war and that the Israelites NEEDED a king, even though having a king is clearly shown as evil in 1 Samuel 8 and various subsequent passages in the rest of the Old Testament of God reminding the Israelites of their evil decision to create a king. Also, even when war and evil happened, this wasn’t because the Israelited needed a king, it was because they were worshipping other gods and rejecting God as king by doing so. Whether or not Israel had peace and prosperity depended on their relationship with God rather than any rule by a king. You’re right that subsidiarity really was taken to the max right here, and I feel that 1 Samuel 8 better explains why subsidiarity is in God’s plan for government, in that we are protected from a centralized state, and, most importantly, God is still our Ruler (a true Theocracy, not human rule) and all social bodies are strictly servants.
 
Another point of the Biblical economy that I find interesting is how, at the Jubilee, property that was sold was to be returned to its original owner(s)/heir(s). I have admired many aspects of Austrian economics and Distributism, and the Bible seems to promote this wide distribution of property. And the return of property only seems just, as we all have a natural inheritance in us, going back to Adam, and that shouldn’t be sold off from us. This way nearly everyone can be ensured land property or can be an heir to it.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Happy “Income Redistribution Day”!! :mad:

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.
Click to expand...
Actually, much of the welfare goes to republican states.

ijreview.com/2015/01/230371-2-map-shows-red-states-rely-federal-aid-looks-can-deceiving/
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
So what?

Welfare is a scam to make people dependent on the government. Nowhere in the Constitution is it authorized.
Click to expand...
I never said any different. You said:
Much of that income is redistributed to liberal Democratic constituents in return for their political allegiance that, in turn, drives more growth and redistribution.
Click to expand...
I was just correcting your error. More of it goes to republican constituents.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I never said any different. You said:
Much of that income is redistributed to liberal Democratic constituents in return for their political allegiance that, in turn, drives more growth and redistribution.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the correction. I should have left out the word “Democratic”.

But just to be precise…you originally said “republican STATES”. Now you are referring to “republican constituents” :confused::confused::confused: what is it?

Remember, when correcting others…one must be correct. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
Thank you for the correction. I should have left out the word “Democratic”.

But just to be precise…you originally said “republican STATES”. Now you are referring to “republican constituents” :confused::confused::confused: what is it?

Remember, when correcting others…one must be correct. :tsktsk:
Click to expand...
Don’t republican states have republican constituents? Are you saying republicans don’t receive welfare?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Don’t republican states have republican constituents? Are you saying republicans don’t receive welfare?
Click to expand...
Oh I am sure that a “republican state” has some republicans…otherwise you wouldn’t call it a republican state right?

I am not saying that republicans don’t receive welfare. I was just asking you whether you were talking about states or constituents.
 
Please remember that discussions of particular political parties are not allowed in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Matilda_Bennett said:
Please remember that discussions of particular political parties are not allowed in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
Click to expand...
I knew I should not have used the word “Democrat”. I knew it, I knew it, I knew it, :imsorry:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top